Alternatives to Current Autodraft

I guess it's like trying to pass laws in congress; everyone has an opinion of some little tweak that needs to happen so nothing gets done. To me, it would seem sensible to try to agree on something simple that moves in the right direction (maybe picking an alternate choice for each player?). I would be happy with anything that is an improvement, because change progresses slowly but steadily once it starts. Creating the momentum is the hard part.

I don't know how many people remember the last time we had this debate about the autodraft needing changed on the old TSN boards. Bernie responded that in order to do something there would have to be consensus from the community that the autodraft needed changed AND there needed to be consensus on what the new autodraft should look like.

There have been a number of good ideas posted here just like there was on the old boards. But in the end if you guys cannot agree on specifically what it should be this will be nothing but a fun discussion of a dream but it will lead nowhere.

So discuss all the clever and original ideas you want. But sooner or later someone will have to figure out a way to settle on one alternative and everyone get behind it. You may not want to hear that but it is the reality of the situation.

I agree, and also with the next poster (above).

Let's try and get a consensus on no more than 2 separate suggestions, perhaps trying to take the best of a couple of the ideas and put them together in 2 alternatives. Ideally, if we had consensus on even just 1 idea that would be ideal, but 2 might work also. Let's keep working at this together, on this thread. Once we have a consensus, let's post the specific idea (s) on the wish list board, and promote the idea with strat.

Ahhh, gbrookes, at least it is a plan. That alone is a step forward.

I like the secrecy of the park choice, as a league-by-league gambit (first move). I suppose it's not rational. Whatever. Maybe people think the park choice should be openly stated, or after the fact. Maybe the card-playing analogy is a bad one . But I like NOT knowing what the other teams have chosen as their park, because it makes it more interesting.

One thing no one ever mentions: THE SEASON LASTS LESS THAN TWO MONTHS. So, seriously: chill ... How disastrous can ANYTHING be, for something that lasts two months and costs twenty bucks?

I like the idea above from other types of drafts: give the next-highest pick and drop the undrafted POSITION down below all the picks, and give you the highest salary at that position lower in the draft. That works better than the current system and is equally position-oriented. Anyone who imagines, however, that THAT will be less susceptible to "gaming" the system by more experienced and intelligent players .... Well, guess again. And good luck.

PS Two points to reiterate:

We're talking about the pre-waivers draft, and that draft has no "ranking" other than random selection.

The draft is based on position, and is designed to give you the position, not the player.

I'm not saying anything for or against those two points, but consistently they were ignored by the more belligerant posters.

Often on the old boards, I'd suggest that SOM employ what is now (and has been) common practice for autodrafts on other sites. Rank your players in the desired order you want and go from there. If your first priority is filling an ace SP, you could rank 3 or 4 of the best as your first 4 selections, and chances are pretty darn good you'll get one of them. Want a stud hitter, then rank your 1st 12 draft picks with the top 12 hitters, worse case scenario, you get the 12th best.

Nothing was worse than a few years ago, when choosing I believe was Minute Maid which was extremely RH slanted, opting for Andruw Jones who was a stud that year, missing on him, and ended up with the #2 CF I the set, Jim Edmonds, who was TOTALLY useless in that park. Must have happened at least 50% of the time I chose that park. I wouldn't have minded the 3rd or 4th best CF that year, who at least could play in that park, but nope, always got Edmonds, who nobody ever wanted though he was the 2nd highest $ CF in the set.

If SOM won't make the switch, the least they could do is set up a "do not draft" option. That way, at least if playing in say a hitters park, and lose out on an SP with no ballpark HR's on his card, you don't end up with an SP close to the same price but with tons of ballpark HR's on his card.

The current system also works against any 24 team league, where a bad draft can leave you ZERO chance of competing. I played in one 24 man league a few years ago, never again. Do they realize it's possible in this year's set to have Posey $9.79 as your 1st selection and end up with Tony Cruz $1.17 as the "best undrafted catcher"? Improbable, maybe, impossible, not by a longshot.

Let's keep this going. Let's get as many good points as we can, and then after that we'll try to encompass them in 1 or 2 alternatives. But let's keep this going! Great ideas!

I like the idea above from other types of drafts: give the next-highest pick and drop the undrafted POSITION down below all the picks, and give you the highest salary at that position lower in the draft. That works better than the current system and is equally position-oriented.

I would vote for this method as well. And, I also like not knowing the parks until after the autodraft.

You could pick your park after the autodraft and still have it be unknown

The most important thing for me in a new system is not substitute what is effectively a 26th round pick for your #1 pick when you miss. Given the current system it is not a question of not getting one of your top 5-11 choices which I can agree could happen in a live draft. It is possibly not getting one of your top 300 picks as your #1 draft pick. Remember that you have to settle for best of whatever nobody else put on their card anywhere.

I like the idea above from other types of drafts: give the next-highest pick and drop the undrafted POSITION down below all the picks, and give you the highest salary at that position lower in the draft. That works better than the current system and is equally position-oriented.

I have suggested this very concept many times over the years. It would result in more fair drafts equal distribution of talent. I would definitely be on board to a system like this. I would settle for a simple waivers style all the way but in my perfect world the suggestion here is what I would consider grade A best and if this goes anywhere is the solution I would be rooting for.

Do they realize it's possible in this year's set to have Posey $9.79 as your 1st selection and end up with Tony Cruz $1.17 as the "best undrafted catcher"?

Excellent example of what is wrong with current autodraft system. Yet there will be those who say you should know better than to try drafting Posey, even as your #1. Any system where drafting a great catcher high is unwise is a bad system.

Do they realize it's possible in this year's set to have Posey $9.79 as your 1st selection and end up with Tony Cruz $1.17 as the "best undrafted catcher"?

And what is wrong with Tony Cruz? He had 53 XBH in a platoon role on this team. Pretty good for $1.17

http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1105411