*!* VD 2 Commentary Thread *!*

[johnnya24]

What if we limited the total number of KOs in those "QUIZY" decades? There's still plenty of players in every decade...they might just suck balls. I have trouble believing the "QUIZY" decades are anywhere near as slim pickings as the QUIZY players.

The 1870's for hitting is definitely QUIZYesque. The other weak hitting decades are more ENV quality ... but I believe ENVO was exempt from KO in Letter format also. So it makes sense to keep them exempt.

The rule implies that any player who has an eligible year in a decade that is KO Exempt, cannot be KO'd.

This will substantially reduces the KO player pool for decades that are neighbouring an exempt decade (Hitting: 1880's 1890's 1920's 1930's 1960's 2000's | Pitching: 1880's, 1900's, 1910's, 1960's, 2000's), so in response to that, we could:

1. Keep things as they are and make the rules post clear about who can and cannot be KO'd

2. Reduce the number of KO's per person ... and let the market decide (to reflect the smaller than intended KOable player pool).

3. Amend the KO rule to specify that when you KO a player, you are only KOing his non-exempt years ... the player can still be selected in an exempt decade. For example, if someone KO'd Frank Robinson, he could no longer be selected in the 1960's or 1970's, but would still be eligible to be drafted in the 1950's (Feral's suggestion).

I think all options have their merits. Any other ideas?

[Long John]

Mull over this ... with regards KO's. As with a Letter draft, we don't permit KO'ing of players from the hardest decades. Since players are normally eligible in multiple decades, it follows that any player who has a qualifying season in an exempt decade will be exempt from being KO'd. Discuss and analyse in more than 5 words.

Doesn't seem very fair to me. (<--six words)

[johnnya24]

Doesn't seem very fair to me. (<--six words)

6 1/2 if you add some value to the "doesn't"

[Long John]

The 1870's for hitting is definitely QUIZYesque. The other weak hitting decades are more ENV quality ... but I believe ENVO was exempt from KO in Letter format also. So it makes sense to keep them exempt.

The rule implies that any player who has an eligible year in a decade that is KO Exempt, cannot be KO'd.

This will substantially reduces the KO player pool for decades that are neighbouring an exempt decade (Hitting: 1880's 1890's 1920's 1930's 1960's 2000's | Pitching: 1880's, 1900's, 1910's, 1960's, 2000's), so in response to that, we could:

1. Reduce the number of KO's per person ... and let the market decide.

2. Amend the KO rule to specify that when you KO a player, you are only KOing his non-exempt years ... the player can still be selected in an exempt decade. For example, if someone KO'd Frank Robinson, he could no longer be selected in the 1960's or 1970's, but would still be eligible to be drafted in the 1950's (Feral's suggestion).

I think both options have their merits. Any other ideas?

The problem is that we needed to change this before the start of the draft. Someone could have employed a strategy of pushing to select players that might be KOd. Even if you select option 2 here, you're altering that strategy. I think we have to leave it as is and adjust for a future VD. Or risk starting over AGAIN.

[Controller Jacobs]

Is Deacon White one of the recent changes by BR?

In my spreadsheet (which is a mod from the start of VD1, so it may be out of date):
Deacon White 1873 310 AB, 0 HR, 79 R, 66 RBI, 6 SB, .390 AVG

Per B-R:
Deacon White 1873 311 AB, 1 HR, 79 R, 77 RBI, 19 SB, .392 AVG

It appears his career line has bumped up very slightly as well.

[johnnya24]

The problem is that we needed to change this before the start of the draft. Someone could have employed a strategy of pushing to select players that might be KOd. Even if you select option 2 here, you're altering that strategy. I think we have to leave it as is and adjust for a future VD. Or risk starting over AGAIN.

I should have added that to the options of course ... in any case I will need to amend clause 14 of the Draft Rules to make it clear that: any player with a qualifying year in an exempt Decade is not eligible to be KO'd. Right now this is only implied.

I will also add a timeout rule in case someone posts an ineligible KO pick (it will happen IMO). 1 hour to fix the pick, or the KO is voided, and the draft moves on. The player will not lose their KO unless they run out of rounds.

Things like this happened a lot in previous drafts, especially when we were trying something new. That is why this rule was added:

8. If any ambiguity is discovered in the rules, the ambiguity will be resolved by the committee of three as determined in the VD XVIII discussion thread. Their decisions are binding and final.

It's important everyone realizes that under the current rules you cannot KO certain players. Frank Robinson may be strongly associated with the 1960's, but because he played some eligible seasons in the 1950's he cannot be KO'd. As long as we are all clear on that rule, we can move on.

I feel we need the timeout rule, because it is inevitable we will get a few incorrect KO's, and we need to know how to deal with them. For a start, let's all make sure we double check the eligibility of players before we KO them.

[SeaDogStat]

I say we either allow KOs or not have KOs.

I understand where Johnny/LJ are coming from about the bad decades but can we keep it simpler instead of more complicated? So of course, that means I will make it additionally more complicated as well

I would only allow one decade per owner. For instance, Johnny, who has his 1870's hitter could KO an 1870s hitter if he wants, but cannot do another 1870s hitter again, but could do an 1870-80s pitcher.





ETA - PS: STOP KOing MY FRANK ROBINSON!! kthxbai

[heyelander]

Should we start over?

[SeaDogStat]

Should we start over?

Are you trying to give US a migraine?

[johnnya24]

I say we either allow KOs or not have KOs.

I understand where Johnny/LJ are coming from about the bad decades but can we keep it simpler instead of more complicated? So of course, that means I will make it additionally more complicated as well

I would only allow one decade per owner. For instance, Johnny, who has his 1870's hitter could KO an 1870s hitter if he wants, but cannot do another 1870s hitter again, but could do an 1870-80s pitcher.





ETA - PS: STOP KOing MY FRANK ROBINSON!! kthxbai

I don't know why I threw my suggestion of less KO's out there ... my initial post was designed to alert people to the fact that the KO rule probably had a smaller player pool than people realized. That's all.

I think we can go on without any changes, as long as people realize that Frank Robinson is not KOable ... as much as I'd like to KO that SOB.

[revo]

I honestly don't see what the big deal is about KOs being allowed in certain decades.

It certainly is NOT like the QUIZYs in a letter draft, where there was a very limited supply of those players. It's not just that some stunk (which they did), but that there just were a finite number of them actually around.

The 1870s had 100s of hitters. The 1920s had hundreds of pitchers. The 1950s had hundreds of pitchers and hitters. They exist. Yes, the KOs will knockout a few more, but so what? There's still more than plenty to choose from.



On another note, anyone come up with a SeitzerSheet yet?? :jerry:

[DMT]

I honestly don't see what the big deal is about KOs being allowed in certain decades.

It certainly is NOT like the QUIZYs in a letter draft, where there was a very limited supply of those players. It's not just that some stunk (which they did), but that there just were a finite number of them actually around.

The 1870s had 100s of hitters. The 1920s had hundreds of pitchers. The 1950s had hundreds of pitchers and hitters. They exist. Yes, the KOs will knockout a few more, but so what? There's still more than plenty to choose from.

Agreed, and much simpler.

[heyelander]

yeah, agree with revo. it's not like quizy where people just don't exist... here most of the people just suck.

[johnnya24]

I honestly don't see what the big deal is about KOs being allowed in certain decades.

We didn't allow KO's for QUIZ or ENVOY letters I believe. Most of the exempt decades for this draft are of similar value to ENVOY, apart from 1870, which is most definitely QUI quality. We can review how it works for later drafts ... but we can't double back on that rule at this stage. It;s sufficient that every knows what's what IMO.

It would be wrong to allow a run of KO to debilitate an already weaker decade. For instance, let's say a couple of drafters had their 1950's hitters (for instance Frank Robinson), they spot an early KO run on 1950's hitters, and all jump on the bandwagon and decimate the decade down to QUIZY levels. Now from a Poguesian perspective, I like it. I'd be totally up for that. But it's something we need to debate pre-draft.

Note: I forget the accurate usage for the term Poguesian. So I just winged that one ...

[DMT]

It would be wrong to allow a run of KO to debilitate an already weaker decade. For instance, let's say a couple of drafters had their 1950's hitters (for instance Frank Robinson), they spot an early KO run on 1950's hitters, and all jump on the bandwagon and decimate the decade down to QUIZY levels. Now from a Poguesian perspective, I like it. I'd be totally up for that. But it's something we need to debate pre-draft.

Isn't this the entire point of including KOs, to add an element of surprise like this? Part of VD strategy is recognizing when a decade/letter falls off a cliff, so KOs just accelerate the speed at which the we approach that cliff, no?

I'm not entirely clear what the rule is at this point...have we changed anything? How did this discussion start?