ATG Auction Future

[kimkrichbaum2]

As we are about to complete our 4th ATG auction, the first "Hybrid" auction - part open, part closed, I think it is a good time to reflect on how we think it worked, whether there are any ways we might want to tweak it, and if we would like another auction, and if so what type.
I personally would like an auction with a smaller number of players, so there is real separation between say the 6th best, and the 12th best player at a position.
But let's see what everyone thinks.

The questionnaire:
1. How well do you think the hybrid auction has worked (1-10, 10 is best)?
2. Would you be in favor of using the hybrid model again, or would you prefer another model?, if so what model?
3. Would you like to see nay tweaks to the hybrid model?
4. Would you prefer an auction with part of the ATGVI set, or the whole set?
5. If you would prefer a partial, how would you like the set divided?

[kimkrichbaum2]

My answers:

1. Rate it an 8
2. Prefer keeping hybrid model
3. I don't think it absolutely needs any tweaks, I think allowing raises of .05 on open auctions under 2.00 might be nice.
I think we need to stress that folks can not have bids out there that would be illegal, if they all won. And have a clear understanding of what the consequences are if that happens.
4and 5. I definitely want to use just part of the set. My preference would be to do 4 auctions with each era of the ATG cards - starting with deadball - not all managers would have to be part of all 4. I also think breaking the set in 3 parts would be interesting, and give a greater mix of cards, say -1935, 1936-1967, 1968-present. But this would be more complex, and require some homework on years for NeL cards.

[hackra]

[quote:987273ed98="litangel"] let's see what everyone thinks.

The questionnaire:
1. How well do you think the hybrid auction has worked (1-10, 10 is best)?
2. Would you be in favor of using the hybrid model again, or would you prefer another model?, if so what model?
3. Would you like to see nay tweaks to the hybrid model?
4. Would you prefer an auction with part of the ATGVI set, or the whole set?
5. If you would prefer a partial, how would you like the set divided?[/quote:987273ed98]

1> score 6 - I do not think the problem with the auction had anything to do with the hybrid part. The problems occurred due to life tragedy and poor individual accounting practice.

2> I would be fine with the hybrid but do not prefer it to the closed auction. I think I might like to see an auction with a $0.05 or 10% minimum instead of a $0.50 to allow someone to bid a nickel on that last backup. I would also be in favor of allowing a 26th player (hitter or pitcher at owners option)

3> don't feel strongly about any tweaks

4&5> I'm game for the whole thing OR a subset.....how about a LHP only squad....RHP only allowed....Pre or post WW2 only....only players with under 600PA....only AL or NL players...all pitchers must be under $6 mill....all batters must be under $6mill.....all teams in Petco....it's all good :D

[MIKEARCHAMBAULT]

The questionnaire:
1. How well do you think the hybrid auction has worked (1-10, 10 is best)?
2. Would you be in favor of using the hybrid model again, or would you prefer another model?, if so what model?
3. Would you like to see nay tweaks to the hybrid model?
4. Would you prefer an auction with part of the ATGVI set, or the whole set?
5. If you would prefer a partial, how would you like the set divided?


1. (8) I agree with the .05 bid increase under 2M. I know I caused some problems during the draft, and I apologize for them. I think that personal problems are apt to happen anytime we have an auction that stretches over months. As for overextending on bids, we can easily make clear rules to handle them in the future.

2. I like the hybrid!

3. Above noted bid increase increments; holiday timing issues.

4/5. Any format is fine with me.

[JOSEPHKENDALL]

1 - 10 for the hybrid auction
2 - Hybrid again
3 - No tweaks
4/5 - Whole set

[hackra]

Best of luck to the Fools and Connextions in the ATGV finals!


[img:ddc54c0d16]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_izjmwTo2YdA/TQdYVgcnysI/AAAAAAAAAcA/oTUf6b4WsmE/s1600/PityTheFool.jpg[/img:ddc54c0d16]

I don't believe that is Kim in the photo :wink:

[img:ddc54c0d16]http://static.tvguide.com/MediaBin/Galleries/Imported/BioPix/C/bio_13/i-pity-fool.jpg[/img:ddc54c0d16][img:ddc54c0d16]http://www.aldridge.walsall.sch.uk/images/logos/connextions.jpg[/img:ddc54c0d16]

or joe in this one

[img:ddc54c0d16]http://www.thisischris.com/foolsplay/4.0/Photos/foolsWin.jpg[/img:ddc54c0d16]

[gorshar]

[quote:285fcd74fa]1. How well do you think the hybrid auction has worked (1-10, 10 is best)?
2. Would you be in favor of using the hybrid model again, or would you prefer another model?, if so what model?
3. Would you like to see nay tweaks to the hybrid model?
4. Would you prefer an auction with part of the ATGVI set, or the whole set?
5. If you would prefer a partial, how would you like the set divided? [/quote:285fcd74fa]

1) 7 . But as said already some snafus weren't the fault of the auction. But that said, for myself personally I don't think I really benefited from the extra open auction.
2-5)
An idea:
I would first like to break this into four sets - deadball, pre, post, expansion. I've done the full set this way twice already but via live draft and not auction. The NeLs are placed according to the corresponding seasons given in the player guide published by Strat which assigned years of Super Advanced sets (i.e. 1920 and 1927, 1941 and 1948, etc). As most players fall into the pre- set when a player appears twice in different eras they are placed in the one not pre (deadball, or in a couple of cases, post-).

The one tweak is given the importance of top players in a limited set I would propose this:
Players 1-100 : Open auction.
Players 101-200: Hybrid
Players 201-300: Live draft on the boards (to compensate for the extra time to conduct open auctions on the first 100 players).

[kimkrichbaum2]

(Gorshar writes)
I also would like to do the one era at a time
league - starting with deadball.

Any thoughts to an idea I floated on the boards:

Players 1-100 = open auction
101-200 = hybrid auction
201-300 = draft on board or DiamondDope

I suggest the open auction for the first 100
players as the player pool is much smaller this
gives everybody a fair chance at everyone. And to
make up the time we can draft the final 100 players.

[kimkrichbaum2]

I have some openness to Gorshar's plan, and some
concerns. The 1-100 open auction will about double
the length of the league, as those are usually the
longest auctions.

My other concern is doing the last 100 as a draft,
will be complicated, and possibly unfair, as some
folks will have more players and possibly more
money left, it would take work to make that fair.

I think it would actually to best to keep it as it
is, as our draft system is already a bit complex,
and it seems as if we may have half new managers
who have to learn it. The new system would be even
more complex.

If we were going to do something like Gorshar
suggests, I would say let's do the first 30
players open auction, and make sure it is the 18
most expensive hitters, and the 12 most expensive
pitchers. Especially on the hitting side, this
would cover the premium guys, and those might be
the important ones to do in open auction. I'd do
the next 170 in the hybrid auction.
And I would do the last hundred in a pure closed
auction, expect for ties as we have done. That
honors the managers who have more cash left.

I think unless we have at least 8 hold overs from
this league ready now, I would like to wait for
summer.

[kimkrichbaum2]

(Gorshar writes)

Yes, the 1-100 will extend the time, but we get
that time back by drafting the final 100.

Yes, there are inherent problems with drafting the
final 100 - unequal numbers of players being the
primary one, not sure cash is as much an issue
though. But I think we could if we tried find an
equitable solution.

I have two issues with the draft as it is for
doing subsets and both relate to the limited
player pool. One, it makes the early stages more
important and I like the fairness of an open draft
for this - If 100 players is too much perhaps
reduce it maybe to 60? 30 I think is too small.
The second issue is with the end of the draft.
Let's face it, the final 100 players is not an
exciting time even with the huge player pool of
all of ATG. With subsets it will only be worse. I
think some kind of draft would go a long way to
getting through it.

I'm ready to get started today......