*** VD 14 Commentary Thread ***

[Ken]

We had apostrophe issues.

No updates yet on EE and Trout for the SF issue I noted (that I probably caused)

[johnnya24]

No updates yet on EE and Trout for the SF issue I noted (that I probably caused)

Uhhh ... not sure what this is ... I must have missed your post.

[Ken]

Uhhh ... not sure what this is ... I must have missed your post.

No problem - you had asked for a double check on the spreadsheet vs an outside source. I confirmed it is 99% correct with just a few small changes (that should *not* change the standings significantly).

http://forum.rotojunkiefix.com/showthread.php/17246-***-VD-14-Commentary-Thread-***?p=373869&highlight=trout#post373869

[heyelander]

Because it's slightly older

If you download the latest version all that is fixed.

I'm trying not to D/L a ton of random stuff to my work computer.

is there a quick fix? I don't see any reason the lookup would be pissed

[johnnya24]

I'm trying not to D/L a ton of random stuff to my work computer.

You can do it manually:

hit_car - replace o'neist01 with oneilst01

hit_seas - replace o'neist01 with oneilst01 & also replace o'neist01_1919 with oneilst01_1919

[heyelander]

Ah, my spreadsheet already didn't have ' in them, but a 5th letter wasn't put in... so I was trying to compare oneist01 with oneilst01

[Ken]

Ah, my spreadsheet already didn't have ' in them, but a 5th letter wasn't put in... so I was trying to compare oneist01 with oneilst01

I had that problem - I think it is oneist01 in one sheet and oneilst01 in the other, but probably corrected by now.

Which standard are we using, just removing the apostrophe leaving 4 letters from last name? (I would recommend the oneist01 going forward!)

[johnnya24]

No problem - you had asked for a double check on the spreadsheet vs an outside source. I confirmed it is 99% correct with just a few small changes (that should *not* change the standings significantly).

http://forum.rotojunkiefix.com/showt...out#post373869

I test updated those two stats, and it made literally no difference to the standings up to 4 decimal points. so it looks like it won't make any difference.

I think for future drafts we should abandon the B-R.com data as the in-draft adjudicator, and make a rule that the data in the SS at the start of the draft is the only data we use. When we start including peak years and stuff like that, it'd be nice to have all the data in one place, and that's the final word. That way everyone is on the same boa, with the same data, and the same capacity to sort and organize it.

B-R.com keeps finding new stats, especially for older players.

[cavebird]

I test updated those two stats, and it made literally no difference to the standings up to 4 decimal points. so it looks like it won't make any difference.

I think for future drafts we should abandon the B-R.com data as the in-draft adjudicator, and make a rule that the data in the SS at the start of the draft is the only data we use. When we start including peak years and stuff like that, it'd be nice to have all the data in one place, and that's the final word. That way everyone is on the same boa, with the same data, and the same capacity to sort and organize it.

B-R.com keeps finding new stats, especially for older players.

Your suggestion is fairer, but it avoids the fun your players hitting home runs during the vintage draft, lol.

[Ken]

I test updated those two stats, and it made literally no difference to the standings up to 4 decimal points. so it looks like it won't make any difference.

I think for future drafts we should abandon the B-R.com data as the in-draft adjudicator, and make a rule that the data in the SS at the start of the draft is the only data we use. When we start including peak years and stuff like that, it'd be nice to have all the data in one place, and that's the final word. That way everyone is on the same boa, with the same data, and the same capacity to sort and organize it.

B-R.com keeps finding new stats, especially for older players.

Two aspects of that which I'd like to respond to.

1) I agree that the spreadsheet should be a reliable source. So we should check it up front to make sure the data is correct. I'm up for that.
2) I don't think we should be limited to the spreadsheet. There are some edge cases where you can find a player/year that isn't there, and you shouldn't be punished for looking outside the spreadsheet should you choose. Probably won't come up much.

[Ken]

I test updated those two stats, and it made literally no difference to the standings up to 4 decimal points. so it looks like it won't make any difference.

I don't think that's correct - it changes the OBP career numbers between Bene and Revo.

[heyelander]

Yeah, we've always allowed for people being added in from outside of the spreadsheet.

Stats in the spreadsheet are word
Feel free to add other years or players not accounted for in the spreadsheet

[frae]

Todd Worrell 1995 is the first pick I have ever projected accurately, that's the good news. The bad news is I think I am going to finish 5th.

[johnnya24]

I don't think that's correct - it changes the OBP career numbers between Bene and Revo.

I inputted them into my projection sheet, not the scoring sheet ... I should have said.

[cavebird]

Todd Worrell 1995 is the first pick I have ever projected accurately, that's the good news. The bad news is I think I am going to finish 5th.

Lol, I know two of us projected Duane Ward 1993 (nobody else can legally take Ward). And I have you slipping to fifth at the moment, so maybe this is good news for you--since my projections have not been terribly accurate. (In my defense, Ward is slightly better for heyelander, although it does not change his place in the standings).