VD15 Franchise Format Poll

[johnnya24]

Can't find consensus on the Franchise draft format. So poll time.

This will be a letter-franchise draft.

Many players have multiple Franchise eligibility. How do we deal with it?

Option 1: 1 Franchise Per Player

You designate a Franchise when you pick a player. That Franchise is then fixed for that player, and is off the table.

Pros:

Determinate: Franchises become like Decades. Once a player is designated as a Franchise that Franchise is off the table.
Clearer options.
Easy to track with no manual requirements (apart from the initial "Rounds" entry: "pujolal01 2003 STL")
Full spreadsheet automation (error checking, available and taken franchises etc) with no manual tracking requirements.

Cons:

Not as much flexibility

Option 2: Open Franchise Eligibility

You pick a player and can switch his Franchise eligibility at any point, and as many times as you like.

Pros:

Flexible: you can switch a players franchise eligibility at will
More open options.

Cons:

Will require extensive manual tracking and error checking.
No Spreadsheet automation and error checking for Franchises. It will be impossible for the spreadsheet to keep track of all the switches, especially in the later game, and especially if players load up on multi-eligibility players.
The scoring spreadsheet will only come with basic franchise eligibility(s) listed for each player, and a space on the Snapshot page to manually trace your Franchise preferences ... nothing more.

[johnnya24]

A lot of people rely on me for VD related stuff ... I won't be taking any responsibility for tracking other peoples Franchise picks if we go with option 2, and the spreadsheet won't be able to error check or trace selections.

I voted Option 1 because it can be fully automated on the spreadsheet, plus I've already built this spreadsheet. Also, Franchise-letters seems much easier on paper than Letter-Decade, so Option 1 seems like it will be slightly more challenging.

----------------------

I did not include the BY-Franchise eligibility as an option because that is a species of Option 1. If option 1 wins, and people are still adamant about that, we can have another poll then. Or we can agree to do something on these lines for VD16.

[heyelander]

are there restrictions on franchise eligibility? Like you need 5 years with a franchise to be eligible? I think we need some pretty big restrictions if we go with flex. I only like truly open if it's tied to BY.

[revo]

Option 1

[johnnya24]

are there restrictions on franchise eligibility? Like you need 5 years with a franchise to be eligible? I think we need some pretty big restrictions if we go with flex. I only like truly open if it's tied to BY.

Check the spreadsheet on the Draft page. It's not the Scoring Spreadsheet, as I can't build that until we know how many drafters.

But it has all the drafting eligibility for all players that are currently already on the Spreadsheet.

Also check the notes i left to help with sorting, ranking etc.

[DMT]

I voted 1 and am still advocating for BY as franchise determinant.

[Ken]

It looks like the battle is lost.

As protest, I will avoid specifying franchise when making my picks. You guys can guess.

[heyelander]

It looks like the battle is lost.

As protest, I will avoid specifying franchise when making my picks. You guys can guess.

Lazy wins!

[cavebird]

I voted 1 and am still advocating for BY as franchise determinant.

Well, he said if #2 won, then there would be a vote about BY determining, so you probably voted for the wrong one, but it obviously doesn't matter anyway.

[DMT]

Well, he said if #2 won, then there would be a vote about BY determining, so you probably voted for the wrong one, but it obviously doesn't matter anyway.

Uhhh....

I did not include the BY-Franchise eligibility as an option because that is a species of Option 1. If option 1 wins, and people are still adamant about that, we can have another poll then. Or we can agree to do something on these lines for VD16.

[cavebird]

Uhhh....

Or I'm just an idiot. Please ignore me.

[revo]

I voted 1 and am still advocating for BY as franchise determinant.

Seconded

[cavebird]

That was my initial inclination, but the more I have looked at it, the more I think it would be a bad idea. It effectively eliminates all hitters from being from franchises before 1886 because seasons were too short or they didn't count SB's or RBI's, bringing us down a few franchises, in effect. It also makes seasons involving a player on more than two teams problematic. Finally, it makes coming up with any effective way to prep nearly impossible as the franchises are noted for the seasons on the spreadsheet. In principle, I like the idea; I just don't think we are there enough to do it in practice.

[cavebird]

One other thought on this is: it might be hell to score. If we do franchise by BY, there will likely be a significant number of off-spreadsheet seasons drafted just to manipulate franchises. That could be a mess.

[johnnya24]

I'll put up a poll for BY determinate. But note, the spreadsheet is not updated for BY Franchise information, and will not be until VD 16.

We will need to rebuild the BY sheets for hitting and pitching, that is much more involving that Career. The BY data is close to 40MB alone if my memory serves me. So while the SS can trace and error check Franchise choices in this format, it doesn't have the BY data, so that would have to come from elsewhere.

My suggestion would be to agree to use this dataset for VD16. But I'll put up a poll.