VD2: Emergency KO Poll

[Long John]

I was unaware that folks had thought we were playing a la option 2 to begin with. In that event, I would like to change my vote from option 1 to option 2. And I agree we can move on.

And the more I think about it, the more I'm in agreement with johnny. As long as everyone is playing by the same rules, I don't think anyone will be too negatively affected at this point.

[Pogues]

With Long John's shift, that puts us at 5-3-4, with 3 left to vote. Guess we can't see who hasn't voted, can we?

[DMT]

With Long John's shift, that puts us at 5-3-4, with 3 left to vote. Guess we can't see who hasn't voted, can we?

Sure, just click on the numbers...heyelander, hacko, and mjl have yet to vote.

[johnnya24]

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

I was somewhere between 1 & 2 ... I had an assumption of how I thought it would work, but we failed to do the proper research to find out how best to apply it. Clearly no-one saw it ... or I'm sure they would have spoke up sooner.

2 probably more accurately reflects the spirit of the rule, and how I imagined it would work in terms of finding a balance between Letter KO's and Decade KO's (exempt letter / exempt decades) ... in the absence of debate, that was all I had to go on.

1 reflects my incorrect assumptions. What I failed to recognize was the consequences: that a player with 1 eligible year in an exempt decade will be KO exempt. When I looked into that in more depth (as we should have done pre-draft) it became clear that the KO pool was actually very small ... and did not accurately reflect a balance between Letter KO's and Decade KO's.

I voted 2, but I'm also happy to go with 3, because (a) it won't handicap anyone and (b) if we decide to include KO's in VD3, I'm fairly certain we will choose not to include exempt decades ... with the proper pre-draft discussion and analysis, we would have chose option 3 IMO. If it's 1, since the rules are the same for everyone, I'm OK to go with that also ... although it will be a bit weird (yet that might make it more interesting ... differing interpretations, means different values, means more variability).

Let's just decide and move on.

[johnnya24]

That's definitely what I thought.

But did you think about how this would work in practice? I know I didn't, and I don't think anyone else did ... and if they did, they didn't mention a thing.

[johnnya24]

Updated Poll Standings

13 have voted

2 still to vote: Heyelander, MJL

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

Option 1 is dead unless someone changes their vote.

If this finishes as a tie between 2 & 3, the guys who voted for option 1 can act as the effective casting vote ... a mini second round of voting.

[SeaDogStat]

I would like to announce my first KO pick... Johnny... for implementing KOs in a decade draft lol

[johnnya24]

I would like to announce my first KO pick... Johnny... for implementing KOs in a decade draft lol

Wasn't my idea ... I just post the polls of other peoples suggestions

[DMT]

I would like to announce my first KO pick... Johnny... for implementing KOs in a decade draft lol

He's still playing so he's ineligible, duh!

[revo]

I honestly don't see how voting for the 2nd option will make anything markedly better than the 1st option.

For example, let's go with my King Kelly pick. Let's assume he's around in Rd 6, and Johnny KO's his 1880s BYs, since his 1870s BY is ineligible to be KO'd. Well, what does that actually do, since King Kelly has always been selected with an 1870s BY?

All Option #2 does is put a red X on the obvious -- no one was taking King Kelly for his 1880s BY anyway. So to utilize the KO correctly, the best use will be to still KO players in those "non-exempt" decades.

So what's the point?

[Controller Jacobs]

I honestly don't see how voting for the 2nd option will make anything markedly better than the 1st option.

For example, let's go with my King Kelly pick. Let's assume he's around in Rd 6, and Johnny KO's his 1880s BYs, since his 1870s BY is ineligible to be KO'd. Well, what does that actually do, since King Kelly has always been selected with an 1870s BY?

All Option #2 does is put a red X on the obvious -- no one was taking King Kelly for his 1880s BY anyway. So to utilize the KO correctly, the best use will be to still KO players in those "non-exempt" decades.

So what's the point?

Let's say I see a dropoff in the 1930s after the next two players. So I want to take one and KO the other. The change means I can do that, and not go looking first to see if the KO guy had 100 AB in the 1910s or 1940s. It also doesn't arbitrarily protect a BY-heavy guy whose career may have started in 1919 or ended in 1940.

[Pogues]

I honestly don't see how voting for the 2nd option will make anything markedly better than the 1st option.

For example, let's go with my King Kelly pick. Let's assume he's around in Rd 6, and Johnny KO's his 1880s BYs, since his 1870s BY is ineligible to be KO'd. Well, what does that actually do, since King Kelly has always been selected with an 1870s BY?

All Option #2 does is put a red X on the obvious -- no one was taking King Kelly for his 1880s BY anyway. So to utilize the KO correctly, the best use will be to still KO players in those "non-exempt" decades.

So what's the point?

For me, it makes no difference. Unless I see an amazingly obvious player to KO because of a super-strong season that can be KOed, and the player has a weak career line, I'll be concentrating my KOs on players that can be completely knocked out, not only half-assed knocked out.

Majority rules, and I'll roll with what we got.

[DMT]

I honestly don't see how voting for the 2nd option will make anything markedly better than the 1st option.

For example, let's go with my King Kelly pick. Let's assume he's around in Rd 6, and Johnny KO's his 1880s BYs, since his 1870s BY is ineligible to be KO'd. Well, what does that actually do, since King Kelly has always been selected with an 1870s BY?

All Option #2 does is put a red X on the obvious -- no one was taking King Kelly for his 1880s BY anyway. So to utilize the KO correctly, the best use will be to still KO players in those "non-exempt" decades.

So what's the point?

Which is why option #3 was the best choice but whatever #2 is fine too.