| 0 |
Subject: RIFC 2005: Regular season discussion #1
Posted by: Guru
- [330592710] Wed, Sep 07, 2005, 11:09
Let the games begin! We'll start with this thread for regular season discussion.
|
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.] |
| 265 | I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 23916230
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 02:21
|
For the Ender situation... I just see it as, "what's fair is fair"... So if the commish thinks it's ok to play arround with the rules and make exceptions w/o a major excuse from the manager... that's his choice. It's up to him to what level he wants us to take this seriously. (It is his league and site after all)
Personally... (If you can't already tell from my tone) I say there's no need to change the lineups from the way they were set. That said however... I'm quite concerned about how we'll deal with KEV?
His roster is INVALID after all. We were very clear about how we were handling DLs early in the year, and there've never been any questions as to the fact that we DO have to have a valid roster every week.
|
| 266 | kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 02:45
|
Here is my opinion on myself.
I really don't want to recieve zeroes for having an invalid roster. Until last night, when I realized I had goofed and forgot about Peppers, I had him in my lineup. I went to Fanball, selected Hobson, the highest ranked defender in tonight's game, and then set him in my lineup. I didn't think about the DL thing- totally my mistake, but I didn't get an error message saying my roster was invalid- I went to bed thinking all was well.
To me, I think a fair penalty would be just to take away Hobson's points, and go about it as Peppers was in.
It is not my choice, however- even though from Guru's above comment, and with Hobson outscoring Brooking, I think it will work out all the same- Hobson's points will be discarded.
I'm more upset at myself as any points from any DL I would have picked up probably would have had me go 2-0 instead of 0-2, if my math is correct.
|
| 267 | holt
ID: 4792072
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 02:52
|
this isn't the only time that someone has made the double-header lineup mistake. look through the AAA and AA threads and you'll see where others have done it. I don't recall anyone bringing up the possibility of the commish fixing it though. Most of us probably double or triple check our lineups every week because we know that once the games start that's it and there's no way they will be changed.
I've never seen a commish fix a lineup in fantasy baseball or basketball. I understand the error is magnified in football but still, you can't set a precedent where a commish has to determine the lineup that someone intended to set.
|
| 268 | Ender
ID: 406351010
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 08:14
|
From post 242:
"I understand if it's too late to correct that, but I can tell you that I set my lineups the same every week by using that same button. You can go back and look at each week to verify that my lineups have been identical."
I stand by that opinion. I still wish that this had been left up to Challenger and I. If it had it more than likely would have been resolved easily. It more than likely would be entirely up to Challenger and I wouldn't argue either way. I would be disappointed that I would have lost to what I believe was a good faith attempt to setting a lineup that was botched by Fanball's software, but I would understand and takew it in stride.
I won't delete my above comments in 261 because I still believe you were out of line, holt. I think you owe me an apology.
|
| 269 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 08:51
|
Re: 261
Ender, I saw you brought up my "precedent" comments in your 261, and I figured I would get a jab for that. Like I said, "I believe Ender and what he tried to do," I recently witnessed/comisshed a similar situation in another league where a guy played someone on bye instead of Brandon Jacobs (the week Jacobs took a -1.5) and the guy won by 0.7 points. It caused an uproar because both guys said Jacobs should/would of been in and it changed the outcome of the game. I didn't put Jacobs in for the guy, though, post fact, though, which would of changed the outcome.
So, sorry if it seemed I was tryng to piss you off, but I just wanted to make sure that we looked at it under different cicumstances (maybe not the right thing to do).
|
| 270 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 09:05
|
I don't buy the case that Kev should get a zero for the week. When we made the accommodation for Ware to be used as DL, I realized that it was possible someone would forget this rule, and that Fanball would not enforce a DL. That is the reason that I put this statement into the rules:
In the event that a team inadvertantly sets a lineup without a qualifying DL, the Commissioner will enforce an adjustment to bring the roster into conformance.
The only decision I needed to make was to invalidate the late substitution of Hobson for Peppers, or to invalidate the higher scoring of the two LBs, since both played last night. Althought I would have expected that Brookings would have been the one chosen for the lineup, I felt that choosing to invalidate the higher scoring LB was appropriate, since either one of those LBs could have legitimately filled the LB slot.
|
| 271 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 09:50
|
Regarding the Ender situation:
I have no doubt that Ender intended to set both lineups the same. That is what made this a difficult decision.
At first, I thought that the only discrepancies were for Delhomme and Bennett. Delhomme was on bye, and Bennett had been declared out well in advance. Those two players were replaced in the other lineup Brees and Calico. Brees and Calico scored 21.96 points combined.
Then I discovered that there were two other differences. The team defenses were different, and one of the IDPs was different.
Again, I am sure that Ender meant to switch those defenses. But I can't imagine going to a situation in which, after the fact, a manager is able to switch out one valid player for better scoring option that was on the bench.
As I think I said earlier, I'm sure we have all be victimized by a failure to make a roster move that we intended to make, or thought we had made. I know it has happened to me. It even happened at least once to me last season in the RIFC, when I apparently failed to make a switch in my second lineup.
Suppose that the other roster differences turned out to work in Ender's favor. They certainly could have. They could have even worked out favorably enough to compensate for the other zeros. And if that had been the case, I think we would not be discussing a roster reversion. As leggestand suggests, we'd all be marveling at Ender's "dumb luck".
I considered allowing a switch only for the Delhomme and Bennett slots. As it turned out, the extra 21.96 points would have made that game result very close, but Ender would still have lost. To get the win, Ender also needed to get the extra points for at least one of the two defensive slots.
I truly believe that a rational case could be made for any decision here. And, as I've said several times earlier, I would most likely have made the correction had it been detected before the points were settled. But bringing up the issue after the points are determined would effectively give Ender a free option. If the inadvertant lineup had done well, then there would be no cry for a switch.
I know that we can't (or don't) always double check our lineups just to be sure. I know that we can't always be online during games to follow the live scoring and make sure our lineups are as we intended. But failure to do so comes with a potential price, and in this case, the price was high.
I also know that this league is looked at carefully by the other qualifying leagues, and decisions made here have precedential value not only in this league, but in the others as well.
I hope this is (still) a "friendly" league. I think we all respect each other, and I think we all accept that Ender's mistake was unintentional. My guess is that when he clicked on the "set my second lineup" box, he was slightly off center, and the checkmark didn't register. That's unfortunate, but sometimes unfortunate things happen. To good people.
I also have no doubt that Ender is steaming about this. I would be too. I remember being steamed last year when I discovered my lineup gaffe. That's why I've taken care to double check my lineups since then.
Ender, please be sure that the decision in no way reflects on my respect for you or for your word. That was never in question.
|
| 272 | Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 09:54
|
Ender, Let's take this discussion off the message board. If you would please send me a email specifying what you did to switch your lineup last week. Please copy Guru. (no rush, when you get the chance)
|
| 273 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 10:11
|
BTW Ender, I reread holt's comments in 253 and 267, and I can't find anything that he said that were "out of line" or that should require an apology. Unless there have been some edits made in the meantime, I suspect that you may have been reading something into them based on the heat of the moment.
You may not like his take on the situation, but I don't see that he has called you anything, other than perhaps careless (by inference).
Normally, I'd stay out of a personal dispute, but I thought you should at least know that at least one person's dispassionate reading found nothing inflammatory in his comments.
|
| 274 | Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 10:11
|
I need to start typing faster. Guru's post above was posted while I was deciding on the wording of mine. Not meaning any offense to Guru, I'm still willing to hear Ender's account thru email if he wishes, I have questions running thru my head that hopefully will ease my mind.
|
| 275 | Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 10:14
|
Guru did it to me again. :>) My post 274 is referring to post 271
|
| 276 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 10:31
|
I'm sorry if I threw gas on the fire with my silly@ss Christmas card comment. I have a hard time biting my tongue sometimes. It's not always easy being a goof.
The way I looked at the situation is it wouldn't be fair to Challenger to change anything after games are played. I hate that it has to be like that, because Ender is a very good manager. But someone will lose in this situation and since Challenger did nothing to deserve to be penalized, I think the correct course of action is the one Guru is advancing. As I said, I'm not happy that Ender loses, but either he loses or Challenger loses because we bend over backwards to interpret the intent of Ender when setting lineups. And that is clearly not the way we should do it if you go strictly by what the rules say.
Yeesh. Sorry, Ender, I don't want to come off like a hard@ss.
|
| 277 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 10:42
|
The always reliable Motely Crue winning streak has started...I pity the fools in his path.
|
| 278 | Ender
ID: 34948258
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 10:48
|
I took exception to this comment:
"fantasy sports aren't only a test of the ability to judge talent. they're also a test of activity and management."
Even I'll admit it doesn't read quite the way I remember it reading last night. I do still take issue with the implication that I am no longer active. I have made roster moves when I could find someone I thought might be able to help me (which has been hard given the number of teams, size of our rosters, and caliber of our managers). I have changed my lineup every week to suit my fancy.
I also don't appreciate the overall quality of mymanaging being questioned for what apparently is a 1 week (half week?) gaffe on my part. Guru admittedly made a similar error and I don't see anyone questioning his skills.
As for an apology, perhaps it doesn't demand one, but I was insulted by the tone. If that's not what holt intended then it's one of those situations where text doesn't convey the intended message. I have never exchanged emails or stories with holt so he and I have no rapport or prior relationship. I can't say I would hold it against him long term. It just irked me.
Leggestand, no hard feelings. I think we just happened to have the same word choice. I don't recall intentionally referring to your post. I understand the issues you were discussing as well as Guru's situation as an example/precedent setter in these matters.
I'm really not asking for a mulligan. I didn't in my initial post and I wasn't trying to in any of my posts. I felt my skills and more importantly reputation were called into question and that's what ticked me off.
Challenger, I will take you up on the extended hand and email you. What is said from there will be between you and I.
Guru, thanks for the kind words and even-handedness required by your position both on the boards and as commish. I'll simply take the loss and be annoyed at myself as was the case initially. Though I reserve the right to transfer some of my angst at Fanball's interface :)
|
| 279 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 11:09
|
The always reliable Motely Crue winning streak has started...I pity the fools in his path.
Me too!
I hate to say it, but it has started a little early to be getting my playoff lineup in order. Let's see if it continues. I'd say 14 wins are needed to feel safe getting to the playoffs.
I got bit by injuries a little more so far this season than I did last year, and I'm hanging in. That makes me feel good.
I know some of you guys could use a RB. Quit being coy and ogle my roster.
|
| 280 | Ender
ID: 11938259
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 11:38
|
MC, I hope to put together something for you in the near future, probably this evening. If you want to get the ball rolling early with an email or an offer feel free. Otherwise expect to hear from me soon.
|
| 281 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 11:47
|
I'll look into it. I'm madly hammering out waiver claims at the moment.
|
| 282 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 12:02
|
Guru, the Claim priority list looks like this right now:
1 Bandos
2 BoNkA
3 Being Ron Mexico
4 Beware of Doug
5 Oaktown Raiders
6 RotoGuru.com
7 GoatLockers Bruisers
8 Mötley Crüe
9 Sludge
10 Ender
11 Tax Returns
12 I_AM_CANADIAN
13 Leggestand
14 Challenger
Is this accurate?
|
| 283 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 12:28
|
That list looks accurate. It is the same priority list coming out of last week's free agent claims, and there were no waiver claims since then.
|
| 284 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 12:56
|
So if I make a waiver claim, does it affect my Free Agent claim standing? I thought those 2 lists were entirely independent of each other.
|
| 285 | Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 13:52
|
I'm pretty sure they are not independent... Fanball is anomalous in that they use two different terms/processes for "weekly waivers" vs. "dropped player waivers"... but that doesn't mean we use two separate lists to accomodate their peculiarity. Correct me if I'm wrong.
|
| 286 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 13:55
|
That would answer alot of questions for me, if that were true. I've never completely understood the damn thing.
I suppose it's not fair to let the worst team have #1 FA priority, and then give him #1 on the WW, too. Makes sense.
|
| 287 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 13:59
|
Fanball does not link the two lists, but I do. The waiver list is always set to equal the claim priorities coming out of the claim process. And now, the claim list will be the waiver list as of the end of the prior week.
I've always had to maunally reset the waiver list after each claiming period. Now I just have to do the reverse processing as well. But we have always treated them as though they were the same, integrated priorities.
|
| 288 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 14:04
|
Funny how it took me halfway through my second season to get all of the intricacies of this format.
But I like where we are headed. With some tweaking on the TM DEF scoring next year, this will easily be the best format I've ever played.
|
| 289 | BoNkA
ID: 119242610
Wed, Oct 26, 2005, 12:24
|
I'm saving that high priority for a miracle player that can turn my season around. Just hope it happens soon before it's too late!
In other news, I will avoid Packer WRs for the rest of my life. Draft Walker, he gets hurt. Pick up Fuergeson and now he's hurt. At least I didn't have Green to boot, I'd be going insane right now.
|
| 290 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Oct 26, 2005, 13:44
|
Guru swooped in and lifted Gaffney just as I was toying with picking him up. In other news, with Bandos' acquisition of Caldwell, former UF receivers are enjoying an all-time high rate of fantasy ownership. Go Gators!
|
| 291 | BoNkA
ID: 449392612
Wed, Oct 26, 2005, 14:39
|
Bah. I had to go get things done and planned on grabbing Gaffney when I got back. I check here first and see he's gone. I would have had him if I didn't have to wait until after 1 to do it...what the crap.
|
| 292 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 26, 2005, 15:01
|
You could have filed a claim if you wanted him that badly.
|
| 293 | Ender
ID: 406351010
Wed, Oct 26, 2005, 20:55
|
I just wanted to let everyone know that Challenger and I have exchanged emails and we can close the door on the whole thing.
On to other matters... MC and I have agreed to a trade.
To MC:
Drew Brees
Kevin Curtis
Dominic Rhodes
To Ender:
Mike Anderson
Mewelde Moore
Nate Clement
|
| 294 | Motley Crue
ID: 2192327
Wed, Oct 26, 2005, 22:00
|
Uhhh, I agreed to give up Anderson, Parker, and Clements. Not Mewelde. I think Ender just forgot what he agreed to earlier, but the trade is listed correctly in Fanball Commissioner.
//MC
|
| 295 | Ender
ID: 406351010
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 00:13
|
Doh! I should have doublechecked the email. We kicked around several names. I should have.
As soon as I saw you as the most recent poster I knew I had screwed it up. I'm having a banner week ;)
|
| 296 | I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 23916230
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 02:09
|
Sent out a couple feeler offers...
If anyone's interested, I've got a few WR3's and I'm looking for a TEAM D.
|
| 297 | Motley Crue
ID: 2192327
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 07:16
|
So we're good then, right, Ender? You aren't implying you want Mewelde instead of Willie, are you?
|
| 298 | Ender
ID: 406351010
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 12:38
|
We're good :) It was just a typing error on my part. I'd offer up some witty entertaining excuse, but I'd probably botch that as well.
|
| 299 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 12:59
|
Just don't "right" it up. That would be a mistake.
|
| 301 | Taxman
SuperDude
ID: 029463114
Sun, Oct 30, 2005, 19:39
|
Trainwreck continues...Dillon has been down for several weeks...Culpepper, who has been a season long bust carted off field with knee sprain today, Burleson, DeFoster, Bruce and Houshmndzadh have all been injured for the past month or more. That would be 6 of my first 7 picks. LB Edwards of SD only Taxman draftee to avoid injury bug through 8 weeks.
As long as I am sniveling...the little box under setting lineups that indicates 2nd game line up to be updated also...is for real. I must have missed cking that box updating Dallas DB Henry picked up off waivers and thus losing his 16 point performance against Ariz.
A long...long...season gets longer :<(
|
| 302 | I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3579513
Mon, Oct 31, 2005, 11:56
|
Good thing those 16 points wouldn't have been enough to make a difference in our game... then I woulda felt bad for not mentioning that I noticed your lineup problem the day before. :)
And for the 1st time this year... I should be sitting at .500 Woohoo!
|
| 303 | BoNkA
ID: 3610618
Tue, Nov 01, 2005, 09:06
|
And things tighten up for those 7th and 8th playoff spots! Sadly I am sitting in 9th at the moment, but anything can happen, there's a lot of football to be played. I'm probably going to have to pull a playoff spot based off points and my RBs being on byes and having no real backup to throw in isn't helping. I blame Motley for taking all the RBs during the draft.
|
| 304 | Motley Crue
ID: 2192327
Tue, Nov 01, 2005, 09:40
|
I'll take that as a compliment, BoNkA.
My favorite part about this week was that I was able to maintain a competitive score (138 points) with my first 4 draft picks out of the starting lineup (Edge, Holt, Wayne, Bulger).
In fairness, I have shot my waiver/FA claim position, likely for the remainder of the season. But I'll cross my fingers and muddle on, attempting to appease the injury gods at every conceivable turn.
Ender, I was sorry to see you lose this week. The trade we worked helped me quite a bit and I see that it helped you, too. Alas, at the end of last night's game, Jerome Bettis touched the ball a few too many times. Mike Anderson did achieve a season high in points. I'm still pulling for those guys, even though they're on your squad now.
|
| 305 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Nov 01, 2005, 09:56
|
Ender gets another chance to pin a loss on me this week. I'll bet he does. He did it the first time we met.
|
| 306 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Tue, Nov 01, 2005, 11:53
|
Still tight and still a long way to go.
Just got to keep pluggin.
Cliff
|
| 307 | Ender
ID: 285713
Tue, Nov 01, 2005, 11:54
|
No worries, I did grab 1 win this week. The second was within reach, but it didn't happen. I still like the trade a lot and think it will net more than just the 1 win this week.
I'd love to have that distinction, Guru. Making the playoffs will be a tall order, but if I can have 2 of my victories against the top seed I can still smile a bit.
I am in the market for a WR and have a RB to give if anyone is in the market.
|
| 308 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 08:46
|
I just accepted a trade with Taxman, and then during my usual rounds of checking fantasy news, I saw a little nugget about Droughns getting a DUI yesterday.
As my trade with Taxman involved Droughns, if Taxman wishes to postpone the trade until there is more information about any ramifications, then I am fine with that.
Trade: Droughns/Greg Lewis for Crockett/Bruce
|
| 309 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 12:16
|
I see that Challenger dropped Demarcus Ware today.
This gives us an opportunity to eliminate his position eligibility exception. If we want to simply treat him as a LB now, we can reset the lineup parameters correctly.
Alternatively, if anyone has an interest in picking him up as a DL, then we can leave the exception in place.
|
| 310 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 13:03
|
I say treat him like an LB.
|
| 311 | Ender
ID: 285713
Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 14:03
|
I agree.
I have had some offers sent my way. I am considering them. It's a busy week this week so give me a little time.
|
| 312 | Motley Crue
ID: 2192327
Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 17:20
|
If Ware is that valuable, then let's not have any exceptions set up for him anymore. I vote to lock in the starting lineup configurations.
|
| 313 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 21:45
|
I spoke to Challenger as well, who has no plans to pick him up after the bye week.
Therefore, I decree that Ware is now a LB.
|
| 314 | Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Thu, Nov 03, 2005, 15:30
|
My TEs LJ Smith and Heath Miller are on the trading block... most likely looking to move one packaged with a QB (Brooks, McNair) or a RB in exchange for an upgrade at that corresponding position.
|
| 315 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Nov 04, 2005, 11:08
|
Time to move to a new thread.
Discussion Thread #2
|
| 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?)
|