Posted by Galeg on 3/14/2019 6:51:00 PM (view original):
How much is slot money for each slot?

1. 4,000,000
2. 3,910,000
3. 3,820,000
4. 3,720,000
5. 3,630,000
6. 3,540,000
7. 3,440,000
8. 3,350,000
9. 3,250,000
10. 3,160,000
11. 3,070,000
12. 2,970,000
13. 2,880,000
14. 2,790,000
15. 2,690,000
16. 2,600,000
17. 2,500,000
18. 2,410,000
19. 2,320,000
20. 2,220,000
21. 2,130,000
22. 2,040,000
23. 1,940,000
24. 1,850,000
25. 1,750,000
26. 1,660,000
27. 1,570,000
28. 1,470,000
29. 1,380,000
30. 1,290,000
31. 1,190,000
32. 1,100,000
33. 1,000,000
34. 960,000
35. 920,000
36. 880,000
37. 840,000
38. 800,000
39. 760,000
40. 720,000
41. 680,000
42. 640,000
Rest of Supplemental round - 600,000
2nd round - 550,000
3rd round - 425,000
4th - 350,000
5th - 250,000
6th - 100,000
7th - 90,000
8th - 80,000
9th - 67,500
10th - 55,000
11th - 40,000
12th - 35,000
13th - 32,500
14th - 30,000
15th - 28,000
16th - 25,000
17th - 22,500
18th - 20,000
19th - 19,000
20th - 18,000
21st - 17,500
22nd - 17,000
23rd - 16,500
24th - 16,000
25th - 15,000

Posted by tlowster on 3/14/2019 8:49:00 PM (view original):
Well, it blew my mind this past season in Earl Weaver. Not sure how I can be 2nd in all pitching categories and 11th in Offensive OPS, but still be five games under 500. But, I guess if my batters were beating up on crappy mopup guys or below replacement level pitchers all season, it makes more sense. Yet, it doesn't make me fell any better.

Did you look at your stats for the league you are in only? If not, it can help to give better context to the numbers.

Posted by joekendall on 3/15/2019 9:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tlowster on 3/14/2019 8:49:00 PM (view original):
Well, it blew my mind this past season in Earl Weaver. Not sure how I can be 2nd in all pitching categories and 11th in Offensive OPS, but still be five games under 500. But, I guess if my batters were beating up on crappy mopup guys or below replacement level pitchers all season, it makes more sense. Yet, it doesn't make me fell any better.

Did you look at your stats for the league you are in only? If not, it can help to give better context to the numbers.

I looked at the team stats and player stats for my Earl Weaver league - both AL and NL. I know that other worlds may be better or worse, but, in my opinion, any league where you are 2nd in all major pitching categories and 11th in ops on offense, you should at least be a 500 team. I will look at other worlds stats, but I doubt I'll find a team that is near the top in pitching or batting and top twelve in the other category, but is still under 500 from a win/loss perspective. I really do think it was luck and I am venting about it - probably venting too much...lol.

Posted by tlowster on 3/15/2019 10:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by joekendall on 3/15/2019 9:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tlowster on 3/14/2019 8:49:00 PM (view original):
Well, it blew my mind this past season in Earl Weaver. Not sure how I can be 2nd in all pitching categories and 11th in Offensive OPS, but still be five games under 500. But, I guess if my batters were beating up on crappy mopup guys or below replacement level pitchers all season, it makes more sense. Yet, it doesn't make me fell any better.

Did you look at your stats for the league you are in only? If not, it can help to give better context to the numbers.

I looked at the team stats and player stats for my Earl Weaver league - both AL and NL. I know that other worlds may be better or worse, but, in my opinion, any league where you are 2nd in all major pitching categories and 11th in ops on offense, you should at least be a 500 team. I will look at other worlds stats, but I doubt I'll find a team that is near the top in pitching or batting and top twelve in the other category, but is still under 500 from a win/loss perspective. I really do think it was luck and I am venting about it - probably venting too much...lol.

When I said league, I meant NL or AL. Earl Weaver according to WiS nomenclature is a World. Sorry for the confusion.

This world must have one of the largest talent gaps between AL and NL. The worst team in the AL didn't hit minimum win rule, but if he were in the NL, he probably would have been close to 500. I would say eleven of the sixteen teams in the AL have the talent to be a playoff team in most worlds.

Posted by tlowster on 3/13/2019 9:57:00 PM (view original):
Perfectly reasonable explanation.

Can somebody explain how a team that has an expected winning percentage of .576, ends up with an actual winning percentage of .469? My guess is that there are a lot of factors at play as well. My Wichita team in Earl Weaver was 2nd in the MLB in ERA, WHIP, Slugging given up, and OBP given up. First in the AL in runs given up. Also, was above average in every major hitting category. They were not world beaters at the plate, but they OPS'd .761 as a team at the plate this season.

I suppose it could be just dumb luck (1-run game record was 15-30). It could be that the AL that I am in is the most competitive league I have ever been in. Five of the six playoff teams are the same every year, but even the guys that don't make it are still full of talent up and down their line up and pitching staff. It could be that I was fifth in the league at GIDP (on offense) and first in the league in caught stealing (on offense) and maybe the games that I lost by one or two runs were the games where I had guys get caught stealing in high leverage spots or I had a guy up with the bases loaded and one out and he grounds into a double play.

I am probably just coming across as whiny here, but having a 0.060 difference between your expected winning percentage and your actual winning percentage is bad luck. Having a .107 difference is downright ridiculous. It would be easier to swallow if I had an explanation. Has anybody else ever seen a .107+ bad luck season where your expected winning pct is that much higher than your actual?

Final Line:

Team	Owner	W-L	PCT	GB	Division	1-Run Games	Extra Inning	Spring Training	RS	RA	Exp PCT
Honolulu Lunas	dewersansoda	99-63	.611	-	20-10	22-16	8-6	7-11	881	702	.607
Wichita Seven Nation Army	tlowster *	76-86	.469	23.0	14-16	15-30	8-9	8-10	769	652	.576

15—30 in one-run games indicates to me that your bullpen, bench players, and perhaps fielding probably suck. My guess is your team probably struggles to hold a lead, and rarely manufactures a late score to win a game.

Here's one that I can't remember - If a player drafted using a type A compensation pick (not supplemental round) refuses to sign, is type D compensation awarded?

Posted by shobob on 3/18/2019 4:25:00 PM (view original):
Here's one that I can't remember - If a player drafted using a type A compensation pick (not supplemental round) refuses to sign, is type D compensation awarded?

No comp picks for comp picks.

Posted by Vitamin_C on 3/18/2019 6:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shobob on 3/18/2019 4:25:00 PM (view original):
Here's one that I can't remember - If a player drafted using a type A compensation pick (not supplemental round) refuses to sign, is type D compensation awarded?

No comp picks for comp picks.

I have definitely "pushed forward" type D comp picks multiple seasons. I was hoping that the same could be done with type A

Okay, I put the work in. Look at Yaz world's s17 + s18 drafts, for Washington. It seems like a type A that refuses to sign does earn a type D

Posted by shobob on 3/19/2019 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Okay, I put the work in. Look at Yaz world's s17 + s18 drafts, for Washington. It seems like a type A that refuses to sign does earn a type D

Technically I suppose pick 29 is a "comp pick" but I guess I was considering "comp picks" as those picks 33-whatever before round 2.
I've never seen those picks garner a comp pick.

Posted by shobob on 3/19/2019 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Vitamin_C on 3/18/2019 6:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shobob on 3/18/2019 4:25:00 PM (view original):
Here's one that I can't remember - If a player drafted using a type A compensation pick (not supplemental round) refuses to sign, is type D compensation awarded?

No comp picks for comp picks.

I have definitely "pushed forward" type D comp picks multiple seasons. I was hoping that the same could be done with type A

I'd be interested in being pointed to an example of a type D getting "pushed forward".

Let's say you have the #1 overall. You don't sign him and next season you have the #1 again. For that draft you will have the natural #1 and also the Type D which will be slotted in the #2 position.

So, you sign the Type D @#2 but also don't sign the natural #1 again.

You will get another Type D, but only because the guy you didn't sign was a natural slot and not the type D.

Pretty certain if in the above example, you sign the natural #1, and fail to sign the #2 (Type D), you will not get a comp for THAT pick.

If there is an example which proves that to be incorrect I'd love to see it.

I've done it but can't prove it unless you join Yaz world, because in order to look at previous season's amateur draft order you need to be a member of the world

Posted by shobob on 3/19/2019 7:45:00 PM (view original):
I've done it but can't prove it unless you join Yaz world, because in order to look at previous season's amateur draft order you need to be a member of the world

I went back and checked my other world and you are correct!

Wow, I have always been under the impression that comp picks did not garner comp picks. This is a pretty eye-opening thing to learn.

Thanks for the diligence!

This only means the Type A pick where you take over somebody's regular draft pick correct? This doesn't mean the actual supplemental pick you get correct?