Tanking...a touchy subject!! - Page 4

Aussie Mark · 10-07-2003, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CDL Commish
Brian spends 5 to 7 hours per season editing the rookies to ensure the cup of coffee players end up being just that. I would be surprised to find many or any other leagues that go to the extent that he does

I do that job for the ORB, and have done so for several other leagues in the past. Editing rookies is quite common in historical leagues.

holyroller · 10-07-2003, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aussie Mark
I do that job for the ORB, and have done so for several other leagues in the past. Editing rookies is quite common in historical leagues.

Likewise here for the PWBL.

Cooleyvol · 10-07-2003, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aussie Mark
I do that job for the ORB, and have done so for several other leagues in the past. Editing rookies is quite common in historical leagues.

ditto.......I don't think its uncommon at all.

Try researching Negro and PCL players who debuted in those league each season so you can get an accurate set of ammies who actually contributed from those two leagues into the UBL. Way more than 5 hours, let me tell ya. Then you get to hand create each one of them.

Work, but well worth it to get the great set of stats we are creating with ALL the greats of baseball's history.

Skipaway · 10-07-2003, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JAttractive

Trust me... I fully understand the salary situation and I know what point you are driving at. There are admittedly times your way will save you money but their are just as many times you basically lose nothing overall or even lose money in the long run. Don't think I entirely disregard your method and I take it on a case by case basis.... in this particular case I don't agree.

Glad to know you would partially agree with me. I am not offering excuses for the accused. My intention was only to repell the "there is no point keeping those prospects down in the minors" idea.

In my method, ready or not does not matter. I'm willing to give up all the potential productions during those years. I think you got to admit what I said is the most economical way for about 99% of the players. Even for players with a flat development curve, bringing him up 3~5 years later would save you tons of money, change the win share numbers in my example to be 20 every year, the conclusion is still the same.( one half the production for perhaps one fifth the price)

I think you raised a very good point on the fill-ups for the missing playing time. Most of the time, they'll go to players not as good, but using the same idea, those lesser players would still be economical choices.

So the decision on adopting this idea is the economic structure. If the revenue is large enough to re-sign every player in any cases, my method would be a dumb one. For most other teams, there will be a time when you got to decide which players to keep in order to keep the balance. With my method, you know you are getting the most bang out of your bucks. It's the best when the revenue is really low, or when there is a salary cap. Using it in leagues with high or no cash caps would be a good idea also.

Specs · 10-07-2003, 09:43 PM

I would just like to say that the Blue Jays will not lose 115 games again in 1990. Catcher, first base, designated hitter, third base, left field, center field, and right field will all have major-league average or better players next year, and at least 6 pitchers should be half-decent. GO BLUE!

UKSubs · 10-07-2003, 09:53 PM

I'll pencil you in for 110 losses, Steve.

CDL Commish · 10-08-2003, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Specs
I would just like to say that the Blue Jays will not lose 115 games again in 1990. Catcher, first base, designated hitter, third base, left field, center field, and right field will all have major-league average or better players next year, and at least 6 pitchers should be half-decent. GO BLUE!

Steve,

Let me know when you want to trade Sheffield. I think he would fit nicely into the heart of the Brewer lineup!

CDL Commish · 10-08-2003, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aussie Mark
Editing rookies is quite common in historical leagues.

I'm sure that many leagues edit rookies but there are few that edit them to the extent that the CDL does. I know of leagues, for instance, that edit rookies that have 100% fielding percentage at certain positions for many of their players. That in itself is an oversight and suggests that not all aspects are being looked at when they go through their editing. It may be common but it is rare that a league is absolutely thorough.

Jestre · 10-08-2003, 02:45 PM

Both the League I commish, The MLBC, and the other league I am in, The Boys of Summer, use comprehensive rookie editing. Every rookie has his fielding and running edited. MLBC has been doing this since its inception with OOTP2 starting with the 1905 season. We also have been using career averages long before Ankit wrote his utility. Any historical league should be using comprehensive editing of rookies and the leagues that dont are probably the exception...

satchel · 10-08-2003, 05:38 PM

When the NPBL started, the New York owner had a plan to build a dynasty of young studs, at the expense of his current players. He traded off all of his exceptional major-league players, leaving a core of unspectacular but talented players, who played for about three seasons. Then when his good young players started to arrive, there was no room for his old starters, and they all went into his minor leagues. Of course after a season or two of being stuck in the minors, they all retired. So several good players, including some gold-glove winners and the league career steals leader, suddenly disappeared from the league talent pool, all while in their early 30s. This was a bad side effect of an unrealistic ‘(re)building’ strategy. I asked him to at least publically offer these players for trade, which he did.

The reason I share this sad tale is to warn other commissioners: players displaced by a sudden influx of young talent will have nowhere to go, and will unrealistically retire.

holyroller · 10-08-2003, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CDL Commish
I'm sure that many leagues edit rookies but there are few that edit them to the extent that the CDL does. I know of leagues, for instance, that edit rookies that have 100% fielding percentage at certain positions for many of their players. That in itself is an oversight and suggests that not all aspects are being looked at when they go through their editing. It may be common but it is rare that a league is absolutely thorough.

Well, the PWBL does this as well. I edit everything besides the batting/pitching ratings and talents. Fielding is based on career data for all positions based on career totals, stolen base ability and speed are added, I even edit loyalty, and etc. I have no idea how common this is, however.

woburn · 10-08-2003, 11:46 PM

Andy, I think it's fairly common, although I've been in a historical league where editing didn't take place, and it was slightly discomforting.
What you do for the PWBL sounds pretty similar to what I do in the QBA.
When I saw the first post trumpeting the fact that 5 hours were spent editing each draft, I almost responded, but decided to let it pass. I guess I changed my mind

10-07-2003, 09:53 PM	#66
UKSubs Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 272	I'll pencil you in for 110 losses, Steve. __________________ Counter Culture Baseball Commissioner/Houston Astros RANZBA Adelaide Crows

10-08-2003, 02:45 PM	#69
Jestre All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: North Smithfield,Ri,USA Posts: 612	Both the League I commish, The MLBC, and the other league I am in, The Boys of Summer, use comprehensive rookie editing. Every rookie has his fielding and running edited. MLBC has been doing this since its inception with OOTP2 starting with the 1905 season. We also have been using career averages long before Ankit wrote his utility. Any historical league should be using comprehensive editing of rookies and the leagues that dont are probably the exception... __________________ My eyes perceive the present, but my roots are imbedded deeply in the grandeur of the past. "Chief Meyers" Last edited by Jestre; 10-08-2003 at 03:34 PM.

10-08-2003, 05:38 PM	#70
satchel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Ft Smith Ark. USA Posts: 2,681	building When the NPBL started, the New York owner had a plan to build a dynasty of young studs, at the expense of his current players. He traded off all of his exceptional major-league players, leaving a core of unspectacular but talented players, who played for about three seasons. Then when his good young players started to arrive, there was no room for his old starters, and they all went into his minor leagues. Of course after a season or two of being stuck in the minors, they all retired. So several good players, including some gold-glove winners and the league career steals leader, suddenly disappeared from the league talent pool, all while in their early 30s. This was a bad side effect of an unrealistic ‘(re)building’ strategy. I asked him to at least publically offer these players for trade, which he did. The reason I share this sad tale is to warn other commissioners: players displaced by a sudden influx of young talent will have nowhere to go, and will unrealistically retire. __________________ JL Commish NPBL Rhode Island Reds ’33 ’34 ’35 TCBA San Francisco Railbornes ’74 ’76 ’77 ’78 FL New Orleans Black Sox ’56 ’57 ’58 ’59 Last edited by satchel; 10-08-2003 at 05:40 PM.

10-08-2003, 11:46 PM	#72
woburn Registered User Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 191	Andy, I think it's fairly common, although I've been in a historical league where editing didn't take place, and it was slightly discomforting. What you do for the PWBL sounds pretty similar to what I do in the QBA. When I saw the first post trumpeting the fact that 5 hours were spent editing each draft, I almost responded, but decided to let it pass. I guess I changed my mind