VD2: Emergency KO Poll

[johnnya24]

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 will still be 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 from all decades)

3.40pm EST:

13 have voted

2 still to vote: Heyelander, MJL

Option 1: 3
Option 2: 6 (Long John Switched to 2)
Option 3: 4

Option 1 is dead unless someone changes their vote.

[Pogues]

It is of my opinion the player pool for every decade is plenty big enough to handle drafting needs and KOs. I might be wrong, but the numbers back me up. If that's incorrect, then we'll know for next time!

[johnnya24]

It is of my opinion the player pool for every decade is plenty big enough to handle drafting needs and KOs. I might be wrong, but the numbers back me up. If that's incorrect, then we'll know for next time!

Thanks to Pogues for volunteering to take the fall!

[johnnya24]

If you are abstaining or waiting to vote for some reason, please make your position clear so we can close this ASAP.

[johnnya24]

My position is that I don't care. If one of the choices necessitates a re-start, that's the one I don't want.

That narrows down the choice to 3.

[Long John]

I also voted for #1 because that's the rule that we started the draft with and that's how we should run with it. Anything else should necessitate a restart. If you magically sensed ambiguity or "implied" (actually, you would have inferred) that the rule is open to misinterpretation, then this should have been addressed before the draft (re)started.

I think the rule should be #2, but since we started the draft under the premise that #1 was the rule, that's how we should finish the draft. VD3 can have KO option #2. VD4 can have KO option #3. Before VD5, we can decide which one is best. It's not like this is the last VD we'll ever do.

[johnnya24]

I think the problem was some people had no preconception of what it meant ... they just assumed it would be like Letters. Others thought it was more like 1, but without thinking of the consequences of that (as we should have done/debated). Others assumed 2. Others maybe didn't even read the rules and just assumed that any decade was KOable.

Looking at everyone's teams, I don't see that anyone will be negatively impacted in terms of value. The players picked so far are more a reflection of the "pure value" rankings than VD23, and that did not have KO's ... so no-one will be handicapped as far as I can see.

I doubt 1 wins. But if it does KO's will have the following effect: no effect on exempt decades, a small effect on the neighbouring decades, and a potentially large effect on the stronger non-neighbouring decades (especially the 1970's 1980's and 1990's for hitting and pitching).

If 2 wins it will likely have a fairly even impact across all the non-exempt decades. The neighbouring decades may take a small extra hit to the non-neighbours because there will be less targeted players, but it will be very marginal. These decades often attract earlier picks anyway, so there may even be a net gain in terms of relative value to the non-neighbouring decades. We will only be able to see that after the draft.

If 3 wins, I have a feeling it will not make any real difference as the number of KO's will be more evenly spread out ... I doubt people will even bother KOing 1870's hitters as they probably won't be worth KOing ... one dregg is much the same as the next.

Those are just my feelings about how it will pan out ... so don't take it as gospel. I don't think any of the outcomes requires a restart ...

[DMT]

Yes, at least two of us thought option 2 was what we were doing, so arguing #1 because that's what we started with is not really what has happened. Besides, I think #1 is the worst of the 3 options because it takes us the furthest away from the purpose of including KOs in the first place. I am fine with 2 or 3 (my vote) and agree that neither would require a restart.

[revo]

Yes, at least two of us thought option 2 was what we were doing, so arguing #1 because that's what we started with is not really what has happened. Besides, I think #1 is the worst of the 3 options because it takes us the furthest away from the purpose of including KOs in the first place. I am fine with 2 or 3 (my vote) and agree that neither would require a restart.

No offense, but how can anyone have thought that KOs did not mean KOing the player entirely?

[DMT]

No offense, but how can anyone have thought that KOs did not mean KOing the player entirely?

Because it makes no sense to have such a tiny KO pool.

[The Feral Slasher]

No offense, but how can anyone have thought that KOs did not mean KOing the player entirely?

With me it was more not thinking it through all the way. I had my players ranked by decades, so when i looked at the 30's decade I assumed I could KO those guys since the rules only stated that other decades were off limits for KOs. I think the rule was not specific enough for everyone to be on the same page. Different people made different assumptions.

I don't think it will make a huge impact on the outcome however, I sure dont want to re-draft again

[The Feral Slasher]

Great, it's tied 4/4/4. Looks like we'll have to call in the committee of 3 : )

[Pogues]

I'd find it inconceivable to restart the draft, no matter which of the three options win. Whoever is on the wrong side of the assumption line will just need to adjust to the rule that wins. I do love the 4-4-4 tie.

[SeaDogStat]

Let's get to 5-5-5!!

[Pogues]

Nah. It'll go 5-5-4, then El Diablo will have to actually vote. And he'll pick between the two at 5 votes.