Low budget players

Scott,

As Motherscratcher and others have said, there is a challenge at every cap. I have played online since late 2009 and I just looked back over my teams and found that I have played in fourteen 60 mil (or less) leagues. My record is; 5-missed playoffs, 5-eliminated in the semi round, 3-eliminated in the final round and 1-champion. Not terrible but not great either! Now I don't consider my Strat abilities on a par with many of the guys playing this game here, and I never play at caps higher than $140 (don't care for guys like Koufax having an ERA of 6.00 or sometimes higher), but I usually win more games than I lose, not always but usually. The challenge (just like the higher caps) is to pick guys who make the team competitive in a reduced player pool because of the lack of funds to spread around. bkeat23 hit the nail on the head, players don't always perform to their salaries, and some out perform. Guys who you would never use in a $140 or higher cap (such as Bob Robertson, Pete Runnels, Lenny Randle, Hal McRae, Dave Boswell, Red Munger, Lindy McDaniel to name a few) end up have great seasons and the pennant races are just as exciting as in the higher caps. Give it a try before you assume that the challange is not there.

Mike

Scott,

As Motherscratcher and others have said, there is a challenge at every cap. I have played online since late 2009 and I just looked back over my teams and found that I have played in fourteen 60 mil (or less) leagues. My record is; 5-missed playoffs, 5-eliminated in the semi round, 3-eliminated in the final round and 1-champion. Not terrible but not great either! Now I don't consider my Strat abilities on a par with many of the guys playing this game here, and I never play at caps higher than $140 (don't care for guys like Koufax having an ERA of 6.00 or sometimes higher), but I usually win more games than I lose, not always but usually. The challenge (just like the higher caps) is to pick guys who make the team competitive in a reduced player pool because of the lack of funds to spread around. bkeat23 hit the nail on the head, players don't always perform to their salaries, and some out perform. Guys who you would never use in a $140 or higher cap (such as Bob Robertson, Pete Runnels, Lenny Randle, Hal McRae, Dave Boswell, Red Munger, Lindy McDaniel to name a few) end up have great seasons and the pennant races are just as exciting as in the higher caps. Give it a try before you assume that the challange is not there.

Mike

Well said Mike!!

My curiosity is always what motivates me. And in this instance it is peaked not from playing a season with a team that drafts equally with everyone else, because that wouldn't get the facts of the theory.

Here is what I mean,

The first ever draft I did was an auto draft and my first choices in my 25 player hierarchy were pitchers, I put my pitching staff higher. The result was I got every pitcher I wanted. An I considered myself to have the best pitching in the league, which bared out by the end of the season. I thought I was going to do well because all other drafts I have done, this strategy worked most times. But what I didn't realize is that ATG VII is different than drafting a single season of players.

I overestimated the importance of pitching. The depth of pitching in ATG VII is very deep. The difference between greg Maddux and Jack Chesbro is much closer than the difference between Babe Ruth and Chino Smith. So while I was putting out better pitchers, others were putting out line ups that were much better and I went 80-82. That record was not as bad as some teams, but it obviously wasn't good enough to make the post-season.

So the next auto draft I did I chose to put more emphasis on hitting to see if what I was thinking was correct; that pitching is of little importance when compared to hitting. The only problem is that when the auto draft finished I was holding a team that had two 10mil or higher players, while my competition held on avg four or more, and the best team in my division held seven.

I battled it out and used smart managing to keep afloat and I wasn't out of the chase until around game 120, if memory serves me correctly. I ended with an 82-80 record, and no further ahead in trying to see if my theory was correct.

So my third team was a live draft team, because with a live draft team I could choose who I wanted and not get hosed like I did in my last auto-draft. In this live draft I ignored pitchers completely until I completed my position players and back ups. I didn't choose a pitcher until round 13 (Jack Chesbro).

I went 90-72. Even though my only big bombers on the team were Griffy jr. and A. Rodriguez (at least against RHP). So I was satisfied that with my first auto-draft (where I chose and received great pitching), and my first live draft, where I didn't choose pitching at all, I was pretty correct in my thought that pitching in the ATG VII at 200mil was of not much importance in winning. You cant totally ignore it, but it definitely isn't as important as position players.

So these are the things I like to do.

With the 60mil cap, if I drafted at the same time as everyone else, I would have the equal opportunity of drafting at competitive team, I'm not saying it would be competitive, it just means I would have and equal chance. Because of this, if I won or if I lost, I wouldn't be very certain if it was more luck than skill.

Now if I let everyone else draft first, then I chose my team from the remains, if I lost I could attribute it to the fact that it does make a difference having choices over one 3mil player over another 3mil player. But if I won, I could argue that 60mil drafts are not much of a challenge at all since anyone with the skill of choosing players could compete even if they drafted only the remaining free agents.

That would be interesting to find out

Scott the Complainer.

With the 60mil cap, if I drafted at the same time as everyone else, I would have the equal opportunity of drafting at competitive team, I'm not saying it would be competitive, it just means I would have and equal chance. Because of this, if I won or if I lost, I wouldn't be very certain if it was more luck than skill.

Now if I let everyone else draft first, then I chose my team from the remains, if I lost I could attribute it to the fact that it does make a difference having choices over one 3mil player over another 3mil player. But if I won, I could argue that 60mil drafts are not much of a challenge at all since anyone with the skill of choosing players could compete even if they drafted only the remaining free agents.

That would be interesting to find out

Scott the Complainer.

It's not only about "choosing players", it's about putting together the "puzzle" and making all the pieces fit best. This can be done with live or auto draft, or , as you point out, even after waivers in an autodraft

Ah ok, It's crafting a team. You win because you can create a better team at 60mil than someone else at 60mil, it's not so much the exact players you chose but the philosophy behind the choices to create a certain kind of team.

Scott the Complainer

What are the challenges that you have in a 60mil league as compared to a 100mil, or 200mil league? It seems to me that it would be less challenging since you have much more choice in players available. With so many more players available to use, you could let everyone else pick all their players and still you would field a team of equal talent to theirs no?

Where is the challenge in that? Unless of course that is the challenge? In other words the challenge isn't out drafting your opponent, but out managing him afterward?

Scott the Complainer

It does not prove you are much of a manager if you simply know the right players to draft in my opinion. The true ability of a manager is to know how to build a winning team while having to adapt. If the luck of the draft is what decides if you win or lose it does not require as much skill. I like all the caps but the highest caps are the most boring although the draft part is the most exciting in the high caps.

You are correct Roosky, Start with the draft, adjust during the draft while choosing as players you may have wanted disappear, then use your managing skills to get the most out of the players you drafted. The skill does not come just from the draft, although the higher you go up in the salary cap the more important it seems to become, it also comes from how you manage afterward, although not being able to control the managing during the game itself does limit you somewhat.

Scott the Complainer.

I haven't seen any 60 mil leagues starting in a while, where have all the cheapsters gone?

I'm with you... There's nothing fun to me about 100+ million dollar leagues...where's the challenge/enjoyment when you can field a team with $8+ players at every starting position? Give me a little dose of realism, where you have to make tough choices about where to spend your money, where every offensive number isn't outrageously inflated, where a number 7,8,9 hitter who can drive in 70 runs matters, ...I'm always working on a new idea for a $60mil league or looking for an interesting $60mil league already formed...

For me here is where the logic breaks down somewhat...

Why play with an ATG team if you aren't using the All Time Greats, but the OK Time Greats?

If you want to draft a 60mil team, wouldn't playing with a single season team be more enjoyable? That way all the best players are used.

Its like going to a race track and deciding to leave the Lamborghinis in the garage and racing your Toyota Corollas instead. It would probably be fun, but who would really care? Anyway I should shut up cuz I never played a 60 mil team so I might be just talking out of my ass.

Scott the Complainer

P.S. Someone put a league of 60mil up in the forum and I will join just to see what the attraction is. If I finish under .500 I will eat some crow and say I was mistaken

Scott, if you havent' played $80 yet I'd do that first. It's the most common cap size and will help prepare you for $60. Just a suggestion, but I fear playing $60 first might dampen the experience for you