| 0 |
Subject: Gurupie 24 team Rules - Future Change Discussion
Posted by: StLCards
- Sustainer [4431816] Thu, Sep 26, 2002, 11:17
Since this is a keeper league it is worth having a thread to track and discuss possible rule changes for future years. Probably better to bring them up now and discuss things when they are fresh in our minds rather than off season. |
| 1 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 4431816
Thu, Sep 26, 2002, 11:19
|
posted by APerfect10
I totally disagree with these waiver wire rules. For the 3rd straight week, the same team has taken the player I had a claim in for. I understand, the waiver process being reset is supposed to bring parity to the league, but is it? I would think it isnt, rather it is leading to uneccesary waiver pickups each and every week. In real life, do poorer teams get advantages over the better teams when signing players? No. Actually, its probably the other way around.
Poorer teams should be get a higher pick in next years draft (no snake) and that should be the tool that gives the league parity, not the process of waiver claims.
|
| 2 | rockafellerskank
Sustainer
ID: 337443111
Thu, Sep 26, 2002, 11:54
|
AP10- I appreciate your input on the waivers process.
CBS basically gives the commissioner 3 options.
1) Work the way were are- Automated waiver process
Advantage: automated process
Disadvantage: what you have outlined above
2) Manual waivers process. The commisisoner would have to field all waiver requests manually and execute them each day each week for each team.
Advantage: reverse of what you describe above.
Disadvantage: 24 teams making sometimes multiple requests per week. A commissioner having to make each transaction approval.
3) No waivers process at all.
Advantage: none that I can see.
Disadvantage: whoever is online the fastest gets all the FA's he wants!
A 24 team league presents certain challenges that a standard website cannot necessary deal with (IE Yahoo cannot accomodate us), so CBS was our only alternative. This is soley a function of CBS. The entire waiver process was detailed out at least 2 times in the initial rules discussion and in the final rules discussion. While I agree, not ideal, we began the season this way and will continue to operate under this method.
As for next year, if I (we) can figure out an alternative method that doesn't require commissiner to control and atend to every step of the process, "I'm all ears"
StLCards - good idea on soliciting future input. I appreciate it
rfs ®
|
| 3 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 52851229
Thu, Sep 26, 2002, 23:28
|
I would not change the WW process at all. It is serving its purpose. The teams that need the players are getting them. Do you think if we changed the WW process that there WOULDN'T be unecessary WW pickups?
In real life there isn't a need to pickup WW players every week because players on waivers don't have good games which would prompt you to pick them up. A real life parallel can't be drawn except for the fact that there has to be a way to fairly manage the waiver pool without awarding the top FAs to those that get to a computer faster or hear about certain information first.
|
| 4 | rockafellerskank
Sustainer
ID: 337443111
Mon, Sep 30, 2002, 13:50
|
Fantasy scoring on negative stats:
The site is not calculating scores the way it was intended on players who generate negative rush, pass and receiving yards. Until I can get CBS to help me fix it (if ever), I will be adjusting scores manually if a player ends up with negative yards. For example this week, Joey Galloway had -7 yards rushing, but scored 0.00 in that category. I manually adjusted it to -.70 (sorry SF 49ers!). If you notice any player(s) with negative stats that need to be adjusted, please point them out.
The possibility of negative fantasy points for negative stats was written into the original rules.
|
| 5 | Ref
ID: 28045169
Tue, Oct 01, 2002, 11:37
|
RE: WW process. RFS and I talked about this before the season. I like how Yahoo and other sites do it in baseball with a set WW process that keeps the order. Once you select a player from WW you go to the back of the line. However, football is such a different animal. I am last on WW every week, so I will never get a coveted player from WW. That's why I just try and take a chance on a player or two and hope I get lucky. Either that or trade. Problem is--things are pretty lean at times to give and get while helping both teams and not hurting yourself at another position. It's a lot of work for commissioner to approve all trades. Plus we want this site to be as automated as possible so players don't have to go through commissioner every time. We want people to have fun--that's why we had the DL set up the way it was--unfortunately we were forced to change them.
Great thread idea STL!
|
| 6 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 52851229
Wed, Oct 02, 2002, 15:15
|
I'm wondering if in the future if we can wait to reactivate Team DL players on their proper rosters until AFTER the WW process runs for the first time in the week.
I lost out on my claim because my roster was invalid due to Desmond Clark being added without anyone being dropped. Just wondering if perhaps the Team DL trades can wait til Wednesday or Thursday.
|
| 7 | Ref
ID: 28045169
Wed, Oct 02, 2002, 17:56
|
CP, Clark was traded back to you upon your request. You don't have to have him off DL until the Thursday injury report is out. You should always drop a person before requesting your player and that is probably what we will ask going forward. Problem is that if they are not requested and the guy is ready to come off DL...
Most of the problems this year has been caused by DL...wondering out loud if we should do away with DL next year and add an extra position? Any thoughts?
|
| 8 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 52851229
Wed, Oct 02, 2002, 18:07
|
I understand why he was traded back to me. I wasn't aware that because he would be traded back to me that I would lose the ability to claim anyone off waivers. With this new information is it possible to hold DL trades until the injury report comes out? Just wondering if there is anyway to avoid losing out on waivers due to DL transactions. I understand that I am partially responsible for what occured but as per the post in the banter thread I was going to email you my request when the injury report came out since technically I could keep him on the DL until that time.
|
| 9 | Ref
ID: 121135289
Fri, Oct 04, 2002, 21:58
|
CP, that is correct, I would probably drop a player before I requested the move back. After all you can't be penalized for having too few players on the bench as long as all positions are covered on your starting lineup. I didn't even think about the waiver process, but I did post at least two times that you must drop someone immediately. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
|
| 10 | rockafellerskank
Sustainer
ID: 30831210
Fri, Oct 04, 2002, 21:59
|
Agreed CP. From now on that will be the procedure.
|
| 11 | Promize
Sustainer
ID: 124153113
Sat, Oct 05, 2002, 14:16
|
How many people are we allowed to keep for next year?
Are we doing this on a year by year bases? or claiming people for 3 years - 5 years, etc?
|
| 12 | rockafellerskank
Sustainer
ID: 30831210
Sat, Oct 05, 2002, 14:55
|
Promize
It is year by year for as long as the league runs...
You can keep up to 9 players (D is considered a player). Keepers will be named at a future date TBD. All ohter players and all next year's rookies will go into a draft. Next fall, we will conduct a slow draft with last place team picking first. The future drafts will NOT snake.
|
| 13 | rockafellerskank
Sustainer
ID: 30831210
Sat, Oct 05, 2002, 14:57
|
On another note, I'd like to bring up a topic for discussion. This would be for NEXT YEAR...
What do you think about doing away with the cumbersome DL process and just adding a "bench" slot to everyone's teams to account for injury management?
rfs ®
|
| 14 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 23730222
Sun, Oct 06, 2002, 21:44
|
I don't recall seeing any discussion on scoring for yds allowed by a D. I personally like the yds allowed stat as I believe it helps separate the truly good D's from the so-so D's. Two teams could both allow 21 points, but in one case it could be that the D was solid but that the offense had 6 turnovers or something and only allowed 150yds against total or something while in the other case the D might have given up 400+yds. There will be a few extra points probably for a sack or something, but in my mind yds allowed pts would help separate these two teams efforts.
|
| 15 | Ref
ID: 28045169
Mon, Oct 07, 2002, 13:11
|
Bottom line is the scoring. We can def. look into yds allowed though. However, if we do that we need to take off some of the points given for pts allowed IMO. If yds allowed is something the league wants, then we will do it. I would have to see a proposal on it before making judgment, but off top of my head I'm not a proponent yet.
|
| 16 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 23730222
Thu, Oct 17, 2002, 23:13
|
I wonder a little bit about the FA process where people are picking up a player off FA and then dropping them for someone else a short time later. Makes it go to your second pick making you miss that person and then having to wait another two days for him to come off waivers again. Something doesn't seem to be right with that. Not sure what could be done though, but it is a bit frustrating when you see the person you wanted to pick up be released right away and go back on waivers.
|
| 17 | Promize
Sustainer
ID: 19431422
Fri, Oct 18, 2002, 13:00
|
Oh what a dilema for this week...
Which defense to pick...
Vikings vs Jets
I have both these D's, sad huh? LOL
hummm... who'd you pick?
|
| 18 | rockafellerskank
Sustainer
ID: 337443111
Sat, Oct 19, 2002, 13:28
|
StLCards: A very good point. One of the draw backs of picking a FA and then dropping him is that it ties him up for 2 more days on the WW in case anyone else wants the guy. There's not much I can do about it (many other sites are like this too). All I can do is monitor good judgement by the owners and ask that they stay in the spirit of competition in the game. Sometimes things change during the week (such as Washington's WRs this week) that cause you to drop that WW pick up from Wed on Thursday. When that happens, I think it's just an owner trying to adapt to injuries or changing personnel. What I DON'T wat to see is someone just abusing the WW with constant drops and adds for no reason. No one has stepped over that line yet. So, while not ideal, it's the best we have.
If an owner became a WW abuser we would have to send him to WWA. "Waver Wire Anonymous" or I have the power to instantly reverse moves.
Promize: "punt" if you can!
|
| 19 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 44941260
Sat, Nov 09, 2002, 02:48
|
I need a clarification. I searched the rules, but either missed it or didn't understand it. Here is my current understanding/questions.
The roster freeze of Week 12 is the trade line and week 13 is the end of the regular season. At the end of the regular season all non-playoff teams are frozen. I assume frozen, means no FA pickups or anything. Will the playoff teams still be involved in F/A pickups? I would think this should not be allowed as it gives a playoff team an additional advantage to adjust rosters that the non-playoff teams do not have. For example, what if a stud player suffers a significant injury during playoff weeks, that would make their backup extremely valuable as a keeper. Only the playoff teams would be able to get that player.
There are also moves that I would do much differently in adjusting my final roster depending on playoff status and FA deadline. If I am not going to make the playoffs then I might unload some backups and take a risk on some future wannabes. However, if it appears I would make the playoffs, I might rather have positions backed up.
Also, how are IR players going to be handled for the post season? I could see allowing an IR spot for a player that is out for the season, but it effectively gives an extra roster spot to a team if an IR player will come off IR and play during the playoff weeks. The owner has the advantage of an extra week before deciding which other player to release and bring the IR player back on the roster.
IR spots count toward the 9 keepers for next year too, right?
|
| 20 | rockafellerskank
Sustainer
ID: 189262913
Mon, Nov 11, 2002, 12:22
|
Playoffs: Begin week #14 (Sunday, Dec 8th)
Trade Deadline: All trades must be completed before kickoff week 12 (Sunday Nov 12th) and processed and approved so that the players are on your roster for week 12 games. NO trades will be processed after that date. Keep in mind, if you submit a trade on 11/12 and a commissioner isn't available to approve it before deadline, it will become void.
Free Agent & WW additions: Because a player must be on your roster for at least one game before the playoffs, any free agents of WW pickups must be on your team by kickoff of week 13 (Thursday Nov 28 - THANKSGIVING DAY). After this date, there will be no addition / drop to teams. This includes playoff teams!The only exception to this is IR players. If a team has a player on Team DL and wishes to activate (or must by rule activate) that player, it will be approved along with a corresponding drop as required.
Injuries in the Playoffs : If you suffer an injury to a player in the playoffs, too bad. There are NO replacement players to be added in the playoffs no matter how signicifant the injury!
Offseason Players All roster players and IR players may be considered for "keeper" status. Each owner will only be able to keep a maximum of 9 player (less is OK too) regardless of how many IR players (0, 1 or 2) he has.
I hope this answers your questions. I will post this on the league message board and send it via e-mail as well.
rfs ®
|
| 21 | rockafellerskank
Sustainer
ID: 189262913
Mon, Nov 11, 2002, 12:30
|
Just in case the above post wasn't clear, Non-playoff teams will be frozen from an add/drop point of view, but I'll create some type of consolation tourney so those owners can still set lineups and compete.
|
| 22 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 4431816
Mon, Nov 11, 2002, 15:59
|
It currently does not appear that our league counts a blocked extra point as a Defensive stat (although I could be wrong). It would seem to me this stat should count as well (next year). I'm not sure if it should count the same as a blocked punt or blocked FG, but it seems worthy of at least 1 point, IMO. It seems in the play by play descriptions they differentiate between blocked and missed extra points, but maybe it is not a scoring option for D. Just thought it was worth bringing up.
|
| 23 | rockafellerskank
Sustainer
ID: 189262913
Tue, Nov 12, 2002, 12:26
|
Post #20 should read:
Trade Deadline: All trades must be completed before kickoff week 12 (Sunday Nov 24th)
Sorry for the miscommunication!
|
| 24 | rockafellerskank
Sustainer
ID: 189262913
Tue, Nov 12, 2002, 18:00
|
The correct standings are now up at the website.
I will be making small negative adjustments for weeks 9 & 10 tomorrow morning, but no games will be affected.
rfs
|
| 25 | rockafellerskank
Sustainer
ID: 30831210
Tue, Dec 03, 2002, 20:32
|
Interesting as far as draft pick V playoff teams.
EAST/WEST
Indy #12 (division winner #1 seed)
Pitts #4 (#4 seed)
Oak #14 (division winner #2 seed)
Balt #3 (#3 seed)
NORTH/SOUTH
Seattle #17 (division winner #1 seed and #1 overall)
Dallas #9 (Division winner #2 seed)
SF #20 (#4 seed)
StL #15 (#3 seed)
It looks like mid to late picks were the place to be!
rfs
|
| 26 | Myboyjack
Leader
ID: 14826271
Tue, Dec 03, 2002, 20:38
|
well.....not necessarily since many teams that didn't make the playoffs had better season long production (and thus, presumably a better draft) than teams in the playoffs.
Waiver wire played a big part in the league and was almost as important as the draft.
Great competition and great league.
|
| 27 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 52113722
Wed, Dec 04, 2002, 00:28
|
Timing of schedule was also important. There were a number of games where I faced teams with key players on byes or facing very tough defenses. Also some big games at the right times helped as well. I believe there are a number of teams that finished out of the playoffs this year that will have much better seasons next year as players come off injury, backups move into starting roles, etc. I agree that it was a great season and a lot of fun.
|
| 28 | Promize
Sustainer
ID: 19431422
Wed, Dec 04, 2002, 08:21
|
My draft position was 17th out of 24 teams and I picked up.
Ricky Williams, Hines Ward, Rich Gannon
|
| 29 | TaRhEElKiD
ID: 42109719
Sun, Dec 08, 2002, 02:32
|
Few suggestions:
1) The draft order each year is determined by finish the previous year.
2) When deciding a playoff spot it should go be H-2-H record or division record and PTS for just WC spots.
Great season everyone...
THK
|
| 30 | Doug
Sustainer
ID: 3411223
Sun, Dec 08, 2002, 21:14
|
Count my vote for point #2 (I think #1 is established that way already?)... div. champs should be decided by overall record with div record as the tiebreaker and have total points as the 2nd tiebreaker. I don't like h2h as a tiebreaker in this league since you only play somebody once during the season. Of course, div record wouldn't apply to WCs.
|
| 31 | Ref
Donor
ID: 28045169
Mon, Dec 09, 2002, 15:14
|
thk,
1 is already established, it's in the rules as well.
2 Since it's a H2H league, H2H record as first tie has merit, but overall points needs to be in there as well as teams who win games (more than 1) when they only score 30 pts like has been the case this year need to be weeded out in case of a tiebreak situation.
Penngray has joined our league. Welcome penngray.
I think a safety should be worth more than 2 pts. At least 3 like a blocked punt/kick but more than likely 4. Also blocked extra point will likely be counted next year (if we can--it's not a possibility currently on the CBS site).
|
| 32 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 4431816
Mon, Dec 09, 2002, 19:28
|
I have rethought my position on counting return yards for players and like most of the scoring as it is.
I do think that the D/ST scoring needs to be looked at though. Right now it seems that D scoring is out of balance. Too much of an all or nothing format with D TD's and ST TD's the predominant factor. The average pts against in the NFL is about 22, which gets a D 0pts. A bad offense can really sink a good D as well. I think yds/per would be worth looking at. An average WR or RB still gets points without having to score a TD. Just something to think about.
|
| 33 | rockafellerskank
Sustainer
ID: 30831210
Mon, Dec 09, 2002, 19:32
|
Guys:
Keep the suggestions coming while the league is fresh in your mind. I haven't replied to many posts, but I am reading them.
I will be sending out some type of "survey e-mail" at the conclusion of the playoffs and a pre-season e-mail next year soliciting everyone's input.
Those that express their $0.02 are those that will shape the league for years to come....
rfs
|
| 34 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 24111692
Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 01:27
|
This week is a pretty good example of where I think D scoring could be improved. Chicago scores 7 points by giving up 27PA, 1int, 2fum rec., and 2 sacks (-1+2+4+2). Problem is they stunk and allowed 436yds.
Seattle also allowed 27PA, 1int, 0fum rec., 0sacks and earned only 1point. Yet they only allowed a total of 316yds. I think the total yds should factor in as well as a measure of the D play as a whole. Rams got lit up this week, but the pretty decent play of the D allowing less than 300yds total offense was largely ignored in a score 0f -6.
There were actually 4 other teams that allowed 27PA this week too. Buffalo 27PA, 275yds, -1pts; SD 27PA, 393yds, 0pts; Ind 27PA, 348yds, 2pts; Wash 27PA, 316yds, 0pts. It seems clear to me that Buffalo's 27pts is not equal to Chicagos 27PA (161yds differential) nor to SD's 27pts, yet Buffalo actually scores less than SD when they allowed 118 fewer total yds and 8pts less than Chicago. A yds allowed adjustment could be a nice adjustment to reflect a D's performance overall. So many fumbles are simply a back or QB dropping a ball or a stupid pass by a QB for an int. They are important stats for sure, but so is yds allowed in my mind.
436yds,
|
| 35 | Doug
Sustainer
ID: 3411223
Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 06:28
|
Haven't looked at the numbers, but a quick thought is that while fumbles recovered (FR) can be an result of someone just dropping a ball (bad exchange, etc.), forced fumbles (FF) are not. On the other hand, a forced fumble isn't always recovered by the D, and thus isn't a perfect stat either. However, maybe if we add 1 point for FF? Seems to me that a FF and FR combined are a little more valuable than an INT, as they generally happen near the line of scrimmage rather than 10-40 yards downfield. Also, I think INTs are much more commonly returned for TDs, so they more frequently get the 6 point bonus. But a FR more often yields field position that leads to a TD, so it makes sense to me that a FF/FR combo be worth 3 compared to an INT's 2. It's a minor tweak, but I think it makes sense.
I like the idea of including yardage, but it should be a relatively small adjustment compared to points... in part because we drafted our teams based on the present scoring system, so I think we should stick to minor tweaks not major changes. But how to quantify this? Well, over the past 5 weeks, 94.2% of the time a team D has allowed 6-35 points, which translates to 10 to -3 fantasy points... a 13 point spread. With that in mind, if we were to include yardage, I wouldn't want to see yardage be more than a 5-6 point fantasy spread (95% of the time), otherwise I think we're skewing our system too much from it's original design. How about for yardage something like:
0-100 yards - 10 points
101-150 - 7 points
151-200 - 5 points
201-250 - 4 points
251-300 - 3 points
301-350 - 2 points
351-400 - 1 points
401-450 - 0 points
451-500 - -2 points
500+ - -5 points
Note that the total points here don't matter, positive, negative, or otherwise... it's just relative diffrerences between categories that matter. 90+% of the time teams allow 150-450 yards, which is a 5 point spread above.
Now, looking at the example that was given of comparing Buffalo's D vs. Chicago's D... Buffalo allowed 161 fewer yards, but had 0 takeaways vs. Chicago's 3 takeaways, and 0 sacks vs. 2 sacks... so it seems to me Bears D _should_ outscore the Bills. So yes, Buff's 27 PA is not equal to Chicago's 27 PA... Chicago's is a much better performance, because no matter how many yards they gave up, they gave their offense 3 more opportunities to score by taking the ball away from the opponent (unfortunately, their offense stinks, so it was in vain).
A team with a crappy offense is going to have to play more D, and thus inevitably give up more points and yards in the long run. Thus, yardage (and even points to a certain extent) aren't necessarily indicative of performance, which is why stats like takeaways and sacks are so critical.
For example, this week Buffalo's offense was able to hold onto the ball for 30:38, and post 24 first downs with 390 yards of offense. They punted 3 times and turned the ball over 5 times, meaning New England had 10 posessions (49 plays) and the Bills gave up 275 yards and 14 first downs. (I'm not including "kneel down" posessions at end of half or game). By contrast, Chicago's offense was able to hold onto the ball for only 24:18, with 12 first downs and 195 yards. They punted 7 times and turned the ball over 4 times, meaning had 15 posessions (72 plays) and the Bears gave up 436 yards and 22 first downs. (again, not including "kneel down" posessions).
In other words, the Bills gave up 27.5 yards and 1.4 first downs per posession. The Bears gave up 29.1 yards and 1.5 first downs per posession. So it's not really that their defense played worse than the Bills in terms of yardage, it's just that they had to defend against more poessions because their offense sucks and thus the total yards allowed were higher. But the fact they were able to sack the opponent and take the ball away (and didn't give up any more points than the Bills did despite being on the field more and defending against more plays and posessions) demonstrates a clearly superior defensive performance. I think the 8 fantasy points difference accurately reflects this. With the yardage system I suggested, it would be a 5 point difference. I certainly don't think it should be _any_ closer than that, since as explained above I think the Bears D turned in a significantly better performance than the Bills D.
However, I think there _is_ a good example from this past week of where the scoring system did not accurately reflect the performance... you just picked the wrong example! ;-) Look at Pittsburgh, who turned in an AWESOME defensive performance allowing only 47 yards and 3 first downs the entire game!!! But the Texans scored 3 TDs off of INT and fumble recoveries... which is not the Pittsburgh defense or special teams fault (yet they pay the price fantasy- wise). This D probably had the best performance of any team this week, yet only scored 6 fantasy points. This is a much better argument for including yardage as part of defensive scoring.
Another option I see is to change it from "points allowed" to "points allowed on defense or special teams"... which would have improved Pittsburgh's fantasy output by 14 points this week (they only gave up a field goal). Just a thought... I don't know if it could be automated by league software. I'm not looking to make extra work for the commish committee!
|
| 36 | Doug
Sustainer
ID: 3411223
Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 06:49
|
One last thing, I would definitely NOT recommend changing the points allowed scoring system if we add yardage allowed. Under the system above, 29 of the 32 teams in the league would have scored 0-4 fantasy points based on yardage in week 14... the differences are very minor... equivalent to maybe a sack or TO in the vast majority of cases (and 31 of 32 teams would have scored 0-5 fantasy points, Pittsburgh is the only outlier, and rightfully so). So this is a designed as a minor adjustment to the existing points allowed system, not intending any modification to that which is already in place.
|
| 37 | Doug
Sustainer
ID: 3411223
Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 06:57
|
Replying to post #13 I think is a great idea... just add a bench slot, let us deal with injuries that way, and save you time and headaches and questions about who's questionable or doubtful or how long have they been on your roster and all those other annoying peculiarities of that DL process.
|
| 38 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 4431816
Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 10:30
|
I like the bench slot idea as well. Saves major headaches for the commishes and also helps to see who is on a team. Right now with DL, I had to search trade transactions to see what players a team had on DL when conisdering a trade proposal.
A minor adjustment is all I had in mind as well about yds/allw. Your Pitts. example is a good one.
|
| 39 | Ref
Donor
ID: 28045169
Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 15:14
|
I am also open to the possibility of adding 2 bench slots. The only problem with is the league is so thin as it is. However, it may or may not be better by adding strategy whether to keep a player or not when he's hurt. I am leaning toward 2 bench slots extra to replace the DL, but want to explore it more.
|
| 40 | Ref
Donor
ID: 28045169
Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 15:19
|
I understand yardage situations and see where you are coming from, but I'd find it hard to add in yardage and not make some kind of adjustment to current scoring. If a defense is so good that you get 60 pts a week by changing that formula, then all of us would have drafted a Defense in the first round. Def. worth looking into, but of all the roto/h2h leagues I have played in, none of them have ever had scoring based on Def. yardage. It's simply the scoreboard. Heck, when an INT is ran back for a TD, they aren't scoring on the Def., they are scoring on the Offense--yet who gets credited with giving up the points? The D. I'd love to change that but don't think we can given the present formulas the site gives us.
|
| 41 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 4431816
Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 16:56
|
I think 2 bench slots would dilute the talent pool too far.
|
| 42 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 4431816
Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 17:03
|
I agree with Doug that yds/allowed should be a stat comparable to int, blocked punt etc. A 5 point adustment max or something, with negative adjustments as well, so 60pts would not be possible from yds/allowed.
|
| 43 | Doug
Sustainer
ID: 3411223
Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 19:30
|
Another thing to keep in mind is total points scored by the D's relative to other positions is completely irrelevant in terms of how "valuable" a defense is or where we could have drafted them. If the best D averaged 60 fantasy points per week and the worst D 50 per week, that would makes D less of a factor (i.e, less valuable, and would have been drafted later) than if the best D scored 10 and the worst D scored -10 (20 point spread vs. 10 point spread). It all comes down to relative difference between top and bottom Ds... gross amount of points scored is trivial. My point is that the yardage adjustment is fairly trivial in almost all cases (0-5 points), and that at least in the Pittsburgh example from this week, it actually would have served to make the defenses MORE balanced (and thus make having a top-scoring D less valuable), by giving Pittsburgh a fantasy point boost even though they gave up 24 points (resulting in a similar socre as team that gave up less points but more typical yardage numbers).
Later tonight I'll do a more thorough analysis on this issue, but on the surface it seems to me that Ref's objection is that a team that gives up fewer points is also going to give up fewer yards, in which case we would want to make a very minor adjustment to points allowed to balance the very minor adjustment of yardage allowed. I agree that this makes sense _intuitively_, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's true. I'll look at several weeks worth of data and see if teams that score better on PA also score better on the proposed YA adjustment. If so, I'll try and come up with a combined PA/YA system that doesn't significantly alter the current value of a defense. If on the other hand there turns out NOT to be a significant correlation between PA and YA, then there would be no need to adjust the PA points because we would not be altering the _value_ of a defense.
RFS mentioned we may look into a different website for the league next year... if so, we could see if there are any that would automatically allow us to use just D/ST PAs as mentioned in the last paragraph of post 35 and in post 40.
|
| 44 | TaRhEElKiD
ID: 42109719
Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 19:54
|
What team did penngray take over?? Can we make offseason trades?
THK
|
| 45 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 4431816
Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 21:59
|
penngray took over KC. Offseason trades are allowed according to the rules. Trades of players and draft picks, just no FA signings.
|
| 46 | Ref
Donor
ID: 28045169
Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 13:09
|
thk, you say you have read the rules but continue to ask questions that the rules have clearly answered.
doug, I think you may have misinterpreted what I was saying, but bottom line is this, if it makes sense and won't skew things too much, it may happen. I meant total defensive team scoring for us--not the NFL team. Anyhow, keep them coming.
Re: 41, that's what I'm battling with as well--however with a limited bench and bye weeks, I'm still considering it.
|
| 47 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 4431816
Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 14:14
|
I also think that 2 bench slots could lead to less incentive/need to trade as well.
|
| 48 | Ref
Donor
ID: 28045169
Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 14:21
|
STL, that could be true. Hopefully next year more people will very active. There were teams I wouldn't even make offers to because they never or rarely responded when I made offers to them earlier in the year. But we did have a lot of actives and a lot of trading that went on.
|
| 49 | Doug
Sustainer
ID: 3411223
Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 15:50
|
Ref - "I meant total defensive team scoring for us--not the NFL team." Right, that's exactly what I meant too. It doesn't matter how many fantasy points our fantasy D's score, it's the spread/distribution between them that counts.
|
| 50 | Ref
Donor
ID: 28045169
Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 16:49
|
We just have to make sure that the defenses don't go up too much comparitive to the rest of the players--not just defenses as defenses were drafted like players--not as a separate entity.
I already want safeties counted more and blocked XPs shouls have already been counted. I like your ideas, just trying to be smart about implementation and current defensive scoring configuration. The current configuration was actually a compromise between rfs and myself. We spent a lot of time on it and think this worked out pretty well--but always open to ideas to make the league even better!
|
| 51 | Doug
Sustainer
ID: 3411223
Wed, Dec 11, 2002, 19:23
|
I think we're on the same page... my point is just that if every defense scored 10 more fantasy points next year than they did this year, that wouldn't really change their value relative to other positions, since every team starts 1 and only 1 defense each week, so every team gets the extra points. The only exception to that is the week when your D has it's bye week, but I have an interesting solution if it were to come to that. An easier solution, however, would be just to set it up the scale so that the average yardage adjustment was 0. I'll do that for now.
So, I analyzed the last 3 weeks worth of games (48 games, 96 defensive performances). I found that 58% of the time the team giving up fewer points gave up fewer yards. Obviously, this means that 42% of the time the team giving up fewer points actually gave up MORE yards. 50/50 would be ideal, but it's good to see that it's not too heavily biased one way or the other.
The past 3 weeks Pittsburgh has given up 68 points, and has scored a fantasy "0" based on PA. The Giants have given up 69 points and have scored a fantasy "2" based on PA. This is fine... both defenses appear to have played the same and scored about the same. But when you consider that in those 3 games Pittsburgh only gave up 625 yards compared to 1135 for Baltimore (almost twice the amount!), it's pretty obvious that the Pittsburgh D has played much better. With the proposed yardage adjustment (included below) Pittsburgh would score a combined PA/YA of 8 over the past 3 weeks, whereas the Giants would be at -1. Now, I used an extreme example of a team with the lowest and one of the highest yards against numbers.
A more typical example might be the two "below- average" defenses Buffalo and Minnesota, who have given up 79 and 80 points respectively over the past 3 weeks. Both have totalled -4 fantasy points based on PAs over the past 3 weeks, however Buffalo has only given up 900 yards to Minnesota's 1006, and Buffalo's combined yardage adjustment for the past 3 weeks would be +2 (Minnesota's would be 0). This is pretty minor... average advantage of 0.67 fantasy points per week for Buffalo over Minnesota, but it's a little something that reflects the fact that they gave up 10% fewer yards.
Final example will use two of the top Ds in the league... Tampa Bay and Philly. Both have given up 40 points over the past 3 weeks, Tampa getting 20 fantasy points for it and Philly getting 19. However, Tampa has been the more dominating D, allowing only 686 yards (lowest total in the league after Pittsburgh). Philly, however, has given up 1068 yards (the league average was 994). So, Tampa would get 6 points over the past 3 weeks (2 fantasy points/week average) as a credit for their domination, whereas Philly would be hit with a -1 penalty.
So, I think this a fairly equitable system... some of the top Ds will get bonuses, some of the average and bottom Ds will get bonuses too. Likewise, however, even some of the top Ds will have negative adjustments, as will the "truly bad of the bad". The average weekly adjustment over the past 3 weeks for all teams was -0.1 points. This is close enough to 0 for me that I don't think we're changing the "value" of a defense relative to other positions in any statistically significant way.
Oh, I almost forgot... the revised YA point system that I'm proposing:
0-100 yards - 7 points
101-150 - 4 points
151-200 - 3 points
201-250 - 2 points
251-300 - 1 points
301-350 - 0 points
351-400 - -1 points
401-450 - -2 points
451-500 - -3 points
501-550 - -4 points
551+ - -5 points
Based on the past 3 weeks, 85% of the time a D's adjustment for the week would be between +2 and -2.
|
| 52 | Promize
Sustainer
ID: 19431422
Mon, Dec 23, 2002, 12:06
|
Okie dok, rules for next year...
I'm really not that good at coming up with rules, but I am good at following them... Which I did this year..
Yesterday though, watching my teams and grumping about how bad Ricky Williams did the day before I noticed some things.
Quarterbacks
Why are QB's punished for throwing a touchdown? They are given 4 points instead of 6 points? Yet receivers, RB's, anyone else gets full 6 points?
If QB's get 4 points for a TD, wouldn't receivers get 4 points for a TD? The only reason i'm guessing this was in place, is you consider QB's are working as a team with a receiver?
I personally think, if anyone gets a touchdown, it is a touchdown... 6 points.
I do agree however that QB's who run the ball should get a bonus. So how about you did something with rushing Qb's like this.
TD = 6 points
0-10 +.01 per/yard
11-30 +.02 p/y
31-50 +03 p/y
51+ .04 p/y
Therefore, QB's are getting their 6 points for the TD, they are getting an added bonus for the TD run?
Defenses
Watching my score yesterday on the Jets D, they had hell the Patriots to like 34 total yards to somewhere around halftime I think. But their special teams had given up 7 points, so they were punished for that. So I noticed Refs total score was 12 points, while my D had only given up 34 yards and was down to 10 points!
I like the suggestions of awarding points for holding Defenses to certain yards, but I agree that you should be punished also for giving up TD's or points.
Point System
Is there anyway we could use "whole" numbers for next year instead of decimals or fractions of points?
It is like hockey this year, making scoring more exciting, let alone we won't have numbers like 10.9999999945664365. But everyone likes to see higher numbers! Offense brings fans!
Anyways, other then that... I had an AWESOME fun time this year... I think I think I should get a trophy for "Best Record" though! LOL
Other then that, had a blast, all the commishes did a great job this year...
|
| 53 | rockafellerskank
Sustainer
ID: 26112469
Mon, Dec 23, 2002, 14:00
|
Promize:
Thanks for your input. Nothing will be decided yet, but keep the suggestions coming. I (and Ref) will be listening all off-season!
As far as QB TD's goes... We were trying to elevate the value of RB's and WR's rather than depress the value of QB's. It's rather common for a QB to toss 2-3-4 TDs (which yields 8,12,16 points under our system). Whereas a RB or WR, 2 TD's is about as good as it gets (maybe 3 rarely) which yields 12-18 under our system. QB's were alreadyh goping to be HIGHLY coveted because of the depth of our league, so we were trying to put other players on a bit higher level. That was the "logic" not sure it was right, but that was it!
Hope you all have a good fantasy sports off-season!
rfs
|
| 54 | rockafellerskank
Sustainer
ID: 26112469
Mon, Dec 23, 2002, 14:03
|
Oh, BTW on the point about point system. We use a point system to 2 decimal places only. Those long strings of decimals you see are due to the "live" scoring feature and are NOT official and are only estimates and have nothing to do with final stats. You will not find any official reports that calculate past 2 decimals.
"live" scoring was just for illustartion purposes. "live" scoring is better tyhan waiting until the next day, even though it has some flaws. Maybe Kafenatid.com can help us! :)
rfs
|
| 56 | APerfect10
Leader
ID: 4921123
Tue, Dec 24, 2002, 02:37
|
Promize, your words seem contradictory to me.
First you state that a TD is a TD, no matter who or what method (receiving/rushing/passing) a TD should always equal 6 pts. You then go on to say that a rushing QB should be awarded more points than what a RB gets per yard. That makes NO sense to me.
A rushing QB is rewarded for his yardage already. Points for rushing yards are much higher than points for passing yards.
In no way should a QB receive more points per yard than a WR or a RB. If we do that, then we should reward more points for TE receiving yards compared to WR receiving yards because they get considerable less yardage. Nah. Stick to what we have...
|
| 57 | APerfect10
Leader
ID: 4921123
Tue, Dec 24, 2002, 02:38
|
Another way rushing QB's are rewarded is if they can run the ball, they score more rushing TD's compared to passing TD's, which is a 2 pt deviation in itself...
|
| 58 | Promize
Sustainer
ID: 19431422
Tue, Dec 24, 2002, 14:13
|
No AP10, that is how the league is setup now... A rushing TD by a QB is counted as EXTRA 2 points, it is counted as 6 points.... But a passing TD is counted as 4 points...
That is my point exactly! Why is a rushing QB awarded more? While a passing QB isn't? A rushing QB is getting running bonus, TD bonus, etc etc...
|
| 59 | Promize
Sustainer
ID: 19431422
Tue, Dec 24, 2002, 14:15
|
PaTD Passing TDs 4.0 points each
PaYd Passing Yards
1 - 400 yards = .04 points for every 1 yard
401 - 999 yards = .06 points for every 1 yard
RuTD Rushing TDs 6 points each
RuYd Rushing Yards
1 - 150 yards = .10 points for every 1 yard
151 - 999 yards = .125 points for every 1 yard
|
| 60 | Promize
Sustainer
ID: 19431422
Tue, Dec 24, 2002, 14:17
|
Maybe the position of QB needs to be tweaked some.. A RB and a RB QB in my opinion is just getting more points then a Throwing QB.
|
| 61 | Ref
Donor
ID: 28045169
Thu, Dec 26, 2002, 15:25
|
A RB that throws a halfback pass get the same points as a QB that throws a pass. I have never seen a league where the QB gets as many points for a pass or a TD throwing than the person crossing the goal line and actually scoring the points. I am always open to suggestions, but I don't agree with your reasoning. as far as defense goes, if there are going to be be points awarded for a great performance, there are going to be negative points for poor perfromances--possibly a bell curve.
|
| 62 | Ref
Donor
ID: 28045169
Fri, Dec 27, 2002, 13:25
|
OK, want to get feedback.
Was reading the rules and we did not make a clarification on the draft order. Meant to have it the same way the NFL does with reverse order. We said that as well, however, what we didn't clarify specifically was a team that had a worse record that made the playoffs, like Oakland. In the NFL, NBA, etc. they take the non playoff teams, and they have reverse draft order (note NBA lottery exception). We have a situation where there are more than one team that had a better record than Oakland, yet didn't make the playoffs. In my mind the top 8 finishers have the last 8 picks, yet it doesn't specifically say that--it says reverse order on how the season finished. Does anyone want to chime in here on my assumption before we list draft order?
|
| 63 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 4431816
Fri, Dec 27, 2002, 14:28
|
I wholeheartedly agree. 8 playoff teams should get the last 8 picks.
|
| 64 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 4431816
Mon, Dec 30, 2002, 12:21
|
Will there be a "strength of schedule" determination when scheduling next year's matchups? Seems that would be possible when scheduling out of division games. Basing it on power rankings or straight PF would seem the best way to go if it was done.
|
| 65 | rockafellerskank
Sustainer
ID: 461124288
Mon, Dec 30, 2002, 14:49
|
StL: There might be a strength of schedule "factor" for next year. I crafted this year's schedz by hand as there was not default schedz loaded for a league as large as ours.
Regardless, each team will play the same amount of division opponents, conference opponents and inter-conference oppononents. Also, no teams will switch divisions -- but it is something we can consider in 1-2 more year to "mix it up"
|
| 66 | Ref
Donor
ID: 28045169
Mon, Dec 30, 2002, 15:19
|
Yeah, I've had more than one person request to go to Oakland's division ;)
|
| 67 | penngray
Donor
ID: 453492921
Mon, Dec 30, 2002, 18:53
|
I (KC) need some high draft picks so the playoff teams go atleast after me ;)
|
| 68 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jan 01, 2003, 12:54
|
Remember, this draft will not snake. That will help even things out a great deal (or perhaps do better than that with some who are one or two players away from being contenders). Since we are all staying in the same conference and divisions next year, you can't really have a schedule based on the prior year's strengths.
|
| 69 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 24111692
Wed, Jan 01, 2003, 14:01
|
I guess in reality there are only 2 non-conference games. Still, strength of schedule could be used in assigning those two, and that could have a major effect on standings.
|
| 70 | Ref
Donor
ID: 28045169
Wed, Jan 08, 2003, 17:26
|
penngray, you interested in dealing McNair? Oh this is the worng thread for that...
|
| 71 | Promize
Sustainer
ID: 19431422
Mon, Feb 10, 2003, 13:49
|
So whats the scoop on the fantasy baseball league?
You all gonna try and set something up?
|
| 72 | Ref
Donor
ID: 27016179
Tue, Feb 11, 2003, 12:53
|
working on it...talked some about it in hoops league thread.
|
| 73 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 133252814
Tue, Apr 29, 2003, 12:04
|
Any thoughts on how long we want to wait before declaring our keepers? Should we be fully informed of who is going where and what role they will have, or should we leave some speculation in it?
At some point we should start to consider what rule changes (if any) should be incorporated. I believe adding a bench spot over the DL will simplify things and I am in favor of it, although it will make the league even thinner than last year.
|
| 74 | Ref
Donor
ID: 100261311
Thu, May 01, 2003, 14:42
|
STL, I am with you on that! But let's see how it plays out.
As far as a date, I think it's stil much too soon. We need to see how the draft affects players and where people end up.
On a personal level, I'm a little concerned about Priest, but the PR spin is that he will be good to go by the time the season comes around.
|
| 75 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 133252814
Fri, May 16, 2003, 10:09
|
Here is a message on the site:
Renew your league for 2003 and lock in last year's lowest price. Reserve your league now!
|
| 76 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 40416212
Wed, May 21, 2003, 17:35
|
I just got this e-mail from CBS:
It's time to reserve a spot for Gurupies in Football Commissioner 2003.
As one of our most valued customers, you're eligible for this limited time offer. Renew now for the 2003 Fantasy Football season and lock in last year's lowest price of $119.95.
Offer ends June 30, 2003.
I guess we need to decide if we want to #1) use them again? #2) pay soon #3) pay later and maybe pay extra ($139? $149?)
I'll be sending out a group e-mail to get everyone's thoughts.........
|
| 77 | TaRhEElKiD
ID: 42109719
Sat, May 24, 2003, 22:22
|
I like CBS. I am not sure if you sent out e-mails yet, but I would like to go ahead and pay soon if possible.
THK
|
| 78 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 40416212
Tue, May 27, 2003, 11:39
|
I received a "go" response back from most of the owners that replied to my e-mail. A few expressed concerns about CBS, but I don't see any viable alternatives. We are going to go ahead and take advantage of the early bird discount before 6/30. We will still have a mony back guaranatee -- worse case scenario.
I'll send an e-mail to all with details. The e-mail with have payment options for the league. You will be offered the chance to pay for the optional prize pool at the same time. This won't be a deadline type of deal, but I'd like to get enough people paid up to cover my credit card bill for renewing the site. We'll have a manditory due date set later in the summer.
We also will have to set a date to declare keeprs, and discuss any possible rule changes. Feel free to express your opinions......
rfs
|
| 79 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 40416212
Tue, May 27, 2003, 11:42
|
BTW, the e-mails I am sending out ared going to the e-mail address you used to sign up for Gurupie football on the CBS site. If you want to change your e-mail, please access the site and change your e-mail addy under personal options.
|
| 80 | Promize
Sustainer
ID: 19431422
Tue, May 27, 2003, 12:17
|
Opps, forgot to email back, you know im coming back!!!
This time I will win best record and championship...
|
| 81 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 461124288
Thu, Jun 05, 2003, 20:23
|
Peter N & MyBoyJack: I got your payments today. Thanks.
|
| 82 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 461124288
Sat, Jun 14, 2003, 17:07
|
coldwater, payment received. Thanks, see you there.
rfs
|
| 83 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Sun, Jun 15, 2003, 05:32
|
Any thots about when the draft will be? Call me lazy but I can't remember if anyone besides the commish has a list of who kept whom?
|
| 84 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 461124288
Sun, Jun 15, 2003, 22:18
|
Baldiwn,
You can still see all the rosters at the CBS site. No keepers have been declared yet.
We need to decide 2 basic things sooner or later:
#1) Date to declare keepers
#2) Draft date
#3) Any rule changes?
I have thoughts on all of the above, but welcome comments rather than me & Ref just decide things bi-laterally.
|
| 85 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 461124288
Wed, Jun 18, 2003, 19:46
|
Ref, Got your check today. thanks.
|
| 86 | Peter N.
Donor
ID: 23532189
Wed, Jun 18, 2003, 20:44
|
My input on questions asked
#1) I'd say we need to declare keepers pretty soon so everyone has plenty of time to prepare for the draft.
#2) CMIIW, but we keep 9 so we will have at least 96 picks to get through. I am also assuming this will be done slow live on the boards. That in itself we make it a bit longer. I'd say we need at least a month before the season starts to get the draft rolling.
#3) QBs should get 6 points for a touchdown. Get rid of the DL process and add a bench slot. I was never involved, but it seemed like a pain in the ass.
Just my thoughts for now.....
|
| 87 | Ref
Donor
ID: 100261311
Thu, Jun 19, 2003, 17:36
|
Peter, the DL slot is bye bye. We will be adding 1 extra bench spot though it appears. (The idea of 2 slots was brought up but I think most everyone wanted just one...hell we're deep enough with 24 teams!)
The problem with keepers are that we don't even know where some players are going to end up yet. Training camps will open soon and we SHOULD know a lot more soon. Still we need to come up with a date.
As far as the draft goes, rfs and I haven't gotten together lately to discuss specifics, but when last we talked we were leaning toward a slow draft on the boards.
As far as scoring goes, rfs and I worked painstakingly long to make the scoring reflect the % we had in mind. If there are going to be suggestions for changes (already have some plans for a couple minor ones IIRC) they need to be substantiated as to why so we may discuss it.
Thanks for your input. We need more just like that.
|
| 88 | Peter N.
Donor
ID: 415261823
Thu, Jun 19, 2003, 18:05
|
Ref, I understand your point. I just feel that a touchdown should be a touchdown. Period.
From rfs in Post 53
It's rather common for a QB to toss 2-3-4 TDs (which yields 8,12,16 points under our system). Whereas a RB or WR, 2 TD's is about as good as it gets (maybe 3 rarely) which yields 12-18 under our system
This is true, but isn't it also true that a QB is likely to throw more interceptions(especially if he's thrown for 3 or 4 TDs) in a game than a RB would fumble during a game? I could be wrong, but QB interceptions seem to occur more frequently than RB/WR fumbles. I think it all evens out. Am I making sense? Just want to make sure ;-)
Either way, I understand the process you guys went through initially to set these rules. I also understand why you wouldn't want any major changes. I don't consider this to be a major change. I just feel that touchdown should be 6 points for all positions.
Training camp is approaching fast.....I can't wait!
|
| 89 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 05121814
Thu, Jun 19, 2003, 18:09
|
I won't make this a promise, but I would like to make some time and dump all the fantasy points from all starting RBs, QBs, and WRs into a SS and analyze the data. I'm interested in what the average/median QB, RB, and WR score was under the current system. we can then be in a position to see how any change might affect the scoring system. Until then, keep the conversation coming....
|
| 90 | Ref
Donor
ID: 27016179
Thu, Jun 19, 2003, 22:09
|
Peter, I think we all agree that a TD is a TD and it is 6 pts. It's the passing of the ball that we are giving points to that was 4 pts. No matter who crosses the goal line and gets credit, they get 6. rfs and I have played several leagues that used a wide variety of scoring systems and combined that with our own ideas. No where have I ever seen a passing TD worth as much as the one who scored it. That would make QBs skewed way too high up I feel.
The only league I've ever played in that gave a QB 6 pts for passing gave whoever physically crossed the goal line to score the TD 10 pts. That's too high IMO. But, my opinion isn't the only one that counts and am happy to listen to to any and all reasons why that or any other scorings should be changed.
|
| 91 | Ref
Donor
ID: 27016179
Thu, Jun 19, 2003, 22:13
|
I remember that we forgot to add blocked extra points last year. That will be added next year. I'd also like to discuss the possibility of perhaps raising the amount of points given for Safety/blocked/punt or FG just because that is such a huge play. Might be one point--gotta talk it out to see how much of an impact there is. There must be a sight where I can find the stats to see what kind of impact that would make.
|
| 92 | APerfect10
Leader
ID: 70412023
Fri, Jun 20, 2003, 11:29
|
I do not think that "blocked FG or blocked punts" should be counted towards the scoring. I'm assuming you would reward those points to that teams defense, however, the defense is just that. Special teams is a completely separate unit....
|
| 93 | Ref
Donor
ID: 100261311
Fri, Jun 20, 2003, 12:21
|
AP10, special teams and defense are consolidated in our league.
|
| 94 | Myboyjack
Leader
ID: 108231015
Fri, Jun 20, 2003, 13:50
|
I really wish there was a way that opposition defensive scores wouldn't count against our defense. I lost a couple of games last year because of interception and fumbles returned for TDs by the other team.
|
| 95 | Ref
Donor
ID: 100261311
Mon, Jun 23, 2003, 12:30
|
Yeah, I agree, that stinks. That happened to all of us. Don't think we can change that though. Points scored are points scored as far as points allowed is concerned.
|
| 96 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 461124288
Tue, Jun 24, 2003, 19:47
|
The website has been renewed (paid in full). We are in business for 2003/2004
Time to de-throne king Ref!
rfs
|
| 97 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 05121814
Wed, Jun 25, 2003, 10:02
|
Summary / Update:
I'm going to post a summary of those that are paid and those that have confirmed their return for next year.
I need to hear something back from all 24 owners soon.
I'm considering the following dates as cutoffs:
7/1/03: cut off for confirmation of returning owners
7/2 to 7/9: I'm on vacation, replacement owners (if necessary will be recruited)
7/16: Keepers list due, if not turned in, you may be removed or your keepers selected for you by a commish.
7/21: Begin draft. I expect the draft to be a slow draft on these boards with some sort of 24 hour limit per pick rule enforced. This gives us about 45 days to draft before the season starts.
None of the above dates are set in stone, but I need to get the (foot)ball rolling. I don't want to be scrambling in August and 'rush' through everything.
Paid:
Baldwin - paid in advance from last year ($6)
Peter N ($21)
MyBoyJack ($21)
coldwater ($21)
Ref ($21)
rfs ($21)
ksoze ($21)
Also, someone from last year (AP10? StL Cards?) left their winnings on file for payment this year. I have it written down at home. If I missed anyone, please speak up and correct me.
The following people have confirmed their teams with me via e-mails or posts:
AP10
StL Cards
Promize
CCRider
StL Cards
TaRhEElKiD
Blue Balls
Brad Taylor (Houston)
Craig Turley (Arizona)
Goatlocker
skinneej
Twarpy
If you are the above list, please contact me regarding league fees ASAP.
Those that I have NOT hear specificaly from include:
Dan
penngray
CanEHdian Pride
Doug
Action Figures
Forgive me if I have missed anyone, but I believe I am up to date. If you on the "non-response list" I will send each of you a personal e-mail, but please be aware that after 7/1/03, we may find it necessary to replace you. I don't want to replace anyone, but I can't take the risk someone will 'disappear'
rfs
|
| 98 | APerfect10
Leader
ID: 535572315
Wed, Jun 25, 2003, 10:13
|
rfs, I was the one who left my winnings with you last year. Let me know what my total fee comes to : '03 fee + prize pool fee - last years winnings
Thanks...
|
| 99 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 05121814
Wed, Jun 25, 2003, 10:14
|
OK. E-mails set to the addys I have for
Dan
penngray
CanEHdian Pride
Doug
Action Figures
|
| 100 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 133252814
Wed, Jun 25, 2003, 10:23
|
rfs - I left my winnings with you last year as well.
|
| 101 | ksoze
Sustainer
ID: 50643419
Wed, Jun 25, 2003, 10:30
|
I'm fine with the dates suggested in 97.
|
| 102 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 133252814
Wed, Jun 25, 2003, 10:42
|
rfs, my winnings were $15 that I left on file with you, that can be applied to my prize entry fee for this year. I just sent an additional $6.00 through paypal to cover my portion of the league fees.
thanks
|
| 103 | Baldwin
ID: 111112015
Wed, Jun 25, 2003, 11:05
|
You better believe I am in. 8]
|
| 104 | Baldwin
ID: 111112015
Wed, Jun 25, 2003, 11:06
|
I can't wait to see the keepers posted so I can get a handle on what will be available in the draft.
|
| 105 | Action Figure
Sustainer
ID: 124362011
Wed, Jun 25, 2003, 11:08
|
I'm in.
|
| 106 | Ref
Donor
ID: 100261311
Wed, Jun 25, 2003, 12:39
|
We will be working to update our site and have everything together shortly. Once we have our owners in place again (in case any needs to be removed/replaced), we will finalize everything--including the dates. Because it will be a slow draft, the dates shouldn't be up for discussion unless somone will be out of town during that time. Should we have issues that need discussed (and we will) we will start a separate thread for that. July 1 IS the drop dead date for returning owners to respond to our invitations to return.
|
| 107 | Ref
Donor
ID: 100261311
Wed, Jun 25, 2003, 14:26
|
As we try and nail down the dates, here are some other things we are considering:
Season begins 9/4
Preseason week 1 begins 8/7 (HoF and Am. Bowl 8/2 and 8/4)
Last preseason game is Fri. 8/29
Haven't located dates for the mandatory roster cut-down dates yet, but I will when I find it.
|
| 108 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 461124288
Wed, Jun 25, 2003, 15:07
|
RE: #98: AP10, You win $15 last year, so you owe only $6 this year for entry + prize pool. Let me know if you need payment instructions.
RE: #102: StL Cards- Got got Pay Pal payment, thanks.
|
| 109 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 461124288
Wed, Jun 25, 2003, 15:20
|
Sorry for the lack of format upcomng. Here is the reverse oder of the FINAL regular season rankings. If teams are tied (in wins), the team with less Points For picks earlier. Remember, the final rankings on the website include playoff games, so they will differ from below. (team, wins, losses, ties, points for)
Rank TEAM W L T PF
1 Atlanta Falcons 2 11 0 799.4
2 Kansas City Chiefs 4 9 0 649.8
3 San Diego Chargers 4 9 0 772.6
4 Chicago Bears 4 9 0 875.7
5 Denver Broncos 5 8 0 817.5
6 Buffalo Bills 5 8 0 890.5
7 Cleveland Browns 6 7 0 766.7
8 Tampa Bay Bucs 6 7 0 820.9
9 Green Bay Packers 6 7 0 850
10 Washington Redskins 6 7 0 868
11 Houston Texans 6 7 0 899.8
12 Oakland Raiders 6 7 0 905.8
13 Cincinnati Bengals 6 7 0 959.2
14 NY Giants 6 7 0 959.4
15 Minnesota Vikings 7 6 0 836.8
16 Jacksonville Jaguars 7 6 0 927.2
17 Arizona Cardinals 8 5 0 908.4
18 San Francisco 49ers 8 5 0 915
19 Pittsburgh Steelers 8 5 0 948
20 St Louis Rams 8 5 0 950.9
21 Baltimore Ravens 9 4 0 1116.2
22 Indianapolis Colts 9 4 0 1223.1
23 Dallas Cowboys 10 3 0 1021.5
24 Seattle Seahawks 10 3 0 1042.4
|
| 110 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 149272511
Wed, Jun 25, 2003, 15:40
|
rfs,
Will get a check in the mail tonite.
Cliff
|
| 111 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 05121814
Wed, Jun 25, 2003, 17:29
|
Training Camp dates (by team) - ESPN link
NFL schedule (by week) - ESPN link
NFL pre-season schedule - ESPN link
Misc NFL dates (IE sign free agents) - NFL.com link
|
| 112 | Doug
Sustainer
ID: 2730280
Fri, Jun 27, 2003, 02:48
|
I would like to "re-propose" adding a "Yards Allowed" adjustment to defensive scoring as follows:
0-100 yards - 7 points
101-150 - 4 points
151-200 - 3 points
201-250 - 2 points
251-300 - 1 points
301-350 - 0 points
351-400 - -1 points
401-450 - -2 points
451-500 - -3 points
501-550 - -4 points
551+ - -5 points
Based on a 3-week sample from last year, 85% of the time a D's adjustment for the week would be between +2 and -2 points... so this is a pretty minor tweak, and since the average adjustment is about 0, it doesn't change defensive scoring relative to other positions. The reason I think we should use it is that it more accurately reflects a defensive performance (such as shutting down your opponent, but then your offense commits 2 turnovers for TDs, yielding 14 points that your D/ST wasn't really responsible for, such as referenced in post 94)
If there is any sort of opposition to such an adjustment, I'd be interested to hear what the basis is (rather than a unexplained knee-jerk reaction such as "I don't like it" or "Not right now", etc.).
|
| 113 | Doug
Sustainer
ID: 2730280
Fri, Jun 27, 2003, 02:53
|
Oh, and to pre-emptively address one concern people might have, there is a slight correlation between yards allowed and points allowed, but it's not as strong as you might suspect. In the same 3-week sample from last year, only 58% of the time did the team allowing fewer points also allow fewer yards. So there may be a minor bias towards making stronger Ds stronger and weaker Ds weaker, but again I believe the stats suggest that this is only a minor bias, and is far outweighed by the benefits of such a system IMHO.
|
| 114 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 05121814
Fri, Jun 27, 2003, 09:45
|
RE #97: I have now heard from Doug, Action Figures & penngray.
CanEHdian Pride & Dan -- where are you? If they don't confirm their return by 7/1/03, we have to recruit replacement owner(s).
Doug, Pay Pal payment received. Thanks.
|
| 115 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 05121814
Fri, Jun 27, 2003, 09:46
|
Keep all the suggesstions coming. Of course, Ref and I want to improve the league as much as possible so we take you ideas into consideration. I'm not sure I'll have time for formally respond to much until after I returnfrom vacation and get into football mode.
|
| 116 | Peter N.
Donor
ID: 11527270
Fri, Jun 27, 2003, 10:50
|
No where have I ever seen a passing TD worth as much as the one who scored it Ref, Post 90
I guess you have never played Sandbox Fantasy Football? Under their scoring system, a TD is 6 points for all positions. Passing yards are also not scored as high as rushing/receiving yards. I'm not saying their system is right, I was just clarifying that their are fantasy game sites out there that score a Passing TD the same as a Rushing/Receiving TD.
Again, this is just a suggestion. I'm just throwing this out there! :-)
|
| 117 | Ref
Donor
ID: 100261311
Fri, Jun 27, 2003, 17:13
|
CP is a go. Only waiting for Dan.
|
| 118 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 48936413
Fri, Jun 27, 2003, 17:15
|
I'm back and looking forward to another season. Sorry I haven't been too active but I didn't think the league was off the ground for season II yet.
|
| 119 | Dan
Sustainer
ID: 0229323
Fri, Jun 27, 2003, 17:21
|
hey im back, just off to the Jays game now, talk to you later. sorry.
|
| 120 | Ref
Donor
ID: 100261311
Fri, Jun 27, 2003, 17:22
|
I think one of the problems is that some people's email is seeing our emails as spam and not getting through. Everyone I've tracked down said they never got the emails.
|
| 121 | Ref
Donor
ID: 100261311
Fri, Jun 27, 2003, 17:23
|
OK, we're all back. 24 owners have all committed to return (note PennGray took over the last week of his team's season).
|
| 122 | Ref
Donor
ID: 100261311
Fri, Jun 27, 2003, 17:26
|
Note: I've been asked if you are allowed to keep less than 9. The answer is Yes. However, for those that do that and do not have extra picks in the draft, you will not be able to fill your roster right away after the draft.
|
| 123 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 461124288
Fri, Jun 27, 2003, 22:25
|
Ok. Dan and CP have checked in w/ Ref (and above). We have 24.
|
| 124 | Doug
Sustainer
ID: 2730280
Sat, Jun 28, 2003, 03:51
|
FWIW, I played on somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 different websites/leagues last year, and at least 3 of those 8 counted a passing TD as the same value of a rushing or passing TD. Personally, I don't think we should change it, but just wanted to add my .02 that I haven't found the practice as unusual or uncommon as some make it out to be.
|
| 125 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 05121814
Mon, Jun 30, 2003, 16:15
|
Ref and I have been chatting via e-mail. He's going to post some of our thoughts here soon. I'm going to be away from 7/2 to 7/9 with only limited access, so I probbaly won't have much input until I return.
If you have any questions, try to track Ref down....
rfs
|
| 126 | penngray
Donor
ID: 453492921
Tue, Jul 01, 2003, 15:54
|
sorry if I ask dumb questions but Im not at all familar with everything.
I would like to put money in? PayPal?
when is the draft date?
Im ready to talk trades through email or AIM.
thanks for letting me join this league. I hope I can improve this team to a respectable level this year!
AIM (penngray1)
|
| 127 | TaRhEElKiD
ID: 42109719
Fri, Jul 04, 2003, 18:14
|
I need the mailing address of RFS. If somebody has that information will they please send it to me at dsw827@aol.com.
On a personal note, will you please pray for me, if you will right now. My parents are going through a NASTY divorce. On top of that my grandmother was rushed into emergency surgery on July 2nd (her birthday) because severe colon cancer. She is in intensive care right now, while I am sitting at home listen to my parents yell...
Thanks,
THK
|
| 128 | Doug
Sustainer
ID: 2730280
Fri, Jul 04, 2003, 22:44
|
Sorry to hear all that THK... thoughts and prayers are with you, brother. Stay strong.
|
| 129 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 355131919
Sat, Jul 05, 2003, 00:59
|
That is a bummer THK :(
I'll pray for your grandmother and that your parents can at least be civil to each other in their difficult times. Hang in there!
|
| 130 | TaRhEElKiD
ID: 42109719
Sun, Jul 06, 2003, 12:02
|
dsw827@aol.com please send RFS's mailing address so I can turn in payment...
thanks,
THK
|
| 131 | rfs on vacation
ID: 22631711
Mon, Jul 07, 2003, 12:50
|
THK: You can e-mail me at
rockafellerskank007@yahoo.com
Hope all is as well as can be expected.
rfs
|
| 132 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 27652109
Thu, Jul 10, 2003, 11:04
|
Just updating some payments statuses....
Promize & CP both sent in $21 via Pay Pal. THK contacted me and is mailing in his payment.
I just got back from vacation and have a full day at work. I'll be around the next 2 nights and this w/e and Ref and I will hamer out all the details and respond to all the posts about rule changes and dates.
If you haven't sent in yoru league fees, please contact me to do so ASAP.
|
| 133 | APerfect10
Leader
ID: 266411011
Thu, Jul 10, 2003, 12:44
|
rfs, I left my winnings with you last year but I forget how much it was. Please confirm, I need to send in my payment ASAP.
|
| 134 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 133252814
Thu, Jul 10, 2003, 12:47
|
$15 winnings for APerfect10. Look here
total due would be $6
|
| 135 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 133252814
Thu, Jul 10, 2003, 12:48
|
also look at post #108 in this thread
|
| 136 | APerfect10
Leader
ID: 535572315
Thu, Jul 10, 2003, 16:42
|
Oops...I'm out of it ;) Thanks for the heads up!
|
| 137 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 461124288
Thu, Jul 17, 2003, 22:35
|
THK, payment received ($21).... thanks....
I'll post a summary here over the w/e on how many prize pool participants we have. If you aven't paid yer, pleae contact me.
|
| 138 | skinneej
Sustainer
ID: 40625911
Fri, Jul 18, 2003, 08:45
|
Money sent.
|
| 139 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 27652109
Fri, Jul 18, 2003, 14:19
|
skinneej. got It. $21. Thanks
|
| 140 | Ref
Donor
ID: 100261311
Fri, Jul 18, 2003, 14:40
|
Btw, anyone reading this, that msg about keepers etc. was not directed toward you. I've gotten a couple emails the past couple days asking me when keepers were due. After Action Figures posted that he didn't know what was going on, I figured I'd better post so the people that haven't been paying as much attn. or haven't read their email or visit these boards regularly would understand the need for them to keep tabs on these upcoming dates. Nothing hurts a slow draft more than inattentive people that cause the draft to slow down and wait for them. Things come up though and some times it's unavoidable. We're just hoping that no one simply forgets.
|
| 141 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 461124288
Sat, Jul 19, 2003, 15:58
|
goatlocker, Got payment of $21 today. Thanks.
|
| 142 | Action Figure
Sustainer
ID: 124362011
Sat, Jul 19, 2003, 16:15
|
RFS
Would you like me to Pay Pal you using the Yahoo address that is posted in this thread?
|
| 143 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 461124288
Sat, Jul 19, 2003, 16:28
|
AF. Yeah, that's fine. Thanks.
|
| 144 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 461124288
Sat, Jul 19, 2003, 18:43
|
Action, payment ($22) received via PP. Thanx.
|
| 145 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 48936413
Tue, Jul 29, 2003, 19:56
|
Is there any way that we can come up with a new name for the league. I think we need something more creative the "24 team league" or "Gurupie League". I think "Replica League" was being used for awhile which of the 3 is my favorite. Though we probably could come up with something better.
Anyone agree?
|
| 146 | Ref
Donor
ID: 27016179
Tue, Jul 29, 2003, 20:16
|
CP, Replica kind of went away when we dropped it from 32 teams to 24. If you want to propose something, I'm sure rfs and I can talk about it I guess.
|
| 147 | Twarpy
Leader
ID: 386242821
Wed, Jul 30, 2003, 21:25
|
I think for next year we should seriously consider a live draft closer to the season starting...
I know we all have busy lives but we did manage to come up with a date that iirc 22 of 24 managed to be able to draft last year.
The problems I see with this draft is that by round 5 there is going to be a lot more info coming out of training camps than now, and if you happen to have your pick when a nice little tidbit of info comes out it's a huge advantage.
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|