mattynokes
Offline
Cleveland Guardians GM
Posts: 8,984
Threads: 4,310
Joined: Feb 2011
03-31-2015, 11:09 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-31-2015, 11:17 PM by mattynokes.)
Years ago I tried to make what I called a "Draft File". The premise behind the Draft File was to watch prospects start out as freshmen in high school and develop all while only knowing their stats, knowing how their skills fit a critera (i.e. above average power), and never knowing their exact ratings until after the draft. Maybe they got drafted after their senior year of high school, maybe they went on to college where they couldn't be drafted again until their junior year, or even the JUCO ranks where they could be drafted after one season. Eligible draftees would have a "signability" percent attached to their age, so that not all high school seniors were drafted, allowing some to fill the open spots created by departing college seniors.
For FCM I'm not wanting to leave unknowns of ratings, skills, etc... I'm wanting to select 5-10 draftees, make it known that those are the signability players, and seeing it unfold on draft day with the following signability list:
Drafted-- HS SR JC FR JC SO CL JR
Top 15-- 100% 100% 100% 100%
Top 30-- 75---- 100--- 100--- 100
Top 45-- 50---- 75---- 100--- 100
Top 60-- 25---- 50---- 75---- 100
Top 75-- 1----- 25---- 50---- 75
Top 90-- 0----- 1----- 25---- 50
To figure out the signability, I would use Random.org's dice roller using the following to figure out if the player signs or not.
1. If at #30, the Team drafted a HS SR, they would have a 75%.
2. Using a 4-sided dice, the Team would have to choose a number.
3. The dice would be rolled 4 times and the Team would have to correctly guess 1 of the 4 times. (The 1% would need to be 4 out of 4 to sign).
4. If the Team failed to sign the draftee, they would get a compensation pick in next year's draft 1 slot behind the pick they failed to sign (so, 31 in this case).
5. Teams would not get a compensation pick if they fail to sign draftees selected as compensation picks.
6. For selecting these players, Teams would get a 50% discount on Winterball for the draftee in the future.
I will also put together some sort of file to track these players. Going back to example, if the HS SR didn't sign, we'll say he goes to a 4-year college, so he would not be eligible to be drafted until another 3 seasons. He would be entered in the file and it would be simmed, while the player's jumps/drops would factor when he's re-entered into the draft pool.
There's potential that I could re-create the original draft file that I had in a much smaller scale for this league. That way you guys could watch players develop starting out as freshman in high school. This could also alleviate the utility suggestion concerns. Lastly, there would be the potential for input from GMs on which players are picked to be the ones to come aboard to the FCM draft class.
Cleveland Record: 5631-4946 (.532) [2054-2071, 2083-2104, 2110-2135]
AL Post: 16 (ALC), 11 (WC) - ALDS Win: 12 - ALCS Champ: 7 - WS Champ: 4
ALW: Mariners + Angels Record: 1072-864 (.554) [2042-2048, 2105-2110]
AL Post: 3 (ALW), 4 (WC) - ALDS Win: 3 - ALCS Champ: 1 - WS Champ: 1
NLW: Rockies + Padres Record: 3230-2753 (.540) [2017-2042, 2072-2082]
NL Post: 18 (NLW), 4 (WC) - NLDS Win: 7 - NLCS Champ: 4 - WS Champ: 0
mattynokes
Offline
Cleveland Guardians GM
Posts: 8,984
Threads: 4,310
Joined: Feb 2011
03-31-2015, 11:27 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-31-2015, 11:32 PM by mattynokes.)
I've already got a question on explaining this.
Q: Are you suggesting 5-10 players be put in the file every season for the draft?
There's three avenues I could go.
1. I edit/replace/select 5-10 draftees each season as the "signability" draftees.
2. I edit/replace/select 5-10 draftees each season as the "signability" draftees. And then we follow the amateur careers of the undrafted or unsigned draftees in my own file which would be posted after each season is simmed.
3. I create a new draft file. It would likely be 4 High School teams and 4 College teams. Players would progress through like they would in real life and, when draft eligible, I (or possibly by league help) would select 5-10 draftees to add to the draft pool. Undrafted or unsigned draftees would resume their amateur careers.
Cleveland Record: 5631-4946 (.532) [2054-2071, 2083-2104, 2110-2135]
AL Post: 16 (ALC), 11 (WC) - ALDS Win: 12 - ALCS Champ: 7 - WS Champ: 4
ALW: Mariners + Angels Record: 1072-864 (.554) [2042-2048, 2105-2110]
AL Post: 3 (ALW), 4 (WC) - ALDS Win: 3 - ALCS Champ: 1 - WS Champ: 1
NLW: Rockies + Padres Record: 3230-2753 (.540) [2017-2042, 2072-2082]
NL Post: 18 (NLW), 4 (WC) - NLDS Win: 7 - NLCS Champ: 4 - WS Champ: 0
Harold
Offline
Posts: 500
Threads: 127
Joined: Feb 2013
What exactly is the league gaining if this idea is put into effect?
AndyP
Offline
Commissioner/7 time Champion
Posts: 15,179
Threads: 3,849
Joined: Jul 2010
I can say from XAT conversations that my concerns are almost universally shared:
1) This idea is a lot of hassle
2) Doesn't fix anything broken
3) Doesn't add anything fun
Not sure why we'd want this.
What about a World Baseball Classic? Or you run an FCM fantasy league? Or you do files in the offseason with divisional all-star teams in a tournament?
I'd like the angle to be more along the lines of something entertaining that adds to the league's cool factor rather than something nuts and bolts like this.
World Champion 2018, 2021, 2026, 2030, 2035, 2037, 2039
AL Champion 12 times
FCM Best Record-Holder - 121-41 2028
Overall Record: 3530-1978 .641%
hokeyrules
Offline
Admin / Former Marlins HOF GM / Former Rangers GM/ Current Jays GM
Posts: 5,462
Threads: 1,061
Joined: Jul 2010
The WBC would be cool, I actually knew someone called MVPBaseball that ran it in one of my old leagues
Florida GM: 2010 - 2032
Texas GM: 2033 - 2040
Florida GM: 2041 - 2103
Toronto GM: 2104 - ?
World Champion: Florida: 2015, 2027, 2053, 2059, 2062, 2064 Texas: 2037
NL Champion: 2014, 2015, 2020, 2027, 2030, 2037 2048, 2050, 2053, 2059, 2062, 2064
Best Season Record: 117-45 (2060)
2011 - 2032: 2263 - 1359 .625%
2033 - 2040: 617 - 679 .476%
2041 - 2103: 5156 - 4888 .513%
2104 - ? 0-0 0%
Total Record: 8036 - 6926 .537%
Best Pitcher Ever: Donovan Pace
hickoxb2
Offline
Los Angeles Dodgers GM
Posts: 1,467
Threads: 469
Joined: Aug 2012
I have to say that while I am a fan of this idea *in theory*, the practicality of this proposal is a nightmare. Even if everything went completely smoothly (which, given how much time and thought you've put into this, I see no reason why it wouldn't), I don't see how this really makes anything any better for the league as a whole. This seems like one of those complicated-for-the-sake-of-being-complicated proposals like the Rule 5 Draft/PTBNL/40-man-roster, which seems to gain momentary popularity every year or so. I think it's worthwhile for you to monitor this as an independent entity from the league to sort of beta-test its legitimacy, and if it turns out to be a helpful and sustainable method, then it's something to look into. I (like others, it seems) am just weary of implementing a brand new system to replace something that for the most part works very well.
Los Angeles Dodgers GM
mattynokes
Offline
Cleveland Guardians GM
Posts: 8,984
Threads: 4,310
Joined: Feb 2011
(04-01-2015, 03:27 PM)AndyP Wrote: I can say from XAT conversations that my concerns are almost universally shared:
1) This idea is a lot of hassle
2) Doesn't fix anything broken
3) Doesn't add anything fun
Not sure why we'd want this.
What about a World Baseball Classic? Or you run an FCM fantasy league? Or you do files in the offseason with divisional all-star teams in a tournament?
I'd like the angle to be more along the lines of something entertaining that adds to the league's cool factor rather than something nuts and bolts like this.
Andy pretty much asked the questions everyone else did, so I'll respond here.
1) If it's any hassle, it's all on my part, not the league's. I would just need time to enter in the 5-10 signability players.
2) Utility players was a topic for suggestion and this could be a way to infuse some true utility players into the league.
3) I would think following the development of amateurs over the seasons until they're draft eligible would be exciting. You could be looking at a Junior in High School that is tearing the cover off the ball, can play SS and CF, and knowing in one year he could yours would be pretty cool.
Like I've said from the opening post, if the league doesn't want it, that's fine. But it's not fair to say that this would be complicated, a nightmare, etc.. since it would require the GMs of the league about 0 effort.
If you don't want to follow the draft file, that's fine. You're not out on any information on the players as it'll all be presented in the draft classes like it already stands. The list of signability players would be posted with the draft class off-season file and could be posted throughout the message board (it certainly would be posted with the Sim 4 file). As well as I could re-name the last name of the player to "Smith *Signability Player*" so that when scouting for the draft it's obvious that something is different out that player.
Cleveland Record: 5631-4946 (.532) [2054-2071, 2083-2104, 2110-2135]
AL Post: 16 (ALC), 11 (WC) - ALDS Win: 12 - ALCS Champ: 7 - WS Champ: 4
ALW: Mariners + Angels Record: 1072-864 (.554) [2042-2048, 2105-2110]
AL Post: 3 (ALW), 4 (WC) - ALDS Win: 3 - ALCS Champ: 1 - WS Champ: 1
NLW: Rockies + Padres Record: 3230-2753 (.540) [2017-2042, 2072-2082]
NL Post: 18 (NLW), 4 (WC) - NLDS Win: 7 - NLCS Champ: 4 - WS Champ: 0
Vertigo
Offline
Cleveland Indians GM
Posts: 531
Threads: 175
Joined: Oct 2013
My only concern ... what happens when/if you can't do it?
Division Champions:
League Champions:
World Series Champions:
Peter
Offline
GM of the Alexandria Nationals of Washington of the District of Columbia/Gentleman
Posts: 3,651
Threads: 1,641
Joined: Feb 2011
04-02-2015, 08:54 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-02-2015, 08:58 AM by Peter.)
having a simple and easy to understand structure is what can help us gain new people to the mogul land.
adding this has basically no benefit and complicates things which would hurt recruiting efforts.
not one person has latched onto the idea of it being interesting watching prospects in a separate file either; not sure why you insist on shoving this idea down our gullets. if you want to be in the league, hop on the waiting list like a normal human.
World Champs: 2071, 2106, 2108
rockybull
Offline
New York Yankees GM
Posts: 2,461
Threads: 1,179
Joined: Jan 2011
This just seems really unnecessary to me. What does the league gain from this? What’s wrong with the current way we have it? Why do we need this? This just wouldn’t be fun to me. I think this would be better for a new league just forming, not a league already 5 real life years into. No reason changing something like this that’s not broken. It seems like this was brought up because it’s new and may sound cool to some and have change just for the sake of change. If there is a problem with the draft file, then I’m all ears, but it’s not. This draft file is currently IMO best draft file in any ’14 or ’15 league that I’ve played in. I don’t see a reason to mess with it just for the sake of changing what’s not broke.
There needs to be some serious pros and cons with what you want to do here and the current draft file. And the pros would have to severely outweigh the cons. Maybe in your view it does, but in mine, it absolutely does not.
You say this: “3) I would think following the development of amateurs over the seasons until they're draft eligible would be exciting. You could be looking at a Junior in High School that is tearing the cover off the ball, can play SS and CF, and knowing in one year he could yours would be pretty cool.”
Ya, could be or could not be. What if his signability sucks and have to get lucky with rolls (really?) to sign so we could draft him, not get lucky enough with silly rolls and then we lose the pick for that year, and it doesn’t reassure me any getting the pick next year. I want the pick then to be developing then, not wait another year when the class may suck more.
I also have a problem where a top talent in the draft could have very low signability and falls to one of the playoff teams and they take a chance (cause they were good and he looks like one of top players in the draft) and they end up getting lucky with rolls and they get to sign a top talent at the backend of the 1st round. I mean you’re just letting the rich get richer, no offense, but screw that.
I just disagree with every bit of your proposal, this is something that I feel will cause more problems/harm than good. When that happens, then it’s time to stay away.
|