*** VD 15 Commentary Thread ***

[cavebird]

Keeler is a great pick. I knew i was picking Silver King, so I couldn't allow myself to be tempted, but nice one!

I am fine with both 2004 and selection 2 (and to answer whoever's question--I forget who asked---I am sure it is the name he uses inside of prison (or at least jail) since that is where he is). Agreed on great pick with Keeler. And since you knew you would be taking King, you knew what your team would sort of end up looking like---you were definitely playing the strategy all along---grabbing Bradley before I could snake you on him.

[Ken]

I really wasn't. I simply replied to correct an obvious typo in a computer thing that I didn't understand at all without catching it. So no, I wasn't "using" it. I was just going by the spreadsheet pretty much.

ok, but it's a little disingenuous to claim you didn't know the rule was 2004 and you would have picked someone else when we were literally discussing the formula and you chimed in.

So it's either, you forgot, which is fine. Or you were just blindly going by the spreadsheet, which I believe you were on the side of *not* supporting when we talked about finding players that may not be on there, remember?

[johnnya24]

Yeah ... and I fixed the error ... that is the original error of leaving out the 1999-2005 (inclusive) rule. However, I got it wrong and included 2004 rather than 2005. That's on me. These things happen when you are doing 50 things at once.

I didn't realize the error / inconsistency after than, and no-one else pointed it out directly ... except amorphous discussions about 2004, or 1999-2004.

If people knew there was actual incorrect data on the spreadsheet for players, I don't recall anyone telling me.

[johnnya24]

I am fine with both 2004 and selection 2 (and to answer whoever's question--I forget who asked---I am sure it is the name he uses inside of prison (or at least jail) since that is where he is). Agreed on great pick with Keeler. And since you knew you would be taking King, you knew what your team would sort of end up looking like---you were definitely playing the strategy all along---grabbing Bradley before I could snake you on him.

I didn't reply to your comment for obvious reasons ... but I was referring to the players I might end up picking, not my strategy. Bradley and King were the planned anchors because of their BY IP totals. Tiant and Carlton were opportunist picks. Dahlen was another opportunist pick. I genuinely have no clue what shape the rest of my team will look like the way so many players are spread across so many franchises. Bradley and King were my only planned picks.

I had a soft-lock on Silver King when you made the comment, but 2 players could have theoretically used a Wildcard on him, so I kept schtum.

[johnnya24]

In amongst this clusterfuck, no love for the Jamie "Mutherfucking" Quirk pick?

[cavebird]

ok, but it's a little disingenuous to claim you didn't know the rule was 2004 and you would have picked someone else when we were literally discussing the formula and you chimed in.

So it's either, you forgot, which is fine. Or you were just blindly going by the spreadsheet, which I believe you were on the side of *not* supporting when we talked about finding players that may not be on there, remember?

It wasn't a forget thing, it was a my being oblivious when making the 2004 comment thing. I remembered what Johnny told me when I asked (the link I posted) and it corresponded with the spreadsheet, so I really didn't think anything of it. But yes, the 2004 discussion should have set off alarm bells. And yes, I agree that B-R should be the ultimate source, not the spreadsheet. But the situation is resolved, and we move on. At least it was the newbie in this situation, if I had been the one who noticed and used it as a loophole, there would have been hell to pay. (Of course, since I do use the spreadsheet, it would be nefarious on my part to try to pull a stunt like that, so I would deserve it if I did that.)

[cavebird]

In amongst this clusterfuck, no love for the Jamie "Mutherfucking" Quirk pick?

He was honestly a QUI guy I thought I could get in Round 25-27. I mean, can you get any worse stats that his? QUIZ has gone crazy. Other than stats, however, he checks all the boxes--franchise, letter, position.

[The Feral Slasher]

In amongst this clusterfuck, no love for the Jamie "Mutherfucking" Quirk pick?

I love it !

[cavebird]

In amongst this clusterfuck, no love for the Jamie "Mutherfucking" Quirk pick?

The scary thing is that there are at least 12 more QUI and 19 more QUIZ picks left after Quirk.

[cavebird]

And this is going to get really scary at the end. My Vaughn pick was more or less out of necessity--I really didn't want to burn a DB slot or CHC on him. I finally finished my review of "V" and Vaughn was in a tier with 3 or 4 other guys who were still undrafted. And I was franchise excluded from taking all of them. Decades cause problems, but the franchise issues are weirder and, I think, require more advance planning (which can easily get blown up). The tactics of snaking other people on players will get really interesting.

[johnnya24]

Decades cause problems, but the franchise issues are weirder and, I think, require more advance planning (which can easily get blown up). The tactics of snaking other people on players will get really interesting.

Lack of knowledge of the player pool. That's my deal. Apart from obvious players, I'm not that clued in.

[jmaeroff]

In amongst this clusterfuck, no love for the Jamie "Mutherfucking" Quirk pick?

James P. Quirk > James T. Kirk

[johnnya24]

James P. Quirk > James T. Kirk

> James P. Quirk > James T. Kirk

[cavebird]

I have found 7 more hitters who would be Normal instead of Contemporary now and might be drafted (none of them might be drafted, too, nobody obvious). Can we temporarily waive the no name-dropping rule to list them so everyone is on the same page?

[heyelander]

I have found 7 more hitters who would be Normal instead of Contemporary now and might be drafted (none of them might be drafted, too, nobody obvious). Can we temporarily waive the no name-dropping rule to list them so everyone is on the same page?

+1

...