OT - CC Fantasy League Changes (Poll)
by daveh873 on Mar 25, 2011 11:27 AM EDT
Email
PrintFanPosts are user-created content and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors of Camden Chat or SB Nation. They might, though.
57 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm apathetic
Doors 2 and 3 work for me. We can’t possibly go thru with choice A, but I don’t really care about re-drafting or not re-drafting. I kinda think that we ought to re-draft with new scoring though.
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
new scoring rules
Current/proposed:
IP: 3/1.5
W: 5/5
QS: 5/7
CG: 0/4
I understand the desire to reduce the IP points from 3 to 1, but I think that is a too drastic a change for players who changed their draft philosophy to take advantage of the scoring system (i.e., me). I think halving the point system for innings is a reasonable middle ground.
I’m not sure how valuable those projection systems are, but looking at Tim Lincecum who is projected to throw 220 innings and score 747 points. As it currently stands, a LOT of his value is based on IP (660 points). My proposal halves his projected output to 330 points (!). This would substantially knock his projected total to 417 points, which makes him less valuabel than Adam Dunn who was picked 50 picks later. To make up for this, I increased the QS from 5 to 7, which really isn’t that significant. I also figured to add CG as well.
I would agree that the system too strongly favors starting pitching. I would futher stipulate that a redraft would totally suck. However, I also don’t think I should be hurt because I drafted based on the league settings at the time. A re-draft is probably the most fair, but would suck. Finding a middle ground on the points category is the most ideal solution (from my perspective), but I don’t want to be hurt too much.
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
Eh....
The league settings were set 2 hours before the draft. I didn’t even check email until right before the draft was gonna start. You can’t penalize the folks that have jobs and stuff that prevent them from accessing email and such.
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
by twistedlogic on Mar 25, 2011 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Plus, the scoring settings weren't even discussed beforehand.
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
by twistedlogic on Mar 25, 2011 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, that's my bad
I sent out that initial email but then had no idea it was being discussed on the message board. I was under the impression ESPN had a notification system to tell me when there was a new discussion, but I was wrong. I just figured nobody gave a shit about the scoring and that’s why they didn’t bother writing back.
I’m happy to go with your proposed system, although I don’t really like increasing QS to 7 points. That seems kinda extreme.
They don't have to be good. They just have to be there. - EME
I think that's fair, personally
It’s not a big deal re: the rule issue. I know you can’t please everybody (which is why I can only commish 1 league :) ), but I’d like to see a middle ground re: the points, and really the IP issue. I think the IP at 1.5, CG at 4 and QS at 5 is middle ground enough.
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
I really should have taken care of all of it earlier but I honestly forgot all about it
Being the commish of the fantasy team isn’t exactly my highest priority. That doesn’t make it right that I slacked off, but still. I’ve also never used ESPN for fantasy before and it’s taking some getting used to. The scoring setup wasn’t like I’d seen before. Of course, if I’d known my work was going to block ESPN I never would have done that in the first place.
They don't have to be good. They just have to be there. - EME
They were changed.
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
by twistedlogic on Mar 25, 2011 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions
right, so basically the plan should have been not to do research?
/not to be smarmy.
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
that's my general plan for all aspects of my life :)
They don't have to be good. They just have to be there. - EME
Hey, asshole
Some of us have jobs. You know, work….where we can’t all access email and ESPN all day. Its not like I purposely tried not do any research just so I could fuck up your plan to win the fantasy league.
The settings were finalized 2 hours before the draft. I didn’t even get home from work until 45 minutes before the draft.
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
by twistedlogic on Mar 25, 2011 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Sorry...the asshole wasn't necessary.
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
by twistedlogic on Mar 25, 2011 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions
I have 2 jobs and work 50 hours a week
But whatever, we all have our moments.
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
I do my best...I'm dealing with stupid people right now (real job) and taking it out on here (what I wish was my real job)
I’m basically saying that it seems like hardly anybody realized what was up with the scoring until after the draft occured (I, for one, never even went to the league page after setting up my team). I get that one person seems to have realized what was up and drafted accordingly, but I’m not really for the "I know I’m going to win as is and I’d like to change the scoring so that we have “changes” but I still win" kinda thing.
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
by twistedlogic on Mar 25, 2011 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions
And, like I said, sorry. I'm punchy sometimes.
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
by twistedlogic on Mar 25, 2011 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions
I think cutting the IP in half is a really big concession,
with all due respect.
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
But your pitchers will still lead the league in that department
So you go from winning big to winning not-as-big? Plus, adding points for CG and increasing points for QS (two things your guys ought to be right at the top in)? I’m not really getting the concession here.
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
by twistedlogic on Mar 25, 2011 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions
it's also worth noting that I wasn't alone in drafting SP
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
Well yea....everyone had to draft pitchers.
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
by twistedlogic on Mar 25, 2011 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I know which fantasy matchup i'm tuning in for this season!
"things like locig and prrofreading are actually valued here" - zknower
I will be getting smoked
Under any scoring system that isn’t balanced. With the current scoring, its unlikely I’ll win at all with my staff. Even under the proposed “changes,” its still unlikely I’ll win a game. I also didn’t fully understand how the point thing works (didn’t even know it was point scoring). I sorta assumed that you win a stat category and you get a win.
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
by twistedlogic on Mar 25, 2011 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I think you're under valuing your team
But as far as the catagory scoring… we’ve been head to head, most points wins since the league was created.
"things like locig and prrofreading are actually valued here" - zknower
Yea...didn't know that
I knew the h2h part, but I assumed the scoring was just like the yahoo leagues. My mistake.
But seriously…look at my team. Pitching wins and two of my top pitchers are Jordan Zimmermann and Drew Storen. My top two starters play for the Marlins (although he’s good) and the Padres (who knows if he’s gonna replicate last year’s success).
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
by twistedlogic on Mar 25, 2011 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions
won't win a game?
come in, it’s a 26 week season (or something like that). the law of averages favors you. I don’t even know what your team looks like btw, I’m just assuming that you picked a team that isn’t historically awful.
Get 'em.
you are NOT a beautiful or unique snowflake.
Music City Miracles Hall Of Fame, Class of 2010
by danielreese05 on Mar 25, 2011 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Nah...I was exaggerating
But really, under the current settings, IP and QS wins. That’s something only 1 of my 10 pitchers currently provides (Latos is an unknown).
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
by twistedlogic on Mar 25, 2011 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
After looking over the standard scoring system
I think we can change it without redrafting and still have it be pretty fair. Here is the standard scoring. Basically, the main difference is that we made earned runs only worth -1 instead of -2 and we made losses worth -3 instead of -5. If we move those catagories back, it devalues the pitching a bit while still giving people who drafted pitching early their edge (as their pitchers should have less earned runs and, potentially, less losses).
We also devalued saves, but that should stay because no one really went for relief pitching. Also, we added -1 for caught stealing, and that devalues hitting (and is kinda redundant, as if your player is CS, you lose that base runner and a potential RS).
In summary, I say we dont redraft, leave IP alone, move losses from -3 to -5 and move earned runs from -1 to -2, and we take away caught stealing. It makes the most sense in my opinion and moves us back to a standard ESPN scoring league (which is standard for a reason).
For reference, this is our current scoring.
"things like locig and prrofreading are actually valued here" - zknower
Oh, one more thing
even if pitching still has an edge under this system, we cant really complain because this would move most stuff back to how it was set up since day one. I really think it’s the simplest and fairest way of doing this outside of redrafting.
"things like locig and prrofreading are actually valued here" - zknower
not a fan of the re-draft.
it’s going to be tough to get everyone together and honestly, the things take forever. plus, I really like my team and probably wouldn’t end up drafting much different than I did this time. I don’t really have a “draft strategy”, I just went after the best players I could find.
Get 'em.
you are NOT a beautiful or unique snowflake.
Music City Miracles Hall Of Fame, Class of 2010
Ok, so now that we decided to change but not redraft...
we have to decide what to change to. We can either Pick one of the options above (The plan DFA laid out, the plan I laid out…) or we can suggest other plans. Or, we can just let Stacey decide since she is the commish.
"things like locig and prrofreading are actually valued here" - zknower
sorry i'm late to the party
but I guess I’d vote for Dave’s plan. Just a side-note, Dave didn’t mention that we added QS to standard scoring, and devalued W’s. This is a significant boost to pitchers’ value over standard scoring (which I mistakenly didn’t realize at the time I suggested it), as pitchers can expect to get about 20-25 QSs per year on average. If we leave QSs in our scoring system and make the other changes Dave suggested, I think it’s a pretty fair compromise.
You know, I didn't even think of it that way.
We could always skew it back the other way and make QS worth 3 or 4 and W’s worth 6 or 7 (keeping with the 10 point total). Or we could just not change that part and still have pitchers be a bit overpowered.
"things like locig and prrofreading are actually valued here" - zknower
Maybe...
but 1) I think we need to keep pitchers having a decent point advantage over hitters because it obviously had a huge effect on peoples’ draft strategy, 2) I’d rather see a pitcher get more credit for a QS than a W because it’s more related to his performance, and 3) messing with that would also have an effect on the way that pitchers should be judged against other pitchers (by making pitchers on better teams more valuable due to their increased win potential.
I don't get this huge effect on draft strategy
Over the first 10 rounds, only 2 teams had 3 or more starters (which the current system favors). 6 people took relief pitchers in the first 10 rounds (which the current scoring system makes pretty much useless). Looks like most people still valued the bats even though draft strategy should have been to pick all SPs.
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
by twistedlogic on Mar 26, 2011 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions
That's not necessarily true
The strategy should have been to get the best relative value, in which case drafting position players early is still key. For instance, the projected point differential between Albert Pujols and the 10th ranked 1B according to ESPN (Posey), is 288 points. That’s about the projected difference between Roy Halladay and the 103rd ranked pitcher, AJ Burnett. It’s the same reason people draft RBs over QBs in fantasy football even though the QBs will score more overall points. Pitchers went a few rounds ahead of their average ESPN draft position in our draft because the magnified overall points also slightly magnifies the difference between pitchers. This also means people who didn’t place extra value on pitchers aren’t in that much trouble, as a few middle round steals can keep your pitching staff competitive while you will theoretically have an offensive advantage.
Also, relievers dropped quite a bit from their average draft position, but it may still be important to have a couple relievers, as it is unlikely you’re going to have 6 starters that actually pitch on any given day. Inserting relievers gives you the opportunity for a few more points.
You're forgetting that Pujols' projected points puts him just below my first SP whom I drafted in the 4th round
It makes zero sense that he was the first overall pick when he’s the 19th best player in our league. It doesn’t matter at all what the difference between players is (Pujols is a horrible example when he’s 100 points better than the next “best” projected batter anyways). The goal is to get the most points, which means pick players to get the most points. Most of the players taken in the first round aren’t even in the top 30 in the league. It still makes zero sense to draft RPs when you can just stream SPs and keep the value up. At best, RPs (I took one of the best projected RPs in Papelbon) are worth less than half of a mildly decent SP. The value added per week is almost pointless when you can just plug another starter in there.
I’ll throw in an example because I’m bored right now. DFA was smart and drafted lots of pitching. Even with his fairly weak lineup (which still totals more points than my pitching staff altogether), his total projected points for the season is 10660. I went for a balanced lineup/pitching staff. My projected point total is 9157. I’m failing to see how placing extra value on pitchers doesn’t mean that much.
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
by twistedlogic on Mar 27, 2011 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Second thought: forget all of what I said above
I don’t actually care what happens as long as its either no scoring change (I can’t fault the people who actually checked out the scoring settings) or a scoring change and redraft. You really can’t change the scoring w/o redrafting (I’m a purist here).
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
by twistedlogic on Mar 27, 2011 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Very Quickly
-of course the difference between players matters. In projections, Halladay+Posey=1156. Pujols+Burnett=1158. Fantasy is all about relative value. Why doesn’t everyone draft a QB first in Fantasy football? Because you can get a QB of fairly equal value much later in the draft
-I doubt that even by streaming pitchers you can get 6 starters every day (DFA has 12 SPs, meaning he’d be lucky to have 3 start on any given day). Having Papelbon instead of a dormant starter adds almost 300 points to your team over the year.
-DFA and I both drafted a lot of pitchers, but he went for them relatively early while I focused on offense and got all my pitchers late. My team’s projected points is 10732, in about the same area as his 10660.
-sorry if i just beat a dead horse, I just hate backing down without at least getting in a response :)
In the end, on principle I agree with you. I’m the only one that voted for a redraft because I think it should be the only way to change scoring. Given that everyone else voted to change the scoring w/o redrafting, I think dave’s solution is the most fair. At this point, I think we should all just deal with whatever decision Stacey makes.
I think we should go with Dave's solution as well at this point
Let’s just move on.
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
under the new rules
you’re projected about 600 pts higher than my team, down from about a thousand. so it works! sorta.
"I have spent most of the day putting in a comma and the rest of the day taking it out." --Oscar Wilde
and i might add
i counted an extra player for myself each time since greinke is on the DL.
"I have spent most of the day putting in a comma and the rest of the day taking it out." --Oscar Wilde
we can't go for dave's solution
have we all forgotten? he’s a trickster!
"I have spent most of the day putting in a comma and the rest of the day taking it out." --Oscar Wilde
It would have worked too
if it weren’t for you, meddling Luke!
"things like locig and prrofreading are actually valued here" - zknower
Good point.
His evil plan to make my team name….somewhat….obsolete.
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
by twistedlogic on Mar 28, 2011 8:37 AM EDT up reply actions
Ok I guess I'll change the scoring when I get home tonight
I guess we’re going with Dave’s suggestion? At this point I can’t even keep track anymore. I’m never being in charge of anything again.
They don't have to be good. They just have to be there. - EME
aren't you sorta kinda in charge of this site?
and what does everyone think about dropping Ks as negatives for batters as a solution? i think we all agree they’re kinda pointless, and it would inflate every hitter’s numbers, even the good ones, closer to the pitchers.
also it would especially help me w/reynolds. :) and he’s an O, so that’s ok!
"I have spent most of the day putting in a comma and the rest of the day taking it out." --Oscar Wilde
haha, as much I want Reynolds to be a better fantasy player
I don’t think we should mess with that. Given the pre-draft settings, we have to keep pitchers at some sort of an advantage. Plus, it would mess with hitter rankings as well. Instead, I say we give each O’s player a 1pt bonus per week and penalize Yanks and Sawks players a point.
Shit...I don't have any O's players.
Although I think I’m safe (mostly) from Yanksox players….
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
by twistedlogic on Mar 30, 2011 8:07 AM EDT up reply actions
hope the NFL collective bargaining
goes as smoothly as ours. I’m suggesting dave apply as their new mediator.
unfortunately, we don't have billions of dollars at stake
better believe we’d be redrafting if we did!
"I have spent most of the day putting in a comma and the rest of the day taking it out." --Oscar Wilde
I'd like changes to the kickoff as well.
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
by twistedlogic on Mar 28, 2011 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Official Sponsor of Camden Chat GameThreads
