RMF: RIFC 2005: pre-draft discussion [RotoGuru Football Forum]

RotoGuru Football Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread	Self-edit this thread

0	Subject: RIFC 2005: pre-draft discussion Posted by: Guru - [330592710] Sun, Jul 24, 2005, 13:35 I have sent out the invitations for managers for the 2005 RIFC. The eight playoff teams from the 2004 RIFC are returning. In addition, the regular season winner and the playoff winner from each of the three qualifying leagues have been invited. For the qualifying league in which the regular season winner also won the playoffs, the second place regular season team has been invited. Thus far, I have received acceptances from 13 of the 14 invitees. I am still awaiting a response from Doug, but since he has been an active manager in the RIHC, I expect he will accept as well. (If not, I’ll pick an alternate from his QL). Here is the list or managers: Challenger Taxman Ender Leggestand GoatLocker Mötley Crüe Guru Sludge Athletics Guy Kev bandos I_AM_CANADIAN Bonka Doug Next steps: 1. We need to review the league parameters and decide whether any changes are warranted. I’ll start by digging out last year’s parameters and posting them here. 2. We need to organize qualifying leagues. I will start a separate thread for this momentarily.
2	Guru ID: 330592710 Sun, Jul 24, 2005, 13:44	A thread for organizing qualifying leagues has been started. Please use that thread for all QL organization issues. We will use this thread for discussion on rules for 2005. 2005 Qualifying League thread
3	Guru ID: 330592710 Sun, Jul 24, 2005, 13:46	I have copied the league parameters from last year'ss RIFC. The first order of business is to review those and decided whether any changes are warranted. Roster 1 QB 2 RB 3 WR 1 TE 1 K 1 Team def 1 DL 2 IDP (flex) 8 bench 20 Total Offense Category Passing TD 4 Other TD 6 Passing-2pt conv 1 Other-2pt conv 2 Passing yard 1/25 Rushing yard 1/10 Receiving yard 1/10 Punt return yard 1/10 Kick return yard 1/25 Kick return 0 (no deduction) Decimal scoring: yes Int, fumbles lost -2 Kicking Extra point made 1 Extra point missed -1 FG under 40 yards 3 FG 40-49yds 4 FG 50+ yards 5 Missed FG <30 -1 Missed FG 30+ 0 Team Defense Sack 1 Interception 2 Fumble recovered 2 TD 6 Safety 3 Blocked kick 2 Shutout 10 1-6 points allowed 7 7-13 points allowed 4 14-20 points allowed 1 21-27 points allowed 0 28-34 points allowed -1 35+ points allowed -4 Indiv Defensive Players Solo Tackle 1 Asst Tackle 0.5 Pass defensed 1 Sack 2 (half sack=1) Interception 2 Fumble forced 1 Fumble recovery 1 TD 6 Safety 3 Blocked kick 2 IDP receive points for any touchdowns scored, regardless of cause (off, def, or return), as well as for return yardage and other offensive points. All free agents are subject to weekly waivers Playoffs 8 teams Top 6 W/L records are seeded 1-6 Top remaining total points are seeded 7-8 Teams with equivalent W/L records are seeded based on head-to-head first, then total points Bracket is fixed (no reseeding after each round) Schedule 13 week round robin Doubleheaders all weeks 1-13 (play each team twice) Single elimination playoffs, weeks 14-16
4	Guru ID: 330592710 Sun, Jul 24, 2005, 13:51	In addition to discussion on potential rules changes, we should consider whether to stay with the Fanball.com hosting site. While there were some hosting hiccups last year, none were critical, and I generally found the Fanball platform to be satisfactory. I particularly liked the ability to schedule doubleheaders each week, a feature which was uncommon to most hosting sites (at least for last year). That said, I am open to any suggestions. Once again, RotoGuru.com will pay for the league hosting costs (within reason). It is not necessary that Qualifying Leagues use the same hosting service, even though this may necessitate some rules differences. Hopefully, those differences can be minimized.
5	Guru ID: 330592710 Sun, Jul 24, 2005, 13:53	In your review of the league rules, you may wish to skim through last year's discussion threads. They are most easily found using the forum filter (searching for threads with RIFC in the subject)
6	TB *Sherpa* ID: 031811922 Sun, Jul 24, 2005, 23:31	IDP didn't turn out to be as important as I thought it would be with only 3 required. I suggest you increase it to 1 DL, 1LB, 1 DB and 2 IDP Flex and add two more bench slots to make it a 25 round draft. If we can start two RB and three WR, I think we can start five IDP.
7	TB *Sherpa* ID: 031811922 Sun, Jul 24, 2005, 23:32	...or even increase it to 3 IDP Flex spots and only add one more bench spot.
8	leggestand *Leader* ID: 451036518 Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 08:56	I liked the fanball site (especially the doubleheader feature), and I think we should stick with that. The only rule I would vote for being adjusted is the waiver process. I think TB did a good analysis showing that the welfare system wasn't completely flawed last year, but I still think it is "unfair" to allow for the last place team to have #1 waiver priority each week. I also see the other side of the equation that the 1st place team can just sit on the #1 waiver priority until a huge pick up emerges, so, that doesn't seem to be "fair" either. My proposal is something in the middle (I don't even know if this is possible): What if the first 6 weeks we do the welfare system? It allows for the weaker teams to plug their holes with a higher priority, and after 6 weeks, hoping that most teams are now closer to even, we revert to the non-weekly reorder waiver process? It may not be possible to even do this, so, my thought could be moot...
9	leggestand *Leader* ID: 451036518 Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 08:59	As for the IDP, I agree that 3 IDP's did not have a huge effect on the games, but I prefer it that way. My vote would be to bump it to 4, and add it as a flex IDP.
10	Motley Crue *Dude* ID: 439372011 Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 09:30	Let's get the return yardage straight from the outset this season. Everyone should get points for everything they do. Last year the rule was that defensive players couldn't get return yardage points, and then when we realized Fanball was adding those points in anyway, we modified the rules midseason to allow it, after retroactively deducting points that should never have made it in. Let's make sure we either allow return yardage for everyone or no one this season so that doesn't happen again. I vote that everyone who gets return yardage gets points for it. As far as waivers were concerned, I'd like to investigate who was claimed on waivers last year and see if they were that significant. I still maintain that most of my important acquisitions were made via free agency.
11	leggestand *Leader* ID: 451036518 Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 09:33	I agree with MC's return yardage thoughts.
12	BoNkA ID: 18651258 Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 09:51	I also agree with countin return yards for all players.
13	Guru ID: 330592710 Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 12:48	I think it is safe to assume that as long as the software permits it, all points will be scored for all players, whether offensive or defensive. That was certainly the concensus last year.
14	Bandos *Sustainer* ID: 279492419 Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 13:10	If we are starting two RB's (and no one really started a fullback regularly) it seems odd that there is only one QB spot. Increasing it to 2 would make sense. I am in favor of 1 DL, 1LB, 1DB, 2 flex - 25 round draft RE: 13 Two way players in general need a discussion. It seems easy enough for the return yardage, but what about Troy Brown? Mike Vrabel? anyone else who gets touches on O and D? Is that what you mean by ANY points? Or would you have to start Brown at WR and DB? Alos, is there any way to do fraction of points (ie. 1 Rushing yard = .1 point? and etc? Looking forward to the year and being in a league with IAC again:) Its always lively.
15	Motley Crue *Dude* ID: 439372011 Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 13:22	We used decimal scoring last year. I don't know that there is multiple position eligibility in football. I actually am fairly sure there isn't. So with guys like Brown and Vrabel, I'd vote to give them all points they accumulate on either side of the ball. I doubt the software will let you do it, though. If Troy Brown catches an INT and runs it back for a TD, and you have him starting at WR, I don't think Fanball Commissioner will score that. Same with Vrabel--if he gets a goaline TD toss thrown at him, I doubt the software can be manipulated to count that. There are certain limitations to what can be done.
16	Guru ID: 330592710 Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 13:25	Yes, we would use fractional points. I'm open to discussion about 2 way players. I can't even recall how Fanball handled them last year. Did Troy Brown get credit for interceptions? If an offensive player makes a tackle following a turnover (or on a spoecial teams unit), did he (or should he) get those defensive points? I think the problem with starting 2 QBs is that there are 14 teams in the RIFC, but only 32 NFL teams (and only 28 are playing on bye weeks). That's just not enough depth to provide 2 starting QBs per team.
18	leggestand *Leader* ID: 451036518 Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 13:33	If an offensive player makes a tackle following a turnover (or on a spoecial teams unit), did he (or should he) get those defensive points? I am almost 100% sure that they did reward tackles on turnovers with points...but I may be wrong. I just seem to remember a few times that one of my WR's points didn't add up, then I'd find out he was credited with a tackle.
19	BoNkA ID: 136312513 Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 14:31	I think Fanball does award tackles after turnovers to offensive players. But as far as interceptions and such, I have no idea. Should be easy to find out by emailing them.
20	Guru ID: 330592710 Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 15:27	My recollection is that Fanball awarded all points, offensive and defensive, although I don't recall each of the specific circumstances. When I asked them specifically at the beginning of last season, though, they provided an incorrect answer, which led to the issue MC referred to in post 10.
21	Athletics Guy ID: 43525254 Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 15:56	I don't believe I had the doubleheader feature in my league last season. What is it exactly? Setting 1 lineup against 2 teams or being able to set 2 separate lineups? As far as return yds go, I think they should be counted for all players. And the same goes with scoring on 2-way players. Those turnovers and scores are a big part of the game and shouldn't go to waste.
22	leggestand *Leader* ID: 451036518 Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 16:29	AG, You can set two different lineups, although most times I kept the same lineup for each game. I did start different 3rd WR's on occasion if I didn't have a great feeling about either of them and didn't want one guy to put up a 0 for two teams. The real plus for this feature is even if you have a great week, but happen to play another team with a great week, you can still go 1-1 instead of 0-1.
23	GoatLocker *Sustainer* ID: 060151121 Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 16:29	AG, You set two separate line-ups. One for each game. Cliff
24	I_AM_CANADIAN ID: 506161118 Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 18:54	RE: Bandos... Yeah, looking forward to the competition too. Let's hope I can be a little less a peace disturber than in previous years?! (No promises) For Subjects up for discussion: ------------------------------- Fanball - I haven't used it for myself, but I had to make some modifications for my brother's teams last year a couple times, and didn't find it overly complicated. IDP # of Players: I wouldn't mind seeing a little more importance on IDP, but as long as were using DEF TM as well, I don't think we should go overboard. Maybe: 1DL, 1DB, 1LB, 1IDP-Flex? Defensive Scoring for Offensive Stats etc: I have NO problem scoring the season this way; but please... make it clear for everyone where we stand in this area. My suggestion: Score everything. This way I won't pass on this years Terrence McGee (11.4PPG by our scoring = Top IDP Player), should one pop his head out this year. This might be another good reason to add DB as a CAT; because last year their were very few DBs drafted, and McGee was actually a FA pickup. Also... IDP Related. Any thoughts on bringing up the value of Sacks and Interceptions? There was very little points value comming from DLs and DBs in general last year. Maybe a value of 3 for a Sack (1.5 Half), and 4 for an Int?
25	Guru ID: 330592710 Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 20:25	I heard from Doug, who is in, so we are all set for managers.
26	kev *Donor* ID: 043111845 Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 20:58	I agree with Guru's take on 1 QB starting... for IDP's, I am easy- I think 3 is fine, but an increase should make the drafting a little more difficult on the defensive side of the ball.
27	TB *Sherpa* ID: 031811922 Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 00:05	An increase of IDPs means you have to factor them into your draft strategy instead of just filling in your roster near the end of the draft. It's like the TE position; once the top ones are gone, there are plenty that will score about the same. But, if 70 have to be started every week instead of 42 it changes where many will be drafted and it also plays a bigger role in waiver pick-ups.
28	GoatLocker *Sustainer* ID: 060151121 Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 00:15	It was real easy last year to pick up good IDPs to cover injuries and off weeks. Increasing the number makes it a little more work and as TB said, you have to have more of a plan vice "winging" it. Cliff
29	Guru ID: 330592710 Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 11:56	Does anyone have an objection to using Fanball again? If not, I'll start setting up league parameters, taking registrations, etc. This might also help in evaluating scoring alternatives.
30	Guru ID: 330592710 Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 12:32	Also, just to get everyone clued in to the likely time line, here is what I'm currently thinking: Now through August 1: Discuss possible rules changes. August 2-4: Vote on any rule changes. Once we have nailed down the rules, we'll hold the draft². As with other Invitational leagues, managers will be randomly ordered, and will get to sequentially select their draft position (1-14) for the player draft. (As an aside, we also used the reverse draft² order to rank any waiver claims immediately after the draft. All undrafted free agents will be subject to waiver for 48 hours after the draft.) Last year, the draft took about 15 days to complete. The opening game this year is on Thursday, Sept. 8. I'd like to aim to finish no later than Sept. 3. This means we should probably plan to start the player draft sometime between Aug 15-20. Although everyone is anxious to get started, it is also beneficial to wait as long as we can to be able to avoid pre-season injury catastrophes as much as possible. We'll plan to use the "On-the-Clock" kafenatid.net draft software. I'll work with KKB to get that set up early next month. If any of you will have access problems for that domain, we'll figure out a way to address that.
31	leggestand *Leader* ID: 451036518 Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 13:26	I say we start on the 15th, as the 15th is a Monday. Starting on the 15th instead of the 20th (Friday) shouldn't change much in terms of injuries/draft strategy given that no additional preseason games would have been played.
32	Challenger *Donor* ID: 481126818 Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 14:05	Does anyone have an objection to using Fanball again? Uhh, personally I was not impressed with this site. Main reason is they didn't provide enough stats breakdowns to cover want scoring options were offered. 1) We had to put pen to paper to figure out defending players were actually receiving credit for return yds. No stats were avialable thru this site concerning return yds, IIRC. 2) Guru had to make manual adjustments each week from IDP block fg's and this was discovered into the season. 3) Again IIRC, I actually used Yahoo stats on trying to decide whom I should pick up/drop for IDP's. I can't recall exactly why, unsatisfied with Fanball stats info or the lack of. 4) Now that I think of it, am I wrong or did Fanball also not provide return yds stas for the offensive players also? Ok, I was able to get into our league from last year and here is what stats are lacked from Fanball per our scoring system from last year: 1) No individual kickoff/punt return stats whatsoever (Off/def) 2) No block kick stats for IDP's and I guess off players too. At 1st glance I guess that's it. I just wanted to point this out before a final decision was made.
33	Doug ID: 47657130 Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 14:19	Are there weekly waivers? All free agents get placed on waivers starting at first kickoff of the week and then get processed sometime Monday night or Tuesday?
34	Doug ID: 47657130 Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 15:25	I would like to get through at least the bulk of Week 2 preseason games before drafting (if possible). There are 14 games played on Aug. 18-20, with only 1 game on the 21st and 1 on the 22nd. If we start the draft on the 21st and it takes 15 days then we would finish on Sept. 4th. I'd much rather see us accellerate the clock a tiny bit (if necessary, we can play that by ear as it progresses) if we need to compress the draft by a day or two in order to finish by the 3rd. I think that's more than worthwhile in order to see the lion's share of the second week's worth of preseason games. Weeks 2 and 3 are the most valuable games as well... week 1 is the first exposure to real game speed in however many months and there's a lot of rust, mental errors, etc., and in week 4 the first team tends to rest up. Hence my reasoning for thinking we really should try to get through week 2.
35	Guru ID: 330592710 Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 15:52	For selfish reasons, I'd also like to start later. I'll be on vacation from Aug 13-27, and it would be nice to get through most of the first week without draft responsibilities (although I'll have to spend time on draft research, I suppose.) I'll go with the majority on this, however. FWIW, I already got a note from Fanball saying that they would look into adding return yardage stats to the player listings. No commitment, but that's a positive sign. While there were some aspects of Fanball that I found to be a bit confusing at first, I was generally satisfied once I figured it out. Live scoring was typically up and reasonably accurate. And I really liked the doubleheader feature. While that probably doesn't make a lot of difference in the long run, it helps to ensure that you don't put up the second best score of the week only to go 0-1.
36	Perm Dude *Dude* ID: 030792616 Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 16:01	I'm not in the league this year, but just wanted to throw out that my own recollections were quite similar to Challenger's in #32. The whole return yardage problem was a real twist when we realized that the yardage had to be manually changed. And while I was not against having return yardage count (since it made some DBs and 4th-string WRs more attractive) to have the league decide one way and then to find it wasn't that way in the end was a real kick in the pants. Good luck, fellas. pd
37	Guru ID: 330592710 Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 16:03	The interface at Fanball has been changed since last year. I think it's principally cosmetic, but I haven't explored fully. Since last year's league is still in place, I'm going to see if I can adjust the team ownership to take out the departing owners and add the newcomers. I think I can do this while leaving everything else intact for the time being. I'll simply add a second manager to those teams, and them eliminate the departing manager. New managers should receive an emailed invitation from Fanball. Old managers can simply log in using last year's ID and password.
38	Guru ID: 330592710 Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 16:12	OK. Fanball invites have been sent out to new members. After you register, I'll delete the old manager. I could have simply deleted old teams and added new ones, but this way new managers can tinker with a fully loaded team during the pre-draft phase, since last year's rosters are still loaded. The schedule will be shuffled before the season (and draft) begins.
39	Motley Crue ID: 213222620 Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 16:42	The interface at Fanball has been changed since last year. I think it's principally cosmetic, but I haven't explored fully. I have to admit, I like the new format much better than the one from last year. It looked like some primitave binary crap or something in 2004. This year it's much sleeker. Easier on my eyes. Regarding complaints levied against Fanball, until another website that allows doubleheaders is discovered, I don't think any of those other complaints are strong enough to contemplate changing to a different site. We can live with manual score manipulation. I think the RIFC ought to maintain the DH aspect, though. It's like a signature aspect now. I think Fanball is the closest thing to what we want, without actually creating our own website and calculating all of the scores ourselves.
40	Guru ID: 330592710 Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 17:58	Got this from Fanball regarding adding return yards to the player listings: "We will add this feature to our enhancements list – but we have no timeline on when it may appear, do not to expect anything before the regular season starts – it will most likely be an inseason enahancement."
41	BoNkA ID: 276142619 Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 20:14	The sooner we start the better, but also the later we start the better! Oh boy. What Doug mentioned is probably the best thing we can do to work around the pre-season scheduling.
42	Ender ID: 406351010 Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 09:52	Just got back from a minivacation myself so I'll chime in on the things that seem most important to me. Despite my minor complaints about Fanball and ease of use last year the double header feature makes me want to stay with them. I really enjoyed having 2 opponents every week. I played in a 2 QB league last year and it was a blast. That being said, it was a 10 team league which is really the max for which you can have 2 QB's. 2 x 14 = 28 just to have a full roster each week. That leaves 4 total QB's to cover bye weeks. It just won't work. I like the idea of a later draft start time to take position battles and injuries into account. I don't know if a 4th IDP is necessary. I'm not really opposed to it either. If we do add it, it might as well me a LB because I think it's a pretty safe assumption that that's what everyone will start in that slot if it's flex. If we're going 5 perhaps LB, LB, DL, DL, DB would be good. That 2nd DL could swing the outcome of a game which is what I think you would want if you're going to add to the roster. If the added slot(s) isn't going to have an effect, then why do it? Enough for now...
43	Motley Crue *Dude* ID: 439372011 Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 10:35	I think there were many DB's that produced excellent stats last year. In fact, the last few weeks I started 2 DB's and a DL. If we tweak the IDP rules, I'd be in favor of a lineup like 1LB, 1DL, 1 DB, 1 Flex. That just makes sense. Force everyone to fill the defensive positions. Just like on offense.
44	Guru ID: 330592710 Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 13:05	I just did some Q&D point averages by position using last year's player stats. QB: 16.6 (top 14) RB: 14.1 (top 28) WR: 9.9 (top 42) TE: 6.6 (top 14 for the rest of the positions) K: 8.0 Team Def: 10.1 DL: 5.6 LB: 8.5 DB: 8.1 Clearly, DL is the weakest scoring position. But is it worth goosing up the scoring formula for this position (or for any of the IDP positions) in order to achieve better parity with the other positions? For example, if we added an extra point for IDP sacks, the DL average would only increase by about 0.6 points/game.
45	Guru ID: 330592710 Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 13:10	BTW, although LBs had a slight scoring advantage over DBs, the difference was slight. Linebackers ranked #15-28 averaged 7.1 per game, while DBs ranked #15-28 averaged 6.7. So, if we required 4 IDPs (DL, LB, DB, Flex), it appears that the flex spot would not necessarily be dominated by LBs. I suppose that if we added that extra IDP slot, we should expand the roster size by 1? (I guess I could make that a voting option as well.)
46	Motley Crue *Dude* ID: 439372011 Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 13:39	I'm not worried about a disparity in DL scoring. So they all get drafted in the 15th through 20th round. No big deal. I mean, we certainly learned our lessons last year taking Strahan and Rice so early, eh, Guru?
47	Ender ID: 406351010 Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 13:53	OK, I'll conced the averages then. Can't argue with the numbers. I would be curious to see the Standard Deviations as it seems you can count on LB's to be consistent from week to week whereas you never quite know what you'll get from a DB, but I suppose I could be sot down on that note as well :) I guess given the above data I'm game for just about anything as far as IDP's go. I don't necessarily think we need to adjust scoring at DL either. I also would say that if we add an IDP I would like to see the roster size increased accordingly.
48	Guru ID: 330592710 Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 14:21	MC[46] - In my case , it was Jason Taylor in round 8. What an idiot.
49	Sludge ID: 54692111 Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 14:22	One thing to keep in mind while considering the possibilities of adding roster spots. Assuming that we all know what the Hell we're doing, the margins that are there for us to exploit are slim. Given that, adding players adds variability in the scoring, and increased variability means that the "pure dumb luck" factor plays a more significant role.
50	Motley Crue *Dude* ID: 439372011 Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 14:37	Sludge, what, do you think you're some kind of statistician or something?
51	Doug *Leader* ID: 02730280 Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 21:54	I'd argue the opposite... a larger sample size means more chances for an astute manager to differentiate themselves from the pack, even in the margin is slim. Assuming similar variations per data point, then the larger your sample, the smaller your overall variation will tend to be relative to the "performance" aspect, or the total mean. If my players average 10 points per week with a variance of 5, and your players average 9.5 points per week with a variance of 5, then the larger our active rosters, the greater my likelihood of victory. Thus, a slightly diminshed role for pure dumb luck.
52	Doug *Leader* ID: 02730280 Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 21:56	Grr... for some reason Firefox on a Mac works with the no line feed option, but IE on Mac puts a hard return wherever it wraps, unless you click yes, in which case you have to put a bunch of "br" tags or what have you everytime you want a paragraph break. Is this fixable? Just curious... I generally stick to Firefox anyway.
53	Sludge ID: 54692111 Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 10:23	I'd argue the opposite... a larger sample size means more chances for an astute manager to differentiate themselves from the pack, even in the margin is slim. See, that's just it. We're all astute managers. The margins that you think are there for us to exploit, I hate to tell you, are much slimmer than you think (although our egos would like to tell us otherwise). Furthermore, that argument utilizes the law of large numbers, or if you prefer, the basic fact that the variance of the mean is equal to sigma^2/n. Unfortunately, both of those (at least the usual ones seen) assume independent and identically distributed random variates (in this case, player scores). We don't have equal variances or equal means. To save the day, however, there is a law of large numbers that applies to random variables with differing means and variances (Strong Law of Large Numbers --- note the condition that states that the variance cannot increase at too fast a rate). But people get in trouble when assigning large sample behavior to small samples, which is the case here. There's not always a smooth transition to the large sample behavior as the sample sizes increase from small to large. In particular, your argument falls apart if the variances for mid-tier players (those that would be added) are actually higher than those before (or after) them. I don't know if that's necessarily the case here, but I would expect to see more outliers from those guys. Given a few minutes this afternoon, I'll take a look at LB, DL, and DB numbers, particularly the week-to-week variation.
54	Sludge ID: 54692111 Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 10:27	To save the day, however, there is a law of large numbers that applies to random variables with differing means and variances (Strong Law of Large Numbers --- note the condition that states that the variance cannot increase at too fast a rate). Oops. I forgot to make my point. With this more general law of large numbers, the large sample behavior doesn't kick in as fast as for the usual LLN.
55	Guru ID: 330592710 Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 10:54	Doug[52] - I could probably develop a workaraound for the Mac linefeed issue, but it would involve some programming that I haven't felt was worth the effort.
56	Doug ID: 57352917 Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 12:02	I hear what you're saying Sludge, but my feeling is that it's not the case here. Given the situation where we're discussing adding a 4th IDP, that IDP will most likely (though not necessarily) be an LB... a #15-28 LB if we assumed all LBs, and my gut instinct is that the variances for this group of players is lower than it is for those players before them (such as our QB, RBs, WRs, TEs, etc.)... largely due to the fact that those players score not only yardage but also TD-based points, which significantly increase the variation. I would predict (haven't done any analysis, just edubacatedinal guessing) that LBs tend to score primarily based on tackles and assists, which in fantasy terms varies similarly to yardage for skill positions (say typically 5-10 tackles per game vs. 50-100 yards per game) but without the additional TD-based variation... and what's more, I would also predict that TDs tend to correlate to yardage, thus amplifying the variance for those players (the variance would be less if yards and TDs were uncorrelated or negatively correlated). Now, it is true that LBs do have fumble, sack, INT variation, and occassionally even TDs, but my guess would be this is a smaller variation relative to their tackle-based scoring than the TD impact is for the "skill positions". Furthermore, I'd think that this variation is less correlated to their core tackle-based scoring than TDs are to yardage. Again, lots of guessing without doing the homework here, but just outlining what my instincts tell me in this case.
57	kev *Donor* ID: 43111845 Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 12:26	Hey guys, I'm out of town from this afternoon until Tuesday. If anything needs to have a deciding vote made, I will check the board ASAP when I get back into town.
58	Guru ID: 330592710 Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 12:38	Here's my current sense of the discussion on potential changes: 1. We'll need to vote on adding one or two additional IDPs. 2. For team defenses, "Blocked kicks" will be replaced by "Blocked FG and XP", since blocked punts is not a scoring option. 3. For IDP, blocked kicks (of any type) will be eliminated, since it is not an available option. 4. All points listed for offensive players (incl. kickers) will be included for IDP. All points listed for IDP will be included for offensive players. If Fanball fails to included these automatically, the Commish will manually adjust. (I think Fanball does include these automatically.) 5. The issue of waivers is occaionally raised, but seldom seems to get traction. Let me try to clarify our existing rule (please correct me if this sounds wrong): a) at the end of the draft, all undrafted players are placed on waivers for 2 days, during which time waiver claims can be submitted. The priority order for preseason waiver claims is the reverse of the random draw for selecting draft order. b) During the season, all free agents are subject to waivers each week (Wednesday noon). Also, any dropped played goes into the waiver pool for 48 hours. At the start of each week, the waiver priority is based on the reverse order of the current standings. Does anyone have a specific proposal for changing this? 6. I just remembered that we neglected to address playoff add/drop rules in advance last year. We ended up voting on a limited ability to add/drop during the playoffs. I'll have to look that up. Are there other issues that we need to address?
59	Guru ID: 330592710 Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 12:46	I see that our trade deadline was evidently the Friday night of week 10. I assume we can keep that date (Nov 11, 11:30pm ET).
60	Guru ID: 330592710 Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 12:49	Here was our decision on player transactions during the playoffs: Players at the primary skill positions (QB, RB, WR) are frozen for the playoffs. Team defenses are also frozen, since they are not subject to injury uncertainty. Other positions are eligible for injury-replacement add/drop/claim transactions only. Specifically, players in the other slots (TE, PK, IDP) may only be replaced if they are designated as questionable or worse on the NFL injury report. This allowance does not apply to any player who was designated questionable or worse for the week 13 game (the final regular season game). Thus, you cannot add or drop a QB, RB, WR, or team Def after the week #13 freeze, period. You can only drop someone else if that player was designated as "Probable" or better for week 13, and "Questionable" or lower at some point thereafter. If one of those players is dropped, he can only be replaced by a player fulfilling the same position. (LB and DB will be considered the same position for this purpose.)
61	Guru ID: 330592710 Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 12:58	Kev - you still need to register at the Fanball site. I sent out email instructions a few days ago. Ditto for I_AM_CANADIAN. Everyone else is registered.
62	kev *Donor* ID: 43111845 Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 13:02	Sorry Dave, will get on that right now. As for the IDP's, I am in favor of the DL, LB, DB, and flex (4 starters)
63	Ender ID: 406351010 Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 13:39	Regarding waiver wire during the season: We reset the waiver priority each week did we not? Perhaps as a compromise to the welfare system we should not reset it at all (after the initial priority as determined by reverse draft order). It seems to me that it works that way in Yahoo and I've never seen anyone quibble with it. If we did it that way last year then my memory is just poor and this entire post can be ignored.
64	Guru ID: 330592710 Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 13:40	Correct, the waiver priority is currently reset at the beginning of each week.
65	kev *Donor* ID: 43111845 Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 13:42	I have never used the welfair system- can someone give me a brief description of the difference between it and the normal waiver wire (worst to first)?
66	leggestand *Leader* ID: 451036518 Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 13:54	kev - The welfare system is when each week the waiver order resets in the order of "last to first." If you are in last place the first 3 weeks of the season, you get first choice for waiver players for the first three weeks.
67	Challenger *Donor* ID: 481126818 Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 14:43	See, that's just it. We're all astute managers. BINGO! Bringing back up the leggestand's welfare waiver concerns and I'm in 100% agreement with him. If this is really an "astute" league, then why would we continuously bail out the bottom team(s)?? As far as the concern of "sitting" on the #1 priority claim spot, I don't think this will happen with the short bench we have. Now since I started this post I see several posts have addressed this matter, but I'll leave my post intact. Guru, before I post my suggestions on the 48 hour waiver system, let's start with what options appear available thru Fanball w/o manual intervention?
68	Guru ID: 330592710 Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 15:08	You can use either winning % or points to set the waiver priorities, either based on year-to-date or just on the most recent week. Regardless of the basis chosen, the priorities are reset weekly. The alternative is "Commisioner sets manually", although that presumably isn't as onerous as it sounds. If we wanted to avoid a reset from week to week from some point forward, I would just set the priority to manual at that time and then leave it alone. The only thing that would impact it going forward would be claims. There actually is a bit more work for the Commish to do in order to make sure that all claiming systems are integrated, but that's independent of any decision we make regarding priority.
69	Guru ID: 330592710 Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 15:21	Further clarification: There are two types of claiming processes. The first is a free agent claiming process. We applied this on Wednesday noon every week. All non-roster players were subject to this claiming process, after which they became free agents to be picked up first come, first served. The second is a waiver claiming process. This applies only to a dropped player. In our league, any dropped player was subject to a 48 hour waiver period, during which time he could be claimed based on waiver priorities. After the 48 hour period, the player became a free agent. At game time, any player on waivers automatically goes into the next week's free agent claiming process, regardless of the 48 hour period. (So someone dropped immediately before the Monday night game would still be available for a free agent claim at noon on Wednesday.) We do not need to run dropped players through waivers, or we could also shorten the period to less than 48 hours. As an aside, I think that the Fanball system might have allowed bench players to be dropped after they were frozen, but our league overrode that. That had to be manually enforced, as I recall. In other words, in order to pick up a player for Monday night on Monday afternoon, you could not drop a frozen bench player from a Sunday game. You had to either have an open roster slot at the time, or else drop an unfrozen player (i.e., a Monday night or bye week player). I hope I am remembering all of this correctly, I know it took me several week last year before I fully understood it.
70	Sludge ID: 54692111 Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 17:18	BINGO! Bringing back up the leggestand's welfare waiver concerns and I'm in 100% agreement with him. If this is really an "astute" league, then why would we continuously bail out the bottom team(s)?? Please don't use that as an argument for or against the current waiver system. As astute as we all are (and I say that with all seriousness and respect due everyone here), we cannot accurately predict many variables that have a significant impact on a player's performance (injuries being far and away the cream of the crop). We're all trying to shoot fish in a barrel. We may be decent (good even) at aiming, but once I've fired the bullet, I have no control over where the fish is going, and I don't have any control over which direction the bullet is going to veer once it hits the water. It's out of my hands! But it doesn't mean that I'm a bad shot.
71	Doug ID: 49112252 Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 22:13	Come on, you just need to study fluid dynamics and chaos theory, then build a machine that can accurately model the behavior of an infintely complex system, which you can of course fund by selling it to the weather forecasting industry, and if someone tries to dissuade you with the argument that this is impossible, merely illustrate your case by being in two places at once by use of your improbability drive (an accomplishment generally considered impossible yet already scientifically achieved here on earth at an atomic level, IIRC). It's all quite simple actually.
72	holt ID: 566352314 Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 04:59	that's exactly what I was gonna say doug.
73	BoNkA ID: 18646298 Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 09:46	b) During the season, all free agents are subject to waivers each week (Wednesday noon). Also, any dropped played goes into the waiver pool for 48 hours. At the start of each week, the waiver priority is based on the reverse order of the current standings. The first is a free agent claiming process. We applied this on Wednesday noon every week. All non-roster players were subject to this claiming process, after which they became free agents to be picked up first come, first served. The first quote seems to say the Free Agents are thrown into the waiver pool every wednesday while the second says they never hit the waiver pool and it's just first come first serve. Which one is the correct one?
74	Motley Crue *Dude* ID: 439372011 Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 11:20	Wow, this discussion is getting deep. I will just point out that when I start a league and act as Commissioner, one of my main goals is to ensure competitive balance. It's boring when there are 3 teams with 19-1, 18-2, and 16-4 records and 3 with 3-17, 4-16, and 7-13 records. What motivates Mr. 3-17? I can tell you, not much. I want the worst team to have an advantage going into the next week. He should have the chance to pick up the player whom he thinks is the best available. Mr. 19-1 certainly does not need that sort of help! Parity makes the league even more fun. Remember, you might not be at the top of the league this year. All of the managers in this league made the playoffs or won their respective QL's last season. That ain't gonna happen again, fellas. Someone has to come in last place. And if you are there in Week 11, I personally think you ought to have first crack at picking up a stud RB's backup when the stud tears an ACL. My $.02. I am playing Yahoo! baseball for the 1st time this year and learning about the rolling waiver priority system. It's not bad, but I think it's much more critical in football to make good picks off the waiver wire. There are way fewer actual fantasy players in football than there are in baseball. If you miss a good player in baseball, another one may surface soon on waivers. In football that's less likely. Plus we are playing about 1/10 as many games in football. It's essential to help the worst teams so they can catch up with the pack.
75	I_AM_CANADIAN ID: 506161118 Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 11:56	RE GURU (Post 61): I had the feeling this happened. I don't think I got your email. Could you please resend it to the address I'd provided before and CC the one I have in this post? Sorry for the inconvenience. Ben IAC
76	I_AM_CANADIAN ID: 506161118 Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 12:03	Actually... If anyone else happens to have the above info... If you could send it to me? Thx, Ben
77	Motley Crue *Dude* ID: 439372011 Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 12:33	You know, I've often thought of changing my name to "I AM AMERICAN".
78	Guru ID: 330592710 Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 12:46	BoNkA[75] - Let me try again. Here is the sequence of free agent events: On Wednesday noon, every player who is not on a roster is subject to a claiming process. (I used to say that all free agents were put on waivers at the beginning of each week, but that isn't the same nomenclature used at Fanball, and caused some confusion for me last year. However, that's the effect.) The waiver priorities are used to rank the claims. If you have the top priority, then you get your first pick. Once you get awarded a pick, you move to the back of the line. So if you have multiple claims, everyone else gets a shot before you get your second pick. After that claiming process is exhausted, all unclaimed players are available, first come, first served - except for players who were just dropped as the flip side of a claim. Those players go on waivers for 48 hours. From that point forward, any player who is dropped is placed on waivers. If you want to claim a player who is on waivers, you have 48 hours to do so. When the player's waiver period ends, the claim with the highest priorty gets the player. If he is unclaimed, then he becomes a free agent, eligible for immediate pickup. If a player is still on waivers when his game freezes for the week, he becomes part of the next week's free agent pool. The key is that if a non-roster player goes crazy in a Sunday game, the faster finger doesn't necessarily get him. He is subject to the priority claiming process on the following Wednesday. The confusion is that the free agent claiming process on Wednesday is considered distinct from the waiver claiming process. On Wednesday, all free agents are subject to a claiming process. After that, only players on waivers (dropped players) are subject to any priority claiming process.
79	Guru ID: 330592710 Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 12:47	I_A_C: I just resent the invite to your gmail addy. It comes directly from the Fanball site, so I don't have a copy of it, nor do I have the capability to send it to multiple addresses.
80	Guru ID: 330592710 Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 12:51	Taxman, Ender, and GoatLocker - it would pe a good idea for you to log into Fanball just to make sure you remember how to do it. According to my records, everyone else has successfully logged in this week.
81	I_AM_CANADIAN ID: 506161118 Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 13:15	I'm in. Thanks guys.
82	GoatLocker *Sustainer* ID: 060151121 Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 13:43	Was in awhile back. Haven't tried lately. Can't get in here from work right now. Will try later today when I get home. Cliff
83	GoatLocker *Sustainer* ID: 060151121 Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 13:57	OK, was able to get in. Also like the new look. Cliff
84	Doug ID: 57352917 Fri, Jul 29, 2005, 16:10	LOL, every other website I've ever used has employed the term "free agent" to denote someone who is NOT on waivers or subject to any claim process (ie, immediately available), and then all free agents are put back onto waivers when the games begin for the week. Anyway, it sounds like fanball is doing the same thing in practice, it's just that they're using f'd up non-standard terminology (IMHO).
85	Motley Crue *Dude* ID: 439372011 Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 11:39	Guru, not trying to rush things here, but do we have any major issues to vote on? Judging from what I've read above, most of the rules should stay the same, except that we will add an IDP or 2 and they will get KR/PR points, if applicable. Looking forward to the draft*draft. That's coming soon, right? 21 rounds of drafting! Man that should be fun.
86	Guru ID: 330592710 Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 12:06	I think there are 3 issues to vote on. Before we start to vote, let me lay out draft language for the proposals: 1. IDP (A) DL, LB, DB, Flex (increase roster size to 21) (B) DL, LB, DB, 2 Flex (increase roster size to 22) (C) No change - DL plus 2 flex, roster stays at 20 players 2. Waiver/claiming priority (A) No change - priorities are reset weekly, based on YTD winning pct. (last to first) (B) Reset weekly for the first 4 weeks. After that, priorities do not reset weekly. (C) Reset weekly for the first 6 weeks. After that, priorities do not reset weekly. 3. Waiver period during the regular season: All non-roster players will be frozen and subject to a priority claiming process on Wednesday noon each week. After Wednesday noon,... (A) dropped players will go on waivers for 48 hours from the time of drop (same as before) (B) dropped players will go on waivers for 24 hours from the time of drop (C) dropped players may be picked up immediately, and are not subject to waivers. I think the first proposal is worded fine. I think the second captures the type of change that has been discussed. Are the breakpoints of either 4 or 6 weeks the right ones? Question 3 would only apply during the regular season. During the preseason, we would continue a 48 hour waiver period for all dropped players. At this point, do not vote on any proposal yet. I only want to hear from you if you think a proposal should be reworded, or if you want to suggest an additional proposal. Assuming we can flesh out any wording changes over the next 24 hours, we'll start voting on Tuesday afternoon.
87	Guru ID: 330592710 Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 12:07	We'll start the draft² after the rules issues have been decided.
88	I_AM_CANADIAN ID: 506161118 Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 12:14	Just wondering about IDP Scoring... are we "good" with the current levels? Or are we interested in modifying them slightly? ie. More points for Sacks and Inters?
89	Guru ID: 330592710 Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 12:17	We could add a separate proposal for each: increase sacks from 2 to 3, and increase interceptions from 2 to 3. Any other IDP stats that we might consider boosting?
90	Motley Crue *Dude* ID: 439372011 Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 12:50	I don't have any changes to those proposals. Your language is fine with me. Do you want a proposal to allow everyone to receive kick return points, or are we just implementing that this time?
91	Guru ID: 330592710 Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 13:05	We're just implementing. That was our intent for last year, and no one seemed to disagree with that philosophy this year. In fact, this year the simple rule will be that all individual players get all individual points, whether offense, defensive, ir kicking. I think the Fanball system administers it that way, but if not, I can adjust.
92	Doug ID: 57352917 Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 13:08	Can I cast negative votes? Issue 1 - Not C Issue 2 - Not A Issue 3 - Not C
93	leggestand *Leader* ID: 451036518 Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 13:45	Above language works for me.
94	I_AM_CANADIAN ID: 506161118 Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 14:23	So were starting the voting tomorrow?
95	Guru ID: 330592710 Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 14:31	Maybe we should have people rank the options for each issue, so that it's easier to figure out the best solution if no single option garners a majority. Yes, we'll start voting tomorrow. Wait until I post a final set of proposals.
96	I_AM_CANADIAN ID: 506161118 Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 18:48	I probably won't be on tomorrow, so I'll most likely cast my vote Wednesday morning.
97	kev *Donor* ID: 043111845 Mon, Aug 01, 2005, 23:55	1. A or B...preferably A (not C) 2. C or B...preferably C 3. No opinion...doesn't matter to me.
98	Guru ID: 330592710 Tue, Aug 02, 2005, 09:59	OK, voting is open on the following five proposals. For those items with 3 choices, please provide your first and second choices. Proposal 1. IDP slots (A) DL, LB, DB, Flex (increase roster size to 21) (B) DL, LB, DB, 2 Flex (increase roster size to 22) (C) No change - DL plus 2 flex, roster stays at 20 players Proposal 2. Waiver/claiming priority (A) No change - priorities are reset weekly, based on YTD winning pct. (last to first) (B) Reset weekly for the first 4 weeks. After that, priorities do not reset weekly. (C) Reset weekly for the first 6 weeks. After that, priorities do not reset weekly. Proposal 3. Waiver period during the regular season: All non-roster players will be frozen and subject to a priority claiming process on Wednesday noon each week. After Wednesday noon,... (A) dropped players will go on waivers for 48 hours from the time of drop (same as before) (B) dropped players will go on waivers for 24 hours from the time of drop (C) dropped players may be picked up immediately, and are not subject to waivers. Proposal 4. IDP Scoring -sacks (A) Increase sacks to 3 points (half sack=1.5) (B) No change (sack=2, half=1) Proposal 5. IDP Scoring -interceptions (A) Increase interceptions to 3 points (B) No change (2 pts)
99	Challenger *Donor* ID: 481126818 Tue, Aug 02, 2005, 10:05	Since we are voting to the possibility of increasing the number of IDP's, shouldn't we also be voting to increase the bench? Currently, I prefer keeping the same number of bench spots, but if we increase the starting spots, I think we should at least increase the bench by one if we add 2 IDP players. If we add 1 IDP, then I'm on the 50/50 on whether to add another reserve spot. Of course I realize we may want to vote on this after today's vote.
100	Guru ID: 330592710 Tue, Aug 02, 2005, 10:11	I made an executive decision that if we added IDP slots, the bench should remain the same, and the total slots would increase. As I recall from last year, the bench seemed about right. I don't think it would make sense to add 1 or 2 active slots while reducing the bench slots - especially since the two added roster slots will almost certainly be filled with IDPs who would have remained free agents under the old configuration. If anyone disagrees, speak up. I thought about making the roster size a voting issue as well, but it seemed to me that it would gain no traction - and the wording gets cumbersome.
102	leggestand *Leader* ID: 451036518 Tue, Aug 02, 2005, 10:31	Blew up my previous post due to mis-vote... Second choices in () 1. C (A) 2. B (C) 3. A (B) 4. B 5. B
103	Motley Crue *Dude* ID: 439372011 Tue, Aug 02, 2005, 11:25	1. B then A 2. A 3. A then C 4. A 5. A
104	Guru ID: 330592710 Tue, Aug 02, 2005, 11:26	I guess I didn't consider adding extra bench spots if we add an extra 1 or 2 IDP. When you vote on the first item (regarding the addition of active IDP slots), if you select A or B, please indicate if you would be in favor of adding any bench slots as well.
106	Challenger *Donor* ID: 481126818 Tue, Aug 02, 2005, 12:02	1. B (A) For B - yes, also add 1 bench spot, (For A - no additional bench spots) 2. B (C) 3. A (B) 4. B 5. A
107	BoNkA ID: 46619219 Tue, Aug 02, 2005, 14:17	1. A then B (A add no spots, B add one) 2. C then A 3. A then C 4. B 5. A
108	Sludge ID: 54692111 Tue, Aug 02, 2005, 14:27	1. C 2. A 3. A 4. B 5. B
109	GoatLocker *Sustainer* ID: 060151121 Tue, Aug 02, 2005, 15:18	1. A then B 2. C then B 3. A then B 4. A 5. A
110	Doug *Leader* ID: 02730280 Tue, Aug 02, 2005, 15:59	1. B then A (add 1 bench only if B) 2. C then B 3. A then B 4. A 5. A
112	Athletics Guy ID: 43525254 Tue, Aug 02, 2005, 16:38	1. C then A (No Additional Bench) 2. C then B 3. A then B 4. B 5. B
113	kev *Donor* ID: 043111845 Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 02:28	1. A then B 2. C then B 3. A then B 4. B 5. B Also vote that 4 and 5 should be the same...meaning, INT's and sacks should have the same value.
114	Bandos @ Beach ID: 975037 Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 08:53	1. B then A, yes to one additional bench 2. A, C 3. B, A 4. A 5. A
115	leggestand *Leader* ID: 451036518 Wed, Aug 03, 2005, 09:19	Some hotly contested proposals so far (through 10 voters): Question 1: A = 3 (6) B = 4 (3) C