| 0 |
Subject: RIFC 2005: Regular Season Discussion #2
Posted by: Guru
- [330592710] Fri, Nov 04, 2005, 11:08
Time to reload with a fresh thread.
The playoffs are still 6 weeks away, but as we are about to emerge from the bye week period of the season, I though it would be appropriate to refresh everyone's memories about our add/drop policy during the playoffs, since it might impact your bench managemnent decisions over the weeks leading up to 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 14 game.Thus, you cannot add or drop a QB, RB, WR, or team Def after the week #14 freeze, period. You can only drop someone else if that player is designated as "Questionable" or lower. If one of those players is dropped, he can only be replaced by a player fulfilling the same position. (IDPs will be considered the same position for this purpose.) So, once we reach the playoffs, you need to have your backups for QB, RB, and WR already in place.
|
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.] |
| 126 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Nov 30, 2005, 12:27
|
Monday, if you get a player from a Monday game.
In which case you must also have a player from the Monday game to drop, as those will be the only players whose status isn't frozen after Sunday.
|
| 128 | Da Bomb
ID: 43359416
Wed, Nov 30, 2005, 16:11
|
AAer question here. Say for the semifinals Gates is Q and isn't expected to play. Why is it so that he would need to be dropped to pick up a replacement instead of dropping a 6th string WR to pick up a TE so that Gates could potentially be used for the finals?
|
| 129 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Nov 30, 2005, 16:51
|
Because those are the rules we developed last year, and we did not change them for this year. If you want a sub for Gates while keeping him on the roster, then you need to have a backup TE in place before the playoff rosters are frozen.
It may seem onerous, but it is more flexible than completely freezing the roster altogether - which was another possibility we considered.
|
| 130 | culdeus
ID: 321042023
Wed, Nov 30, 2005, 18:08
|
What is the point of all that? Why not just have active teams get a free for all. What exactly are you trying to prevent?
|
| 131 | Da Bomb
ID: 43359416
Wed, Nov 30, 2005, 18:19
|
I guess the underlying purpose of it is to prevent an eliminated team from dropping its players for the heck of it? But I would assume the supposed integrity that managers possess in this forum would make that result unlikely. And if a team still in the playoffs does pick up a dropped player of quality value, then just give him a 0 for the week. I apologize if I misinterpreted the goal of the rule or if I'm overstepping my bounds.
|
| 132 | Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Wed, Nov 30, 2005, 20:24
|
I forget the rationale for all this, but at first glance I agree it does seem overly tedious and potentially problematic. Say one manager drops Gates who's out for week 14... because he wants to make he gets some points at that spot. Suddenly the other playoff teams are hoping that one of their existing TEs gets downgraded to questionable so they have the right to pick up Gates. WTF? Seems there must be some larger problem that we're trying to prevent, but I don't know what that problem is (or, at least, have forgotten it over the course of the past 12 months).
|
| 133 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Nov 30, 2005, 23:37
|
We can consider adjustments next year, but it's too late to do so now. These rules were voted on last year, and I posted them again at the beginning of November. Too late to raise objections now.
I recall that last year, we had some managers who thought that rosters should be totally locked for the playoffs, with no ability to substitute for any reason. This was a compromise resolution.
|
| 134 | culdeus
ID: 321042023
Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 08:37
|
It just seems overly pedantic for the purposes. Of course, I missed the playoffs (badly) last year so it never came to my attention.
You can still run waivers per se on reverse order of seed each week if you want if a free-for-all doesn't work.
I also don't see why it's too late to change this for the year?
|
| 135 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 12:01
|
I don't care if any of the QLs want to relax this rule. Each league can make its own decision.
For the RIFC, we set up this rule last year by vote, and I don't recall any issues arising from it. I posted it again four weeks ago just to make sure everyone was still aware, and there were no calls to review it. I think that it is now too late to make a change for our league, since teams should have been positioning their rosters over the past several weeks.
|
| 136 | Ender
ID: 285713
Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 12:25
|
The basic iea was to play the playoffs with the same roster that got you there. That's as opposed to making the playoffs with one team and winning the championship with another (or partial anyway).
|
| 137 | Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 13:37
|
Re: 133/135... I had no recollection of this rule last offseason. It's even in the main post of this thread and I never noticed it until now. There's enough information to track as it is, I think subconsciously I may block out playoff-specific rules during the regular/offseason. It's not that it's a big deal to me, it's just that I think we will have the most successful discussion if we discuss at the relevant time (that is, now). If we wait until next offseason to discuss it, IMHO it will likely be forgotten again (even if it's written in the rules). I realize any implementation wouldn't happen until next season.
Re: 136... That statement seems to imply that the roster that you enter the playoffs with is the "roster that got you there", which I think is a bad assumption. Often times the week 13 roster is very different than the roster you had during the core of the season, and those W/Ls were just as important as your week 13 W/L... in fact, usually I don't think there exists such a thing as "the roster that got you there" since we all cope with injuries or upgrades/downgrades throughout the season and adjust accordingly... except for maybe a few key players, and I don't think those are the ones we're talking about adding/dropping anyway. Seems to me the most successful managers are often the one who deal with those changes throughout the season and make savvy roster moves... why cut that off that ability for the playoffs? To me it's a fundamental part of the game.
|
| 138 | Ender
ID: 285713
Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 13:59
|
Obviously the majority of the league agrees with the sentiment in 136 or we wouldn't have the rule, but I seem to recall MC being the main champion of the philosophy. Of course we aren't all the same managers from last year so maybe the majority opinion has changed. However, it is a bit late in the game to reverse it now. It just needs to be revisited prior to next year.
Personally, I'm in the minority with you, Doug.
|
| 139 | Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 14:51
|
To reiterate, I'm not suggesting we change the rule for this year. I'm suggesting we discuss it now and make a decision for next year (while the topic is still tangible and fresh in our minds).
So far Guru has explain why we can't change it for this year, and Ender explained what he believes was the rationale behind it (even if he disagrees)... but no voices yet actually supporting the rule. In particular, if Ender's statement of the rationale in favor is correct, I'd like to hear a response to the counterargument in post 137. I'm open-minded, but haven't been able to come up with a good reason for this rule in the time I spent thinking about it yesterday/today, and hoping maybe someone can help me grasp it. Thanks in advance!
|
| 140 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 15:04
|
you can see last year's discussion in this thread, starting at post 115.
Leggestand and MC were the two primary proponents of allowing no transactions at all.
It appears that we never really vetted the concept of allowing a team to drop a non-injured player to pick up an injury replacement. We simply said that you could only drop an injured player and replace him a player at the same position. Dropping an non-injured bench player in order to get a replacement for an injured player was never explicitly discussed.
|
| 141 | Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 16:02
|
To make that issue concrete, I'm having that issue with Ray Lewis. I had to pick up a 3rd LB since he's still questionable for this week, but now I'm stuck with a 3rd LB, whereas I'd really rather drop one of my LBs after this weekends games and pick up another RB or other spot that might help my team. My alternative was to drop Ray, in which case some other lucky owner might pick him up for weeks 14-15 simply because they had the "fortune" of having one of their existing LBs downgraded to questionable.
What's more, there are certain positions such as DL, DB, Team D, etc. where I make a fairly regular practice of cycling players based on matchups. If we had more IDPs I would be less inclined to do this, but given our roster depth there are enough quality players available each week that I find it advantageous to play matchups. That fundamental ability which I think is part of my team's relative success this year is stripped away from me for the duration of the playoffs. This seems unfair.
So these are two pretty obvious and significant problems that our current system creates. As such, I'd need to feel like we're preventing some greater evil in order to support this rule as it stands. MC posted an example in 117 that might fit this bill, but I can't understand since I don't know which players were on which team. I'd like to have that example explained if possible.
The other argument I find in that thread is similar to the one Ender put above: "If your team got you there, then finish the playoffs with them". Again, I think this is false logic... it's not "the team that got you there", it's "the team that you happened to have on week 13"... because the team that got you there is some amalgamation of all the adds and drops that you made throughout the season, or maybe the team you had when you eeked out two wins by a small margin in week 6, in most cases it's impossible to define really... but the guys on your roster in week 13 by no means "define" the team that you made the playoffs with.
In fact, in many cases (as in the two examples I started this post with), the cycling of certain players at key positions (in my case DL, DB, K, Team D being the most obvious, but other positions too) or based on certain circumstances (in my case Ray Lewis) are much more fundamental and defining of "the team that got me there" than the players who happen to be on my squad as of week 13. BJ Sams was on my team most of the year and several games for me as an injury filler, so I'd say he was part of "the team that got me to the playoffs". Does that mean he gets put back on my roster now?
By disallowing normal roster movement, we are actually preventing managers from playing with "the team that got them there" in many cases, because those types of roster moves as much a part of what defines that team as are the "stars" who are part of the lineup every single week.
|
| 142 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 16:24
|
Guru, you and I talked about that exact issue via e-mail last season. I wanted to pickup a DL because Kevin Williams was hurt. I decided to get John Abraham, and I sent you an e-mail asking if I had to drop Williams (because when he was playing, he was scoring well, so I wanted to keep him stashed on my bench). After examining the rules you affirmed that I would indeed have to drop him.
I may have the players in reverse order (Abraham to Williams), but I definitely remember that e-mail. I've re-read it since then.
Incidentally, according to the link Guru provided, culdeus voted for the rules as we now have them (post 138).
|
| 143 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 16:39
|
There's no question that that was our rule last year. I just don't recall what, if anything, led me to make that particular regulation. I suspect there were some email discussions that took place outside the discussion thread.
Doug makes some good points in 141.
|
| 144 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 16:44
|
From my post 121 in the other thread:
If you lose a player to injury and you NEED a guy to fill the spot, then that seems ok. But let's say that some stud RB on a dead team gets injured, and his backup is available and projects to have good productivity. It doesn't seem fair to me that someone should be able to make a free agent claim during the playoffs solely to upgrade a non-injured player on their team. In fact, that seems downright silly.
You disagree with this, Doug? You think you should be able to acquire, for example, Maurice Morris if Shaun Alexander breaks a leg? I do not. If he's not on your roster by this Monday night, Morris ought not to be available to you.
At some point, we should set rosters for the Playoffs. The NFL does it for a reason: it's unfair to add new and talented players to a team just for the Playoffs. Those players did not help the team earn the berth, therefore they should not be able to help the team win the Championship.
From my 117:
There's a reason for a trade deadline. It's the same reason to have a roster move deadline. At some point, the team you have needs to be the team you are stuck with. That's how they do it in the pros.
Guru's response in 118:
In the pros, teams have enough roster slots to allow for sufficient backups.
Ah, but let's look at our rosters for a second. 8 of 21 slots are for backups. You don't need a backup TE, PK, or IDP's because of injury because if one of yours goes down, the rules allow you to acquire a new one. You don't need a backup DEF because they don't get hurt (although some play like they are Questionable). If you are holding 3 LB's or 2 DEF's (or 2 TE's like me) that's your prerogative. You set your roster now with the intent of playing matchups. Once the Playoffs start, though, you shouldn't be able to play matchups anymore.
Matchup play is a facet of the regular season. All 14 teams likely employ it. The Playoffs are a self-contained tournament and it's not right to allow new players to be injected into it. If we are going to freeze the lineups of the bottom 6 teams, that's an admission that we don't want the integrity of the Playoffs messed with. You've had 13 weeks and the preseason to get your roster the way you want it. An injury to a stud in Week 15 and the sudden promotion of his backup; or a better matchup for a bottom feeding defense should not be able to save your team if you don't have a good roster. And I realize all 8 Playoff teams have a "good" roster. The Playoff games determine whether it's good enough. The waiver wire and free agent claiming should not be a determinant in the Playoffs.
|
| 145 | leggestand
ID: 11102399
Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 17:39
|
I put together a post a couple hours ago, but after re-reading it multiple times, I wasn't sure it was getting across the point I wanted to make, but I think Motley put what I was trying to say perfectly...
I had two major reasons for wanting frozen rosters:
1. Productive backups that get a shot because of an injury and flip the playoffs upside down. Like MC, I actually used Morris in my (non) post as an example because if Alexander gets hurt, every playoff team would want him. There is no adapting your team or being a good GM for picking up a guy like Morris; if he is starting, you want him.
2. Matchup play needs to be lessened in the playoffs. I can't tell you how much I hate the rotating Team D style that people sometimes use in the playoffs. If you want to play matchups, in any position, look at the Week 14-16 schedule and see who you may want to have on your team, and pick them up pre-playoffs.
The waiver wire and free agent claiming should not be a determinant in the Playoffs.
This is the statement that really rings true to me from MC's post.
|
| 146 | Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 22:20
|
I'm iffy on the Maurice Morris question... that manager likely deserved the pickup, because he had high claim priority. Why should the reward of claim priority acquired during the season go away for the playoffs? If Alexander gets injured in week 13, a manager who's been holding out for a good pickup gets Morris, but if the injury happens week 14, he doesn't... seems rather arbitrary.
Or, if Alexander gets hurt, and someone happens to have Morris already on roster, that team benefits. How is that any more/less fair or preferable than using claim priority to achieve the same effect? Actually, it seems by extending the logic of "Those players did not help the team earn the berth, therefore they should not be able to help the team win the Championship." that we should actually cut or lock out all players from all rosters who weren't in the regular season lineup for a given fantasy team, because they did not help the team earn the berth either.
That said, on some level I do agree that it sucks if some manager picks up a new RB who is suddenly more valuable, etc. and beats you with him, which is why I'm said I'm iffy... it bothers me slightly on an emotional level, but I'm having a hard time finding a rational justification for that emotion.
Even so, I completely disagree to with statement "The Playoffs are a self-contained tournament and it's not right to allow new players to be injected into it." Rotating IDPs, TEs, Team Ds... regardless of injury... that to me is fundamental to the fantasy game and definitely SHOULD be part of the Playoffs. Disallowing ALL transactions except for injury is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
HOWEVER, let's put ALL of that aside, and say for the sake of argument that I completely agree with you. In a perfect world such pickups should be disallowed.
Even then, I would contend that the potential acquisition of Maurice Morris (or similar) is a far less significant issue than the other issues that have been raised... in short, that we're preventing a small problem by creating two bigger ones. The two issues I raised ARE happening. The issue you raise MIGHT happen:
IN THE EVENT that a primary RB suffers a significant injury in the next week or two, then yes, THERE'S A CHANCE that the backup player who benefits might not already be on a fantasy roster, AND POSSIBLY the manager who acquires the new RB will insert him into his starting lineup, IN WHICH CASE it could conceivably have an effect on the outcome of the game.
Sort of thinking out loud as I write this post, but to sum up after considering it all... I'd much rather allow normal transactions and avoid the problems we've already created, even if it means running the risk of encountering a situation described in the previous paragraph... because I think the risk is tolerably small, and is outweighed by the costs of preventing it. YMMV.
A possible compromise that I'd be ok with is locking QB/RB/WR slots except in case of injury (only to be replaced with a like-kind player), and allowing normal transactions for the other positions, recognizing that rotation is a normal part of the fantasy game, and that these are the positions where rotation typically occurs, and that it's extraordinarily unlikely that any injury to a stud player (LB, TE, etc.) would suddenly elevate the status of another player in the same manner as it would at the 3 main skill positions.
|
| 147 | Motley Crue
ID: 2192327
Thu, Dec 01, 2005, 22:49
|
We value QB, RB, and WR more than the other positions. We draft RB's like crazy in the first few rounds of the draft. People grab QBs like McMahon, Martin, Garrard, Volek, and Simms like they are worth their weights in gold. There are almost no #2 WR's left on the Free Agent list.
We value these positions higher than the others. There's nothing wrong with that. The scoring system we use typically dictates that those 3 positions are the most valuable.
If you can agree with that, then maybe this won't be such a stretch for you: those emotions that you feel, that it's unfair for a guy to get lucky with Mo Morris in Week 14 when Alexander goes down, they are there because it isn't OK for the Playoff Tournament to be affected by players that could have been had earlier, but no one bothered to take. We are being arbitrary. "Arbitrary" is not a bad word. We are making an arbitrary cutoff date for rosters to be locked in, just like they do in MLB, NFL, and just about every fantasy league I've ever seen. Just because a date is arbitrary doesn't make it bad.
Why do we have kickers on our fantasy football teams? They are a crapshoot when drafting and they all usually score about the same except the Top 2 or 3. We just do. The NFL does it, so we do it. That is in fact a good example to follow.
Actually, it seems by extending the logic of "Those players did not help the team earn the berth, therefore they should not be able to help the team win the Championship." that we should actually cut or lock out all players from all rosters who weren't in the regular season lineup for a given fantasy team, because they did not help the team earn the berth either.
I disagree. Let's say you had Steven Jackson and Marshall Faulk this year. You would have played Jackson every week, because he missed no games. But if he had been hurt and missed one game, you could have plugged Faulk in that week and had a "starting" RB. The fact that you didn't actually do it doesn't detract from the fact that Faulk allowed you some insurance for Jackson so that you could spend a 3rd round pick on another position, rather than picking up some lesser starting RB from another team with that pick. Having Faulk, who you never played, still helped your team indirectly to make the Playoffs. You never had to worry about claiming a FA RB to back up Jackson in case of injury. Faulk sucks now so this isn't a great example, but there are many scenarios where this happened this season.
In a way, the game is more challenging if you have to build your roster for the Playoffs before they begin, and then you aren't allowed to change it. It creates a situation where you must use strategy and make good decisions as a manager. Frankly, this appeals to me. I am having a hard time understanding why those who have managed to perform well enough during the regular season to get into the Tournament would back down from the challenge.
|
| 148 | Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Fri, Dec 02, 2005, 03:10
|
Too late an hour for a thought-out response, but just wanted to say that in the context of this discussion I definitely think arbitrary is a bad word. "Subjective" I have no problem with. "Arbitrary" I have a major problem with.
|
| 149 | TB
ID: 1286814
Fri, Dec 02, 2005, 11:06
|
Every competitive league I am in (minus Yahoo leagues) freezes all rosters for the play-offs. I think the reason we allowed the pick-up of an injured IDP, TE, or K was because of the large roster requirement. I still don't favor any pick-ups during the play-offs. It becomes another part of your strategy. Do you carry a second TE or kicker or do you keep your 5th RB? Obviously, there are several different opinions on this.
|
| 150 | Sludge
ID: 581043311
Fri, Dec 02, 2005, 14:24
|
We value these positions higher than the others. There's nothing wrong with that. The scoring system we use typically dictates that those 3 positions are the most valuable.
Actually, no. Under any reasonable scoring system, you would see the same basic ordering of importance: RB > WR ~= QB. It is less a function of the scoring system than it is a function of the differences in the players themselves and their teams (e.g. the variability, and the power you have to predict performance). You said as much yourself when you stated that, "They [kickers] are a crapshoot when drafting and they all usually score about the same except the Top 2 or 3." After the top two or three, the same can be said for tight ends and team defenses.
|
| 151 | Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Fri, Dec 02, 2005, 14:37
|
Re: 147... Regarding following the NFL rules, we're selective about it. Yeah, we have kickers and RBs and WRs just like the NFL, etc. But we don't have 11 IDPs. We follow some NFL rules because we're modeling our game on their format. We break some NFL rules because they don't translate to our contest. Thus, just because the NFL locks rosters doesn't mean our fantasy game should. It's subjective. For some leagues I agree it's appropriate, but for our league I think it's quite inappropirate (for teams that are still alive). Obviously we disagree on this point.
As for the Mo claim thing, again, even if we agree on this point, it just seems such a small possibility that I don't see it being worth the other problems that we've created. I'm yet to hear a response to that point, or really anything after the "Let's put ALL of that aside" portion of my post. Fine, OK, it's bad... do we cater to that one possibility regardless of the expense? No. We have to weigh the pros and cons and make a subjective decision accordingly.
Re: 149... Every competitive league I am in is different. Some lock rosters for playoffs, some don't. Some have IDPs, some don't. It's also the only league that has both IDP and Team D. Some have 12 teams. Some have 14 teams. One has 24 teams. FWIW, this is the only IDP league I am in that locks rosters, the other 3 don't. Not that it particuarly matters... I don't care what other leagues do, it doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong for our league, because each league is different. I love the variety. IMHO, our league is constructed such that rotation of players (at least non-QB/RB/WR) is fundamental, and stripping this ability for the playoffs is too drastic of a change to be justified (particularly in the compromise suggested previously, which addresses your concerns at the QB/RB/WR spots). Not to mention the other issues it creates, such as the Ray Lewis/Antonio Gates situations.
Sure, no pickups during the playoffs becomes part of your strategy. But ALLOWING pickups during the playoffs would become part of your strategy just the same. Do I burn my claim priority in week 12 or 13, or do I save it for the playoffs? Do I keep the DL who I think will be solid most weeks but has a crappy matchup this week, or do I risk throwing him back in the pool? And so on... strategy elements that disappear when you eliminate pickups.
So eliminating pickups doesn't "add" strategy, or "create a situation where you must use strategy"... all it does is "change" the strategies being used. And I don't understand why we'd play the whole season according to one set of rules and strategies to select the top teams, and then suddenly change those rules and strategies for the playoffs. Particularly when it has a number of negative consequences (IMHO) on the quality of our game... all for the purpose of avoiding one relatively unlikely scenario.
I'm sure there's some old adage that's appropriate here... like, "We're so afraid of the spider that we stepped on a snake instead"... but unfortunately the appropriate down-home aphorism doesn't come readily to my mind. =-)
|
| 152 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Dec 02, 2005, 14:59
|
And I don't understand why we'd play the whole season according to one set of rules and strategies to select the top teams, and then suddenly change those rules and strategies for the playoffs.
The reason why we should do it this year is that everyone knew (or had the chance to know) that this would be the case since August. It isn't right to change it now. Those managers that are in RIFC next year can decide democratically, or else Guru can decide unilaterally, to make a change in the rules for next season. If I am in RIFC next season, I will play by whatever rules Guru or the majority set forth. This season I expect to play by the rules we put in place before the season began.
Since I seem to remember that Doug was not advocating a change for this season, I think I'll end my argumnets here. If a change is being contemplated, I think people need to know that as soon as possible.
|
| 153 | Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Fri, Dec 02, 2005, 15:45
|
You are correct that I am not suggesting we change it for this year (nor is anyone else, to my knowledge).
If we wait to talk about it next offseason, the discussion will be very abstract, if anyone even remembers to bring it up. This is why I felt it was a discussion to have now. As I recall, last year the discussion was had about this time of year as well (presumably it was not contemplated prior to the season). Even if we don't make a definitive vote that is binding for next year's managers, we could at least at this point I think take a poll to see where the current managers stand now that we're talking about it and actually in the midst of it. Such a poll would at least serve as helpful advisement for next offseason.
I don't think there is any call for "unfreezing" the rosters of eliminated teams. As I understand it, the 4 main options seem to be:
a) No transactions. Period.
b) Our current system.
c) The suggestion at the end of post 146.
d) Normal transactions (for non-eliminated teams).
Whether we use these 4 or some other combination of options, I would prefer a more elegant polling system than a simple yes/no on each option get a slightly more nuanced understanding of what would be acceptable to the most people... maybe ranking the choices 1-4? Is this even the appropriate list of options?
|
| 154 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Dec 02, 2005, 15:55
|
(a) likely doesn't need to be on any list of options, since it's more restrictive than what we are doing and I doubt it would have strong support.
Guru, do you feel the need to have a vote on this now? I'm sure it will be more widely discussed next season before we start drafting. I can see that Doug is highly interested and would likely bring it back up, and I am fine with debating it and voting on it as well, so I'll make a point to bring it up also.
|
| 155 | Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Fri, Dec 02, 2005, 16:48
|
The point of voting now is to get the input of managers who have been and are going through the process this year. This can be used to advise managers for next year, who would ultimately make the decision, but I definitely think it would be good for them to get input from this year's group. Personally, assuming I'm still around, I won't be terribly interested in as lengthy of a discussion of this topic next offseason compared to now. There's enough going on in the preseason to deal with, a discussion about playoff roster freezes would be pretty low on the priority list, whereas right now it's tangible for everyone and really hits home.
|
| 156 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Fri, Dec 02, 2005, 22:13
|
After reading post 151, I would like to admit that in my haste to post my opinion, I should have stated that it only changes your strategy instead of adds strategy. When you have to stick with the same players throughout the play-offs you are forced into tough decisions. Do you add depth at every position or gamble and keep the extra RB and WR? When you can make changes every week, screw grabbing a back-up TE, K, LB, DB, or DL because there are ALWAYS comparable players (to the depth you would have grabbed) available on the waiver wire. I suppose we can call that a strategy, but semantics aside, it allows you to continue to hoard skill position depth and play risk free with the possiblity of "lucking" into the player who gets the starting nod in week 14-16 because a play-off team is resting a starter. Again, just my humble opinion.
|
| 157 | Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Sat, Dec 03, 2005, 00:56
|
When you are NOT stuck with the same players throughout the playoffs, you are ALSO forced into tough decisions... same as you were all year. Is the guy you are thinking of picking up going to help you enough to risk burning your claim priority? Can I outplay my oppoenent and be a better predictor of which free agent DL, DB, etc. will have a big week this week? In fact, without locking, such strategy continues throughout the playoffs... witout locking, strategy dies in week 13.
For example, if I could have made roster moves freely in this year's playoffs, it would have been a tough choice to decide whether to keep Ray Lewis or not. Since rosters are locked, it became an unstrategic no-brainer for me to just drop him outright. Similarly, I would have considered whether to burn my claim priority in week 13 to pick up a guy who I think can help my playoff squad, or save my priority for a potentially better pickup during the playoffs (or just to ward off my oppoenent from making a similar pickup)... strategic decisions abound. The effect of locked rosters was to make my decision an unstrategic no-brainer.
Across the board, locked rosters forced my hand into a much less nuanced strategy of "drop anyone you can afford to and hoard any RBs who might help"... a strategy which is not only boring, but completely different than the game we've been playing all year. Locking rosters doesn't necessarily make strategy significantly more difficult at the end of the regular season, and at least in my case, it had quite the opposite effect on my squad. What's more, from here on out I pretty much have NO strategy at all... because there's unlikely to be anything I could do even if I wanted to. Rosters are essentially locked... thus no more strategy.
All of this, again, for a case where there MIGHT be a player who gets injured, and that player's backup MIGHT be a free agent, in which case he MIGHT get picked up by a team who could use him in their starting lineup, in which case it MIGHT affect the outcome of the game...
I realize we probably seem to be talking in circles. I guess I'm just not seeing this great benefit of locking rosters... just one small questionable benefit (the hypothetical Maurice Morris example) and on the other hand a whole lot of obvious negative side effects. I guess rather than weighing the pros and cons of the rule, it boils down to a philosophical difference of whether you should be managing your team in the playoffs, or if the playoffs are some separate deal where you just step back and watch the cards fall where they may (other than maybe shifting a player in your starting lineup, etc.) On that point, I feel the game is meant to be played all season long, up until the point that your team is eliminated from contention (your teams "dying breath" you might say), particularly in a league constructed such as ours where such weekly roster moves have been a fundamental aspect throughout.
|
| 158 | Motley Crue
ID: 2192327
Sat, Dec 03, 2005, 01:10
|
Doug: I guess rather than weighing the pros and cons of the rule, it boils down to a philosophical difference of whether you should be managing your team in the playoffs, or if the playoffs are some separate deal where you just step back and watch the cards fall where they may (other than maybe shifting a player in your starting lineup, etc.)
You make this sound so insignificant. Are you telling me that you've missed significantly fewer points on your bench this season than you did on free agents you neglected to pick up?
I think we just have different philosophies of the game. I have never seen the one you are advocating before. I think part of the game is building your army, including reinforcements, and then going into battle. Most leagues play this way. You want to continue the game the same as it has been all year into the Playoffs. As long as the rules are set out before the game starts, I can't argue against that. I don't prefer it. But if I agree to play with that rule, I will play with it. To me there is something to be said for displaying foresight enough to lock up a guy like Morris early on. You think the game should be inclusive of picking him up after Alexander breaks a leg in Week 14. That seems ridiculous to me. It's the difference between being overly cautious (saving waiver position until Week Umpteen) and having some good instincts and foresight (going into the Playoffs with Morris already on your roster).
|
| 159 | Athletics Guy
ID: 1210562417
Sat, Dec 03, 2005, 01:27
|
Hey! Stop using Alexander as an example!
|
| 160 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Sat, Dec 03, 2005, 12:38
|
When you are NOT stuck with the same players throughout the playoffs, you are ALSO forced into tough decisions
No you are not. You keep your best players and if one of them gets hurt, you drop them for someone else. Just like every team has done all year. You can also continue to play match-ups with the interchangeable DL, LB and DB available as free agents because this league doesn't require enough IDP starters. That is a whole new discussion, though.
Is the guy you are thinking of picking up going to help you enough to risk burning your claim priority?
Again, the same choices you have to make all year. This isn't forcing new TOUGH choices on you. This is maintaining status quo. The tougher choice is having to make the moves on week 13 that are going to last you throughout weeks 13-16. That is coming up with a strategy, implementing it, and then watching it unfold. I think you are mixing up continuos management with developing strategy.
Let's be real honest here about how much football "strategy" anyone has used the last 3-4 weeks and will be using for the rest of the year. Some teams who needed to make the play-offs, looked ahead and gambled on some players or a defense who have had some recent surprise weeks or who have favorable match-ups in the near term. For teams who have already made the play-offs, they have done the same looking out to weeks 14-16 and their match-ups. Otherwise, the highest scoring players are on everyone's rosters and the lower scoring players are not. Picking up Ryan Fitzpatrick because Bulger and Martin is hurt or Gado because Green, Davenport, and Fisher are all hurt isn't strategy.
I read what you wrote about Ray Lewis, and think you have it backwards. With players allowed to be picked up, I think you are forced into holding an injured Ray Lewis 1) in hopes he comes back and plays for you, but also 2) to keep him from the competition. With locked rosters, like the 24-team league we are both in, I just dropped every player I was certain was not a keeper for me to pick up possible keeper players without the fear of someone else being able to grab those dropped players. I understand we are talking about two different leagues so am not trying to compare them, just using one example.
Across the board, locked rosters forced my hand into a much less nuanced strategy of "drop anyone you can afford to and hoard any RBs who might help"... a strategy which is not only boring, but completely different than the game we've been playing all year.
Maybe we manage different, but that is the opposite to what I have done. I understand the make-up of each team dictates their needs but through the season on most of my teams I have hoarded RB. In all my leagues with locked rosters, I have dumped lots of those extra RB this week to snag a 2nd DEF or TE or QB.
We are all limited based on roster and bench size on how much strategy can be implemented. Holding two top 10-15 TE's to keep one away from the competition, provide the opportunity to play match-ups, and prepare against injury. Keeping 2 or 3 defenses because of match-ups and to keep them from opps.
I read everything you are saying but think the unstrategic no-brainer is not locking rosters. Nobody is forced into decisions that will have consequences for 4 weeks. Again, status quo.
Have you never been burned in the play-offs? Made it to the championship game or semi-finals only to lose to a team that grabbed a bench QB or RB who got the start against a crappy team while your stud player rested for the play-offs? No strategy involved, just luck by the team you outscored by 200 points all year. A free agent player that was announced getting the start on a Thursday, no claim required. First person to hear the news and log on was the winner.
I certainly play in leagues that allow you to manage all the way to the end. Heck, I commish one in Yahoo. Truthfully, I don't care if rosters are locked or not. I just think it is more challenging when they are locked. I do prefer locked, but would rather have it wide open instead of the partial pick-ups currently in place.
|
| 162 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Dec 03, 2005, 13:20
|
This has been a good discussion - much better than the one we had last year when the issue was first addressed. Much of the preference seems to derive from a philisophical premise for the playoffs - are they a separate, self-contained tournament to be planned for well in advance, or are they simply an extension of the regular season with comparable roster flexibility desirable.
Frankly, there is no right answer to that question. But if you accept one or the other as your philosophy, then the choices seem more obvious.
One issue that I haven't seen addressed vis à vis playoff flexibility is the claiming priority. This was a bigger deal last year, since the weaker team in any playoff week would have had the higher priority for the week - which certainly seems unfair in a playoff setting. This year, with priorities carrying over from week to week, the issue does not automatically favor the weaker team. I suppose you could even put forth an argument that during the playoffs, the higher seeded team should have the higher priority, as a privilege of "home field advantage". This would at least give a top team the ability to block a potentially game-changing F/A pickup.
I think a poll at this point could be instructive, even though it would not impact this year's playoffs, and would not even be binding on next year, since all rules will still be reconsidered prior to the season. Let me think about how to frame that poll.
There are some other rule changes that we will want to consider for next year, and perhaps we should hash through some of those now as well. A separate thread might be a better venue, however, as it will be easier to review next summer. Again, give me some time to organize that.
|
| 163 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Sun, Dec 04, 2005, 13:39
|
As if Guru needs any help.
I don't play Lee Evans and he already has 28.60 points.
Sheesh, and I knew I didn't feel comfortable with Williams.
Oh Well.
Cliff
|
| 164 | Guru
ID: 2811847
Sun, Dec 04, 2005, 13:45
|
Actually, I don't need any help today. But thanks just the same.
|
| 165 | leggestand
ID: 11102399
Mon, Dec 05, 2005, 09:36
|
A total of 6.5 points at my RB position...that's not going to cut it in the playoffs.
|
| 166 | Guru
ID: 2811847
Mon, Dec 05, 2005, 09:36
|
Here is the unofficial outlook on the playoff seedings prior to the Monday night game:
1 Guru
2 Motley
3 Leggestand
4 Doug
5 I am Canadian
6 Oaktown
7 Goatlocker
8 Bandos
BoNkA has a shot at overtaking Bandos for the #8 slot with a combined 38 points from Hasselback, Trotter, and the Philly defense.
Oaktown needs 6.04 from Shaun Alexander tonight to win his game vs. Sludge. That will probably put him at 13-13, tied with Challenger. Oaktown wins that tiebreaker, gets the #6 slot, and Challenger misses the playoffs based less total points than a number of other teams.
Leggestand and Doug may end up tied in W/L, but the tiebreaker will go to leggestand.
Hopefully, I've correctly interpreted all of the tea leaves.
|
| 167 | Ender
ID: 285713
Mon, Dec 05, 2005, 09:40
|
I have had precious little opportunity to toot my own horn this season (and generally don't anyway). I'd like to take this small window to poke my head out of the cellar door and breathe the fresh air :)
|
| 168 | Guru
ID: 2811847
Mon, Dec 05, 2005, 10:17
|
We will have a consolation bracket as well, so Ender seems to be peaking at just the right time!
Tax Returns has a chance to sweep this weekend as well, although he'll need 25+ from McMahon, Lewis, and Bryce Fisher to overtake Bandos (who is done for the weekend).
So the battle for the basement goes down to the wire. With a weekend sweep, Tax Returns would win a tiebreaker with Ender based on a head-to-head sweep. But if McMahon et al come up short, Enders climbs into 13th (and out of the cellar for the first time since week #3).
|
| 169 | Ender
ID: 285713
Mon, Dec 05, 2005, 11:49
|
That will be an odd combination to root against, but I will do my best :)
|
| 170 | Motley Crue
ID: 2192327
Tue, Dec 06, 2005, 08:49
|
Wow, Guru gets his last 2 wins by 1.32 points, combined. 2 close calls, Guru. When I saw Westbrook getting crushed last night, I thought I had a good chance.
Nice job dominating the regular season the way you did. 4 losses out of 26 games is a pretty damn impressive result. I think you've earned an invitation for next year.
|
| 171 | leggestand
ID: 11102399
Tue, Dec 06, 2005, 08:55
|
Congrats Guru on a great regular season...was perusing some of last year's threads and you said something along the lines of football being your weakest fantasy sport. I think you need to re-analyze that thought.
|
| 172 | I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 23916230
Tue, Dec 06, 2005, 09:31
|
Yeah, excellent domination Guru. It's interesting to look at the power rankings and see that of the "potentional" matchups... I would have almost gotten a .500 against his juggernault. MC and Legge could have actually kept a winning record against him.
Good luck to all in the playoffs... Looking forward to my week 1 matchup vs Doug.
|
| 173 | Guru
ID: 2811847
Tue, Dec 06, 2005, 09:42
|
Until this weekend, I never had a close game all season. If this week's games had mattered, they would really have been nail biters. The points to overtake MC came on the next to last play of the game, when Reggie Brown caught a 6 yard pass. (I needed one yard).
It is worrisome that Westbrook sprained he foot, however. I wanted my guys to rest this week!
I'm going to open a new thread for playoff discussion.
|
| 174 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Tue, Dec 06, 2005, 09:44
|
Nice season Guru.
I thought we saved the close ones for the playoffs.
So, if I figure this right, I get Motley in the first round.
And they still continue to be fun.
So, now I'll play Lee Evans and he'll revert back to his season average.
Best of luck to all in the playoffs.
Cliff
|
| 175 | Frick@Work
Donor
ID: 3410101718
Tue, Dec 06, 2005, 09:45
|
Guru, the rules state that for ties you go with head to head record then points. How do you hand 3 way ties? We actually have 2 of them in the AA league. One will determine which of the teams tied for 6th place gets in and the other is for play-off position, teams 3-5.
|
| 176 | Guru
ID: 2811847
Tue, Dec 06, 2005, 09:53
|
For 3 way ties, you skip head-to-head and go directly to points.
|
| 177 | Motley Crue
ID: 2192327
Tue, Dec 06, 2005, 11:06
|
The points to overtake MC came on the next to last play of the game, when Reggie Brown caught a 6 yard pass.
Crap, I don't like reading that. I went to bed at halftime. And I likely would have never known. And I would have preferred it that way. Oh well, I guess it doesn't really matter. Stupid Koy Detmer. Stupid Seahawks for letting him catch it.
Did anyone else notice that the Eagles receivers look like they wished they could go back to the bench and let TO and Freddie Mitchell be on the field instead last night? Pathetic display, especially on the 2 INT's.
|
| 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?)
|
|