Originally posted by johnnya24
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
*** VD 14 Commentary Thread ***
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by johnnya24 View PostUhhh ... not sure what this is ... I must have missed your post.
Last edited by Ken; 05-08-2020, 10:55 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by johnnya24 View PostBecause it's slightly older
If you download the latest version all that is fixed.
is there a quick fix? I don't see any reason the lookup would be pissedI'm not expecting to grow flowers in the desert...
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by heyelander View PostAh, 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
Which standard are we using, just removing the apostrophe leaving 4 letters from last name? (I would recommend the oneist01 going forward!)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ken View PostNo 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 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by johnnya24 View PostI 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by johnnya24 View PostI 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.
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.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by frae View PostTodd 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.
Comment
Comment