Decades & Teams MLB Draft : CHAT

[Nosferatu]

Welcome to the decades and teams MLB draft.

You will draft three players for each decade

1920's 1930's 1940's 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's

You will draft 24 players from 24 different teams!

Same positions as always

1 - C
1 - 1B
1 - 2B
1 - SS
1 - 3B
1 - LF
1 - CF
1 - RF
1 - DH
5 - BENCH
5 - SP
5 - RP

Whenever the player first made an appearance that resulted in a stat. 1/3 inning pitched or 1 plate appearance, that will be their eligibility year.

Player must have played with team for 5 seasons to be used.

1. Nos
2. Ritz
3. UK
4. 500
5. Stoke
6. Milk
7. WLK
8. Gold
9. EHB
10. Hockey
11. Smitty

FIRST ROUND BYE GOES TO : EHB

 

[Nosferatu]

Ya know the more I think about it the more I like UK's idea of rankings, it would eliminate the mess we run into when we have more than 8 people drafting and thus playing 3 team games.

 

[UK Cowboy]

I like the rankings as a tiebreaker, sent to you, scores secret, if there's a tie, then post score
Also, on taking 2 players, it can be one, just throwing it out there. I like taking players from teams you beat, if you take players during the draft, it'll be jacked up IMO. But I'll roll with whatever

 

[Ritzarmy]

I like the rankings as a tiebreaker, sent to you, scores secret, if there's a tie, then post score
Also, on taking 2 players, it can be one, just throwing it out there. I like taking players from teams you beat, if you take players during the draft, it'll be jacked up IMO. But I'll roll with whatever

I agree and I will participate in this draft.

 

[Nosferatu]

I like the rankings as a tiebreaker, sent to you, scores secret, if there's a tie, then post score
Also, on taking 2 players, it can be one, just throwing it out there. I like taking players from teams you beat, if you take players during the draft, it'll be jacked up IMO. But I'll roll with whatever

I agree

 

[Nosferatu]

I actually meant after the draft but thats still not gonna work

 

[Nosferatu]

I agree and I will participate in this draft.

 

[blstoker]

I'm in. My wife is going to kill me.

 

[Pack 500]

I agree and I will participate in this draft.

Ritz is back now my life is complete

 

[blstoker]

ok, need to get some things out there:

1) Steroid era - do we look at people from the steroid era at face value - or are they tainted? If so, is it just the ones who have been caught, admitted, highly suspected, accused or just everyone?

2) Are we looking at all eras the same - or are players compared against what they did against players of their era? i.e. Is Ty Cobb looked at as having the greatest BA of all time - or is he seen as a guy who had impressive numbers against what amounts to inferior pitching?

 

[Nosferatu]

ok, need to get some things out there:

1) Steroid era - do we look at people from the steroid era at face value - or are they tainted? If so, is it just the ones who have been caught, admitted, highly suspected, accused or just everyone?

2) Are we looking at all eras the same - or are players compared against what they did against players of their era? i.e. Is Ty Cobb looked at as having the greatest BA of all time - or is he seen as a guy who had impressive numbers against what amounts to inferior pitching?

Good thinking Stoke.

Steroid Era it either has to be all or nothing. They are looked at just like any other player or we dont draft them at all. Just my opinion.

It's difficult at least for me because there are some players from the first 50 years of the game I think would still be one of the best players in the game and some that wouldnt do anything. I will accept what ever you all decide on this. I say we turn a blind eye to when a player played or it would just be too hard for everyone to be on the same page.

 

[Nosferatu]

I gotsta say it's good having the band back together!

 

[Pack 500]

Good thinking Stoke.

Steroid Era it either has to be all or nothing. They are looked at just like any other player or we dont draft them at all. Just my opinion.

It's difficult at least for me because there are some players from the first 50 years of the game I think would still be one of the best players in the game and some that wouldnt do anything. I will accept what ever you all decide on this. I say we turn a blind eye to when a player played or it would just be too hard for everyone to be on the same page.

I can't remember one time somebody being knocked for steroid guys

 

[Nosferatu]

I can't remember one time somebody being knocked for steroid guys

When we first started they kinda were but yeah not in the last year or more...

 

[Nosferatu]

Everyone is in but I havent got a text back from Smitty, im trying to get Jeffro back as well!

 

[ehb5]

ok, need to get some things out there:

1) Steroid era - do we look at people from the steroid era at face value - or are they tainted? If so, is it just the ones who have been caught, admitted, highly suspected, accused or just everyone?

2) Are we looking at all eras the same - or are players compared against what they did against players of their era? i.e. Is Ty Cobb looked at as having the greatest BA of all time - or is he seen as a guy who had impressive numbers against what amounts to inferior pitching?

I dont care about steroids, so I will never hold that against them and will always judge them as though thats just how good they were. But thats just me.

Now when changing eras Im not sure. In things like basketball I think it matters. Somebody like Anthony Davis is gonna blow somebody like Bob Petit out of the water but it might not apply quite as much in baseball.

 

[UK Cowboy]

Good thinking Stoke.

Steroid Era it either has to be all or nothing. They are looked at just like any other player or we dont draft them at all. Just my opinion.

It's difficult at least for me because there are some players from the first 50 years of the game I think would still be one of the best players in the game and some that wouldnt do anything. I will accept what ever you all decide on this. I say we turn a blind eye to when a player played or it would just be too hard for everyone to be on the same page.

Just My Opinion....Steroids, MLB let them play, so we should accept their pumped up versions. It's impossible to rule out Barry Bonds, because IMO, 75-80% of the players in that era were using, and nearly all the ones today used in HS or college. No real way to exclude them.

On the old time players...I judge all mock players on how great they were against their peers, not bigger means better. What I mean by that is, if a player had an ERA of 1.80 in 1910, that's an ERA of 1.80 in 2015...reason being, if say Christy Mathewson were born in 1990, had gone through all the speed training, stretching, arm bands, throwing programs, creatine, advanced diets, etc, etc, how dominant would he have been/ If Babe Ruth were born in 1980, and had the same artificial enhancements as, say, Barry Bonds or Sammy Sosa, how many homers does he hit? Some folks discount the old time guys, but I believeif you were one of the best then, you'd be one of the best now

 

[UK Cowboy]

I dont care about steroids, so I will never hold that against them and will always judge them as though thats just how good they were. But thats just me.

Now when changing eras Im not sure. In things like basketball I think it matters. Somebody like Anthony Davis is gonna blow somebody like Bob Petit out of the water but it might not apply quite as much in baseball.

See, I disagree on Petit. Let a guy with the game Petit had go through AAU, strength training, big man camps, etc, and I think he more than holds his own. A guy that was a little younger than Petit, but with a similar game, Kevin McHale is an example. Now, McHale was slow, wasn't built by any stretch, couldn't jump...but as great as AD is, McHale would own him in the post. Make McHale a better athlete, and....

 

[UK Cowboy]

Since we are going to have 30 players, I suggest we break it down this way

Starters
1B
2B
3B
SS
C
LF
CF
RF
DH

5 Starting Pitchers
5 Bullpen
That's 19. The other 11:
1 of each...1B, 2B, 3B, SS, C, LF, CF, RF, DH, SP, RP

This would give everyone a sub at every single position. You would also have 6 starting P's, with the option to put one in the pen and have a 5 man rotation and 7 man pen....meaning, if you took 6 great starting pitchers, you might add Randy Johnson to your bullpen. You could also sub any of your subs into the starting DH role(what subs are for), have a different lineup vs lefties or righties, have a late inning defensive squad, whatever. I think this would be fun, add value to the bench, and some variety too. Guys could take the two best 3rd basemen ever, say Schmidt and Brett, play one at 3rd and one at DH, platoon them, DH one of them, or use them as trade bait. Same with pitching. The 30 different teams and $200 million cap would add strategy as well

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Is the cap even necessary??