along with bill's kind remarks about marvin miller his last response was tremendous

i have used a paraphrase of that line myself so always enjoy seeing it elsewhere

And has told his friends in no uncertain terms that if the Hall of Fame tries to elect him postumously, they are to be told “No, thanks.”

If true, this raises an interesting question: Does Marvin Miller (or his estate) have a choice in the matter? Does the HoF need permission to honor someone with enshrinement?

If true, this raises an interesting question: Does Marvin Miller (or his estate) have a choice in the matter? Does the HoF need permission to honor someone with enshrinement?

I don't think so - I have a vague recollection that after Santo's penultimate living miss, he asked to be removed from the ballot the next year (and missed again, before the posthumous selection).

The embarrassment comes if nobody is willing to give a speech on Miller's behalf although I suppose they must have to handle this occasionally for 19th c players, etc.

On the first point, I once dominated a fantasy league to an awesome extent (luck and possibly being the only guy who fully understood the scoring system it was using). I loaded everybody's teams into DM, turned off injuries and let 'er rip for a few seasons. I'm pretty sure I made it to 140 wins once and many in the 130s and must have averaged in the 120s.

It was a very silly league that fell apart quickly. Keeper league with, I think, 10 teams, universal players, "sabermetric" scoring. My staff was something like Pedro, Brown, Mussina and two other good starters; I had Delgado and Sheffield and maybe Nomar when he was Nomar (or maybe Chipper and Tejada ... something very silly). I recall picking up a young Lance Berkman because nobody else wanted him. That sort of thing.

If true, this raises an interesting question: Does Marvin Miller (or his estate) have a choice in the matter? Does the HoF need permission to honor someone with enshrinement?

This will be an issue when Rose gets voted in posthumously.

It's fascinating to me after all these years, that there's enough variance in baseball that an All-Star team might go only 96-66.

It's fascinating to me after all these years, that there's enough variance in baseball that an All-Star team might go only 96-66.

I wonder if the analysis accounts for just about every regular team losing one or more of its best players.

If true, this raises an interesting question: Does Marvin Miller (or his estate) have a choice in the matter? Does the HoF need permission to honor someone with enshrinement?

Only if they make concessions to the Players' Union in return.

The embarrassment comes if nobody is willing to give a speech on Miller's behalf although I suppose they must have to handle this occasionally for 19th c players, etc.

Why would you think that's a possibility? Lots of players have been speaking in the past few days about their admiration for Miller.

Some things to consider when building a dream team

1) as #7 points out, other teams would be losing their best players
2) There has to be a mental/physical fatigue of playing a team that you KNOW is better than you in every possible aspect. Pitchers having to always face the best hitters up and down the lineup would be grueling.
3) Roster construction - You wouldn't necessarily want 25 allstars. You might consider getting a pure glove defensive replacement for later innings. Things of that nature.
4) A dream team would be managed differently. It would be easier to pull a starter who looks to be "off" that day b/c all your middle relievers would be aces who can give you 6 innings. Platoons / pinch hitting, etc etc.
4.5) Lots of rest for players. Players wouldn't have to play banged up. Their substitutes would be almost equally awesome.

I think 130 wins is definitely doable.

I've built stacked teams in OOTP that aren't as good as an All-Star team, but have a 1990s Braves kind of rotation and a 2000s Yankees kind of offense, and they consistently won 115-125 games a year. Based on that, I'd expect a true All-Star team (intuitively) to win around 120-130. There's not that much value your bench or the bottom of your bullpen can contribute, really.

Chris Dial says he used to get ~120 wins out of the 1975 Reds. I can sort of see it. If you're playing with inning restrictions you use Nolan and Gullett for the good teams insofar as you can arrange it, and you've got a really good bullpen plus good pinch-hitters. On other words, a really good team with an unusually good bench. With easy to identify surrender pitchers for the low leverage innings (Carrol and Kirby)