*** VD 15 Commentary Thread ***

[johnnya24]

My only concern is who it might make undraftable---if you have decade or era restrictions around the eras/decades that have all the franchises, the players from the teams that have existed the whole time (the Braves and Cubs are the two) are not draftable from the old/new times because you can't fill out the roster if you do. The key is to have enough franchises from eras/decades that have to be drafted (say 1910-1960) that you don't have to take all of the players from the long-time teams from that small time-frame.

We aren't doing decades BTW ... it'll be Letters and Franchises. As per your suggestion in fact, Franchises and Decades might not make a great fit ... we need to think about it more. I think the best way to get up and running fast with VD15 is to go with something we know works: Letters and Franchises.

Era restrictions are up in the air a little until we can look at a break down of the entire franchise lineup. Maybe we won't need them? Combo drafts are already limiting enough as it is. i'll post a full player data sheet in the next few days.

Franchises are one of the more open draft formats if my memory serves me right. But as Ken says, it really doesn't matter, what matters is constantly manipulating and tweaking the player pool, adjusting the values and creating a fresh playing experience so that we aren't just drafting the same guys in the same general order. Plain Decades and letters drafts have become very predictable and formulaic. The more curveballs the better IMO

[cavebird]

We aren't doing decades BTW ... it'll be Letters and Franchises. As per your suggestion in fact, Franchises and Decades might not make a great fit ... we need to think about it more. I think the best way to get up and running fast with VD15 is to go with something we know works: Letters and Franchises.

Era restrictions are up in the air a little until we can look at a break down of the entire franchise lineup. Maybe we won't need them? Combo drafts are already limiting enough as it is. i'll post a full player data sheet in the next few days.

Franchises are one of the more open draft formats if my memory serves me right. But as Ken says, it really doesn't matter, what matters is constantly manipulating and tweaking the player pool, adjusting the values and creating a fresh playing experience so that we aren't just drafting the same guys in the same general order. Plain Decades and letters drafts have become very predictable and formulaic. The more curveballs the better IMO

Agreed. I would like to see the list of franchises and players, too. That could change what we need to do. My main concern was that almost all NA players would be undraftable, because the best teams, with the best players were the Braves and Cubs---and they, I guess unsurprisingly, were the only two teams to survive. But when we see the whole list, we'll know a little better. Maybe ONA will be better than I thought if five seasons for different lesser NA teams can combine; most of those teams didn't last five years individually, but the players tended to drift from team to team.

[johnnya24]

Agreed. I would like to see the list of franchises and players, too. That could change what we need to do. My main concern was that almost all NA players would be undraftable, because the best teams, with the best players were the Braves and Cubs---and they, I guess unsurprisingly, were the only two teams to survive. But when we see the whole list, we'll know a little better. Maybe ONA will be better than I thought if five seasons for different lesser NA teams can combine; most of those teams didn't last five years individually, but the players tended to drift from team to team.

In the assignment of the OEF and ONA classification on the spreadsheet, any teams they may have played for will be designated as OEF or ONA. So if a player played for 5 different ONA teams over 5 years, it would register on the SS as 5 years as an ONA player.

Even if they have enough legal, draftable players, within realistic expectations, it'll be good. Even Franchises need QUIZY's

[cavebird]

In the assignment of the OEF and ONA classification on the spreadsheet, any teams they may have played for will be designated as OEF or ONA. So if a player played for 5 different ONA teams over 5 years, it would register on the SS as 5 years as an ONA player.

Even if they have enough legal, draftable players, within realistic expectations, it'll be good. Even Franchises need QUIZY's

It is so hard to tell with some players---for example, if you have seen the sheet, is Zettlein a Cub, an ONA, or both?

[johnnya24]

It is so hard to tell with some players---for example, if you have seen the sheet, is Zettlein a Cub, an ONA, or both?

If he played for the Cubs he would be classified as a Cub for that year, not ONA. No?

[cavebird]

If he played for the Cubs he would be classified as a Cub for that year, not ONA. No?

Right, but he has the following history: 1871: NA team that became the Cubs (i.e. Cubs); 1872 (Cubs not playing due to great fire of Chicago): Two different ONA teams; 1873: ONA team (different from both in 1872, lol); 1874: Back to Cubs as they were back; 1875: 2/3 with Cubs; 1/3 with an ONA team; 1876: With a team that was an ONA team but might be OEF for that year (they folded after 1876; old Philadelphia A's; same team as the last third of 1875). That's it.

What does that lead to: 2 2/3 with the Cubs; 2 1/3 with ONA teams; 1 year with a team that might be ONA and might be OEF (B-R calls them: ATH).

[johnnya24]

Right, but he has the following history: 1871: NA team that became the Cubs (i.e. Cubs); 1872 (Cubs not playing due to great fire of Chicago): Two different ONA teams; 1873: ONA team (different from both in 1872, lol); 1874: Back to Cubs as they were back; 1875: 2/3 with Cubs; 1/3 with an ONA team; 1876: With a team that was an ONA team but might be OEF for that year (they folded after 1876; old Philadelphia A's; same team as the last third of 1875). That's it.

What does that lead to: 2 2/3 with the Cubs; 2 1/3 with ONA teams; 1 year with a team that might be ONA and might be OEF (B-R calls them: ATH).

zettlge01	1876	1	PHN	OEF
zettlge01	1871	1	CH1	ONA
zettlge01	1874	1	CH2	CHC
zettlge01	1875	1	CH2	CHC
zettlge01	1872	2	BR1	ONA
zettlge01	1873	1	PH2	ONA
zettlge01	1875	2	PH2	ONA
zettlge01	1872	1	TRO	ONA

[johnnya24]

So Gorgeous George would be an ONA

[cavebird]

Oh, the 1871 Cubs are not considered Cubs; interesting. I believe they claim that team, and I thought they were the same, but maybe there's a difference.

[cavebird]

And, actually, B-R says the Cubs from 1871 are the same team. Why do we consider them different?

[johnnya24]

And, actually, B-R says the Cubs from 1871 are the same team. Why do we consider them different?

Whatever Lahman says. That is what we are going by. That way we'll all be singing from the same sheet.

the teamID Lahman uses for 1871 as CH1, and that is designated as ONA. 1874/5 is CH2, and that is CHC.

I can't find any players from 1872 or 1873 with either designate.

[cavebird]

The Cubs did not play in 1872 or 1873 because their grounds (not really a stadium at that point) was destroyed in the Great Fire of Chicago. They were (and are) the same franchise.

[johnnya24]

The Cubs did not play in 1872 or 1873 because their grounds (not really a stadium at that point) was destroyed in the Great Fire of Chicago. They were (and are) the same franchise.

Lahman distinguishes, so that's the only thing that really matters. That's what all our data will be based on. All CH1 were converted to ONA.

There are more than 100000 entries on the hitting sheet alone. We can't micromanage with things like this.

[johnnya24]

So it's going to be near impossible for the spreadsheet to keep track of the Franchises that people have taken, given the amount of multiple eligibility players. And of course there would be an incentive to load up on these kinds of players for flexibility, which would exacerbate the problem.

** For the sake of clarity, it would be better if people had to designate a Franchise when they selected a player. **

Then perhaps we could set a rule that every player could have 1 "flip" during the draft ... allowing them to change the eligibility of one already selected player.

[cavebird]

So it's going to be near impossible for the spreadsheet to keep track of the Franchises that people have taken, given the amount of multiple eligibility players. And of course there would be an incentive to load up on these kinds of players for flexibility, which would exacerbate the problem.

** For the sake of clarity, it would be better if people had to designate a Franchise when they selected a player. **

Then perhaps we could set a rule that every player could have 1 "flip" during the draft ... allowing them to change the eligibility of one already selected player.

The one flip thing will be even worse. I think that just policing it as we do positions would be easier.