 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball Beta Testing » Long Term League Talk » My Strategy and why I'm doing it
tysonlowery
The Hypothesis. With the talent level of the league juiced up from the beginning, this may even out. I think the older teams should be able to dominate for perhaps 5-6 seasons. So we'll see what happens.
My Strategy and why I'm doing it
February 13, 2004 at 05:01PM View BBCode
In the past, if you drafted a dominating older team in the initial draft, you could compete for about 3-4 seasons before the young teams caught up to you. The young teams would then dominate for 7-8 years or so. At least that has been what I've seen.The Hypothesis. With the talent level of the league juiced up from the beginning, this may even out. I think the older teams should be able to dominate for perhaps 5-6 seasons. So we'll see what happens.
hcboomer
One thing to add to Tyson's point: With there being such a dearth of young developable talent at the beginning of the league, you'll also slow talent inflation. On my own team -- which I think skews middle of the road agewise -- I can barely find anyone at all worth throwing CPs on in the minors. Plus I'm guessing there aren't a lot of future 21-24-year-old stars bouncing around the league.
Now I agree with some other posts that this creates an unrealistic looking minor league system at the beginning. But that will change within one or two amateur drafts. Might be worth it to slow the inflation. What we may be creating is an environment that greatly encourages immediate competition -- rather than going young right away and dominating within 5-6 seasons. Now, if you do want to strip down and go young, it's going to take awhile, both because the older teams will stay stronger longer and because there simply isn't that much good young talent for the first few years.
One point -- owners should try to compete the way they would in a "regular" league. That's the only way we'll really get a good sense of how these talent changes will typically affect competitive balance, development etc.
February 13, 2004 at 05:34PM View BBCode
Seems to be a bit of dissatisfaction running around the boards with the talent level in the initial draft, but it doesn't hurt to give it a chance. We'll be running through a bunch of seasons pretty quickly so we'll see how it shakes out soon enough.One thing to add to Tyson's point: With there being such a dearth of young developable talent at the beginning of the league, you'll also slow talent inflation. On my own team -- which I think skews middle of the road agewise -- I can barely find anyone at all worth throwing CPs on in the minors. Plus I'm guessing there aren't a lot of future 21-24-year-old stars bouncing around the league.
Now I agree with some other posts that this creates an unrealistic looking minor league system at the beginning. But that will change within one or two amateur drafts. Might be worth it to slow the inflation. What we may be creating is an environment that greatly encourages immediate competition -- rather than going young right away and dominating within 5-6 seasons. Now, if you do want to strip down and go young, it's going to take awhile, both because the older teams will stay stronger longer and because there simply isn't that much good young talent for the first few years.
One point -- owners should try to compete the way they would in a "regular" league. That's the only way we'll really get a good sense of how these talent changes will typically affect competitive balance, development etc.
disciple
February 13, 2004 at 05:52PM View BBCode
I can't wait until Tyson has time to put in the player ranking system for the draft.
jrspc4
I still have a problem with the huge variance in the results of the drafts from team to team.
I think it would work much better if each team drafted a little bit of everything. Not all control or all fast or whatever.
Jeff
February 13, 2004 at 06:01PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
In the LT term league I drafted young and think that I got alot of good young players.
I still have a problem with the huge variance in the results of the drafts from team to team.
I think it would work much better if each team drafted a little bit of everything. Not all control or all fast or whatever.
Jeff
DeVeau31
I think this initial draft is perfect. I still think that the youth preference should be done away with completely so all teams are on the same page.
February 13, 2004 at 06:03PM View BBCode
that's part of being a GM and choosing the type of team you'd like to build.I think this initial draft is perfect. I still think that the youth preference should be done away with completely so all teams are on the same page.
hcboomer
Once there is some sort of pre-ranking for the initial draft, the only way you could eliminate that focus on youth would be to get rid of all younger players. And that wouldn't make sense.
February 13, 2004 at 06:34PM View BBCode
Tom's last comment seems contradictory. On the one hand the wide skill variances are OK because GMs should have the flexibility of building the kind of team they want, but ideally you shouldn't be able to go with an unusually young team.Once there is some sort of pre-ranking for the initial draft, the only way you could eliminate that focus on youth would be to get rid of all younger players. And that wouldn't make sense.
DeVeau31
My suggestion is to not allow any owner to rely solely on youth, that way the youth is spread out amongst all teams and makes for more competitive leagues and a lot more parity.
February 13, 2004 at 06:43PM View BBCode
Not saying that at all. But I don't think a team should be able to build an entire team composed of 18 year olds and another team have all 35 year olds. That just doesn't happen, EVER.My suggestion is to not allow any owner to rely solely on youth, that way the youth is spread out amongst all teams and makes for more competitive leagues and a lot more parity.
jrspc4
It sounds like we agree in terms of youth but you think the other variables should still have major flexibility.
To me the existing drafting mechanism does not work, because every thing ends up skewed. Owners get too much of what they selected and almost nothing representing other skills. This is not realistic.
So either we scrap the drafting engine and create a better one. Or we tighten the ranges that owners can use when drafting with the present tool.
IMO
Jeff
February 13, 2004 at 11:36PM View BBCode
TomIt sounds like we agree in terms of youth but you think the other variables should still have major flexibility.
To me the existing drafting mechanism does not work, because every thing ends up skewed. Owners get too much of what they selected and almost nothing representing other skills. This is not realistic.
So either we scrap the drafting engine and create a better one. Or we tighten the ranges that owners can use when drafting with the present tool.
IMO
Jeff
Grobby
February 14, 2004 at 02:08PM View BBCode
I really like the idea of having not as many young potential superstar players. Always some teams would trade all their premium players away for good 20-22 year olds, stick them out there, do real bad for a couple of years then all their players would be great around the same time thus they would dominate but for the most part, their teams would be very unrealistic.. I hope the amateur draft will in some ways duplicate the inititial draft with no B+ 20 year olds... maybe a great first round potential pick would be something of a teenage C or a B- young 20 year old.. and maybe no more than a dozen or so then tallent fall back from there..... with much emphasis on the older players(23-25) in the amateur draft having the higher stats.. thus they will age sooner and start to decline faster. Im curious how this cures tallent inflation....... sounds like a logical idea but we will see if it works out.Pages: 1