RANDOMINATION KEEPERS-season #6 needs 2 managers

I'm sorry, but I thought this question was answered.

I would say you're stuck with the lower value. Otherwise, it's be an unfair advantage over the other players.

Here's my "official" verbiage of this:

The Crosetti Rule: For future reference, if a new, higher-priced card of any keeper player is added to the base player set, the new, higher value card will be ignored for the duration of the league (unless, at any time, a reselection process takes place, at which time the player can be acquired using the new, higher value as part of the calculation against the 18M keeper cap). The manager who owned the player at his lower value may continue to use cards of that value and lower, until/unless said reselection takes place.

Fair enough. Thx!

Is new league/code set?

......Randomizing:
Player Set:
Here are your random numbers:

3
Timestamp: 2022-02-02 14:17:09 UTC

Player set is: 3: Pre war and WW2, all players through 1946 (includes NeL and 1800s players)
Same as we just had, I believe? ......

From the rules:
PLAYER SETS: Since there is no easy way to randomize the player pool (anymore), we will generate our player pool as follows:
1: All players
2: players from 1901 and later (no 1800s players, outside keepers)
3: Pre war and WW2, all players through 1946 (includes NeL and 1800s players)
4: Post War, 1947 and beyond.
5: Expansion Rosters.
6: The team with the worst record from previous season chooses the player set.

Choosing the player set randomly is clearly contrary to the rules.
Based on the rules, shouldn't hitmens be choosing the player set, since he had the worst record?

use all eras but then limit your selection to your keepers and players up to 1946. need all eras so that keepers from all eras can be in the set.

......Randomizing:
Player Set:
Here are your random numbers:

3
Timestamp: 2022-02-02 14:17:09 UTC

Player set is: 3: Pre war and WW2, all players through 1946 (includes NeL and 1800s players)
Same as we just had, I believe? ......

From the rules:
PLAYER SETS: Since there is no easy way to randomize the player pool (anymore), we will generate our player pool as follows:
1: All players
2: players from 1901 and later (no 1800s players, outside keepers)
3: Pre war and WW2, all players through 1946 (includes NeL and 1800s players)
4: Post War, 1947 and beyond.
5: Expansion Rosters only
6: The team with the worst record from previous season chooses the player set.

The rules do not say that the player set should be randomized.
Based on the rules, shouldn't hitmens be choosing the player set, since he had the worst record?

we haven't used that rule (#6) where worst record chooses set all along. I'm thinking that may have been added/pasted when honestiago started that 2nd league with all randomization. or else we just have ignored it all along.

The fact that it may have been done incorrectly in the past doesn't mean it shouldn't be corrected now that the mistake has been caught.

Hitmens should be choosing the player set.

Thanks all for making a big point that I had the crappiest team

No, he should not be choosing the Player set. Random number was a 3, not a 6. I’m not sure where the confusion is coming from. The number is clearly listed.

......Randomizing:
Player Set:
Here are your random numbers:

3
Timestamp: 2022-02-02 14:17:09 UTC

Player set is: 3: Pre war and WW2, all players through 1946 (includes NeL and 1800s players)
Same as we just had, I believe? ......

From the rules:
PLAYER SETS: Since there is no easy way to randomize the player pool (anymore), we will generate our player pool as follows:
1: All players
2: players from 1901 and later (no 1800s players, outside keepers)
3: Pre war and WW2, all players through 1946 (includes NeL and 1800s players)
4: Post War, 1947 and beyond.
5: Expansion Rosters.
6: The team with the worst record from previous season chooses the player set.

Choosing the player set randomly is clearly contrary to the rules.
Based on the rules, shouldn't hitmens be choosing the player set, since he had the worst record?

If you check your own post, you'll see the random number generated is #3, and that #3 under player set is 3: Pre war and WW2, all players through 1946 (includes NeL and 1800s players). The selection is correct.

As for #6, if we roll it, we'll follow it. It's random as far as we don't know who'll finish last to pick the set. So...if anyone wants to tank for a 16% chance to select the player set the next season, have at it, brutha.

P.S. Just wanted to point out here that I did propose randomizing the player pool, as well, since Strat finally gave us that option after this league formed. If I had had that option, I would not have created this league in the first place. Indeed - I ended up creating what I consider a "proper" Randomination League separately, due to the fact that a majority here still wanted keeper players. But, I have to say: it's SO much easier (and maybe more fair) to run this kind of league with a random player set. There's no tracking of players. Plus, you can have a shot at Bonds or Mantle or Ruth each year (if they show up). Food for thought, anyway.

Now I have to figure out how to win in the craptastic park I got for season #5 (I am NOT confident...well, ever, but especially not with Memorial '57).

Apparently, I misinterpreted the rules regarding player sets. I thought rules 1 through 5 identified the player sets and that rule 6 stated the selection process for picking one of the player sets. Yes, I saw the random 3 generated, but thought that it should never have been generated if the team with the worst record was to select the player set.

Thanks for the clarification.

Regarding hittmens, it should be noted that his teams got rings the first two seasons of our randomination league and made the playoffs in season 3. Despite a subpar season 4, so far he has more rings in this theme league than any other manager. I'll take 3 playoff appearances, with 2 rings, in 4 seasons any time!