Hack Wilson in LF?

[Mr Baseball World]

Live drafted players have always been placed at the bottom and usually moose will at some point in the barnstormers leagues remind everyone that the players you drafted go at the bottom and the ones you are trying to get at the top. The reason is simple: If the rules reqired live draft picks to be listed first, then the guy who put them at the bottom would be guaranteed to get all the guys he wanted and there is no way for anyone to know he did it. This insures that noone gets an unfair advantage.

[JohnnyBlazers]

I think Petro is right in his description of the "Intent of the rules". When you set your lineup, only those players who qualify for a specific position are listed in the drop-down. That is the design of the game which would fall under the "intent" of the game. To do otherwise is to circumvent the game's design and to do otherwise, is exploiting a loophole. If others want to try this, thats their business as they pay for the game. It may not be in the spirit of the rules per se, but this is a game after all. No need for an ethical discourse. The players are priced accordingly for their hitting as well as their defense. This is why Wilson, with his awesome card, but a 3 in CF, is priced less than other comparable sluggers. A 1 in CF is invaluable and this is why Mantle, DiMaggio, Charleston et al. are priced 3-4 million more than Wilson. I think Petro is just giving his opinion, and a well-earned & respected opinion at that

[The Last Druid]

Oops, so used to thinking of Kiner as only a dh forgot that he can play left field. So Hack would be the dh, thus nothing gets tested.

[alvarndc]

[quote:8876729288="Mr. Baseball World"]Live drafted players have always been placed at the bottom and usually moose will at some point in the barnstormers leagues remind everyone that the players you drafted go at the bottom and the ones you are trying to get at the top. The reason is simple: [b:8876729288]If the rules reqired live draft picks to be listed first, then the guy who put them at the bottom would be guaranteed to get all the guys he wanted and there is no way for anyone to know he did it. [/b:8876729288] This insures that noone gets an unfair advantage.[/quote:8876729288]

Once again, I think there are a few DIFFERENT ways to look at this. And I guess my overall point is that without a firm guideline or rule, everything is open to interpretation.

With regards to placement of live drafted players in the autodraft list, listing them 1-15 makes sense to me bc then there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that a player can be mistakenly taken by another manager (who overlooked that the player had been drafted), or worse, "poached".

And in the bolded portion of the quoted example - "If the rules reqired live draft picks to be listed first" - if such a rule existed and a manager DID list his drafted players at end, he would in fact then be breaking a written rule. Enforcing the rule may be difficult, but it would be a STATED rule.

As it is now, "experienced" managers can have it both ways. They can list their players at the end, and get the best chance of getting their "scrub list" filled (ie "the guy who put them at the bottom would be guaranteed to get all the guys he wanted"), and STILL be able to claim AFTERWARD that their drafted players are their "property" and cannot be poached.

As I have said this is a minor advantage at best. Sort of just like it is a minor advantage at best to play Hack in LF, or know you only NEED 2 catchers, or figure out a way to pitch Babe Adams for 600 innings.

It's part of the game, and that is part of what makes it fun. Like stealing signs in real life baseball.

I admit though, the motivation for posting on this thread stems from the fact I get kind of annoyed whenever someone sets himself up as the "grand judge".

[216 Stitches]

[quote:7b706b7bee="alvarndc"]
I mean really, how does Petrosian justify setting himself up as the arbiter for concluding the INTENT of the rules?? [/quote:7b706b7bee]

I know you mean this rhetorically, but the actual arbiter position is a void,
hence someone, i.e., one of the most frequent managers, jumped in. It
should be TSN, but they have to walk the line between umpire and
business owner, so their reluctance to jump in can be understandable,
although the void left is bad. If this were real baseball and there were
managers arguing about the rules, the umpire would probably just
throw everyone in the argument off the threads for a day for arguing
balls and strikes. And then the commissioner might add some
suspensions if people were really bad. Maybe we would even get
new records page, how many times have you been thrown out of a game.

The salary issue seems to be one sticking point here. From a baseball
side of things, if you managed a team with Hack Wilson on it, you should
be able to tell Hack to play LF. Apparently Hack doesn't want to play
LF and Petro is just being Hacks advocate.

Since TSN has made explicit rules to check for 2 catchers, 5 SP, 3 pure
relievers, 14 minimum hitters, etc., etc. we know that they can make
explicit roster checks and have not done so for individual positional
cards. But they have also mastered the multi-year card system, why
not a multi-position cards where the bonus positions cost a premium?
It would be akin to Hack Wilson having a contract that says he gets paid
extra if they play him out of position. You would have to add more
positions to the existing rules (both in the written rules, and the
autodraft and waiver checks), so that you would always have to
have 1 hitter eligible for each position at each time (written in the rules,
required for waiver, required for autodraft and to honored at all times
during the season). It would add some variety and decision making
to the game, but might also be too much of a pain.

Or they could add a rule where Hack goes on a drinking binge and doesn't
show up for games if he is forced to play out of position too frequently.
What was the line from "League of their own?" If we pay you more,
could you drink less? Tom Hank's Character: "I could use the money."

[motherscratcher]

[quote:ebb5bc1045="alvarndc"]
I mean really, how does Petrosian justify setting himself up as the arbiter for concluding the INTENT of the rules?? The term delusions of grandeur comes to mind...

To quote Petrosian: "It seems abundantly clear"???

To whom?? Perhaps to Pertosian. CLEARLY, as the number of replies to this thread confirms, the entire issue is a matter of legitimate dispute.[/quote:ebb5bc1045]

This is a little harsh (in a thread full of harsh) and ridiculous. I mean, "Petrosian needs to get over himself"? "delusions of grandeur"? C'mon dude.

As has been mentioned, not only is Petrosian (like everyone else) entitled to his opinion; his is probably a particularly well considered opinion formed through a lot of experience, and should definitely be taken into account.

That doesn't mean he's right about everything, but to dismiss him as some megomaniacal strat-bully is absurd.

I do happen to agree with him on this issue, although I'm not militant about it. It does seem to me to be clear that the "intent" should be to play players at positions that are listed on the card.

There is obviously a loop-hole. And there is a good reason for the loophole. The loophole exists because there needs to be a fallback when the inevitable occasionally happens and a manager finds himself in the unenviable position of having nobody to play a particular position due to injury.

The reason that you can use a CF to play RF without taking a huge defensive hit, is because it would be unrealistic to think that a major league centerfielder would all of a sudden be unable to field a corner OF position if the need should arise. Obviously, the situation would be a little different in the infield or at catcher, hence the 5 defensive ratings there.

But you need someone to fill that position in an emergency, so the loophole must be there.

However, just because a loophole exists doesn't mean it should be used, and I do think it goes against the intent of the creators of the game to play someone at a position for which they are not rated as a strategy

YMMV and obviously it does for a lot of people. But nobody will ever convince me that they meant for Hack to be utilized in this way.

BTW - "Megomaniacal Strat Bully" will definitely be the name of a future team. Hopefully in a league with Petrosian. In a different division of course.

[The Last Druid]

I have the same response to alvarndc as I did to bdward. I think that his post says far more about him than it does about me and I draw the same conclusion from it as I did from Mr. Ward's post.

Oddly I actually thought I was being reasonable and just offering my (at this point fairly deeply considered) opinion on the matter. I guess my posts have acquired a sort of psychometric or projective value, for some people. Sort of like a Strat-forum version of the Rorschach. :lol:

[motherscratcher]

Wait, is "megomaniacal" a word?

I don't think it is. I think it's "megalomaniacal." Yeah, that sounds right. I'm about 73.4% sure on this.

Megalomaniacal.

Either way, that's Petrosian.

[dukie98]

I haven't deliberately played an outfielder out of position, but I don't have any strong objection to anyone doing so-- especially if they will be required to bat 8th/ 9th, which should be enough of a deterrent. Realistically, a centerfielder should be able to play left field -- and Hack played 200 games in left over the course of his career. It's not like presuming that he would be able to play 3B -- and under the rules, he would pay a severe penalty for doing so.

The point about pricing is a fair one. My suspicion -- and nothing more-- is that the first position listed affects the pricing much more than secondary positions, even if they're listed on the card-- for example, Lou Boudreau's card doesn't appear to be heavily downgraded for his dreadful catcher rating. Conversely, there are some players who have secondary positions where they have more value than at the primary position. As a result, even if Hack had a LF rating, it may not affect his price.

My question is why didn't the Cubs simply play Hack in left at any point in 1930. Riggs Stephenson was their regular left fielder, but he missed 45 games. Backup Danny Taylor, who ran reasonably well and started a couple hundred games in CF over the course of his career, started 48 games in left, but only one in center. Presumably, the Cubs would have been better off with him in CF and Hack in LF. Similarly, Cliff Heathcote, who also played some CF in his career and ran well, started almost 30 games in right field in place of Cuyler, but never flip-flopped with Hack.

[PotKettleBlack]

Dukie... we are talking about the Cubs... that's kind of the short hand answer for why they didn't do anything rational.