*!* VD 2 Commentary Thread *!*

[DMT]

Similar to Feral's suggestion: you can KO a player, but his exempt years are still draftable.

KOing and a player and specific decade is something we can add to the options. It would weaken the power of a KO, but make it's implementation easier, and not radically change anything.

I think the year is too narrow (i.e., many players have more than 1 BY), and the decade option is very similar to Feral's suggestion so including both will dilute that option IMO. In other words, we can't have those options competing against each other in a poll since they're so similar.

[johnnya24]

I think the year is too narrow (i.e., many players have more than 1 BY), and the decade option is very similar to Feral's suggestion so including both will dilute that option IMO. In other words, we can't have those options competing against each other in a poll since they're so similar.

Yeah we can't have more than 3 options in a poll or the result will not have any weight with so few voters. So we need to narrow it down first. I'm just pooling the ideas now ... then I'll put a poll up and we go with whatever the group decides.

I think we can also delete the "fewer KO's" option ... I suggested it and even I'm indifferent.

[revo]

The KO'ing of a player's BY is silly.

I agree with ElD -- what is the argument? If the player has a year that qualifies in an exempt decade, he can't be KO'd.

[johnnya24]

I had a read back and it seems opinion revolves around 3 options:

1. Do not allow KO's for any player who has an eligible year in an exempt decade. (e.g. Frank Robinson cannot be KO'd because he has eligible 1950's years)

2. Any player can be KO'd. But if they have an eligible BY in an exempt decade that is still draftable.** (e.g. Frank Robinson can be KO'd, but his 1950's years are still draftable)

3. Remove Decade exemption rule and open all players for KO's. (e.g. Frank Robinwho? Permanently KO'd)

** Feral's suggestion is a little simpler than CJ's, so I went with that.

[johnnya24]

The KO'ing of a player's BY is silly.

I agree with ElD -- what is the argument? If the player has a year that qualifies in an exempt decade, he can't be KO'd.

Now I'm confused, because I thought you and Heyelander were arguing for removing the exemption restriction?

Now you seem to be arguing for point 1 ... which as I was alluding to and DMT pointed out, massively restricts the player pool for KO's: in particular, to the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's.

The 1880's and the 1890's; the 1920's and the 1930's; and the 2000's ... will be almost exempt as a consequence. Most 2010 players played in at least 2009, and the previous 4 are sandwiched between exempt decades.

[johnnya24]

Right now my preference is:

2
3
1 (... and I started here)

I'll suck it up if option 3 is what people want. I definitely don't want a restart no matter what we choose. Option 2 seems like the best compromise option to me.

[Nate Berkenstock]

The KO'ing of a player's BY is silly.

I agree with ElD -- what is the argument? If the player has a year that qualifies in an exempt decade, he can't be KO'd.

The issue is clear - six of the 15 decades are exempt, and five of the exempt hitter decades are in the first nine decades. So most hitters whose career started before 1960 are going to be exempt, unless they're BY freaks. There's too many exempted decades to apply it to unrelated BYs.

[revo]

Now I'm confused, because I thought you and Heyelander were arguing for removing the exemption restriction?

Now you seem to be arguing for point 1 ... which as I was alluding to and DMT pointed out, massively restricts the player pool for KO's: in particular, to the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's.

The 1880's and the 1890's; the 1920's and the 1930's; and the 2000's ... will be almost exempt as a consequence. Most 2010 players played in at least 2009, and the previous 4 are sandwiched between exempt decades.

Now I'm confused. When did I argue for removing restrictions?

I had said that there's hundreds of players available, but I was certainly not campaigning for an in-draft change. I didn't even know there was a KO argument ongoing until your first post on it.

[Nate Berkenstock]

zomg Nate Berkenstock just jumped in and took over my login

[johnnya24]

Now I'm confused. When did I argue for removing restrictions?

I had said that there's hundreds of players available, but I was certainly not campaigning for an in-draft change. I didn't even know there was a KO argument ongoing until your first post on it.

These is no argument. The rule is not clear, there are things we have not been considered, and they need to be debated before we hit the KO rounds.

I will remove option 3 as it seems no-one is behind that.

The situation with the exemption rule was there to be debated pre-draft, and as usual no-one fronted up or mentioned a thing ...

http://forum.rotojunkiefix.com/showthread.php/3907-VD2-Poll-3-KO-s

[Pogues]

This whole argument has me at a complete loss. Being I haven't done a draft in a number of years, the talk of "implied rules" is disconcerting. What I implied was the rules listed in the first post of the draft thread were the rules for this draft. I've read through those rules again, and I see nothing mentioning anything about QUIZY decades in those rules. The only mention before this discussion came up was in another thread where Johnny explained the decades that have a smaller "good" player pool. I took this post as advice, and have drafted using a strategy aimed at closing out some of those decades.

Suddenly, that player pool in those decades have a high potential for remaining just as large as they were at the beginning of the draft, which I have to say is a bit of a shock to me.

We are drafting players for their career and a best year. So if we exempt all players who have a year that qualifies in key decade, what are we knocking out?

If we say we can knock out a player's particular decade of best years, but not the more rare decades, we're still allowing that player's career stats to be taken. What? Half the draft is made up of career statistics!

And you can talk until you're blue in the face that the 2010s are a tough draft, but I'll never buy it. The Yankees alone, from just 2011, have 13 batters and 11 pitchers that qualify for this draft.

Rules are rules, and I detest rules being changed on the fly.

[Pogues]

I will remove option 3 as it seems no-one is behind that.


http://forum.rotojunkiefix.com/showt...D2-Poll-3-KO-s

Just when you thought it was safe to say that...

[johnnya24]

1. Do not allow KO's for any player who has an eligible year in an exempt decade. (e.g. Frank Robinson cannot be KO'd because he has eligible 1950's years)

2. Any player can be KO'd. But if they have an eligible BY in an exempt decade that is still draftable.** (e.g. Frank Robinson can be KO'd, but his 1950's years are still draftable)

**I could add a 2a and 2b option to the poll with CJ's suggestion that we KO a Player and a Decade. In this scenario, the combined total for 2a and 2b would count for the purposes of the poll. If 2 wins, the majority option between 2a 2b wins.

So you could KO Frank Robinson's 1960's, but if he had a year in the 1970's, that would still be draftable whether exempt or not.

[johnnya24]

This whole argument has me at a complete loss. Being I haven't done a draft in a number of years, the talk of "implied rules" is disconcerting. What I implied was the rules listed in the first post of the draft thread were the rules for this draft. I've read through those rules again, and I see nothing mentioning anything about QUIZY decades in those rules. The only mention before this discussion came up was in another thread where Johnny explained the decades that have a smaller "good" player pool. I took this post as advice, and have drafted using a strategy aimed at closing out some of those decades.

Rule 14 clearly states the decades that are exempt from KO's

14. From the beginning of round 7 until the end of round 18, each player has the option to Knock Out (KO) up to 6 players from the player pool. This is optional. You can only KO a maximum of 1 player per round, and only during your normal allotted pick. The "John Montgomery Ward" rule also applies to KO's (see Rule 7), so please designate if the player being KO'd is a hitter to a pitcher ... 99% of the time it will be obvious, but this will avoid any confusion or unnecessary delays.

i.e.

off_the_wall picks

8.03 Jamie Quirk C

KO Antonio Alfonseca P

Provisionally the following decades are not eligible for KO picks:

Hitting: 1870, 1900, 1910, 1940, 1950 & 2010's
Pitching: 1890, 1920, 1930, 1940 & 1950 & 2010's

[Riff Raff]

Knock out the knock outs.
Otherwise, I have nothing to add. I don't plan to do anything but constantly be reminded I can't select this guy or that guy for this reason or that reason.

I might nap during the ensuing debates.