*** VD 7 Commentary Thread ***

[johnnya24]

I'm not sure I follow. Everyone will have >400 career HRs from even a non-top 5 HR slugger lineup.

Anyone who has more than 400 Hr's will have them capped at 400 (Ruth, Foxx, Gehrig, Ott)

I'll do a 1919 draft if that's what everyone wants. But I can't say I'm looking forward to a dreg draft. 250 deep into the 1870-1939 pool is deep ... 250 deep into the 1870-1919 pool is insane.

Do we still draft 2 catchers?
Do we still use 25 draft slots?

[revo]

Anyone who has more than 400 Hr's will have them capped at 400 (Ruth, Foxx, Gehrig, Ott)

I'm not trying to have Career HRs neutered, which is what this would do (I mean, what fun is it to get Ruth and just 400 HRs?) But those five, if the period is 1875-1939, would give their drafters a big advantage. I don't really like your solution.

I do like simply pushing the era back to 1919 and forbidding Ruth being drafted as a hitter. And then all the big 1920s/1930s sluggers get a lesser advantage by getting tossed into the pot with those of the 40s, 50s and 60s. Doing that would also get a lot of 1920s and 1930s pitchers drafted, which they would most certainly not under the current format.

[johnnya24]

If we are going with 1870-1919 we should really think about dropping HR's. Apart from a couple of 1920's players with crappy 1910's BY's, Roger Connor is the HR king with 138 career Hr's. In fact, one of Hornsby's crappy 1910's years would make him more valuable than Ruth's 700 HR's in an unrestricted 1970's-1939 draft. His 301 Hr's are more than double the best legit HR hitter from this period.

BY Hr's will be a completely pointless and silly category.

If we could replace Hr with Total Bases, OPS something, that would be more appropriate. But we don't have the stats on the SS.

[heyelander]

where is the original speadsheet data from? seems like it should be an easy vlookup to add in total bases, but I'm not sure where the raw file came from.

edit:

looks like they came from here:

http://seanlahman.com/baseball-archive/statistics/

the hitters sheet won't load on my old-timey version of excel though... too many rows.

[johnnya24]

where is the original speadsheet data from? seems like it should be an easy vlookup to add in total bases, but I'm not sure where the raw file came from.

It's from the Lahman database.

I downloaded the latest version (MS Access) ... it has all the necessary stats, but it also has every single year for every single player (96600 records!) ... excel won't like that ... the current SS only has about 4000 records for BY hitting.

[Pogues]

I wish I had Access...I'd start cutting those lists down. Seems like a good thing to do over a day.

Walk to computer. Insert a command. Walk away for 30 minutes.

Repeat.

[johnnya24]

I wish I had Access...I'd start cutting those lists down. Seems like a good thing to do over a day.

Walk to computer. Insert a command. Walk away for 30 minutes.

Repeat.

I can export it to excel if you wanna play. Also has franchise codes etc.

[johnnya24]

I would like to do it chronologically, but it reality it makes no difference. I like Diablo's idea of starting with 1920-69, and then figuring out what to do about 1870-1919 for later. Because that period fits nicely with out scoring system (speed runs from this period, power production from later), we forget it was a very different game and 5x5 standard roto makes no sense.

It would be really interesting to find a new 10x10 structure that fits the era, but we need to upgrade the SS, and that will take time (something I don't have lot of right now)

[revo]

I would like to do it chronologically, but it reality it makes no difference. I like Diablo's idea of starting with 1920-69, and then figuring out what to do about 1870-1919 for later. Because that period fits nicely with out scoring system (speed runs from this period, power production from later), we forget it was a very different game and 5x5 standard roto makes no sense.

It would be really interesting to find a new 10x10 structure that fits the era, but we need to upgrade the SS, and that will take time (something I don't have lot of right now)

So let's start with 1970-2012 and work our way backwards.

[johnnya24]

So let's start with 1970-2012 and work our way backwards.

Ya'ok

[heyelander]

So let's start with 1970-2012 and work our way backwards.

Sweet... I'm taking Walter Johnson in the 12th round and following it up with Ruth in the 13th. You all are toast.

[heyelander]

Would limited letter requirements bring anything interesting to the draft? Only 2 players per letter max?

[Pogues]

I can export it to excel if you wanna play. Also has franchise codes etc.

I used the comma csv thing...what's disappointing is I can't find a way to get the career stats.

[johnnya24]

I changed the draft to 1970-2013

1. We should keep the KO's from VD6 I suppose ... if we are going with a no-restrictions draft, having some KO's should be OK.

2. The scoring system is interesting. If you remove the Multi+1, I still win with my ratio punt (we didn't think it was possible to win a Multi draft with a 3 or 4 category punt). I don't think my performance at the last draft is really any real indicator, because I managed to average 11.1 across the other 16 categories, which is ridiculous.

When I reduce the Multi+1 to Multi+0.8, and then Multi+0.5, it reduces the margin of victory between myself and Controller, but we are still miles away from the field. So it's hard to judge.

I'm thinking that we should modify the scoring to Multi+0.75, and see where it takes us.

[johnnya24]

Would limited letter requirements bring anything interesting to the draft? Only 2 players per letter max?

1970-2013 can probably handle 25 rounds (250-260 players) and 6 KO's (60-70 players) ...

Though taking into account position, we should be getting fairly deep into the pool.

Rather than letters we could have a max of 4 players from any one hitting decade, and a max 3 players from any one pitching decade. That would add a little bit of something extra, without being repressive or arbitrary.