*** VD 14 Commentary Thread ***

[cavebird]

Johnny---the four guys behind you are all here, so it is time to get off the ladder and make some picks.

Where's Johnny? she said, and tried to look through the dirty windows; where's Johnny? she said, you know I love his picks....

Okay, that still needs work.

[cavebird]

The spreadsheet uses raw stats, which works at the end when everyone has the same # of hitters and pitchers. In the meantime you want to see where you are based on how many hitters/pitchers each team has. If you divide the counting stats by the # of hitters (or pitchers) it gives you a better indication.

Ah, okay. That makes sense. I just sort of eyeball it. But yeah, my place in the standings now almost certainly has to do more with having fewer hitters than most teams than anything else, although having a bunch of good letters unused also probably is part of it. And getting snaked on Tom Daly. In a sense you are right about decades being my problem---I didn't grab Daly earlier because there were plenty of good D catchers. And having played far more letters than decades VD's, I thought of it through that lens when I should have been looking at the number of acceptable 1900's catchers which was just Daly. My team may end up sucking (I still think I have a chance to win, but we'll see), but if I come close and fall short, that will be the mistake that bit me; it has cascaded through my team and I still haven't figured out what to do with my 1900's problem. There's just garbage there unless I use a really good letter, and then my two weak letters come back to bite me.

[Ken]

I am not sure what you mean by switching it to rate stats rather than totals.

The spreadsheet uses raw stats, which works at the end when everyone has the same # of hitters and pitchers. In the meantime you want to see where you are based on how many hitters/pitchers each team has. If you divide the counting stats by the # of hitters (or pitchers) it gives you a better indication.

[cavebird]

I think your problem may end up being the decades rather than the letters/positions. 1900s/1920s/1980s aren't pretty, but you do have 00s which is better.
Looks like you are 10th out of 12 if we switch it to rate stats rather than totals, so not as ugly as it looks, you are right.

I am not sure what you mean by switching it to rate stats rather than totals. I agree that 1900's is just ugly, not getting around that. I am fine with my choices at 1920's and 1980's, and, of course, 2000's. Then again, my original career hitting goals were 3550 HR, 17,300 RBI, 18,000 R, 3000 SB, and .375 OBP. I think I can get to or close to all of them. Whether that is going to be enough (would have been good for third or fourth place in all categories in VD 6, which is where I got them) is another question altogether. My OBP was obviously an undershoot. But my theory remains that if I am in the top half of all categories except career OBP (that just isn't going to happen), it should be enough to win in multiplicative scoring. We'll see.

[The Feral Slasher]

Your pain is a little different---Johnny's hitting numbers are generally good---except for speed, which he is obviously tanking---it just going to get ugly for him. You have a condition of ugly in your stats already.

hitting stats.jpg

Hmmm....not sure if this worked. Not my best effort anyway

[Ken]

Oh, my career hitting stats are not particularly pretty right now. Then again, I still have four hitters left to most people's three; my remaining positions are CI, OF, and effectively two UT; and my remaining letters are C, W, R, L, T, and two WC. There is definitely a condition of ugly in my stats now---I just have to improve it. I hope I have left enough to do that. Then again, my targets for this were based on VD 6 results, which as others have noted, we are collectively blowing by. Well, that and a guesstimate of what OBP would be good that was clearly off by more than a little bit, lol.

I think your problem may end up being the decades rather than the letters/positions. 1900s/1920s/1980s aren't pretty, but you do have 00s which is better.
Looks like you are 10th out of 12 if we switch it to rate stats rather than totals, so not as ugly as it looks, you are right.

[The Feral Slasher]

We're more than halfway there, so I gave up a while back.

I wish Johnny would give up on his window washing halfway thru and make a crappy pick.

[cavebird]

On further review, it looks a lot like your career hitting stats. Yuck!

Oh, my career hitting stats are not particularly pretty right now. Then again, I still have four hitters left to most people's three; my remaining positions are CI, OF, and effectively two UT; and my remaining letters are C, W, R, L, T, and two WC. There is definitely a condition of ugly in my stats now---I just have to improve it. I hope I have left enough to do that. Then again, my targets for this were based on VD 6 results, which as others have noted, we are collectively blowing by. Well, that and a guesstimate of what OBP would be good that was clearly off by more than a little bit, lol.

[Ken]

Not sure i like the direction this thread is taking

We're more than halfway there, so I gave up a while back.

[The Feral Slasher]

On further review, it looks a lot like your career hitting stats. Yuck!

Not sure i like the direction this thread is taking

[Ken]

You have a condition of ugly in your stats already.

On further review, it looks a lot like your career hitting stats. Yuck!

[The Feral Slasher]

Good band name.

Good description of Corona Slasher work from home style

[DMT]

Good band name.

I disagree

[Ken]

condition of ugly

Good band name.

[The Feral Slasher]

Your pain is a little different---Johnny's hitting numbers are generally good---except for speed, which he is obviously tanking---it just going to get ugly for him. You have a condition of ugly in your stats already.

Very comforting words....