*** VD 14 Commentary Thread ***

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[The Feral Slasher]

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

Solid half-chuckle, nothing to be ashamed of

[The Feral Slasher]

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.

Revo looks particularly strong careerwise even divided by number of hitters. Less so in BY, but it is getting harder to get good stats so his numbers may hold.

[The Feral Slasher]

Revo looks particularly strong careerwise even divided by number of hitters. Less so in BY, but it is getting harder to get good stats so his numbers may hold.

I am still ahead of Heyelander, so I think I'm in a good spot

[johnnya24]

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.

Working on it ... be up soonish I hope.

[The Feral Slasher]

Working on it ... be up soonish I hope.

apparently others know who you are going to pick....reach out if you get stuck

[johnnya24]

I bet I can predict all 3 of his picks, too.

Pray tell ... i'm still confused.

[cavebird]

Pray tell ... i'm still confused.

This one seems more accurate than the soonish post, lol.

[johnnya24]

Somehow I didn't get completely screwed on L. When I picked Mathews and Helton I gambled that Larkin or Lowe would make it back, but knew that there was a very good chance neither would.

[cavebird]

Wow, I so had you pegged for a catcher at 1890's. I am apparently clueless as to your strategy.

[cavebird]

And hey, as someone with an L and a T left who could not take either of those guys because of decades, I wholly approve of the picks!

[The Feral Slasher]

Somehow I didn't get completely screwed on L. When I picked Mathews and Helton I gambled that Larkin or Lowe would make it back, but knew that there was a very good chance neither would.

Well u demonstrated what we all know....never listen to the feral slasher