I totally agree, primary position was stated. Let's get it on. Although I gotta say I'm jealous of Winetka1's team already.

Thanks for backing me up guys, this is not a rule change. Biglenr, I am pretty shocked you would call me out. I have always run honest leagues with an attention to detail. I am always open to discussion via sitemail.

I'm not calling you out. My post was to hold up the draft while it was discussed. But I certainly read that rule far different than you intended.

For hitters, they must be rated at the Primary Position being drafted in the year you are selecting

To me, that means that they must be rated at that position. The Primary Position currently being drafted is 1b. 1923 Babe Ruth (for example) is rated at 1b. My reading of the rule was that it was intended to stop someone from drafting Babe Ruth as a catcher and using him there.

If the rule would have stated something like "Players can only be drafted at their primary position for that year", it would have been no issue, but the way it was stated, particularly in a league that (rule 8) encourages us to mess with other owners, definitely made me believe that as long as a player was rated, it was golden.

And yes, my research was mainly looking up players who were rated at other positions to hose up draft lists and throw a wrench in the works. That was what made this league appealing to me. 3b Ty Cobb, c Jimmie Foxx, etc.

I did not accuse Bilfert of cheating... make that clear. I did accuse him of changing the rules of the draft before it officially started. Sometimes, as commish that happens, but it's usually not for something this important.

Rather than make problems, I'll do as the commish wishes... either shut up and play, or withdraw. His call.

Since no one asked for my opinion, I'll throw it out there.

As someone who writes for a living, I know all too well about writing something intended to be read one way and having someone interpret it in an entirely different manner. I don't think Bilfert is cheating, or even trying to change the rules midstream. I think it's a simple matter of two different interpretations.
And, just like when my editor and I disagree on an interpretation, he gets to make the call because he's the editor, I think Bilfert should get to make the call on this one because he's the commish.

So there's two cents for the change jar. I'll shut up now.

And for the record, I interpreted the rule as saying that a player could only be drafted at their primary position for that year. That doesn't mean all the fun is taken out of the draft; there are dozens of players who played one year "out of position" that people forget about or aren't aware of ... several have already been mentioned in this forum and in the classifieds forum.

I am honestly shocked that there was a "different interpretation." I understand that people misunderstand but the irony is that I purposely put the language "Primary Position" into the League rules to avoid this very situation.

To explain why biglenr's Babe Ruth example is in clear violation of this rule:

WiS has taken the time to include a box in the draft center that says "Include Secondary Positions." If you search 1B and do not check that box and enter RUTH, Zero names come up. If you check the box there are now 9 matches. Therefor, 1B would clearly be a ""Secondary Position." Additionally, if you have set the games to Zero in order to get those 9 results. If you set it to 5, there will still be no Babe Ruth's.

The rule will stand as I initially intended. This is not a rule change it is a clarification, just as title in the sitemail. I am sorry for the confusion, but I assure you I have not done anything to alter the rules of the league.

Since the draft has already started, I feel strongly that we stay the course.

And jealous of Alebenta? He has Walter Johnson in the Kingdome and now goes to the back of the line. This is why I love this draft.

I think you've confused me with winnetaka. There not jealous of me, yet. But they will be before I'm sent to the back of the line!

Yes, winnetka1. Ha.

Our VERY final thought on this issue...

The English language is a fairly precise language...

"For hitters, they must be rated at the Primary Position being drafted in the year you are selecting."

Let's examine biglenr's example;

Babe Ruth 1923 & we are drafting 1B...

Is Ruth "rated" at 1B (the primary position being drafted) in 1923??? Well, yes he is...

Thus, does Ruth meet the definition of "For hitters, they must be rated at the Primary Position being drafted in the year you are selecting."

Yes he does...biglenr is "correct" IMHO...

Might not be what the commish "intended", but it IS how the rule was written...

And for the record; I don't believe that ANYONE believes that Bilfert is "cheating"...He is ABSOLUTELY one of the best commishes on this site...PERIOD!!!

Respectfully submitted,



DBP

Let's keep drafting!! It is fun.

I suppose that is my problem... My background is as a business analyst, and I have to write very specific requirements that are very difficult to mis-understand.

This is a case where two reasonable people see a subject completely differently, and both are convinced that their view is correct.

Dilly describes perfectly the way I interpreted the rule. I thought that meaning was perfectly clear, and that the rules simply prohibitted us from drafting players with no rating at the position.

When I received the sitemail offering clarification, it was stating something completely different from the way I had interpreted the rule Apparently, this isn't a change, because it was the intent of the commish, but I don't read minds, just words.

So said, the majority of the league obviously wants it the way that bilfert intended, so that's the way we will play it.

And now I will shut up about the subject, and draft my team without any further comment

Hmmm.. I think this is a great example of how *imprecise* English can be.

A fairly common source of imprecision is when a qualifier is placed in a sentence in such a way that its referent is ambiguous. Bilfert's original statement is a good example.

Let's agree that Bilfert had a reason to use the qualifier "Primary" in the original statement of the rule. He wanted to distinguish something that was primary from one or more other things that were not primary. biglenr and DBP both thought "primary" qualified "the position being drafted." Some of the rest of us think it was probably always meant to refer to the WiS position ratings.

The problem with biglenr's and DBP's interpretation is that with the way the draft works, in any given round there's only one position being drafted. No distinction is made by calling it the "primary position being drafted."

On the other hand, "primary" makes a very relevant distinction if it was meant to apply to the WiS position rankings. We all know that players have a primary position each season, and some are rated at secondary positions. If you're the rule make for a draft like this, it is important to consider how to handle the two types of position rankings, and to make a distinction if a rule is meant to apply differently to the two types.

Bilfert's clarification is just that -- a clarification of what he meant when he used the qualifier "Primary" when he first wrote the rule. And it makes perfect sense.

Thanks guys, I think if we can we should move forward.

sitemail had been sent shortly after I picked

Gracias.