Poll on Improvements to the autodraft system

[nevdully's]

C'mon a newbie is more likely to be hamstrung by 101 other things before a bad draft card....[b:31b59d0014]They are just as likely to struggle because they "got" their draft card,[/b:31b59d0014] thinking Hack would be studley in cf with Vlad Guerrero in rf and Bench behind he plate while they chose Shea 71 as their park...A bad draft is one of the easier things here to recover from.

[kab105]

I agree with Nev. The current autodraft system requires some thinking. No matter what autodraft system you come up with, there will be managers that take the time to study how it works and take advantage of what it has to offer. Other managers will just throw a team together and whine and complain when they don't get someone they really want. Managers will get some "disappointing" picks no matter what style autodraft you put in place.

None of the above.

[djmacb]

[quote:d59b8d5147="kab105"]I agree with Nev. The current autodraft system requires some thinking. No matter what autodraft system you come up with, there will be managers that take the time to study how it works and take advantage of what it has to offer. Other managers will just throw a team together and whine and complain when they don't get someone they really want. Managers will get some "disappointing" picks no matter what style autodraft you put in place.

None of the above.[/quote:d59b8d5147]
I agree 100%. Either the system will be based on brains and experience - in which case the vets will quickly figure out how to optimize their draft cards - or it will be based on luck. I for one don't want a system based on luck. I voted to keep what we have.

[rburgh]

I fail to see how any of the proposed revisions has any effect of adding luck to the AD process. In fact, I think the "altered compensation" option would reduce it. Recently, I had an AD where I had Mays #1 on my draft card. Not only didn't I get him, but because all the other primo CF's were drafted, I ended up with Torriente, the last guy I would have wanted. At least by awarding me the next highest CF available after the first round, I would likely have gotten a much better CF option.

I can also see the merit of simply bumping all your future picks up one round if the guy on your draft card is gone. At least you will have better chances of getting the rest of your picks.

In either of these cases, the luck factor would be reduced. In the first case, there would be less difference in salary between the guy you put in for and the guy you got, in most cases. In the second case, your loss would be immediately compensated by improving your chances of getting your other picks.

The third plan, to me, looks like a modification of plan 1, where you have some control over your priority of remaining picks. If a logical statement were available like "I don't want anyone at this position right now, skip to my next pick.", it would combine the best of both worlds. Then you could, say, put in for Wells at SS, and if not Wells, then Banks or Ripken, otherwise, put off taking a SS for a while and grab me my next guy.

[Valen]

[quote:a556d7ee5c]I for one don't want a system based on luck. I voted to keep what we have. [/quote:a556d7ee5c]
The current system is mostly luck. :lol:

[Valen]

[quote:79908a3da6]Recently, I had an AD where I had Mays #1 on my draft card. Not only didn't I get him, but because all the other primo CF's were drafted, I ended up with Torriente[/quote:79908a3da6]
Proponents of the current system would argue that putting Mays #1 on your draft card obviously proves you do not know how to put together a draft card. How stupid of you to lost that virtual coin flip. :lol: Everyone knows Mays belongs at #25.

This had nothing to do with skill and everything to do with luck. That is why all of the options would reduce role of luck and increase role of skill. I do not understand how anyone with a competitive nature would be opposed to that happening.

[macnole]

Valen,

You've just managed to argue against the primary reason you used for initiating this.

First it was to remove an element of inequity among vets and newbies, because of the knowledge advantage vets have on the drafting mechanics.

Now it's because it's all luck as it is now. [u:250be1f97e]All[/u:250be1f97e] luck? I respect what you're trying to do, but using extremes of false dichotomies doesn't gain any new converts to your idea.

It's not all luck; it's not all perfect; and it's also not all bad. No drafting system will be perfect because there are resource constraints--people want the same players.

By your way of thinking, every draft has to be equally disbursed...that is if you get Mays, well you cannot have Aaron and Brett...that wouldn't be "fair".

Sucking the fun right out of one element of the game that is a whole lot less frustrating than the dice rolls on any given night--and for that reason I'd rather have Bernie working on those other things.

just my 2c.

[djmacb]

[quote:997ff72f32="Valen"][quote:997ff72f32]I for one don't want a system based on luck. I voted to keep what we have. [/quote:997ff72f32]
The current system is mostly luck. :lol:[/quote:997ff72f32]
Is it luck or is it "manipulating a broken system" since you have posted that it's both?

I note that the community is voting for "Modified Waiver Style" about 2 to 1 which is pretty much the system we have in place now. I could support this since it won't change the current process much, if at all.