*** VD 15 Commentary Thread ***

[johnnya24]

My point is, EE was mentioned by at least 3 drafters that passed on him only because he was mis-classified. So making him an exception has merit.

There is no issue here as far as i see it. Jmare picked EE as Normal, and the agreed changes to the spreadsheet designates EE as normal.

We agreed to bring the spreadsheet into line with the stated 1999-2004 (inclusive) rule. The spreadsheet is using the original 2005 (inclusive). I will update the spreadsheet tomorrow morning.

[johnnya24]

While we're in full clusterfuck recovery mode - there is an "unnamed" player whose second name and b-r.com reference code do not correspond. His B-R.com code reflects his original name (which he had until 2018), while his "new" legal name has a different letter (from 2018).

Should we:

(1) Use his original name / letter and actual B-R.com reference

OR

(2) Use the letter from the name that he now legally uses.

-----------

Personally I think (2) given the spirit of the rule and the fact that he legally changed his name.

Again, please comment.

This is closed.

His old letter (based on the BR.com code) was R, and he would likely never have been picked. His new player code starts with V, and he might be draftable.

I will make all these changes tomorrow morning.

[DMT]

Ok, but his pick is totally inconsequential since Jake already took Quinn.

My point is, EE was mentioned by at least 3 drafters that passed on him only because he was mis-classified. So making him an exception has merit.

[DMT]

Mookie picked already.

The choices I presented earlier bring all the other players into line with these picks.

Ok, but his pick is totally inconsequential since Jake already took Quinn.

[The Feral Slasher]

I vote #2 also.

2 is fine

[jmaeroff]

Can we get a couple more opinions?

Current:

(1) 0
(2) 3 (JA, Heye, DMT)

I vote #2 also.

[Ken]

Can we get a couple more opinions?

Current:

(1) 0
(2) 3 (JA, Heye, DMT)

fine with (2)

[johnnya24]

While we're in full clusterfuck recovery mode - there is an "unnamed" player whose second name and b-r.com reference code do not correspond. His B-R.com code reflects his original name (which he had until 2018), while his "new" legal name has a different letter (from 2018).

Should we:

(1) Use his original name / letter and actual B-R.com reference

OR

(2) Use the letter from the name that he now legally uses.

-----------

Personally I think (2) given the spirit of the rule and the fact that he legally changed his name.

Again, please comment.

Can we get a couple more opinions?

Current:

(1) 0
(2) 3 (JA, Heye, DMT)

[johnnya24]

It’s really weird that modern players who played in the league’s highest HR total years ever aren’t considered contemporary.

There are also a few predominantly 1980's players who fall into the "contemporary" category by finishing their careers around 1999.

One in particular always grated me a little, especially since the rule is to account for juicers (and their inflated stats).

[johnnya24]

I mean since no one else has picked and Jake already received the benefit of Zimmermann, we could classify EE as "contemporary" and let Jake repick if necessary.

Mookie picked already.

The choices I presented earlier bring all the other players into line with these picks.

[DMT]

It’s really weird that modern players who played in the league’s highest HR total years ever aren’t considered contemporary.

And then there's that.

[Bene Futuis]

It’s really weird that modern players who played in the league’s highest HR total years ever aren’t considered contemporary.

[DMT]

I mean since no one else has picked and Jake already received the benefit of Zimmermann, we could classify EE as "contemporary" and let Jake repick if he wanted. Of course it doesn't make any logical sense from a consistency standpoint, but at least in terms of fairness it doesn't give Jake two extra picks that most of us would've valued higher.

[hacko]

I would have taken Encarnacion had I known he was "normal".

I too thought they both were contemporary

[johnnya24]

That's 6 for 2004 and nothing for the alternative. So let's just continue and be vigilant with the spreadsheet classification until I get it updated.

AND ... the Ranking sheet I published earlier is showing 1999-2005 also in case anyone is using that for sorting / ranking etc