Darryl
New Member
California Angels
Posts: 2,412
|
Post by Darryl on May 2, 2017 17:26:04 GMT -5
Rickey Henderson looking like a solid number 1 thus far.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on May 3, 2017 6:33:18 GMT -5
of course he is this league is going to have like 6 A/A Speed/Steal guys ever and he's the best rated one probably
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on May 27, 2017 15:08:14 GMT -5
Why is Henderson a Brilliant in hits? His actual stats do not support such a rating, and it's really not close.
He should be Good in hits and Brilliant in walks, with the A/A speed/stealing.
|
|
|
|
Post by bosoxi on May 27, 2017 16:08:15 GMT -5
Why is Henderson a Brilliant in hits? His actual stats do not support such a rating, and it's really not close. He should be Good in hits and Brilliant in walks, with the A/A speed/stealing. shhhh |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on May 27, 2017 16:23:42 GMT -5
I love when teams picking low try to make high pick players worse it doesn't scream self preservation at all  |
|
Matt
Other 
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on May 27, 2017 17:02:53 GMT -5
I love when teams picking low try to make high pick players worse it doesn't scream self preservation at all Because a 279 career average should be brilliant? I mean he's no Jim Rice, but seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on May 27, 2017 17:19:27 GMT -5
I love when teams picking low try to make high pick players worse it doesn't scream self preservation at all Because a 279 career average should be brilliant? I mean he's no Jim Rice, but seriously. A lot of respect for you for admitting that, given he is the guy you will likely be selecting. I tend to air on the side that we need to bump up a guy or two each year, or make sure the stars have a chance to be stars in this league. That said, I can't justify giving a career .279 hitter a Brilliant rating. The highest Good average is .312 on the chart. So he'd have to be somewhere near that to be considered for Brilliant. He is actually closer to being Average, than Brilliant. And me knocking down the hit rating of ONE player isn't "preserving" anything for me. If it helps you sleep at night, I feel like Dave Stewart should probably have a Brilliant rating somewhere. Haven't had time to look and see if there is a case for that, but he was a darn good pitcher. I'd like to see him have at least one Brilliant rating. So self preserve that. |
|
Matt
Other
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on May 27, 2017 17:48:02 GMT -5
He'll get franchised. I Don't have a shot at him.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on May 27, 2017 20:33:31 GMT -5
Forgot about that.
|
|
Matt
Other
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on May 27, 2017 21:34:22 GMT -5
I Do agree on Stewart though. Not sure what to gripe about though.
|
|
bigmark
General Manager 
Chicago White Sox
Posts: 6,177
|
Post by bigmark on May 28, 2017 5:21:47 GMT -5
Agreed on Henderson not being brilliant...also would like to see Stewart n Morris slightly better
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on May 28, 2017 7:10:16 GMT -5
Made several changes, including:
Hitters
Wade Boggs: Boosted 2B to B
Rickey Hendersen: Downgraded AVG to G; Boosted 2B and 3B to G
Pitchers
Dave Stewart: Boosted 2B/HR to B; Lowered Walks to A; Boosted Velo to 8
Jack Morris: Boosted K to G
Danny Darwin: Boosted BB to B (lower actual)
John Tudor: Boosted BB to B (lower actual)
Rick Honeycutt: Boosted HR to B (lower actual)
|
|
Darryl
New Member
California Angels
Posts: 2,412
|
Post by Darryl on May 28, 2017 9:47:48 GMT -5
Made several changes, including: Hitters Wade Boggs: Boosted 2B to B Rickey Hendersen: Downgraded AVG to G; Boosted 2B and 3B to G Pitchers Dave Stewart: Boosted 2B/HR to B; Lowered Walks to A; Boosted Velo to 8 Jack Morris: Boosted K to G Danny Darwin: Boosted BB to B (lower actual) John Tudor: Boosted BB to B (lower actual) Rick Honeycutt: Boosted HR to B (lower actual) Hi Chris, Henderson should be brilliant based on a PM exchange we had several classes back where we agreed that any player with 3000 hits, 500 homers and 3000 K for pitchers would get a brilliant in that stat. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2017 9:58:47 GMT -5
Made several changes, including: Hitters Wade Boggs: Boosted 2B to B Rickey Hendersen: Downgraded AVG to G; Boosted 2B and 3B to G Pitchers Dave Stewart: Boosted 2B/HR to B; Lowered Walks to A; Boosted Velo to 8 Jack Morris: Boosted K to G Danny Darwin: Boosted BB to B (lower actual) John Tudor: Boosted BB to B (lower actual) Rick Honeycutt: Boosted HR to B (lower actual) Hi Chris, Henderson should be brilliant based on a PM exchange we had several classes back where we agreed that any player with 3000 hits, 500 homers and 3000 K for pitchers would get a brilliant in that stat. I wasn't privy to that conversation, but we are turning longevity in to BR ratings now? Just because you stuck around long enough to get 3000 hits shouldn't equate to an automatic BR hits rating imo. |
|
Darryl
New Member
California Angels
Posts: 2,412
|
Post by Darryl on May 28, 2017 10:09:30 GMT -5
Hi Chris, Henderson should be brilliant based on a PM exchange we had several classes back where we agreed that any player with 3000 hits, 500 homers and 3000 K for pitchers would get a brilliant in that stat. I wasn't privy to that conversation, but we are turning longevity in to BR ratings now? Just because you stuck around long enough to get 3000 hits shouldn't equate to an automatic BR hits rating imo. In order to give the players who achieved those goals a shot at attaining them?Yes. In order to stick around that long you have to be a pretty special player. Just coming back each year and hanging on isn't enough to attain those numbers. Those type of guys (ex. Vizquel and Staub) won't benefit from this. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on May 28, 2017 11:55:58 GMT -5
I was so happy Johnny Damon didn't reach 3k hits after sticking around way too long trying to get there.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on May 28, 2017 13:48:46 GMT -5
Made several changes, including: Hitters Wade Boggs: Boosted 2B to B Rickey Hendersen: Downgraded AVG to G; Boosted 2B and 3B to G Pitchers Dave Stewart: Boosted 2B/HR to B; Lowered Walks to A; Boosted Velo to 8 Jack Morris: Boosted K to G Danny Darwin: Boosted BB to B (lower actual) John Tudor: Boosted BB to B (lower actual) Rick Honeycutt: Boosted HR to B (lower actual) Hi Chris, Henderson should be brilliant based on a PM exchange we had several classes back where we agreed that any player with 3000 hits, 500 homers and 3000 K for pitchers would get a brilliant in that stat. That's a silly way to go about it, IMO. I'd rather give them the ratings and talents that allow them to achieve their "average" season. |
|
Darryl
New Member
California Angels
Posts: 2,412
|
Post by Darryl on May 28, 2017 14:50:59 GMT -5
Hi Chris, Henderson should be brilliant based on a PM exchange we had several classes back where we agreed that any player with 3000 hits, 500 homers and 3000 K for pitchers would get a brilliant in that stat. That's a silly way to go about it, IMO. I'd rather give them the ratings and talents that allow them to achieve their "average" season. More thought behind this then simply saying I think this guy should be better with no reasoning at all. |
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on May 28, 2017 15:40:42 GMT -5
That's a silly way to go about it, IMO. I'd rather give them the ratings and talents that allow them to achieve their "average" season. More thought behind this then simply saying I think this guy should be better with no reasoning at all. I'm against that method too. I thought we had agreed to stick primarily with the chart, and in some circumstances where it's close, we might give a star player the benefit of the doubt. |
|
Darryl
New Member
California Angels
Posts: 2,412
|
Post by Darryl on May 28, 2017 17:17:13 GMT -5
More thought behind this then simply saying I think this guy should be better with no reasoning at all. I'm against that method too. I thought we had agreed to stick primarily with the chart, and in some circumstances where it's close, we might give a star player the benefit of the doubt. Those are the only things that get upgraded in an effort to give them a shot at matching what they did in their careers. Every player beyond that I run their career numbers through a calculator and slot them via the ratings chart. |
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on May 28, 2017 18:07:51 GMT -5
I guess you have to decide which is more important.....getting their average annual stats right, or having them try to hit their career stats.
I'm clearly on the average annual stats side.
|
|
Darryl
New Member
California Angels
Posts: 2,412
|
Post by Darryl on May 28, 2017 18:58:52 GMT -5
I guess you have to decide which is more important.....getting their average annual stats right, or having them try to hit their career stats. I'm clearly on the average annual stats side. I like giving them a chance to hit their peak as opposed to their peak being just their average season. |
|
|
|
Post by Sha-Le Unique on May 28, 2017 20:36:43 GMT -5
I guess you have to decide which is more important.....getting their average annual stats right, or having them try to hit their career stats. I'm clearly on the average annual stats side. I try to be somewhere in the middle. I look at mostly yearly stats and if they had like at least a 5-year peak of being elite and/or played long 15+ season carers in reality, then I'll likely give the benefit of doubt. It's a case by case thing for me. Each player has his own rep. You'll expect better ratings from some than others and ideally, we try to make it as accurate as possible. Everyone also has their own personal preferences with how ratings should look like in general. I might think 30 homers a season for a player counts as brilliant, but someone else believes it should start at 35, for example. It's good though that we are discussing this stuff more and this is by far the most peaceful draft discussion I've seen in a while. |
|
|
|
Post by Sha-Le Unique on May 28, 2017 20:40:16 GMT -5
I also agree with Rickey not having brilliant hits. I didn't give him brilliant hits in LBB and when it comes to the 3.000 hit club getting brilliant hits, most should really get them if they showed at least 7-8 full seasons of over .310-.315 hitting in my opinion. Maybe 5-6 seasons if a shorter career.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on May 28, 2017 20:56:00 GMT -5
I guess you have to decide which is more important.....getting their average annual stats right, or having them try to hit their career stats. I'm clearly on the average annual stats side. I try to be somewhere in the middle. I look at mostly yearly stats and if they had like at least a 5-year peak of being elite and/or played long 15+ season carers in reality, then I'll likely give the benefit of doubt. It's a case by case thing for me. Each player has his own rep. You'll expect better ratings from some than others and ideally, we try to make it as accurate as possible. Everyone also has their own personal preferences with how ratings should look like in general. I might think 30 homers a season for a player counts as brilliant, but someone else believes it should start at 35, for example. It's good though that we are discussing this stuff more and this is by far the most peaceful draft discussion I've seen in a while. I don't think I phrased my prior response very well. I get what you are saying, and I agree. It's not so much the "average season" as it is where was he during the peak of his career, and did he sustain that production long enough to warrant the higher talent. I get that and agree. And like you note, with Ricky, it's still a no. He only had 2-3 seasons I believe with a batting average of > .300. |
|
