Discussion - Rules & Settings - Fantasy Basketball Cafe 2014
Fantasy Basketball Cafe


Return to FBC Octagon

Discussion - Rules & Settings

Moderators: jphanned, samo

Postby The Thrill » Sun May 06, 2007 2:38 am

samo wrote:1. (which we've essentially only made as valuable as any other week under our rules).

2. My thinking with raising it to 50 is for the benefit of a manager like bokzg who was decimated by injuries this year and kept struggling to find emerging players (who proceeded to also get injured). He was really giving it the old college try to get back into contention but ran up against the 40 move limit toward the end and at that point it was a lost cause for him.


These two items actually would lead me to believe a no-churning rule would be more appropriate than a season max limit. :-? Whatever the case though, I don't have a preference.

Let me throw this idea out there though: how about a max games played per week per position rule? :-? It would obviously have to be below 7, :-B but I think a rule like that would prohibit churning while also allowing managers to add and drop freely throughout the season. To me, it blends a mix of roto restrictions into the H2H game (appealing to me personally). I'm sure there's plenty of argument against, but wanted to at least throw it out there for consideration.... ;-)
The Thrill
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
EditorCafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 9989
(Past Year: 268)
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: At the line

Postby samo » Sun May 06, 2007 3:25 pm

The Thrill wrote:I'm sure there's plenty of argument against

I think its sensible and a pretty cool idea. Only argument I see against it is the relative difficulty of keeping track / enforcement. Seems pretty labor intensive to go through every position every day on a Yahoo team page and tally up games played. If a guys opponent isn't keeping track, then its up to a Commish to make sure the weekly total for each 10 positions isn't exceeded. For all 12 teams. Every week.

I'd prefer Chrisy get on here (while not drinking beer ;-) ) and take us through his arguments for why he thinks a season limit with no weekly limits is the best option. As I recall, his basic premise is that limited churning toward the end of a season can actually be a good and potentially necessary thing given that 80% of the best players can no longer be counted on and the scrubs take over the league, requiring a good fantasy player to quickly adapt to the new circumstances, which can be maddeningly fluid.
samo
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 2476
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball

Postby ed » Sun May 06, 2007 5:48 pm

at the end of the day, the specific rule adopted doesn't matter to me.

I fall into the camp of "if it's not against the rules, then it isn't churning"

so, whatever the rule, everyone is working under the same restrictions/opportunities. I'll let everyone else determine the rule.
ed
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 1423
Joined: 2 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball

Postby The Thrill » Sun May 06, 2007 8:04 pm

samo wrote:
The Thrill wrote:I'm sure there's plenty of argument against

I think its sensible and a pretty cool idea. Only argument I see against it is the relative difficulty of keeping track / enforcement. Seems pretty labor intensive to go through every position every day on a Yahoo team page and tally up games played. If a guys opponent isn't keeping track, then its up to a Commish to make sure the weekly total for each 10 positions isn't exceeded. For all 12 teams. Every week.


Agreed. It was only under the assumption that such a restriction could be monitored by the host site (ie. Yahoo or wherever the game is played). That would be gawd awful to monitor manually...
The Thrill
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
EditorCafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 9989
(Past Year: 268)
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: At the line

Re: 2007 Offseason Housekeeping/Rules Discussion

Postby samo » Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:19 am

Rounders, great to have you back! Would you glance through our discussion here, and see if you have any additional ideas for possibly improving/tweaking the Octagon Rules?

I believe we reached a consensus that only the Top 6 finishers of H2H Leagues regular season should be eligible for moving up a league (I can't imagine any 7th seed or below actually sneaking in, but I guess its technically a loophole and we should close it). We also agreed that any live drafts should not be pre-randomized and guys should just take whatever random draft spot they are assigned by the Yahoo applet. The H2H move-limit issue was unresolved. I'm pretty much convinced that doing away with a weekly limit and letting guys manage their season limit as they see fit would be an improvement. All but a few NBA teams blow up their player rotation the last few weeks and I think if a fantasy manager is really competing hard he could easily use more than 5 moves a week during those screwy weeks, not for churning but to react to crazy stuff NBA teams are doing.

I'll make the first two changes in the Rules but let us know if you have an opinion either way on the weekly move limit.

Octagon note: I'm starting to see managers in other Cafe leagues guaging the prestige of their league based on the performance of their managers in the Octagon. ;D
samo
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 2476
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re:

Postby RobitusinZ » Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:04 am

samo wrote:Only argument I see against it is the relative difficulty of keeping track / enforcement. Seems pretty labor intensive to go through every position every day on a Yahoo team page and tally up games played. If a guys opponent isn't keeping track, then its up to a Commish to make sure the weekly total for each 10 positions isn't exceeded. For all 12 teams. Every week.


It looks like you covered it, but really, you'd only need to actively look at a manager's add/drops when there's questionable activity going on. Otherwise, there's no real need to nitpick. It's pretty much like the vetoing of trades. If someone has a problem with a trade, they'd put up something in the forum...they could just do the same with churning. The churner can come and explain himself, and then there can be a vote.

That would pretty much just leave recourse against churners without much hassle.

Besides, we're all big boys here, no? Personally, I'm good with just having a simple "NO CHURNING" rule, and enforcement is up to a vote, just like trades are commonly handled.

samo wrote:Octagon note: I'm starting to see managers in other Cafe leagues guaging the prestige of their league based on the performance of their managers in the Octagon. ;D


On a seperate note, I about [mod edit] my pants when I read I was allowed in. :D
Image
thanks for the sig, soty!

"It takes more than mathematical strategies to beat me." - Shaquille "The Big Aristotle" O'Neal
RobitusinZ
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1480
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: Re:

Postby samo » Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:21 am

RobitusinZ wrote:Besides, we're all big boys here, no? Personally, I'm good with just having a simple "NO CHURNING" rule, and enforcement is up to a vote, just like trades are commonly handled.

The point made against a simple "NO CHURNING" rule is that its almost inevitable there will be disagreements among reasonable people as to what exactly constitutes "churning." In our discusions of it in other forums, there is a large disparity in how people define the term -- some people get peeved when their opponent makes a single drop of a "big-name" player who is "injured" late in the year and picks up a no-name scrub who's getting burn. Other people insist their 10+ add/drops in championship week isn't really "churning" b/c each move can be backed up with a reasonable explanation other than simply maximizing games played.

Individual debates between opponents could of course be voted on by a league or by the Commish making a judgment call, but that tends to lead to name-calling and hair-splitting and all the other bad stuff we'd prefer to avoid. What makes Chrisy Moltisanti's argument for having a season limit on add-drops in H2H and no weekly limits so attractive to me is: (i) ease of enforcement (ii) it treats everyone equally over the course of a season ... i.e. a manager who wants to test drive every new name early in the season can do so, but he uses up his season totals quickly and has less flexibility toward the end. If a guy wants to add-drop like crazy in a key late-season matchup, fine, no-questions asked as long as he doesn't exceed his season limit, most of us know how to deal with a guy who's using up his add-drops fast, it just adds another level of strategy to the game, especially late in the season when nearly all NBA teams are churning their own lineups and player rotations anyway.
samo
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 2476
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: 2007 Offseason Housekeeping/Rules Discussion

Postby RobitusinZ » Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:45 am

Since I'm new, I'm not sure if this has been a problem in the past. However, considering the aforementioned prestige carried by many of the forum names involved with this set of leagues, I'd find it hard to believe that we can't just settle an argument by a league vote, if it goes that far.

My intention with a broad "NO CHURNING" policy, is to simply eliminate the argument of "uh, if it's not against the rules, it's ok". Once you eliminate that thread of discussion, then there can be a mature discourse that can lead to a resolution. Give some thought to a set of rules like this:

1. A GM may bring up a complaint or grievance against another GM by making a single post stating, as clearly as possible, what the problem is and what he'd like done about it. The accused GM may then make a single post to defend his position. Afterwards, it is taken to a vote by the entire league. Whichever side is voted against receives punishment as per the league rules. In the case of a tie, the commissioner takes 2 votes. If the commissioner is one of the two parties in question, then the first person who votes in the thread is counted twice (or whatever other arbitrary system is chosen).

2. No churning.
2a. First offense - warning.
2b. Second offense - league expulsion.

3 through 100. Everything else.


I'm just thinking it's probably best to simply have a system to settle problems. Since something like churning is so arbitrary, we should just have some way available to deal with it, IF the situation ever even comes up. I mean, let's face it...people may have different ways of explaining or justifying churning, but we all recognize it when we see it, and we all know when we're doing it. This is a competitive game, and a lot of us are willing to go to greater lengths to win than others, but we all personally recognize when we're doing something that's going to upset our fellow competitors. We don't really need to DEFINE churning...we just need a way to take care of it if it happens. That's the point of having private leagues...we'll collectively decide what we want our playing field to be.

I just want to avoid NOT having a "no churning" rule, and then having it come up somehow, somebody getting pissed off over it, and then there being a big mess because there was nothing in place to deal with a bad situation.
Image
thanks for the sig, soty!

"It takes more than mathematical strategies to beat me." - Shaquille "The Big Aristotle" O'Neal
RobitusinZ
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1480
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: 2007 Offseason Housekeeping/Rules Discussion

Postby samo » Fri Jun 22, 2007 3:20 am

All your points are good RobitusinZ, I'd still like to see what Rounders Block has to say about the issue. I'm a big proponent of league votes but even in a league like the Octagon we've had problems with guys going inactive mid-season, which can make it logistically difficult for a Commish to pull together enough votes quickly enough to resolve a problem such as churning accusations to actually provide justice to one party or the other. We've not had problems in this regard in the past, to my knowledge. I personally do not generally exceed 25 moves on the season in H2H (or roto for that matter), but with all the injuries this past season I watched several fellow managers struggle to field competitive teams only to push up against the 40 move season limit, which was unfortunate and made me thing the season-limit should be raised to 50 to give teams snake-bit with injuries a fair shake at competing with those teams that aren't.

We also have a 3 move per week limit, designed to prevent churning, a number I think is arbitrarily low particularly in the last several weeks when NBA teams are tanking and messing up our whole fantasy model, thereby requiring additional flexibility to really see who has the better team and managerial skills. I'm not trying to lecture here, just thinking out loud. Its not that big a deal to me really, whether we keep it at 3, bump it up to 5, 10, or whatever, as long as we have a reasonable season limit. We're just discussing this stuff b/c thats what we do in the Octagon, discuss stuff, lol.

btw, the newer guys to the league should all understand the dire necessity of carefully reading the Octagon rules before even trying to compete in a league, especially the H2H leagues.
samo
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 2476
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: 2007 Offseason Housekeeping/Rules Discussion

Postby RobitusinZ » Fri Jun 22, 2007 5:15 am

LOL, samo, I didn't want to leave you hanging and not reply at all, but I simply agree with your last post. I've already let loose too much hot air, I'll stay quiet now. :D
Image
thanks for the sig, soty!

"It takes more than mathematical strategies to beat me." - Shaquille "The Big Aristotle" O'Neal
RobitusinZ
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1480
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball

PreviousNext

Return to FBC Octagon

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron
Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues




  • Fantasy Basketball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact