Thread: Stage Four

It doesn’t exist. But we keep hoping.

Welcome! You are invited to wander around and read all of the comments that have been posted here at Patton & Co., but as soon as you register you can see the bid limits that Alex, Peter and Mike propose for each player, and you can post your own comments. Registering is free, so please join us!

What does "tomorrow at 8" mean?  I think it's "tomorrow at 9:30" and I'm not seeing any updates in that spreadsheet ...

Howard Lynch LynchMob
May 13

Here's the Google doc for the XFL 1999 retro draft tomorrow at 8, if you want to follow along.

Alex Patton Alex
May 13

But only 79 strikeouts, if I remember correctly, making it hard to compete in that category.

Peter Kreutzer Rotoman
May 11

But those 73 IP in 1990 did go a long way, a very long way.

For reference while I was drafting last Monday, I added a column called $Qual.

$Qual = $ERA+$WHIP

Here were the top ten (to two decimals -- every cent counts):

1. Roger Clemens $28.23

2. Dave Stewart $21.76

3. Dennis Eckersley $21.76

4. Doug Drabek $21.43

5. Danny Darwin $20.85

6. Frank Viola $19.88

7.Dennis Martinez $19.36

8. Ed Whitsom $19.29

9. Zane Smith $19.29

10. Ramon Martinez $18.54

Hard to believe, but Eck in 1990 helped a team, any team, as much with his 73 innings as Dave Stewart with his 267.

I used 3.79 as the average ERA and 1.34 as the average WHIP. That's what the combined stats of the 338 pitchers we had to choose from calculated as.

If I had calculated the ERA and WHIP of the top 108 pitchers, both numbers would be substantially lower, of course.

But it doesn't matter. Whatever benchmark you use, the pitchers line up in exactly the same order. Any way you cut it, Eck was better than all but two starting pitchers in the qualitatives in 1990. He loses out to Stewart in the third-decimal tiebreaker (21.764 to 21.756). 


Alex Patton Alex
May 10

The Eck drawback is that as great as he was he's a 3-cat player, and 73 IP only go so far as a decimals edge. I too would have taken Sandberg #2, slight edge over Bonds who had a slight edge over Rickey imo. That said, I was surprised that Eck went as late as he did. Picking later in the first round and anytime in the second, it's rare that anything unique is available, and I would have taken Eck. But to do that you pretty much have to dump a cat right then. Otherwise there are too many balls to juggle, which was my problem. You live you learn.

Gene McCaffrey GeneM
May 9

Lynchmob, my dollar value generator tells me what the player earned in monetary terms, but it is calibrated to price projections. Nobody has a 56 save projection or a .61 ERA and Ratio. So Eck and Thiggy are super valuable, but are they more valuable than Sandberg? I have to admit I was too chicken to find out. If we were to do this again for 1990 and I had the third pick it would be interesting to start out with Eck. I'm just not sure how I'd go from there building out a team.

One thought: If you start with 50 saves you win the category without having to get so many actual closers. So you can pick hitters for the next 10 rounds, or maybe one good qualitative bad wins/Ks starter. 

And to your point, if Erickson had taken Eck to start he likely would have landed Fielder in the second round. Same difference.

As for Sandberg, those dollar values are pure value of the stats, no position adjustment made, though saves and steals are valued less than the other categories. (And obviously I chose to make a position adjustment for Savers when drafting.) I took Sandberg as best available hitter, glad to get the position advantage, because that was his value.

FInal thought: I followed my dollar values (proxies for rankings) more closely in this draft and did better. One place where I failed, however, was in using the values to fill out outfielders and utility before filling MI, leaving me in a less flexible and ultimately losing spot. The rankings/dollar values are a great guide and contain info we have a hard time synthesizing, but the exercise definitely relies on strategic forethought and then adjustments depending on circumstances. 

Peter Kreutzer Rotoman
May 9

Check this thread eight days ago: you'll see Gene (who had the first pick) and me placing bets on when Eck would go.

I can tell you when Eck seemed to be coming back to me in the second round, I was getting pretty excited.

Yes, we could just as easily use points. The idea is to put players in a ranking at each position -- and then once the gun sounds, all that goes to hell.

That's what has taken me two failed rounds to learn.

Why didn't I learn it after one round?

Why didn't I figure it out before round one? I keep asking myself that. Because that's when you have an edge. Now all of us have sharpened our games. After a mere two rounds all of us are in Stage Three.

Have we learned anything about baseball?

No, none.

But we are learning things about this particular very subtle, super challenging game. It would be a completely different game (not nearly as challenging but probably still fun) if we couldn't look at the standings after each pick, but we can and we do.

I'll be playing it again in two weeks. Peter and Tim are playing next week They're younger, need fewer days between starts.

Alex Patton Alex
May 9

With the 3rd and 4th picks, you both (Peter, then Alex) passed on the player you both agree was the 2nd most valuable player (so you didn't believe your values?) ... as did everyone else in the 1st round (which also suggests an issue with your values, perhaps)!  But he didn't last until your 2nd pick ... interesting (to me) to note that the owner who did take Eck with his 2nd pick took a player with his first pick (#6 overall) that neither of you value in Top 12 (Fielder) ...

I assume Peter took Sandberg due to "hidden" value related to "position scarcity" ... so ... uh ... Alex ... how do you explain taking the guy you valued at $40 over the guy you valued at $41?  (you really didn't believe in your values?)

And for the purposes of a "draft" ... isn't "points gained" a better (more applicable) metric than "dollars"?  I get that they are equivalent ... I'm just saying that there's no need to translate "points gained" into dollars if your not going into an auction ...

Howard Lynch LynchMob
May 8

That's good, isn't it, Peter?

We have different travel routes but get to similar destinations for most players.

Biggest discrepancy I see is you have Eck a little higher, Thiggy substantially lower.

What price did you have for Ramon Martinez and Viola?

Alex Patton Alex
May 8

Hmmm. My top 12:

Clemens $54 (1)

Eckersley $48 (19)

Henderson $45 (2)

Sandberg   $41 (3)

Bonds $38 (5)

Dave Stewart $38 (7)

Drabek $37 (22)

Gant $37 (8)

Murray $35 (12)

Thigpen $34 (29)

Dykstra $34 (24)

Danny Darwin $33 (43)

Peter Kreutzer Rotoman
May 8