Posted by Jtpsops on 8/7/2019 8:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by schwarze on 8/7/2019 7:52:00 AM (view original):
I assumed you meant season of the chosen player.

But “during the season you choose” is clearly stated in other themes (like the $90M league), so why wasn’t it clearly stated in this one then?

I am the person whose question prompted contrarian23's original post on this. I interpreted the rule as it was written precisely because of what Jtpsops said here; because "the season you choose" was stated in other themes but not this one. I was disappointed in ozomatli's ruling but I went ahead and changed my ballpark anyway. If I had known that the rule would be interpreted this way, would I have explored additional options for players to use? I really can't say, because I was convinced that I would be able to use the stadium that I wanted. I think it's possible that I would have. But the difference between the stadium I wanted to use and the one I switched to isn't large enough to make it a hill that I'm willing to die on.

My opinion is that the rule should be interpreted as written, but if it's not I'm fine with moving on.

How many folks does this impact? Is it a significant number or just a few?

Posted by Jtpsops on 8/7/2019 8:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by schwarze on 8/7/2019 7:52:00 AM (view original):
I assumed you meant season of the chosen player.

But “during the season you choose” is clearly stated in other themes (like the $90M league), so why wasn’t it clearly stated in this one then?

Probably because I wrote the descriptions around 2am

Posted by jbohrman on 8/7/2019 10:09:00 AM (view original):
How many folks does this impact? Is it a significant number or just a few?

I think this is a key point. If it's a large cohort that will have a considerable impact, I don't think it's a big deal to let them keep the stadium they planned to use.

So, if you are reading this and are impacted, please note it below

There was only 1 person in my league who was impacted by this.

I read it the way jtpsops reads it and it impacts my team.

It doesn't affect me, but I would agree that if a team had multiple stadiums during that player's tenure, owners could pick any of them regardless of which season they chose. It's not like we are opening up a franchise's entire stadium history or anything, nor does it provide anyone with an extraordinary advantage. On the contrary, having to change stadiums at this juncture could impact someone adversely if anything.

Posted by contrarian23 on 8/7/2019 12:15:00 PM (view original):
There was only 1 person in my league who was impacted by this.

Also only 1 in my league (ej)

I'll come back with a final ruling tonight after work

I currently have a moderate hitters park. My other two options are two relatively extreme pitchers parks (which will likely over extend my staff) and a pitchers park (which will likely not maximize on the innings I drafted).

If I need to change parks, I guess that's how the cookie crumbles, but in this case, I think it would have an impact on my team to some degree, as the other options aren't really close.

If the ruling is made to only use parks from the selected seasons, I would appreciate a brief window to look at some other options to see if one is more preferable.

Yep I personally think that since ozomatli didn't catch this before the final deadline, the rule should be interpreted as written. I don't think anyone gains an unfair advantage from leaving it the way it is, and it's not fair to people to find out at the last minute that an interpretation supported by what is written isn't valid and force them to scramble to fix their team.

Not sure I agree justinlee. I - and apparently most other owners in this tournament - interpreted the rule the way ozomatli intended it. I only looked at 3 possible parks. If now the interpretation is that other parks are available, then every owner should go and explore if switching parks makes sense. And if it does, then do we have the right to change our rosters as well?

Seems to me this is a tradeoff between asking a very small number of owners to definitely make a change, or asking a large number of owners to potentially make a change. To me, the former option makes a lot more sense than the latter.

Honestly, I think the fair result at this point, that inconveniences everyone the least, is to enforce the rule as it was intended, but give those affected (and ONLY those affected - commissioners will know who these owners are), one day to research some alternatives and submit their final roster.

I would prefer to see the rule written exactly how ozomatli intended. Then, we all have 48 hours to make any changes in that particular theme as we want. Everyone is treated the same this way. Most fair alternative in my mind.
My 2 cents.
Chris

Posted by contrarian23 on 8/7/2019 2:43:00 PM (view original):
Not sure I agree justinlee. I - and apparently most other owners in this tournament - interpreted the rule the way ozomatli intended it. I only looked at 3 possible parks. If now the interpretation is that other parks are available, then every owner should go and explore if switching parks makes sense. And if it does, then do we have the right to change our rosters as well?

Seems to me this is a tradeoff between asking a very small number of owners to definitely make a change, or asking a large number of owners to potentially make a change. To me, the former option makes a lot more sense than the latter.

I agree with contrarian.