Mentioning undrafted players

[seventieslord]

This is going to be controversial I’m sure, but here goes.

We have always had a rule to not mention undrafted players in the ATD. My question is…. Why?

I mean, yes, I understand why. We are in competition and we don’t want to upset one GM by giving another GM the idea to select a player that the first guy was after. If you’re all about the competition aspect of this draft, then I don’t think you could be convinced of this.

But, if you are more about the collaborative effort to recognize the best players above all else, making sure the best selections rise to the top and the worst ones fall, mentioning undrafted players could be a great thing.

No one would fall too far beyond where they should fall, and it’s much less likely that people make extreme reaches when they can vet the pick by asking out loud about him first. (I say less likely because obviously each GM can still draft as they see fit, whether they ask or not, and whether or not we all recommend against it). No more strategizing about whether you should take a better player who might fall to next round or the worse player who tend to get selected around now.

It’s not a perfect idea, but I’d be interested in openly discussing this and seeing what everyone’s thoughts are.

Click to read more...

 

[ResilientBeast]

This is going to be controversial I’m sure, but here goes.

We have always had a rule to not mention undrafted players in the ATD. My question is…. Why?

I mean, yes, I understand why. We are in competition and we don’t want to upset one GM by giving another GM the idea to select a player that the first guy was after. If you’re all about the competition aspect of this draft, then I don’t think you could be convinced of this.

But, if you are more about the collaborative effort to recognize the best players above all else, making sure the best selections rise to the top and the worst ones fall, mentioning undrafted players could be a great thing.

No one would fall too far beyond where they should fall, and it’s much less likely that people make extreme reaches when they can vet the pick by asking out loud about him first. (I say less likely because obviously each GM can still draft as they see fit, whether they ask or not, and whether we all recommend against it). No more strategizing about whether you should take a better player who might fall to next round or the worse player who tend to get selected around now.

It’s not a perfect idea, but I’d be interested in openly discussing this and seeing what everyone’s thoughts are.

I think this is half the fun of ATD...you need to commit to your plan and be willing to defend it if you go far. Crowd sourcing your picks doesn't seem to really fit the goals of ATD. I ask other/former gms for advice for time to time but I don't think removing this rule would be beneficial.

 

[jarek]

I think this is half the fun of ATD...you need to commit to your plan and be willing to defend it if you go far. Crowd sourcing your picks doesn't seem to really fit the goals of ATD. I ask other/former gms for advice for time to time but I don't think removing this rule would be beneficial.

People already crowd source their picks, they just do it via PM. Changing this rule won't change much. The people who go with their plan without getting the advice of other GMs will continue to do that, while the GMs getting advice will simply do so publicly instead of privately.

Maybe a fair compromise is to create a separate thread specifically for talking about potential selections?

 

[ResilientBeast]

Well I don't know because if someone had fallen and then another gm mentioned him changing someone else's pick because of it I'd be pretty annoyed. I think the lineup advice thread kind of does this, people ask about what kind of player they need.

 

[jarek]

Well I don't know because if someone had fallen and then another gm mentioned him changing someone else's pick because of it I'd be pretty annoyed. I think the lineup advice thread kind of does this, people ask about what kind of player they need.

Is that really a problem anymore? It might be when it comes to rookie GMs who don't necessarily know the best players, but for the vets, I mean, everyone knows who is available.

The first thing I do during a draft is copy and paste the previous year's draft list into a notepad file and remove names as they get taken. This gives me a rough idea of who is available. I also make note of modern players who had big years to see where certain jumps may be justified. At least for me, there isn't a pick that anyone could make that would take me off guard.

I suppose the biggest issue would be if someone was talking about taking, say, a goalie, and you were thinking of taking one with a near future pick but thought you might wait until your next one thinking someone would fall. That information might influence you to go a certain way.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Is that really a problem anymore? It might be when it comes to rookie GMs who don't necessarily know the best players, but for the vets, I mean, everyone knows who is available.

The first thing I do during a draft is copy and paste the previous year's draft list into a notepad file and remove names as they get taken. This gives me a rough idea of who is available. I also make note of modern players who had big years to see where certain jumps may be justified. At least for me, there isn't a pick that anyone could make that would take me off guard.

I suppose the biggest issue would be if someone was talking about taking, say, a goalie, and you were thinking of taking one with a near future pick but thought you might wait until your next one thinking someone would fall. That information might influence you to go a certain way.

If the draft list was supposed to be a ranked list of the top 550 players of all time then I'd be more accepting. But it's not. It's a team research project where team needs reign king over value in some cases and the end goal of is to construct the best team. Even last years champion had two back to back picks which in hindsight were steals and had anyone suggested that player openly could've changed the entire flow of the draft.

 

[Elvis P]

Is that really a problem anymore? It might be when it comes to rookie GMs who don't necessarily know the best players, but for the vets, I mean, everyone knows who is available.

The first thing I do during a draft is copy and paste the previous year's draft list into a notepad file and remove names as they get taken. This gives me a rough idea of who is available. I also make note of modern players who had big years to see where certain jumps may be justified. At least for me, there isn't a pick that anyone could make that would take me off guard.

I suppose the biggest issue would be if someone was talking about taking, say, a goalie, and you were thinking of taking one with a near future pick but thought you might wait until your next one thinking someone would fall. That information might influence you to go a certain way.

Agreed with all this. Everyone has access to the last year's draft list to see who was taken when and to the HoH projects. We already have an advice thread and GMs already advise each other through pm. It's about building the best team and other GMs openly telling you the BPA on the board won't change anything, because they may be wrong, it may not be the best fit for your team, and you still have to make all the decisions about who to listen to, and those decisions may be right or wrong.

 

[VanIslander]

i agree with ResilentBeast, jarek and Wrigley.

Let's continue NOT mentioning undrafteds!! during the draft!!

Over three-quarters of the year we could scrutinize - maybe have a special thread for PROVIDING INFORMATION to argue for the earlier drafting of certain players over others, though one has to think of all factors, as this is a team-building exercise.

As I teach my students:

A is taller than B, B is taller than C, so,... by the standard of (not deviant - there is a field of study called deviant logic) LOGIC... A is taller than C.

Yet scissors beats paper and paper beats rock so.... (NO SO! It does not follow that...) scissors beats rock? No. It's because the characteristic (the property of height) differs in each case. Just like how one sports team can beat another and that other team can beat a third team but the top team can rarely seem to beat the third team!


So,.., let's not argue for the value of one RWer over another RWer PRIOR to their drafting (this is NOT the HOH list), and instead evaluate the picks AFTER THE FACT relative to their team and the characteristics the players bring compared to other options they had.

I think seventieslord's essential concern can be addressed by having a post-draft voting process: the worst picks of each round; the best picks of each round. And POST the results of that discussion and voting process in the sign-up and first draft thread of the subsequent ATD.

 

[Elvis P]

Here's a benefit of this. There are 2 players who played the same position for the same team. One is drafted and the other is undrafted. I would love to ask the board to compare and contrast them, but I can't now because one is undrafted and if I take him it would appear to be a lame attempt to pump up my own player so I won't do it.

 

[Leaf Lander]

Yeah I'm sure you guys won't try to steer people wrong

 

[Leaf Lander]

If they drop 50 spots you can mention it.

 

[VanIslander]

Here's a benefit of this. There are 2 players who played the same position for the same team. One is drafted and the other is undrafted. I would love to ask the board to compare and contrast them, but I can't now because one is undrafted and if I take him it would appear to be a lame attempt to pump up my own player so I won't do it.

GMs pump their own players... that's part of what happens: argue for your picks. No one is more motivated to present info and make a claim than the guy who drafted him!

It would be lame if one just threw attitude and didn't provide any info in support (e.g., quotes, stats, analysis, etc).

 

[Leaf Lander]

And some gms have a Bias against certain gms and Teams no matter what great players they have assembled

 

[King Forsberg]

I have a concern which I don't think would occur that much and could easily have rules based on it.

Say I'm on the clock and say Im thinking about taking Rod Langway. Now say I know other people want Rod Langway and I make a post like this:

With my pick here #NN, I'm thinking of taking Rod Langway, D.

Now with that pump fake of a post two things can happen. One, (which occurs now through PMs) if anyone wants Rod Langway I have all the leverage in a trade.

Two, let's say the next person up sees that post and thinks that's who I actually picked as opposed to who I am thinking about taking and makes a post saying

With pick #NN+1, I'll take Scott Neidermayer, D.

Now everyone, including me can see who they want. Again now I have all the leverage in a trade with that person AND anyone who wants Scott Niedermayer.

Now even though the trades have to be approved, they can still be slightly favored towards me. And for the 10 minutes it may take to make that initial post and make a trade it's worth it since I'll be getting the advantage every time.

 

[JFA87-66-99]

This rule is stupid and I think by now every GM knows who dropped and who's still on the board. I realized this when I was writing about Punch Broadbent playing on the wing with Mario Lemieux. I wanted to compare him to a better Kevin Stevens or Rick Tocchet but couldn't because of this rule. Also it would be nice to read bios without all the xxxxxx and undrafted etc

 

[jarek]

This rule is stupid and I think by now every GM knows who dropped and who's still on the board. I realized this when I was writing about Punch Broadbent playing on the wing with Mario Lemieux. I wanted to compare him to a better Kevin Stevens or Rick Tocchet but couldn't because of this rule. Also it would be nice to read bios without all the xxxxxx and undrafted etc

Well at least as far as bios are concerned, I never censor player names anymore.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Yea the undrafted rule no longer extends to bios, that was a TDMM crusade

 

[JFA87-66-99]

Yea the undrafted rule no longer extends to bios, that was a TDMM crusade

But a lot of the old bios on the master thread

 

[ResilientBeast]

But a lot of the old bios on the master thread

Well there's little we can do about those now really

 

[BraveCanadian]

Yea the undrafted rule no longer extends to bios, that was a TDMM crusade

Which is good.. dropping names in bios was pants on head level stupid.