Exploring an old suggestion

[coyote303]

I'm just brainstorming here...

List 25 players like you do now, plus
For your first 10 draft positions, you get to do the following:

1. list a specific alternate (optional)
2. check a box to go to your next draft position if you don't get your first pick or--if you have listed one--your alternate pick

If the check box is not checked, you would get "best" alternate as it is done now if you don't get your main or alternate pick. You could choose to check this skip option (or not) individually for each of your first 10 draft positions.

Any skipped picks would be done normally ("best" alternate) but the pick would be moved to the end of your draft list.

If this, or something else, is made available, it should be made as an advanced drafting option. The one advantage the present system has is simplicity.

[coyote303]

The following idea could be used with the present system or in conjunction with something new...

Manager A and B pick the same player. Manager B is (randomly) awarded the pick.

So Manager A gets a +1 draft priority rating and Manager B gets -1.

Whenever there is a tie, the manager with the highest priority rating gets the pick (and their priority rating is reduced by 1). Other manager(s) gets a +1 to their rating.

To continue our example, in Round 2, Managers A, B, and C all pick the same player. Manager A gets his pick (having the highest priority rating), and his priority rating is reduced back to zero. Manager C now has a priority rating of +1 and Manager B's rating goes back to 0.

Ties in priority rating would be decided randomly.

[chasenally]

I just finished my first live draft and man was that great. I mostly play in specialty leagues as I feel the game is more even. That being said I would like to see the ballpark picked after the draft and waivers so that you can pick the park after all is said and done. The ball park is so final before the draft begins. If you would just pass that thing and would quit bogarting it I would feel fine just around 4:20. That would be a great change. Was it the joint or the rules? Oh yea it was the the the Thank you Bernie. Mike
P.S. Please let us and tomato pick the ball park after we have our team. I'm hungry and need some chips and I'm a dip. Why do I have cotton mouth? Who published this thing anyway? This guy is so on his game. I would follow him anywhere. Like sheep to the slaughter.

[Al Hogg]

I have thought about something like Coyote suggests above, referring to it "one round at a time autodraft."

All the teams must fill out their autodraft card. They can list up to 11 alternates for a pick, all who must be less expensive than the pick.

Rounds go once a hour, say, over the course of two days. Thirteen rounds one day, 12 rounds the second day.

If multiple people pick the same player for round one, the draft engine randomly chooses. Those who lose get their next highest unchosen alternative or their next pick.

After teams see who everyone gets, they would then get to adjust their choices before the next round. They would, however, have to save a "legal" autodraft card before the next round goes, or the draft engine would revert to what was previously stored.

After the first round, however, there would be a priority to break ties:

- Top priorities would be to those who lost out on the most previous picks.
- Within groups of those who had lost the same number of picks, top priority would go to those who had so far spent the least.

The draft engine would show priorities for the next round, so teams would no how many alternates they would need to put. (For example, I have 8th priority and I really want a shortstop, so I'd better put in 8 picks. Of course, if you don't put in alternatives, the draft engine would just go to the next pick.)

[Jeepdriver]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a minute. While some upgrades could be made to our Autodraft system, I'm not sure that I wouldn't want things left as is.

Here's why. IMO, there's a strategy/technique to the autodraft. I consider filling out a strategic draft card is one of if not my greatest strengths in this game. I make a copy of my draft card with every team and study it after every draft. I put in time to learn how to have a good autodraft, and many more times than not I'm successful.

Everyone is playing with the same rules. No one has an advantage over anyone else. It's not "the luck of the draw", it's who has put together the best draft card.

Again, not saying changes aren't in order. And I'm not wanting to create any controversy in the thread here. Replacement players for misses should be improved. But, perhaps more emphasis should be put into how to do better (in the AD) than on how to change it. :)

[KEVINEHLE]

If this is a democracy, I vote for a player ranking system (Yes, similar to Yahoo). I think most of us wouldn't have an issue ranking the players by position that you would want based on your strategy.

The ranking system will take away the "crapshoot" of ending up with a random player. To me that is the most maddening part.

To use the best example given so far, if I want Figgins or a similar player, a guy like Reynolds would be dropped way down the list as a replacement. The autodraft would pick up my next favored player. It doesn't have to be that difficult.

Kev

[Jerlins]

There is indeed a strategy to Ad's, but it is also flawed. Let's use an example here. You are attempting to put together a theme of a great D, LH'd slanted, LH'd park team. And these are your first two picks, and you miss out on both. Here's the results:

LF-Crawford----------->Ramirez
RF-Markakis----------->Upton

Not only do you NOT receive your 2 desired players, you are left holding the bag on 2 players on the OPPOSITE ends of the spectrum.

So whats the solution? NEVER try to put together a team unless you select a neutral park? Leave as is and pray for luck? This game depends on luck as it is. Why place luck into the draft as well when there are better solutions out there?

Should I never put Figgins on my list, knowing if anyone else places him in the same position or higher, my "door prize" is Reynolds? Should I never attempt to get Cliff Lee knowing that if I miss, I get a 7R as opposed to a 5L? All I am asking for is a way to get a similar player as one I selected.

Off to work, I am enjoying this back and forth however :) :)

[Jeepdriver]

I agree with both Kev and Jerlins above. As mentioned, some improvements to the ranking system (replacement players) are indeed needed. However, a complete overhaul would be too much IMHO.

Jerlins, I have left off a player many times because I knew who the replacement player would be if I didn't get him. :wink:

[gbrookes]

...

I read all of these posts with great interest. In my own mind, I can see the logic in each point of view.
However, I agree that the ranking of hundreds of potential picks seems (for me) a daunting task. It's not that I couldn't do it of course, but it just doesn't seem like fun to me - UNLESS it was really nicely automated with a click and drag user interaction.
One of the earlier posts suggested a more limited, simple alternative. In my own mind, I created the same limited system before I read it. It is the idea (expressed above) that you could list an alternate pick for each pick (25 in all), OR ALTERNATIVELY, tick a box to go down the "take my next pick in order" routine (i.e. if I don't get my 2nd pick, please take my third pick, presumably followed by some kind of autodraft at the end to fill in all 25 picks). If you layered one more simple thing on top of this simpler, less exhaustive system - say, allowing 25 "do NOT pick" selections - negative drafting - then you could construct a more logical, less random draft, with less effort than an exhaustive player ranking system.

Just my thinking - I like this idea.

Geoff

[joethejet]

Sorry, just been super busy.

I'll post more later, but above all, this process has to be simple to implement and understand or Bernie isn't going to take it on.

So, I think we have to think very simple, but improved.

Jet
www.angelfire.com/games5/joethejet