GuardBum 73 Posted January 19, 2017 http://www.springtrainingcountdown.com/ Feb 12 is the first day for a few clubs. We are less than a month left of off-season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GuardBum 73 Posted January 19, 2017 This is what we started with as owners/teams: WhiteWonder: Rays - confirmed 29Guests: Astros - confirmed bbascom: Red Sox - confirmed Jim Mora: Rangers - confirmed ted: Dodgers - confirmed ZeroTolerance: Indians - confirmed cmh: Royals - confirmed BC: Angels - confirmed Burt: Braves - confirmed Mookz: Orioles - confirmed lambert58: Cardinals - confirmed Guardbum: Blue Jays - confirmed Shotsup: Mets - confirmed Mungwater: Cubs - confirmed (4 yes votes to let back, that's an easy go for me) Mung was replaced at midseason and Posty took over. Other than that I can't think of any conflicts that came up. We should verify and resubmit for all our teams again in the coming weeks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bbascom 20 Posted January 19, 2017 I'm in. Red Sox again for me! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteWonder 2,171 Posted January 21, 2017 was going to come here and make a post yesterday but forgot. yeah i think we should have everyone back and assuming posty will be back this year? and back to the Nats? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZeroTolerance 582 Posted January 21, 2017 No changes here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cmh6476 748 Posted January 23, 2017 in, venturaless royals Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteWonder 2,171 Posted January 24, 2017 in, venturaless royals very sad on a different note, I will rep the Rays again. I always think about the Mets but they should be owned. Getting harder and harder with the Rays. Their home grown talent the last few years seems to have dried up or been redundant position wise and draftable stars are getting older or fading. still going to be fun and coming off a 3rd place finish! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
29 Guests 29 Posted January 26, 2017 I'm in with my Stros! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GuardBum 73 Posted February 2, 2017 Less than a month before we should be rolling. Guess we should make a post on the Geek Forum Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shotsup 830 Posted February 5, 2017 Less than a month before we should be rolling. Guess we should make a post on the Geek Forum Good thing you did -if WW still Rays I'll confirm Mets 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
posty 2,296 Posted February 5, 2017 I think it would be neat if teams that were owned had to come from a list of non-playoff teams... So that would eliminate the following: Baltimore Boston Cleveland Texas Toronto Chicago Cubs Los Angeles Dodgers New York Mets San Francisco Washington If you owned a team that didn't make the playoffs last year, you get to keep them if you want... Others that had a team removed from them, those owners would "roll them bones" for a draft order to pick from the remaining non-playoff teams... This would be a great way to get other teams into the mix of ownership and I think would be challenging and fun... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteWonder 2,171 Posted February 5, 2017 Good thing you did -if WW still Rays I'll confirm Mets yes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteWonder 2,171 Posted February 5, 2017 I think it would be neat if teams that were owned had to come from a list of non-playoff teams... So that would eliminate the following: Baltimore Boston Cleveland Texas Toronto Chicago Cubs Los Angeles Dodgers New York Mets San Francisco Washington If you owned a team that didn't make the playoffs last year, you get to keep them if you want... Others that had a team removed from them, those owners would "roll them bones" for a draft order to pick from the remaining non-playoff teams... This would be a great way to get other teams into the mix of ownership and I think would be challenging and fun... not a fan , personally. doesn't impact me (probably impacts me positively) but the point of the league is homers. you want to rep your favorite or hometown team.... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
posty 2,296 Posted February 5, 2017 Yeah I knew it wouldn't be received well anyway... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
posty 2,296 Posted February 5, 2017 At the moment, I am out again this year... I am really considering just taking the year off from all fantasy sports... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GuardBum 73 Posted February 6, 2017 It would be a challenge and could be fun but this is a homers league like WW said. All about representing your players. Our original creator McBokenon would have never wanted to even see the supplemental drafts we've added. Nevermind someone being forced to a team that wasn't who they wanted to root for. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZeroTolerance 582 Posted February 6, 2017 The other downside of the idea is that it would require owners to do a ton of research to find eligible players to their franchise, players with multi-team eligibility, and then strategize for the draft around all those new players. It wouldn't be a big deal for me personally, but I can't imagine everyone in the league has the time or interest in doing all of that work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gratefulted 14 Posted February 6, 2017 Dodgers again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cmh6476 748 Posted February 6, 2017 The other downside of the idea is that it would require owners to do a ton of research to find eligible players to their franchise, players with multi-team eligibility, and then strategize for the draft around all those new players. It wouldn't be a big deal for me personally, but I can't imagine everyone in the league has the time or interest in doing all of that work. true, I have my lists from last year and all I need to do is add newly acquired royals Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteWonder 2,171 Posted February 6, 2017 posty seems to be out but mungwater was asking for a 2nd chance from last year if we'll have him. which is fine with me if you guys are cool with it 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gratefulted 14 Posted February 6, 2017 posty seems to be out but mungwater was asking for a 2nd chance from last year if we'll have him. which is fine with me if you guys are cool with it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZeroTolerance 582 Posted February 6, 2017 I have no objections to it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
posty 2,296 Posted February 7, 2017 This is why I made the suggestion that I did (even though I wasn't returning at the moment)... The history (winner - loser): 2016: Boston - Dodgers 2015: Baltimore - St. Louis 2014: Washington - Angels 2013: St. Louis - Washington 2012: Atlanta - St. Louis 2010: Dodgers - Philadelphia 2009: Tampa Bay - Arizona 2008: Philadelphia - Boston 2007: Boston - Angels 2006: Angels - Boston 2005: Yankees - Oakland 2004: Houston - Oakland Basically owners that don't have strong teams don't stand a chance, but if one evens the playing field by not allowing previous playoff teams, it would see who the better GM's are... I just wanted to explain my thought process... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteWonder 2,171 Posted February 7, 2017 I understood where you were coming from posty. For me, tampa is a challenge. I was proud of taking bronze last year. I can think of a few unique ways to level the playin field a little bit but it's all a little subjective. Example: each of the "lesser teams" could designate one player to "save" from the draft. Then again, how do you determine the lesser teams and what if thise lesser teams want to designate the same player? The "lesser teams" could also get higher supplemental picks and the post draft supplemental could be 1-14 for both rounds.... then again who are the lesser teams? And how do you prove that those lesser teams had a tougher time in the draft? Texas is usually viewed as a powerhouse with tons of draft options but on a yearly basis, Mora's list goes quickly. I think if we could figure out a way to better allot the supplemental picks and did not do a snake, that might help to a degree. So........... One idea might be reverse order of your Homer teams real life record in 2016 since the backbone of most teams is made up of exclusives and generally, the better teams in this league are those with more access to top level fantasy talent. (I know using the rays as an example, I don't believe I even have a top 25 fantasy player by most publications standards) So for this idea we would not do a roll for supplemental draft order. It would be pre determined.... and I swear I am not suggesting this because the rays had the worst record. 1. Rays 2. Braves 3. Angels 4. Royals 5. Astros 6. Cardinals 7. Mets 8. Jays 9. Orioles 10. Dodgers 11. Redsox 12. Indians 13. Rangers 14. Cubs Thoughts? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZeroTolerance 582 Posted February 7, 2017 I'm curious about correlation of prior season real team record and current season finish, so let's see (using regular season record for better accuracy). 2016 - #1 Boston (78-84 in 2015), #2 Cleveland (81-80), #3 LAD (92-70), #4 KC (95-67), #5 Tampa (80-82), #6 Baltimore (81-81), #9 Texas (88-74), #8 St Louis (100-62) 2015 - #1 St Louis (90-72 in 2014), #2 Cleveland (85-77), #3 Baltimore (96-66), #4 Washington (96-66), #5 KC (89-73), #6 Tampa (77-85), #7 LAA (98-64), #8 Boston (71-91) 2014 - #1 LAD (92-70 in 2013), #2 Washington (86-76), #3 Tampa (92-71), #4 Boston (97-65), #5 LAA (78-84), #6 KC (86-76), #7 Detroit (93-69), #8 St Louis (97-65) 2013 - #1 Boston (69-96 in 2012), #2 Detroit (88-74), #3 LAD (86-76), #4 St Louis (88-74), #5 Texas (93-69), #6 Washington (98-64), #7 LAA (89-73), #8 Baltimore (93-69) It seems at the very least that another variable would need to be taken into account, as Boston finished in first place twice in years they would have been considered "lesser teams", including 2013 when they would have been granted the #2 pick in the supplemental draft (behind Houston). What the previous year's standings (or even current year projections) can't take into account are things specific to our league; exclusive players and players with multi-team eligibility. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteWonder 2,171 Posted February 8, 2017 ZT I dont really consider "lesser teams" to mean record from the previous season (though I did use that as the basis for my supplemental suggestion). To me, "lesser team" is more about their stake of claim to top tier fantasy talent. example being Boston last year. their 2015 record was not good but they still had claim to Lester, Price, AGonz, Beltre, Han Ram, Kimbrel, Andrew Miller, V-Mart, Napoli, Cespedes, Ellsbury, Reddick ...... most of those would have also been the case in 2013 and some, like V-Mart, would have been even more coveted. If each owner had to divulge their top 10 players and we got to see where they ranked on fantasy big boards (espn, yahoo, fantasy pros, etc) There would obviously be teams drafting from deep 'A level" talent and then teams whose hopes rest on 1 or 2 players who would actually be difference makers and if they miss those guys, its a long season. Of course we can't do that. Ruins the strategy that makes this league so fun. Just sayin'..... ..... my supplemental idea was based on the idea that the backbone of our teams are largely based on exclusives combined with the handful of shared talent we can draft, therefore teams with lesser records, generally, are going to have weaker real life rosters. Obviously there will be the occasional outlier. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteWonder 2,171 Posted February 8, 2017 I'm curious about correlation of prior season real team record and current season finish, so let's see (using regular season record for better accuracy). 2016 - #1 Boston (78-84 in 2015), #2 Cleveland (81-80), #3 LAD (92-70), #4 KC (95-67), #5 Tampa (80-82), #6 Baltimore (81-81), #9 Texas (88-74), #8 St Louis (100-62) 2 sub .500 teams 2015 - #1 St Louis (90-72 in 2014), #2 Cleveland (85-77), #3 Baltimore (96-66), #4 Washington (96-66), #5 KC (89-73), #6 Tampa (77-85), #7 LAA (98-64), #8 Boston (71-91) 2 sub .500 teams 2014 - #1 LAD (92-70 in 2013), #2 Washington (86-76), #3 Tampa (92-71), #4 Boston (97-65), #5 LAA (78-84), #6 KC (86-76), #7 Detroit (93-69), #8 St Louis (97-65) 1 sub .500 team 2013 - #1 Boston (69-96 in 2012), #2 Detroit (88-74), #3 LAD (86-76), #4 St Louis (88-74), #5 Texas (93-69), #6 Washington (98-64), #7 LAA (89-73), #8 Baltimore (93-69) 1 sub .500 team thats only 6 sub .500 teams finishing in the top 8 in 4 seasons. so 6 out of 32 teams. So even though Boston won the whole thing twice coming off a sub .500 year, that seems to be more the exception rather than the rule and possibly due to the fact that Boston has just been all over the map the past 5 or so seasons. It seems at the very least that another variable would need to be taken into account, as Boston finished in first place twice in years they would have been considered "lesser teams", including 2013 when they would have been granted the #2 pick in the supplemental draft (behind Houston). What the previous year's standings (or even current year projections) can't take into account are things specific to our league; exclusive players and players with multi-team eligibility. I think there are many other factors to consider such as, obviously, where you fall in the homers draft order in relation to teams fighting for your top talent... luck of the draw type thing... trades you make, injuries to you and teams around you.... Also, consider that we have had teams who picked pretty early in the draft pull a high supplemental pick as well. Is that kind of luck better or worse than setting the order based on perceived real life franchise strength? I don't know, I'm just tossing ideas out there. Also, being granted the #2 (or any high supplemental pick) can have its advantages, but with our snake style, sometimes picking near the back end can actually be a boon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZeroTolerance 582 Posted February 8, 2017 ZT I dont really consider "lesser teams" to mean record from the previous season (though I did use that as the basis for my supplemental suggestion). To me, "lesser team" is more about their stake of claim to top tier fantasy talent. example being Boston last year. their 2015 record was not good but they still had claim to Lester, Price, AGonz, Beltre, Han Ram, Kimbrel, Andrew Miller, V-Mart, Napoli, Cespedes, Ellsbury, Reddick ...... most of those would have also been the case in 2013 and some, like V-Mart, would have been even more coveted. If each owner had to divulge their top 10 players and we got to see where they ranked on fantasy big boards (espn, yahoo, fantasy pros, etc) There would obviously be teams drafting from deep 'A level" talent and then teams whose hopes rest on 1 or 2 players who would actually be difference makers and if they miss those guys, its a long season. Of course we can't do that. Ruins the strategy that makes this league so fun. Just sayin'..... ..... my supplemental idea was based on the idea that the backbone of our teams are largely based on exclusives combined with the handful of shared talent we can draft, therefore teams with lesser records, generally, are going to have weaker real life rosters. Obviously there will be the occasional outlier. Just providing some data related to your suggestion. Obviously there was a correlation between previous season record and following season success (I didn't make any attempt to hide that), I simply pointed out that working off of strictly previous season record could have some holes (gaps between talent available and talent on current MLB team's roster, not taking into account newly acquired talent, previous season injuries, etc). There are probably a few other variables at play too (activity of owner's in this league for one). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteWonder 2,171 Posted February 8, 2017 Just providing some data related to your suggestion. Obviously there was a correlation between previous season record and following season success (I didn't make any attempt to hide that), I simply pointed out that working off of strictly previous season record could have some holes (gaps between talent available and talent on current MLB team's roster, not taking into account newly acquired talent, previous season injuries, etc). There are probably a few other variables at play too (activity of owner's in this league for one). yeah, and i do agree either way it was just a suggestion for possibly leveling the playing field just a slight bit via the supplemental Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cmh6476 748 Posted February 8, 2017 you shouldn't fix something that isn't broke a wise man once said Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteWonder 2,171 Posted February 8, 2017 Probably not Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Burt 43 Posted February 11, 2017 I'm in. On the subject of Mungwhatever.....was there a reason given for the disappearance? Can we be sure it wont happen again? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GuardBum 73 Posted February 11, 2017 Guys, I apologize for not being that active. Like I said, some personal ###### went down and it's been very hard for me to even focus on work let alone my beloved Cubs. Thank you for letting me draft. Recent slide aside, I still think this is our year though Never can be sure but a second chance shouldn't hurt us. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZeroTolerance 582 Posted February 11, 2017 May have to e-mail the last two guys. BC was last active in October, lambert in early December. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
29 Guests 29 Posted February 11, 2017 i'm fine with mung coming back Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteWonder 2,171 Posted February 11, 2017 Never can be sure but a second chance shouldn't hurt us. He also went out of his way to post in the geek club thread saying that things have calmed down and he would like to be back 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteWonder 2,171 Posted February 11, 2017 May have to e-mail the last two guys. BC was last active in October, lambert in early December. I'll text lambert edit: just got a response. hes been busy with a move but sounds like he is in. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lambert58 56 Posted February 11, 2017 Thanks WW for the text. I am in and the Cardinals are here to chew bubble gum and kick some a$$ and we are all out of bubble gum!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cmh6476 748 Posted February 12, 2017 can we kick ed out again? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
