Abomination

He's not THAT bad. Apparently he'll be playing with Zubrus and Elias (who he's friends with). If he stays healthy, I wouldn't be surprised to see him put up 20 goals and 60 points.

Havlat would be available

Good job! I wonder why the fonts look so different from the BBDL one? Looks like they're the same chosen font and size. Must be the new google docs compared to the old ones.

A tab on the spreadsheet for team names would be especially appreciated.

I feel I'm probably ranked pretty appropriately for this year. Of course with my luck, I'll probably over-perform and take myself out of the running for an elite pick.

I've been getting some inquiries on some of my players. I am willing to trade a goalie (Anderson most likely) and some vets like Markov, Bieksa, Seidenberg, etc. I'd be looking for high end non-established guys in return. To part with a goalie, it would have to be worth my while since it would be a pain in the ass for me to stream backups all year to meet the min.

You know if you don't win, you're going to be hearing about that post all winter, right?

C - Ryan Johansen C - Jonathan Huberdeau LW - Evander Kane LW - Teuvo Teravainen RW - Blake Wheeler RW - Nail Yakupov F - Ryan Strome F - Nick Bonino F - Filip Forsberg D - Andrei Markov D - Matt Dumba D - Kevin Bieksa D - Dennis Seidenberg D - Nick Holden BN - Niklas Hjalmarsson BN - Alexandre Burrows BN - Cory Conacher BN - Martin Havlat G - Jaroslav Halak G - Craig Anderson Obviously I went for high upside youth (aside from goalie and a few d-men). I don't expect to compete this year. I also really, really hope Johansen doesn't bolt to Russia.

They were reading a quote by someone else (Bryce Harper I think)

It says 345, so probably borderline. We can see later when hittrackeronline puts it up.

...And he leaves one up to McCann who flies out in any other park.

I don't think that was my theory. Maybe it was people talking about WAR a while back? As far as Harper goes for me though, the injuries scare the crap out of me too much to take him that high. Will he stay healthy and really break out? Quite possible. That high though, I think you have to take the player that's probably already performing at Harper's likely ceiling as opposed to Harper himself who hasn't proved it yet.

He DID throw one down the middle, and still got squeezed lol. The strike zone has been like that all day (for us, not for them).

Now try to save your list

I've loosely preranked a bunch of the guys I want, but more to remind me of them or as an emergency in case the power goes out or computer crashes, or something.

Go under the "Draft Central" menu, and then "Pre-draft Rankings". You can then edit yours (make sure you save them after too).

That's what I ended up doing. Browser had a fit when I tried to submit the list though after that

Good God the ump has a one-sided strike zone tonight.

Yeah, that's very annoying.

lmao!

Nothing like lining a ball of the pitcher, directly into a double play. Our luck has been so horrible lately (not that it really matters at this point).

That's actually an important one. You can't reliably compare things if they aren't adjusted to be on the same basis. For example, it's uninformative to compare ERA of (say) the A's and the Rangers, since one plays in a massive park, and ERA doesn't adjust for the park (among other things). Interestingly though, the Jays starters are also 23/30 in xFIP. However, the starters are 9th in WAR.

A large part of minimum qualification is because of things like the batting title, but batting average itself has no bearing on the number of games you play. It's a simple average. WAR behaves (more) like a counting stat in that regard, so it does. That's also why (to my knowledge) the 3.1 PA / team game does NOT apply to things like home runs, RBI, or stolen bases. They are counting stats, not rate stats. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that you can't make an encompassing statement that compares players with a stat who's value is somewhat directly affected by the number of games played, then arbitrarily cut off the number of games - at least not at levels that eliminate players of interest in the study. Obviously no one is going to care about a bench player that gets 300 at-bats for example (unless they were expected to be a regular), but people are going to care about guys who are fairly regular players who simply missed time due to injury (which is largely not a reliably predictable occurrence, at least not major injuries). Jeter, Tulo, Hanley, Drew, Everth, etc would all be players that could be expected to be included. I suppose in the end, this is more picky than a critical issue anyhow, at least in this case. It is important however when making an observation backed by stats, to do so in a manner that gives an objective (and complete) picture. Subjective opinions can filter it after that, and if all of the data is presented, those opinions can then be properly debated. BTW, your list seems to be missing Hech as well God, I suddenly feel like Moogy. I had better have a shower and go to bed lol.

Canucks are going to win it all **shakes fist at the non-believers**

That's exactly why you have to either include basically all SS (or at least all that played most of their games at SS), or scale the results. You are presenting data that in effect has arbitrary inclusion AND that doesn't put all players on an even playing field. You can't really do both and still get meaningful results. Jeter is the most obvious example of why this is, but let's take a fictional example. You need roughly 1000 PA to qualify for a full 2 year period. If you have ten people with 975 and another with 1025, you don't want to exclude the ten that just barely miss the cutoff, and only present the results of the one that just barely makes it. It doesn't tell the story of what the data is saying, and those extra 50 PA aren't going to significantly change the results. As another example, Reyes just barely makes the cutoff himself. If he had missed about 10 more games this year, he probably wouldn't qualify right now. That doesn't mean that his $/WAR among shortstops isn't a valid exploration.