Think something should be done with the auto draft...UPDATE!

[JONCHUCKERY]

The one componet you are missing Outta LF is building to your park...In my team's case Stargell while not just a popular player is a much better fit for team strategy in Yankee Std...a 10 vs 3 BPHR is pretty significant. In my draft nobody drafted Reggie Jackson or Carl Yastrzemski...why not a system that allows the ability to be compensated with a player of higher salary vs the next lowest non-drafted player? In my case if I get Reggie or Yas vs Hisle or Watson thats a much fairer and true to what I'm wanting. An elite player for an elite player

[Outta Leftfield]

Well you're right about the park...but that's one reason why in the mystery card games I--and many other managers-- tend to go for symmetrical parks.

In ATG you almost have to take advantage of righty/lefty park effects, but in the mystery card games the main challenge is to find players in good years, players who can actually hit or pitch. If you need to find a guy who is also a good fit for the park, it restricts your choices on available talent to the point that it becomes very difficult. Some manager can pull off playing in asymmetrical parks in the mystery card, but I've never been able to master it.

What I find I [i:208465ea33]can[/i:208465ea33] do in the mystery leagues is build teams around pitchers parks, hitters parks, singles parks or homer parks, but once I'm trying to also load up on lefties, it gets too hard.

[LMBombers]

Lets say you are playing in a park with BPHR of 16/14. Fairly even but a slight lean towards LHH. You list Stargell and miss him. Would you really want to skip the next 4 or 5 best RH hitters just to get a lefty to replace a lefty? This would really be exagurated on some middle infielder replacement. How would HAL know what parks are slanted enough to matter and what players it is really important and what players it is not (ie: glove men).

I think the system is good as is. We don't need to change it, just learn the best way to work with it like OL is saying.

[JONCHUCKERY]

[quote:526434708d="LMBombers"]Lets say you are playing in a park with BPHR of 16/14. Fairly even but a slight lean towards LHH. You list Stargell and miss him. Would you really want to skip the next 4 or 5 best RH hitters just to get a lefty to replace a lefty? This would really be exagurated on some middle infielder replacement. How would HAL know what parks are slanted enough to matter and what players it is really important and what players it is not (ie: glove men).

I think the system is good as is. We don't need to change it, just learn the best way to work with it like OL is saying.[/quote:526434708d]

I can only go back to the example from the league I was in...I drafted Stargell #1 and Rice #2...my compensation for those 2 picks were Watson and Hisle...Yet Yas and Reggie [b:526434708d]BOTH[/b:526434708d] were not listed on anyone's cards and were not drafted. However the current system doesn't allow for drafting of players higher in salary. Forget parks, etc. I'm talking VALUE of pick...If I say to you who more resembles Stargell/Rice...would it be Watson/Hisle or Yas/Reggie? An obvious answer but one not plausible. And again it isn't as though you can't go above the salary cap from an auto-draft now. How many times have you drafted T Scott and got R Office on your team for 600K more? I can get a higher valued player missing a 750K choice but can't get Reggie as compensation for losing Stargell and yet you're telling me that's a good system? :?

[LMBombers]

Well I like the system just fine. You will not get a higher priced player UNLESS there are no other lower priced players available at that primary position. That is the only way to end up over the cap. It TSN starting looking for higher priced players for every one we miss it would be quite a mess with teams well above the cap which would either inhibit player transactions or give you players you will not be able to keep if you want to make any player moves.

No system is perfect if you are targeting only certain players or a very tiny few for a specialized team.

[AdamKatz]

First and foremost, you are right. Sometimes you have a horrible draft and it seems compleytely unfair and you are starting the league a step or two (or ten) behind other players. Even when you draft conservatively, there are a number of people who draft the same players and there always seems to be one guy who managed to get Jackson, Stargell, Brett, Bench and Aaron (or at least more top quality guys than he should have a right to).

On the other hand, you have to take that into account when conducting your draft. My draft card usually has 3-4 expensive guys and alot of 3-5 million guys that I think are the best values. The amount of players with 3-5 very good years is a very short list. Everyone is drafting the same 3-4 guys at each position. Unless someone is in the top 5 (or the top 3 for most elite players) you are not going to get him unless no one drafted him. Most people looking to spend on LF are going to draft Stargell, Rice and Foster. At C, there is Bench and Simmons. At 3B there are Schmidt, Brett and.....Allen.

Some other comments based on the above:

This doesnt really change much, but when HAL conducts the draft, no one is assigned a position in the draft. If 2 people draft Stargetll and Rice first and second. They each have a 50% chance at Stargetll and then a 50% at Rice

Winning consistantly isnt based on getting 3 cards with amazing years, its about getting 9 cards with very good years.

If you are drafting Rice, I assume you were planning to play Stargell in RF. I know that you probably thought that in case you didnt get Rice, Stargell could play LF if you found a good RF who oculdnt play LF. Nevertheless, if you are planning to play Stargell in RF, draft Reggie instead. He is much less popular and frequently on the waiver wire.

If you are drafting Simmons and Rose 6th and 7th, draft them 24th and 25th instead.

[Outta Leftfield]

What Adam said....