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


Return to FBC Octagon

Discussion - Rules & Settings

Moderators: jphanned, samo

Re: 2007 Offseason Housekeeping/Rules Discussion

Postby RobitusinZ » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:29 pm

I like 10 moves per week, 50 per season. I'm thinking if you have more than 10 players get injured in a week, you need to look inward at your spiritual life and find out why the basketball gods hate you. As for "opportunities", I also don't see more than 10 interesting FAs breaking out in a week. Beyond 4 or 5 moves, it gets hard to justify an add/drop other than, "I needed more games." While I don't see that as a "bad" thing, since an active manager should be able to fine-tooth-comb their team, and thus, activity = advantage, it should be kept within "gentlemanly" moderation.
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 ed » Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:31 am

samo wrote:
Chrisy Moltisanti wrote:Meh, it reduces strategy and makes everyone act the same. 40 moves in the final week for all. Yeay, I love knowing the outcome before the season starts. Keep it simple and yet the most complex, 50 moves season max.

Radical change in a free society (such as the Octagon) is most sustainable when accomplished in digestible increments. Last season our weekly limit was 3 moves. 3 moves per week is probably the standard # in most private H2H leagues, including Cafe leagues. We've just increased it to 10 per week in the Octagon, being the progressive, cutting-edge league we like to be. Perhaps next season the full league membership will see the logic in doing away with weekly limits altogether but the sense I got from reading all the other posters in this discussion is the vast majority of league members still have zero interest in engaging in a 40 move "battle of the churners" and simply won't participate as a matter of principle, which would in virtually every case hand the matchup over to the team who unleashes the 5-6 add-drops per day on his opponent. I've seen that H2H technique up close and personal and it invariably comes down to who is willing to use the most moves and fill the most daily lineup slots, which is the exact definition of "knowing the outcome before it starts."

We've listened to all sides of this debate. Of all the Octagon members who have given their input, we have ALL BUT ONE for a rule that puts reasonable limits on end-of-season churning, we have ONE for a pure laissez-faire system of unlimited weekly moves. Even if the ONE is right, the opinion of EVERYONE ELSE deserves at least token respect, hence a weekly limit of 10, a number plenty high enough for some crafty small-time churning, but not enough to get truly ridiculous. Lets see how an increase from 3 to 10 moves per week plays out and use it as a transitional opportunity to get our H2H league membership comfortable with the idea of higher weekly moves.
.


brilliant post samo. I agree completely ;D
ed
Head Coach
Head Coach

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

Re: 2007 Offseason Housekeeping/Rules Discussion

Postby Chrisy Moltisanti » Tue Jun 26, 2007 6:27 pm

samo wrote:
Chrisy Moltisanti wrote:Meh, it reduces strategy and makes everyone act the same. 40 moves in the final week for all. Yeay, I love knowing the outcome before the season starts. Keep it simple and yet the most complex, 50 moves season max.

Radical change in a free society (such as the Octagon) is most sustainable when accomplished in digestible increments. Last season our weekly limit was 3 moves. 3 moves per week is probably the standard # in most private H2H leagues, including Cafe leagues. We've just increased it to 10 per week in the Octagon, being the progressive, cutting-edge league we like to be. Perhaps next season the full league membership will see the logic in doing away with weekly limits altogether but the sense I got from reading all the other posters in this discussion is the vast majority of league members still have zero interest in engaging in a 40 move "battle of the churners" and simply won't participate as a matter of principle, which would in virtually every case hand the matchup over to the team who unleashes the 5-6 add-drops per day on his opponent. I've seen that H2H technique up close and personal and it invariably comes down to who is willing to use the most moves and fill the most daily lineup slots, which is the exact definition of "knowing the outcome before it starts."

We've listened to all sides of this debate. Of all the Octagon members who have given their input, we have ALL BUT ONE for a rule that puts reasonable limits on end-of-season churning, we have ONE for a pure laissez-faire system of unlimited weekly moves. Even if the ONE is right, the opinion of EVERYONE ELSE deserves at least token respect, hence a weekly limit of 10, a number plenty high enough for some crafty small-time churning, but not enough to get truly ridiculous. Lets see how an increase from 3 to 10 moves per week plays out and use it as a transitional opportunity to get our H2H league membership comfortable with the idea of higher weekly moves.


Well I'm glad most everyone seems to be mostly agreeing on a moves strategy.

BTW Chrisy, if you hadn't noticed, there won't be any repeats of the live draft problems experienced last season, we've prohibited the prerandomization of live drafts. Apologies to those those it affected, props for playing out the season hard.


So instead of myself having 2nd pick I'm in a random pool. C'est la vie, no? :b
Image
Chrisy Moltisanti
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 4027
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Garden of Oden

Re: 2007 Offseason Housekeeping/Rules Discussion

Postby samo » Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:04 am

Chrisy Moltisanti wrote:So instead of myself having 2nd pick I'm in a random pool. C'est la vie, no? :b

Well, I guess, yeah. On the bright side, the fantasy gods didn't smile on you in this league, but at least the real NBA draft gods favored your beloved Blazers with the #1 pick in one of those rare years it looks to have real meaning. Oh, and Kobe's self-destructing. :b
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 Chrisy Moltisanti » Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:27 am

samo wrote:
Chrisy Moltisanti wrote:So instead of myself having 2nd pick I'm in a random pool. C'est la vie, no? :b

Well, I guess, yeah. On the bright side, the fantasy gods didn't smile on you in this league, but at least the real NBA draft gods favored your beloved Blazers with the #1 pick in one of those rare years it looks to have real meaning. Oh, and Kobe's self-destructing. :b


That still could turn out as a positive. Bynum could get super motivated and help dominate with a Kobe whose respect he has earned.
Image
Chrisy Moltisanti
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 4027
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Garden of Oden

Re: 2007 Offseason Housekeeping/Rules Discussion

Postby samo » Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:01 pm

geodbear wrote:
It does become important that every manager should battle for every possible point or win at the end of the season, even if they are out of the race, in order to ensure that the Octagon champion has rightfully earned the title.

More so in h2h than roto, but still true for both. Every league has this problem of bottom dwelling managers disappearing, which then impacts overall standings, and the Octagon is no exception. Our h2h live league had 3 inactive managers late last season and I went a combined 25-2 against them, jumping from a weak 4th place to a strong 2nd place. They weren't invited back, but I'm not sure what can be done about it mid-season, since Yahoo doesn't seem to have a "replace manager" function. We could let the commish take over and manager inactive teams, but in my case last season I'd have been managing against myself, which raises all kinds of fairness questions. Inactive teams are just one of those annoying luck-based aspects of fantasy hoops, like which teams suffer the most from injury, sometimes it works in your favor, sometimes it works against you.

If anyone has ideas how to handle unexcused inactivity, other than telling guys not to let it happen, and not inviting them back if they do go inactive, the Octagon Exec Committee would appreciate your input.

Trying to think creatively, I suppose we could try to develop a rule whereby a manager not involved in a particular matchup (in which one of the two teams is not setting its lineups) can officially/publicly announce its request to the league commissioner that the commish set the inactive team's lineup based on what a "reasonably prudent and informed" fantasy manager would do. I'd hesitate to ask a commish to make actual strategic decisions such as add/drops and all that, but freezing an inactive manager and taking over basic lineup sets at the request of other league members could theoritically be part of the Octagon rules, if we had a proper discussion about it. Again, I'd hesitate to do this for roto leagues b/c you could get managers who want a commish to take over only the inactive teams that could benefit them in a particular category against a particular oppenent. H2H lends itself to the idea though, it would seem.
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 bokzg » Sat Jul 07, 2007 8:45 pm

I had a problem with a manager being inactive for a large part of the season in an H2H league I was commissioning a year ago. Just so people wouldn't get cakewalks in their matchups against the team, I did what I considered to be minimal upkeep and updating for the team. This included dropping injured players and picking up FA's which I considered to be "safe" and would fit the team's needs (usually positionally). By "safe", I mean picks that aren't risky picks (could blow up, had just one or two good games, etc.), but reliable picks who I felt would last a while (don't expect to have to drop them anytime soon).

This obviously leads to some very subjective decisions by the commish, but since I had the trust of my league members (which any commish should), it worked out alright. I obviously didn't put much effort into making sure I did a good job maintaining the inactive team, but I did what I could to maintain its status quo. Fortunately the team never had any major injuries, and I only had to manage a handful of roster spots that didn't have too big of an impact over the course of the season.

One thing I did that we might want not want to follow was to only update the roster once a week despite it being a daily league. Each Sunday I would put in the best players the team had (in my opinion, although we could go by BM.com) and just leave it the rest of the week. This actually ended up helping the team in a lot of weeks by allowing it to win TOs and %s.

This is just an example of one way to handle the inactive team problem, I'm by no means suggesting that we actually adopt it. It has a lot of room for criticism such as how much the commish will have to decide on his own (which may or may not go over well with the rest of the league) and the conflict of interest the commish himself may have in improving a team to compete against himself (I prioritized my team first obviously). It worked out well for me in my past experience because it was a league of friends (more trust), the team actually drafted really well (made maintenance easier), and everyone else understood that I was going to just do the bare minimum to help the team and focus my energies on my own team.
Image
bokzg
Head Coach
Head Coach

CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 2079
(Past Year: 83)
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: 2007 Offseason Housekeeping/Rules Discussion

Postby ed » Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:18 am

samo wrote:
geodbear wrote:
It does become important that every manager should battle for every possible point or win at the end of the season, even if they are out of the race, in order to ensure that the Octagon champion has rightfully earned the title.

More so in h2h than roto, but still true for both. Every league has this problem of bottom dwelling managers disappearing, which then impacts overall standings, and the Octagon is no exception. Our h2h live league had 3 inactive managers late last season and I went a combined 25-2 against them, jumping from a weak 4th place to a strong 2nd place. They weren't invited back, but I'm not sure what can be done about it mid-season, since Yahoo doesn't seem to have a "replace manager" function. We could let the commish take over and manager inactive teams, but in my case last season I'd have been managing against myself, which raises all kinds of fairness questions. Inactive teams are just one of those annoying luck-based aspects of fantasy hoops, like which teams suffer the most from injury, sometimes it works in your favor, sometimes it works against you.

If anyone has ideas how to handle unexcused inactivity, other than telling guys not to let it happen, and not inviting them back if they do go inactive, the Octagon Exec Committee would appreciate your input.

Trying to think creatively, I suppose we could try to develop a rule whereby a manager not involved in a particular matchup (in which one of the two teams is not setting its lineups) can officially/publicly announce its request to the league commissioner that the commish set the inactive team's lineup based on what a "reasonably prudent and informed" fantasy manager would do. I'd hesitate to ask a commish to make actual strategic decisions such as add/drops and all that, but freezing an inactive manager and taking over basic lineup sets at the request of other league members could theoritically be part of the Octagon rules, if we had a proper discussion about it. Again, I'd hesitate to do this for roto leagues b/c you could get managers who want a commish to take over only the inactive teams that could benefit them in a particular category against a particular oppenent. H2H lends itself to the idea though, it would seem.


This should be less of an issue in this league than any other, but is still very possible. I would say that the strongest threat could be banning the individual from any octagon action and any cafe league indefinitely for letting his team go unmanaged. Another option could be to make more strict policies concerning who can be reseeded into the lower tiers next year. For example, if only teams 7-9 made it, then there would be some incentive for teams 10-12 to keep fighting. However, the first suggestion may be more powerful even though the second is a more competetive reason to stay active.

if someone still does not manage their roster, I have no creative ideas on how to deal with the team :-/
ed
Head Coach
Head Coach

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

Re: 2007 Offseason Housekeeping/Rules Discussion

Postby samo » Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:54 am

ed wrote:This should be less of an issue in this league than any other, but is still very possible. I would say that the strongest threat could be banning the individual from any octagon action and any cafe league indefinitely for letting his team go unmanaged. Another option could be to make more strict policies concerning who can be reseeded into the lower tiers next year. For example, if only teams 7-9 made it, then there would be some incentive for teams 10-12 to keep fighting. However, the first suggestion may be more powerful even though the second is a more competetive reason to stay active.

if someone still does not manage their roster, I have no creative ideas on how to deal with the team :-/

There were at least 5 managers from Octagon h2h leagues last season who were not invited back due to inactivity (i.e. desertion of their teams, one of which had Lebron and Boozer sitting on their bench for roughly the last two months of the season). I don't think we have any authority over other Cafe leagues, nor would I want us to have any.

The more I think about it, the more I'm attracted to the possibility of allowing watchful league members to petition a commissioner to set a teams lineups if its gone inactive. I'm reluctant to require a commish to patrol each team every week to ensure its setting its lineups and being active, b/c there could be complaints a commish didn't behave "evenhandedly" even when there was no intent to give an advantage one way or another ... I'd rather put the onus on league members to watch for inactivity and, when an eagle-eyed manager sees it in a matchup they're not participating in (presumably, no-one should be expected to tattle on an inactive opponent while they're beating their brains out and going for a 9-0 win), to have the ability to publicly request the commish to make basic lineup sets, but probably no add-drops. This would require commissioners to be reasonably available on a daily basis, which should be the expectation anyway.

I don't know. It seems reasonable. Lets see if we can solicit some other opinions. Maybe geodbear will see this and offer an opinion.
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 thelimey » Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:37 pm

samo wrote:I'd rather put the onus on league members to watch for inactivity and, when an eagle-eyed manager sees it in a matchup they're not participating in (presumably, no-one should be expected to tattle on an inactive opponent while they're beating their brains out and going for a 9-0 win), to have the ability to publicly request the commish to make basic lineup sets, but probably no add-drops. This would require commissioners to be reasonably available on a daily basis, which should be the expectation anyway.

I don't know. It seems reasonable. Lets see if we can solicit some other opinions. Maybe geodbear will see this and offer an opinion.


Seems like a resonable way of doing it, I guess the lineups could be set in a couple of different ways, either a) fill out the roster at the start of the week with the top 10 players according to bbm and have no daily changes for that week b) fill out the roster on each individual day to get the highest number of games. Since I have the the habit of coming up with unlikely hypothetical scenarios what do we do with a very competitive orphaned team? It's unlikely, but still possible, that even with the most basic of upkeep a strong team could make the playoffs and that could have some knock on effects through the leagues (especially the feeder leagues).
thelimey
High School Hoopster
High School Hoopster

User avatar

Posts: 219
(Past Year: 47)
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Europe

PreviousNext

Return to FBC Octagon

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues



Get Ready...
The 2014 NBA season starts in 21:30 hours
(and 61 days)


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