| 0 |
Subject: The Dirty Dozen 2.0
Posted by: Great One
- [36213210] Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 09:51
Guys, I think its something in that Dirty Dozen thread that tries to download something to my hardrive here at work and probably sent that spam from me.
Can someone please email me or post here all the keepers. Barilko already sent me the trades so I am inputting them and the draft order right now. Then I'll do keepers and we can maybe unlock this thing with no clock this afternoon. |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 467 | holt
Donor
ID: 308491916
Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 14:49
|
"Holt is doing it to block contenders from having a fair shot at each other"
NO - I do not care at all what place anyone else finishes in. I do care about how many points I finish with for K's and W's. Might even cause someone's WHIP to pass mine. That's pretty much it. Not to mention that in future seasons my final standing may be determined by other teams loading up on innings. By doing what I have done it helps to clarify that waiting til the final day to load up on innings is not without risk. You can load up, but you ought to do some planning and pick up those pitchers you want in a timely manner. So my actions may help me get points this year, and they may affect the way my opponents approach their IP limits in future seasons.
|
| 468 | Tree
ID: 13953113
Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 14:55
|
you can come up with any excuse you want. you're violating the spirit of the rules - picking up players you absolutely CANNOT use is unethical. period. i don't care if you've done it for 10 years or not.
We have teams in our league that have given up long ago and here we are focusing all of our cares and concern on a team that is trying make his team better, although with perhaps a method that some people aren't 100% fond of.
he cannot use these pitchers. he's not making his team better.
|
| 469 | Barilko6
ID: 50956114
Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 15:56
|
Semantics. He's making his team better via his position in the standings is what I meant.
And once again if we want to discuss rules and ethics I bring up the intentional inning padding statement of earlier. (Intentionally circumventing a league rule by exploiting a yahoo loophole.)
|
| 470 | Perm Dude
ID: 56832185
Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 16:00
|
He's making his team better via his position in the standings
I don't see how that is possible given the facts we are looking at. There really is no way he will finish out of 5th place no matter what he does (or doesn't do).
I guess I can see the point about grabbing points, but points are only a measuring tool we use to determine standings order.
If a guy can't change his standings order and cannot use the stats from players he is picking up, he shouldn't be allowed to do it, IMO.
|
| 471 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 16:13
|
post 457 - I vote yes
yes - 1
no - 1
any others want to weigh in on a straight forward option?
|
| 472 | Barilko6
ID: 50956114
Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 16:13
|
Outside of rankings he might be pursuing more points for his team for the season.
I guess what it comes down to for me is that I'm used to my non rotoworld league where all 14 managers fight hard to the finish for bragging rights rather than what seems to be the accepted apathy in so many leagues here when your team is out of contention and its ok for everyone to accept that the manager abandon his team until the draft next season.
|
| 473 | Perm Dude
ID: 56832185
Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 16:18
|
No one is asking him to abandon his team. They are asking him not to deliberately block other teams using a strategy which doesn't help his own.
|
| 474 | Barilko6
ID: 50956114
Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 16:22
|
I guess the primary point I am trying to make is that I think the abandoning of teams affects the standings in a much larger way than what Holt is doing, yet nobody ever seems to make a big deal out of that. I'd rather have over aggressive managers than quitters anytime.
|
| 475 | Great One
ID: 2431114
Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 16:31
|
I think we all agree on that. I just think there is a difference between setting your roster and being active and interfering with those actually competing for the championship.
|
| 476 | Barilko6
ID: 50956114
Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 16:34
|
Sadly, I don't know if we all agree on that. I got blasted pretty hard for pointing this out in the GK league last year.
|
| 477 | holt
Donor
ID: 308491916
Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 17:28
|
I think the rule proposal is terrible. You're telling me that the strategy of building up to 1399 IP and then loading up on 8 pitchers is acceptable but a strategy set to counter it is unacceptable? I think both are acceptable. I don't care what place a person's team is in. If you start trying to limit what teams can make transactions then you have a lot of defining to do and lot of side effects to consider. Some people clearly don't care how many points they finish with. Some people do care. There's more to gaming (pretty much any game) than just "who got 1st place?".
I don't care at all for someone hitting me with the unethical tag just to coerce me into altering my play and leaving a smorgasbord of pitchers that they can seal a championship with. Who is being unethical here? If there were some pitchers you wanted, the add player link has been there all along. It's not my fault they aren't on your roster. Really, I prefer that everyone in the league make all manner of moves and counter-moves all the way to the bitter end, but I don't twist arms in an effort to change the way they play.
|
| 478 | Tree
ID: 12950117
Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 18:55
|
I think the rule proposal is terrible. You're telling me that the strategy of building up to 1399 IP and then loading up on 8 pitchers is acceptable but a strategy set to counter it is unacceptable?
the former has been part of online fantasy baseball strategy since the advent of online fantasy baseball.
the latter is so unethical, it's actually spelled out as against the rules of fair play in Yahoo public leagues.
in the former, you have room to use those pitchers.
in the latter, you don't.
I don't care at all for someone hitting me with the unethical tag just to coerce me into altering my play...
that's not why i'm hitting you with the unethical tag. i'm hitting you with the unethical tag because what you're doing is unethical. it's spelled out pretty clearly in the rules.
if you had 0.1 IP left, i'd say go for it. but you have ZERO innings left, and that's where the line got crossed.
|
| 479 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 19:27
|
457 proposal
for 1
against 2
|
| 480 | Tree
ID: 17943119
Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 20:44
|
so, let me get this straight. we're going to cast a vote for or against something that is already against Yahoo's rules????
|
| 481 | barilko6
ID: 16949119
Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 20:49
|
We already approve of something that is against our Constitution Rules, why not?
I vote against.
|
| 482 | Tree
ID: 57842011
Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 22:07
|
We already approve of something that is against our Constitution Rules, why not?
no we don't. for starters, we don't have a "Constitution".
but beyond that, if you're discussing the IP limitation and going over that, you, nor anyone else, has come up with a solution as to how you stop a team at EXACTLY 1400 IP. the was it's done now is universal and runs across fantasy leagues and formats.
every league i've ever played allows that. every format.
|
| 483 | Barilko6
ID: 50956114
Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 22:31
|
I define any collection of rules for a fantasy league a constitution, so yes I believe our league has one.
And there is a huge difference between stopping a teams innings at exactly 1400 and lining up 8 pitchers when your team is only 3 innings away from the cap. Just because everyone does it and its been done for 10 years, that doesn't exactly make it ethical as it clearly circumvents the letter of the rule in place via a programming loophole. Once again, I am not agains the maximizing of the innings, but I don't think it completely fits within the spirit of the rule either.
Anyways I'm done with this debate, I think everyone has made their views known and I highly doubt anyone will change their opinions anytime soon.
|
| 484 | dpr
ID: 9513258
Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 22:41
|
The first line of 468 is comical when read in conjunction with the second of 478.
|
| 485 | Great One
ID: 512531316
Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 23:06
|
Here are the rules according to the Yahoo rule book. Sounds like we are playing it exactly as Yahoo (and all other leagues, hosting websites etc) have it laid out and intended. Nothing unethical about it.
you have 1 IP left, but the pitcher(s) total IP equal more than 1 IP the day the cap is met. The ability to exceed the maximum is equally available to all teams. We will never determine who you do and do not get credit for on the day the cap is met.
|
| 486 | Tree
ID: 53555306
Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 01:33
|
so, there you have it. One example is condemned by yahoo's rules, the other is condoned.
so why, again, are we voting to allow something that is already forbidden by the rules?
|
| 487 | barilko6
ID: 4893625
Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 06:36
|
haha...I know I said I was finished with this debate, but GO finally brought up the point I was waiting all day for someone to bring up.
That "rule" was obviously put into place by Yahoo to cover their own loophole caused by programming deficiencies. The rule that is posted on our league settings page shows to me this:
Max Games Played: No maximum
Max Innings Pitched: 1400
So that means there are 2 rules that contradict one another, as there is no addendum or asterisk on our posted league rule of a 1400 inning maximum.
This all means that our rules are somewhat ambiguous and open to interpretation.
If you go to the set of rules Tree keeps referring to that "condemn" Holt's actions you will find:
By joining the game, each public league fantasy team owner agrees to these rules:
All league-related transactions will be executed with the intent of improving the owner's team and/or its standing within the league.
No owner may drop or "dump" players from their team for any reason other than improving their own team and/or its standing within the league.
No owner will engage in any action that may be deemed to be collusive (two or more owners agreeing to make moves that benefit one team, but not the other).
No owner will make any roster moves (including waiver claims, trade proposals, etc.) whose sole purpose is to hamper the play of other owners.
No owner will take any action whose purpose is to, in any way, interfere with fair play in a league.
Considering Holt had/had 3 days to increase his place in the standings, his moves, by working towards limiting the number of points that his opponents are able to garner, might enable him to maintain a place in the standings ahead of Astade. Maybe they won't. We don't know for sure. However it may be, Holt's actions can be just as solidly defended against each of those 5 Yahoo rules, on paper, as much as anyone can defend the difference in the 2 different stated rules regarding the Innings Pitched scenarios.
Anyways, my point all along is I'm surprised that an overly aggressive manager is being attacked so hardly while we continue to easily accept the actions of managers who abandon their teams throughout the duration of a season. (Which I think affects standings in a greater way than what Holt is doing)
|
| 488 | Tree
ID: 57842011
Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 08:31
|
Anyways, my point all along is I'm surprised that an overly aggressive manager is being attacked so hardly while we continue to easily accept the actions of managers who abandon their teams throughout the duration of a season.
1. these are unrelated events, so i don't even know why they're being discussed like they're similar.
2. i don't think you'll find anyone who "Easily accepts" managers who abandon their teams. to me it's a terrible thing, and it effects the competitive balance big time. i partially lost a championship in football because someone else in the league got to play a couple abandoned teams in season's end.
i've blasted managers who abandon their teams, and i've called them out in public forums. some get defensive, some don't care.
3. i am attacking Holt because he's violating the rules. you can sit here all day long and talk about the 1400 inning maximum, but it's hot air - strategically passing that mark to the utmost advantage is not only common fantasy strategy, but it's so common it's written into the rules.
and it's not just yahoo - it's probably every major fantasy league - it's done because of the mechanics of the game, not because of any "programming deficiencies" - do you honestly believe that in 2012 Yahoo or ESPN doesn't have the programming capacity to fix what you call a "loophole"? if it were a loophole, they could fix it, but it's not a loophole.
what Holt did violates written rules in Yahoo. he acknowledged he did it to block other managers from picking up players - it doesn't get any simpler than that in regards to breaking the rules.
The first line of 468 is comical when read in conjunction with the second of 478.
not if English is your first language, and you believe in fairplay.
|
| 489 | Pete N.
ID: 178192421
Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 08:45
|
Post 457 - I vote no.
|
| 490 | dpr
ID: 9513258
Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 08:45
|
You keep saying that Holt moves violate yahoos rules but I don't see how that is the case.
You dismiss his argument saying that it doesnt matter how long something has been done if you think it is wrong, and the use length of time you have been doing your actions as justification.
|
| 491 | Great One
ID: 2431114
Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 08:46
|
Yeah I don't understand why Barilko keeps saying its a Yahoo programming deficiency about the IP limit. It's the only way to fairly do it. Every major fantasy website handles it exactly the same way. The industry has universally agreed its the best way to handle the situation. I don't understand why people playing exactly by those rules would be considered sneaky or unethical.
If it makes you feel better we can manually post its somewhere in the commish note a 1400* (*plus whatever innings you pitch the day you go over) -- but of course since its already in the rule book I don't understand why that's necessary. We all know that's the case.
|
| 492 | Great One
ID: 2431114
Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 08:48
|
If you want to be specific dpr - Holt violated this sportsmanship rule pretty clearly.
No owner will make any roster moves (including waiver claims, trade proposals, etc.) whose sole purpose is to hamper the play of other owners.
|
| 493 | loki
SuperDude
ID: 4211201420
Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 08:59
|
This has been a lively debate, but as Shakespeare wrote circa 1598-1589, Much Ado About Nothing!
|
| 494 | dpr
ID: 9513258
Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 08:59
|
Tree has stated that earlier but Holts move will increase his points scored. Hard to argue that his sole reason is to hamper others when the moves help himself.
|
| 495 | barilko6
ID: 3941113
Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 09:40
|
My point about the innings pitched limit is that its not a clear and stated rule on Yahoo. If you simply read our league rules and guidelines, nowhere will you find that you are allowed to exceed that IP maximum. Only if you delve deeper into other, less available, rules, will you find that information out. I don't know how many times I've heard managers complain about not knowing that rule following the end of a season.
Anyways, I agree with Loki. I think this is a pretty silly debate all around. I don't think what Holt did was wrong, its been shown through the Yahoo fair play rules that he hasn't done anything wrong as he has the potential to garner more points for his team via his actions.
As for post 492: What if you have first waiver priority in football and there is one QB left on the waiver wire and the team you are playing against just lost their starting QB. Are you not able to claim that QB based on this rule? You won't be starting him, so really you are only claiming him as a means to "hamper" another team.
I think the Yahoo rules are very ambiguous and open for interpretation, which is why I brought in the innings pitched maximum as another ambiguous not entirely outlined Yahoo "rule".
As for the delinquent managers Tree, I don't agree with the statements you made at all in your last post, but if you want to discuss that, that's an email matter not an open forum discussion. Feel free to send me an email if you like.
haha...ok, I am really really done with this debate now. I love that we have aggressive managers in this league, I love that there are guys making additions right up until the last day of the season, even if its at my own expense,and I love the chatter and talk that we finally have in the league forum!
|
| 496 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 10:12
|
Can we get back to the original issue and stop muddying the waters with unrelated side debates about loopholes and non-active managers?
I'm just asking everybody to give a 'yes I would support that' or a 'no i don't support that' vote on my proposal in 457. I'm not the league commish so I'm not throwing the vote out there to actually make a change. Just to get some guidance.
But it seems to be an issue that the league is divided on. And its an issue that will most likely come up again. Seems like a good idea to get a feel for how the league as a whole wants this issue handled.
Also, we do have a set of league rules (I should know, I wrote them). Unfortunately they are buried in the archives and don't come up on the search anymore.
However in a case like this, if we would want to make a rule change of this nature we would need at least 75% in favor the change to make it happen. In this case since the change is to add a rule stopping events like this from happening in the future, we would need 8 votes in favor of the proposal in 457. If we don't want it to happen we would need only 5 to stop the proposal from going thru.
I don't know if GO has his mind made up about this yet or not, but lets give him some help in determining what the league wants to do with this issue.
|
| 497 | Da Bomb
Donor
ID: 487112814
Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 10:13
|
Yea I checked out of this debate too. But just to reiterate my stance one more time because there still seems to be some confusion - I would not have an issue with holt's moves if he were in contention or even if he genuinely cared about finishing 5th instead of 6th, or finishing 5th with 75 points instead of 74 (I do think the latter 2 scenarios would be in poor taste, but not against any rule). I would have no issue with a manager who picked up the QB in Barilko's scenario above. It just appeared to me that holt was doing this not at all to help his team, but just to mess with the managers in contention as a form of punishment for holding onto their innings. What's done is done though I guess and I will be aware of this in future seasons - which is also what holt wanted lol.
|
| 498 | Bh
ID: 426111516
Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 10:29
|
I interpret it as an act to hamper specific managers. For example, if GO is leading me by five RBIs with two days to go, and he fields a team of DNPs to let me pass him, he is hampering my opponent. In this case, Holt is just thinning out the pool, which might encourage multiple team's to make bad choices and blow up their rate stats.
To me, there is little debate that this is both fair and commendable.
|
| 499 | Great One
ID: 2431114
Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 10:37
|
I would agree you would need 75% to outlaw a move like Holt's and based on the discussion you already have 3+ managers who are fine with it so no reason to vote it out.
|
| 500 | barilko6
ID: 3941113
Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 10:49
|
I would like to propose a vote that its mandatory for managers to talk trash on the forum at least once a week!
Think of the endless fun we could have had this year making fun of the Blue Female Chickens!
|
| 501 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 12:12
|
500 - before I vote on that I need to ask you a question. Is your mother good at fantasy baseball or bad at fantasy baseball?
(vote yes and extra credit for any get the reference).
|
| 502 | barilko6
ID: 3941113
Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 12:49
|
haha...I don't think my mother would have a clue how to run a team. So I guess that puts her somewhere between you and Peter!
|
| 503 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 13:14
|
My mother can name about 90% of the rosters of both the Phillies and Yankees, so she's probably better at baseball in general than your mother. She certainly watches more. As for fantasy, she doesn't actually check her email, so she might miss the draft or be quite inactive.
|
| 504 | holt
Donor
ID: 308491916
Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 14:03
|
I now regret filling up my innings on Friday instead of today or tomorrow. The matchups were just too good to pass up. But, I could have saved a lot of time and bandwidth. Good luck to all you guys fighting for the money spots!
|
| 505 | Da Bomb
Donor
ID: 487112814
Wed, Oct 03, 2012, 23:18
|
1 RBI OR 1 win ties me for first OR 1 steal wins. Crazy! Nice win Tree. I'll be back next year.
|
| 506 | Great One
ID: 2431114
Thu, Oct 04, 2012, 09:50
|
Looks like Tree finally broke down the barrier... its been since 2004! that anyone was in 1st/2nd other than Holt, Da Bomb or myself. Congrats!
|
| 507 | Tree
ID: 57842011
Thu, Oct 04, 2012, 11:07
|
thanks. this was a hard fought victory that i felt kept me playing right through the last day of the season, even staying up late to watch all the scores come in last night.
i'm pretty surprised by this win - three of my seven keepers are no longer on my roster, two dramatically underperformed (one of whom spent a significant time on the DL), and only Stanton and Beltre did what was expected.
add to that my second round pick going down for the season very early on, as well as complete busts for my 3rd, 5th, and 6th picks. in fact, less than a half of my picks played what i consider even a remotely significant role this season.
Alvarez hitting 17 homers for me and keeping his average over .250 was huge.
acquiring Butler and Andrus, which i did primarily to boost my batting avg, helped. in fact, all three trades i made played big roles.
"spare parts" Espinosa and Zobrist combined for 17 dingers and an average around .285.
but the key was my 7th, 8th, and 10th round picks - Cespedes, Trout, and Trumbo - were obviously incredible for my offense. and Darvish and Gonzalez at 1st and 4th, anchored my pitching.
anyway, it's kind of fun to look at all this stuff, what worked and didn't, the bit of luck involved, some skill in acquiring players i felt i needed, and how little keepers mattered this season.
next season though, if my keepers bust, i'm screwed. lol
|
| 508 | Da Bomb
Donor
ID: 487112814
Thu, Oct 04, 2012, 13:09
|
Re: 505. Looks like stattracker was slightly off last night, so I would have needed a combination of those.
|
| 509 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Thu, Oct 04, 2012, 13:23
|
Congrats Tree!
|
| 510 | holt
Donor
ID: 308491916
Thu, Oct 04, 2012, 19:03
|
Nice win Tree. You kind of captured lightning in a bottle with some of those draft picks. Trout in the 8th turned out to be the bargain of the century.
Synopsis of my team. It sucked. On the hitting side, my batting average started out great but kept dropping largely due to nosedives from Kipnis and Granderson. My HR and SB production fell off across the board over the 2nd half. I tried to fix it with FA moves rather than trading off any draft picks but couldn't stop the slow but steady bleeding. On the plus side, I got a nice "come-back" season from David Wright. Holliday continued to produce without Pujols.
The worst thing was the Lincecum implosion. This is a crushing blow to my team. I finally had to trade him, but the damage was done.
Tim Lincecum
90.2 3 0 98 6.35 1.59
What kind of idiot would let someone with a 6.35 ERA throw 90 innings for them? Me.
Trading for Haren didn't help any.
Dan Haren
58.2 6 0 37 5.68 1.35
Come on.
Ian Kennedy had a painful mix of great starts followed by complete duds. Pretty bad when you have guys like Kershaw and Peavy and you still manage to trail the league in ERA.
I'll be looking for possible trades over the off-season, as always.
|
| 511 | Tree
ID: 36950418
Thu, Oct 04, 2012, 19:54
|
thanks everyone for the words. and thanks Holt - no hard feelings about the issues discussed earlier, but my opinion remains unswayed, as does yours, i'm sure. :o)
i trotted lincecum out for nearly every start in another league. no idea why, and now, he may be the biggest keeper conundrum i've ever had.
and anyone looking to trade, i am going to be a seller. i honestly believe i have anywhere from 12 to 14 keepers, and will be looking to make moves. the earlier you get in, the better bargains there are to be had.
|
| 512 | Pete N.
ID: 178192421
Thu, Oct 04, 2012, 20:12
|
Congrats Tree!
|
| 513 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Thu, Jan 24, 2013, 13:54
|
Carl Crawford
Chris Davis
Alcides Escobar
David Freese
Adrian Gonzalez
Corey Hart
Jon Jay
Kelly Johnson
Matt Joyce
Ian Kinsler
Bryan LaHair
Michael McKenry
Brandon Moss
Nolan Reimold
Carlos Ruiz
Donovan Solano
B.J. Upton
Heath Bell
Matt Cain
Wei-Yin Chen
Mat Latos
Kyle Lohse
Wade Miley
James Shields
Carlos Zambrano
Jordan Zimmermann
Just getting my team roster set in an easy place to look it up for keeper time.
|
| 514 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Mon, Feb 11, 2013, 15:56
|
Any notice to getting things started here? Make sure all 12 managers are back, set keeper deadlines etc?
|
| 515 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Mon, Feb 11, 2013, 16:37
|
I'm here! Tree, weren't you the commish for this one?
|
| 516 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Mon, Feb 11, 2013, 16:43
|
I believe GO is our commish. Lets do this and help him out since I know commishing can be a handful.
DD2013
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: The Dirty Dozen 2.0
|