| 0 |
Subject: RIFC Retrospective - 2004
Posted by: Guru
- [330592710] Tue, Dec 07, 2004, 09:00
While everyone is still fully involved, I want to start off a thread to critique the first season. Specifically, I'm looking for feedback on several key issues with an eye toward improving next year's league.
1. Roster configuration - What suggestions do you have for adjusting the roster configuration, both size and position composition?
2. Scoring forumula - What adjustments would you suggest for the scoring formulas?
3. Rules - Other than roster and scoring, what rules should be adjusted? This could relate to the waiver/claim process, restrictions on adds/drops, trade review/approval, playoff criteria, etc.
4. Hosting site - What is your opinion on the hosting site (Fanball)? Are there any changes that we should insist on if we are to use Fanball again next season? Are there any other sites that you feel offer a better balance of features, cost, flexibility, navigation, and service?
While the focus of this thread is somewhat to identify those areas that could/should be changed, please also comment on any elements that you think should definitely be retained. |
| 1 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Dec 07, 2004, 09:04
|
To facilitate your review, I'll copy below the rules and formulas from the season opening thread:
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)
IDP do not receive other offensive points or return points [subsequently modified to include offensive points]
All free agents are subject to weekly waivers.
[Restrictions on add/drop transactions were imposed for the playoff rounds]
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
|
| 2 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Wed, Dec 08, 2004, 09:25
|
1. Roster Configuration
I still am not a big fan of IDP's. I understand that we want to have a large number of starters, but I would rather just add a WR, RB, or flex spot. I just think IDP's are too random. I cut two of my drafted IDP's within 5 weeks of the start of the season, and I suspect that many other teams did the same thing. Everything else was fine, even though, a flex position would be nice (instead of mandatory 3 WR's) for bye weeks and injuries that come up throughout the season.
2. Scoring Formula
I think the scoring was set up the exact way I prefer it.
Rules
I think we should do something about the welfare waiver system. I was not near the top of the league all season, but I can imagine being upset if I was near the top and never having a remote chance of getting a top 3 pickup of the week. I don't really have an idea in how to improve it besides just not reordering the waiver wire each week. (For example, if I am 5th in the WW after week 1, and the 4 teams ahead of me pick players up, and I don't, then I am #1 the following week, regardless of where my team is in the standings.)
Two new things that I really like about this league: Playoff set up and doubleheaders. You can't help luck, and if your team scores a ton of points and loses, I like that you still have a shot at the playoffs.
4. Hosting Site
If Fanball is the only site that supports doubleheaders, then I say stick with them. I liked their interface and site, and don't really see a reason to change.
|
| 3 | TB
Leader
ID: 031811922
Wed, Dec 08, 2004, 21:20
|
1. Roster configuration - With 14 teams, I think we had the right configuration for offensive players, but I believe we need to increase the amount of IDPs to make the position more of a factor in the draft and in managing your roster. My suggestion is to make it mandatory to start 1 DL, 1 LB, and 1 DB, and to have one additional flex IDP.
2. Scoring forumula - Scoring was good. Some mid-season confusion on IDPs getting return yard points, but it was resolved and should be counted for next season.
3. Rules - I read leggestand's reply and don't consider the way waivers are set up as a welfare system. Most leagues run waivers the same way and it's more preferable than the Yahoo method where the first person to the computer signs the player.
4. Hosting site - Fanball Commisioner was okay, but I wasn't a huge fan of the interface. I am curious why they don't use a similar format as their Exit 42 leagues. I did like the double-headers, but I think that was more of a frill that didn't impact the final play-off picture.
Overall, very competitive and fun league that should only need some minor tweaking at the most.
|
| 4 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Thu, Dec 09, 2004, 09:54
|
I agree TB...Yahoo's system is the worst as it doesn't give close to a level playing field. Whoever gets to their cpu first, gets the prize, and I am not advocating for any system like that.
With 14 teams, though, the way the RIFC runs waivers is slightly unfair as well. I understand that most leagues run a waiver wire where last place gets 1st pick each week, but those leagues are normally of smaller size than the RIFC, and the top teams still have a shot at a decent free agent pick up. With 14 teams, though, the 4th place team could possibly get the 10th player on his list every week.
I think the most obvious way to tell how this is somehow flawed is looking at the final 5 weeks of the season for each playoff team (1st 8 weeks record in parens):
1. Challenger: 7-3 (13-3)
2. Tax: 5-5 (13-3)
3. Ender: 5-5 (12-4)
4: Legge: 10-0 (6-10)
5. Sludge: 4-6 (8-6)
6. MC: 9-1 (5-11)
7. Sludge: 3-7 (9-7)
8. Guru: 5-5 (9-7)
So, looking at the above, MC and myself are prime examples of benefiting from the claims process (poor starting records and now the "hottest" teams in terms of winning streaks). All the top teams, except Challenger, has seen a decent sized dropoff in W-L from the earlier part of the year.
Maybe it's conincidence, but I seem to think that these teams were unfairly handicapped as they never had a chance to pick up a decent player off waivers.
|
| 5 | Ender
Donor
ID: 013443221
Thu, Dec 09, 2004, 10:34
|
I think it is as simple as not resetting the order every week. I think that's the flaw. Those that have solid team and are successful on a weekly basis NEVER get a chance at a top player from the wire the way we did it this season. If you've been in first from the get go then you ALWAYS had the last waiver priority. I'm not sure how I voted on this or even anybody realized it would be that way. I think everyone wanted to avoid the fastest fingers version of free agency which is why we agreed to using the waiver system. I still think players should be frozen once their game starts, I just don't think the order should be reset each week.
|
| 6 | Motley Crue
Leader
ID: 439372011
Thu, Dec 09, 2004, 12:21
|
I said this in the other thread and I'll repeat it here.
The most important thing in a league like this is for every team to be able to be competitive for as long as possible. I drafted Barlow, Henry, Gonzalez, Charles Rogers, Coles, Wheatley, Minnesota's defense, and Jason Hanson. If not for waiver transactions, I probably would have been completely eliminated by Week 7. What would be my incentive to continue playing at that point?
The waiver system needs to favor the worst teams. The best teams do not need as much help to remain comepetitive. Besides, if they have true acumen, most waiver players are available for a long time before they are scooped up (Indy D, Kerry Collins, McGahee--he was drafted!).
|
| 7 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Thu, Dec 09, 2004, 12:51
|
I agree MC, but in a 14 team league, it is likely that some of the bottom teams will become better than the top teams through no other reason than that they get the better free agents, and that's what I think is unfair. Not only are they still competitive, but they are favorites.
My thought pretty much all boils down to our league being to large to support the reordering of claims each week. 10 teams can support it, 12 teams can probably support it, but 14 I think is too much.
Maybe there is a compromise along the lines of the first 6 weeks the claims order is reorder, but from weeks 7-13 the waiver order is not reset. This allows the weaker drafted teams to fill some holes through week 6 and level the playing field, and after that we go on the assumption that the playing field has been leveled.
|
| 8 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Thu, Dec 09, 2004, 13:52
|
I think that it's unlikely that the bottom teams can overtake the "top" teams through WW pickups. In a short season like ours, a poor draft can only be overcome partway by WW pickups.
I used the WW only a few times this year myself--I got lucky in that there were relatively few injuries on my squad and few players of mine really tanked enough to be cut. But keeping the league competitive is important, and I completely agree that a "first to the keyboard" pickup system is the wrong way to go.
|
| 9 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Thu, Dec 09, 2004, 14:38
|
PD: I think that it's unlikely that the bottom teams can overtake the "top" teams through WW pickups. In a short season like ours, a poor draft can only be overcome partway by WW pickups.
I disagree. I am not making this up. The top teams have been overtaken by MC and myself primarily through WW pickups. Sure, any given Sunday still applies and MC and myself can lose, but here are more facts (again, I only looked at playoff teams):
Team/PPG last 5 weeks (Rank) /PPG 1st 8 weeks (Rank) /Difference
1. Challenger: 124 (3rd) / 115 (4th) / +9
2. Tax: 120 (4th) / 118 (1st) / +2
3. Ender: 118 (5th) / 117 (2nd) / +1
4. Legge: 131 (2nd) / 99 (7th) / +32
5. Goat: 106 (3rd) / 115 (7th) / -9
6. MC: 133 (1st) / 93 (8th) / +40
7. Sludge: 101 (8th) / 110 (5th) / -9
8. Guru: 111 (6th) / 103 (6th) / +8
All the tope teams have remained pretty flat, with PPG's changing between 1-9 PPG. MC and I have seen radical changes of 32 and 40 ppg. Maybe it's coincidence, but these figures tell me that we benefited from the waiver wire.
|
| 10 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Thu, Dec 09, 2004, 14:42
|
In the past 5 weeks, which I think is a large enough sample to make general conclusions, only Challenger has averaged a PPG figure within 10 points of MC and myself. That is a pretty large discrepancy.
|
| 11 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Thu, Dec 09, 2004, 14:43
|
Sheesh...I didn't want to be that guy who posts three times in a row, but I see that I flip flopped Goat's parens rankings.
|
| 12 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Thu, Dec 09, 2004, 14:44
|
I'm not sure I'm altogether clear on your chart. Is the jump attributable to the WW pickups? Or because of drafted players with more favorable matchups performing better (or worse because of unfavorable matchups)?
I'm not dismissing your point out-of-hand by any means. I'm just not seeing bad teams overcome top teams as a resultof an unjust waiver wire system.
pd
|
| 13 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Thu, Dec 09, 2004, 14:52
|
What I am showing is that the top teams have remained relatively flat from the early season to late season, while the two bottom teams have seen a huge spike in numbers. Is it all attributed to WW, probably not, but did the top teams have the same opportunity to better their teams, probably not.
|
| 14 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Thu, Dec 09, 2004, 14:54
|
As for matchups, I am assuming that 8 weeks and 5 weeks will level out when looking at favorable/unfavorable matchups...but we all know what assuming does.
|
| 15 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Thu, Dec 09, 2004, 15:00
|
Well, I think your last point might be true. But if your own fantasy history is like mine, you've been both at the top and at the bottom. When you are at the top you are far less likely to use the WW, simply because you have to drop someone that might be better.
In other words, I tend to be a lot more likely to use the WW with a weaker team because I have less to lose. Some of those pickups pan out and some don't (obviously), but my point is that a top team is less likely to use a WW than a bottom team because the risk is higher to a top team.
I dunno. A few weaks ago a top team who drafted Bledsoe might be pissed that they missed picking up Eli Manning off the WW because they were "too good" to get in the position to pick him up. But the good teams who manage well tend to float to the top in any case, particularly with the doubleheader format we have (which mitigates, to some degree, the luck element that comes into play in football's shorter season).
pd
|
| 16 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Thu, Dec 09, 2004, 15:08
|
I pretty much agree, PD, that the bad teams will have more places to upgrade and will take more risks and make more transactions out of neccessity. It's just when a Blaylock, Goings, Droughns, etc. comes out, the top teams have no chance of getting them, and these are all players that any team (top or bottom) would want. The flava of the week players aren't a big deal as much, but the ones who turn into studs are missed out on.
I would like to hear from some more of the teams who started the season at the top of the rankings (or finished at the top) in regards to the WW system. Ender chimed in and I think he is pretty clear in saying that he didn't like not having a chance at some of the players on the WW.
|
| 17 | youngroman
ID: 298482214
Thu, Dec 09, 2004, 19:18
|
some thoughts of an "outsider" of RQL #1:
1. Roster configuration - I would like to see more IDPs (1DL, 2LB, 1DB, 1flex). that would reduce the available players at their positions and they will get more valuable in the draft. there are some sure bets and they have to go earlier. maybe an additional WR/TE-flex position could also be added because I thought that especially some sleeper-WRs were available all season.
with 3 additional players the roster size has to be extended to something like 25 (that sounds like a very deep league)
2. Scoring forumula - scoring is the way it should be. it is well balanced between WR/TE/K/DL/LB/D. QB and RB are always scored higher, but they are the most valuable players in the NFL.
3. Rules - I think the waiver system should remain the same. I was the whole season in the top3 in RQL #1, and still got some valuable players off the WW or FA. I got Droughns and Goings before their first huge weeks and would have not reached 2nd place without them.
in our league I can find also some anormalies like post 9, but the top teams were not affected by them. my key to stay competitive all season (and leading all RIFC-leagues in total points as a result) was to use some bench spots for gambles (see Droughns/Goings).
the deeper the bench - the more players have to be drafted and less productive players will be available during the season.
4. Hosting site - I think that Rotoworld is doing a good job. they have all the options that Fanball has. the only thing that they don't have are doubleheaders. their interface is a bit different than on other sites but if you are used to it, it is no problem. customer support is also quick. usually I got a response within 24 hours and a lot of my suggestions got implemented in a few hours/days. I could even try to suggest a double-header feature for next season.
|
| 18 | Motley Crue
ID: 181650
Thu, Dec 09, 2004, 21:34
|
OK, on the waiver wire issue: here are the players that have most helped me this season, and where I got them from:
QB Kerry Collins--picked him up from the WW, drafted and dropped by TB.
RB Willis McGahee--picked up from the WW, drafted by Challenger and subsequently dropped.
RB Nick Goings--picked up from the WW in week 12. No one had him before that, IIRC.
WR Jerry Porter--I got Porter in a trade with you, leggestand.
TE Antonio Gates--Drafted Gates in Round 18. Shame on all of you!
DEF Indianapolis--picked up from the WW in Week 9. This was not a huge sleeper in my mind. In 1 other league I drafted them as my backup (only to drop them because they had the same bye as Baltimore, my #1). Anyone could have had Indy for the first 8 weeks.
DB Terrence McGee--he sat on waivers as the #1 DB until Week 5, at which time he was averaging 12.5 points per week. Duh, anyone could have picked him up prior to that. We've already gone over the return yardage controversy.
My point is that if people wanted these guys, for the most part they could have had them. There should be no reward for players with good records trying to pick up a guy after he has a huge week. If you are that good, you should be able to use a little foresight.
The waiver system should favor the weaker teams. This seems obvious to me. Unless you want a bunch of teams with 4-22 records.
|
| 19 | culdeus
ID: 43112649
Thu, Dec 09, 2004, 21:56
|
I was also hurt by the welfare system being a middle team with lots of injury issues, remember with the early draft Bennett wasn't hurt at all yet. I never had a shot at a decent waiver spot, ever.
I proposed blind bidding, but like all the "hot" FFL ideas this was shot down. Funny seeing people bitching about welfare that came out strongly against blind bidding.
Hopefully guru adpots a modified WCOFF format and includes everyone that wants in next year. I think this would keep the board alot more active in the postTSN-rotoguru era, but that's just me.
|
| 22 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Dec 10, 2004, 09:05
|
culdeus - can you (or someone) provide a synopsis of the WCOFF format, and suggest how it might work for next year?
|
| 23 | youngroman
ID: 221118186
Fri, Dec 10, 2004, 09:38
|
WCOFF rules
|
| 24 | culdeus
ID: 43112649
Fri, Dec 10, 2004, 17:06
|
Nuts and bolts (emailed you a long version today)
Start with x 12 team divisions, take winners and 2nds of each division and enough wild cards to get 16 teams and then cut by 50% each week until week 16 where the grand champion is formed.
The only x factor is how many wildcards would be needed to make up 16 total entrants.
If it got bigger the final cut would be down to two on the last week I guess.
|
| 25 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Dec 11, 2004, 10:20
|
I'll review the WCOFF stuff. At first blush, my primary concern would be administration (particularly dispute resolution) - I know that a lot of leagues can be pretty contentious, in spite of our league's evidence to the contrary.
Wouldn't this framework also tend to reward the team that is in the weakest league? If a team was able to accumulate a monster roster because other teams in that league were not alert, is that what we want to reward?
|
| 26 | culdeus
ID: 43112649
Sat, Dec 11, 2004, 11:35
|
Hopefully a random draw would take care of that. The no trading + deep bench also takes some of the systematic risk out of that.
There are total spares that shuck out the $1k also in the big game, keep that in mind.
|
| 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: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|