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 samo » Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:28 am

Rounders Block wrote:What are your guys' thoughts on locking an inactive team and setting the lineups for that team once a week?

Couple issues:
- When do we determine it is time to lock a team?
- Criteria for possibly unlocking the team when the manager 'returns'?
- Without really disrupting the edge of playing an inactive team, it will keep the inactive team 'consistent' -- in the sense that as the season wears on more injuries will happen and it can be argued that playing an inactive team in Week 20 would be a bigger edge than playing the inactive team in Week 16.

That's pretty much been my "ideal solution" all along, but the issue of when and how inactivity is supposed to be identified and remedied is still an issue. When I realized the team I was playing late last season was keeping LeBron and Tier 1B Center on the bench, I thought "Whoa, I wonder how long this team has been dead." So I scrolled back through its previous matchups and it hadn't been setting lineups for weeks. Instant ethical dillemna b/c this same dead team was playing my primary competition for a spot in the upper league the following week (Dynasty Deacon). If I took the initiative and froze the team and put Lebron and Tier 1B Center into the starting lineup, now I've actually messed with the competitive balance of the league by making it more difficult for DD to get a great result against the dead team than I was going to get. That seemed bad, so I just left it, but leaving the best two players on the guys team on the bench seemed perverse. That's why its such a hard issue b/c there's no "one right answer." It always depends on context and its almost always going to result in some competitive distortion, whether you try to fix it or not.
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 » Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:51 am

samo wrote:That's pretty much been my "ideal solution" all along, but the issue of when and how inactivity is supposed to be identified and remedied is still an issue. When I realized the team I was playing late last season was keeping LeBron and Tier 1B Center on the bench, I thought "Whoa, I wonder how long this team has been dead." So I scrolled back through its previous matchups and it hadn't been setting lineups for weeks. Instant ethical dillemna b/c this same dead team was playing my primary competition for a spot in the upper league the following week (Dynasty Deacon). If I took the initiative and froze the team and put Lebron and Tier 1B Center into the starting lineup, now I've actually messed with the competitive balance of the league by making it more difficult for DD to get a great result against the dead team than I was going to get. That seemed bad, so I just left it, but leaving the best two players on the guys team on the bench seemed perverse. That's why its such a hard issue b/c there's no "one right answer." It always depends on context and its almost always going to result in some competitive distortion, whether you try to fix it or not.


I think the best way to determine inactivity, although probably more trouble than its worth, is to have weekly or b-weekly check-ins. Once a team misses two check-ins (have to give room to just incidental inactivity due to real life, comp problems, etc.) then the commish steps in. This way it's clear that no matter who the team is facing, its roster will be updated after two missed check-ins period. As long as everyone knows this ahead of time and expects it, the amount of bias is minimalized.

Hopefully this won't be a problem, but I think setting a process up ahead of time will prevent disputes later on. As I said, as long as everyone is made aware of the policy ahead of time, no one can complain if they happened to be burned later since it's just an explicit rule within the league.
Image
bokzg
Head Coach
Head Coach

CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 2076
(Past Year: 113)
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: 2007 Offseason Housekeeping/Rules Discussion

Postby samo » Fri Jul 13, 2007 6:22 am

bokzg wrote:I think the best way to determine inactivity, although probably more trouble than its worth, is to have weekly or b-weekly check-ins. Once a team misses two check-ins (have to give room to just incidental inactivity due to real life, comp problems, etc.) then the commish steps in. This way it's clear that no matter who the team is facing, its roster will be updated after two missed check-ins period. As long as everyone knows this ahead of time and expects it, the amount of bias is minimalized.

Hopefully this won't be a problem, but I think setting a process up ahead of time will prevent disputes later on. As I said, as long as everyone is made aware of the policy ahead of time, no one can complain if they happened to be burned later since it's just an explicit rule within the league.

I agree its probably the best way, but as we discussed a couple pages ago, I also think it creates a big-brother atmosphere I'm not really comfortable with, either as a league member or as a commish. Thats not to say it wouldn't work. But you still have the issue of certain teams benefitting by getting to play inactive teams before they miss their second check in and others not getting to cruise to easy big wins. The more active teams that get to play the dead teams, the more the effect is diffused through the whole league and, maybe, the less impact these dead teams have if they just stay dead. Its counterintuitive but this whole issue is such a black hole, it just sucks every good idea into it and makes it disappear.
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 Jul 13, 2007 6:22 pm

As far as "check-ins", these can be pretty informal. No need for a "big brother" feel. Making an add/drop during a week is a valid "check-in", as is setting your roster up. Any forum post is a "check-in". I think to the active guys who are paying attention to the league, inactive people become pretty obvious.

I'm a bit of a busy-body, I have to admit. I follow my own team, and other peoples' teams. I'm pretty quick to tell who's inactive and who isn't.
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

FBC Octagon Scoring Discussion

Postby samo » Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:09 am

Geodbear brought up an interesting question regarding our FBC Octagon dual league scoring system. Please read the Octagon Rules thread for all the details, but the basic idea is to add together each manager's standing in the Roto and H2H leagues and divide by two to get an overall number, lowest number wins. For example, 2nd place in H2H and 1st place in Roto = (2+1) = 3. 3 divided by 2 = 1.5. If that's the lowest score, you win. If your 1.5 is tied with someone else, you move on to the tiebreaker (see the Octagon Rules).

That's all fine and dandy, so who is currently in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in the FBC Octagon? Let's see:

Octagon H2H
Standings Schedule Playoffs Head-to-Head Stats
Rank Team W-L-T Pct GB Last Week Waiver Moves
1. No Co. For Old GM's 35-18-1 .657 - 6-3-0 7 3
2. Dime Baggers 31-23-0 .574 4.5 5-4-0 11 22
3. Kud Idijoti 29-24-1 .546 6 6-3-0 3 13
4. We got Deng 29-24-1 .546 6 4-5-0 6 3
5. The Anti-Twardzik 29-24-1 .546 6 3-6-0 4 13
6. Blaze 28-25-1 .528 7 5-4-0 12 10
7. Team Jennings 28-25-1 .528 7 3-6-0 5 12
8. We are the Robots 26-28-0 .481 9.5 4-5-0 1 7
9. Dutch Warriors 24-29-1 .454 11 6-3-0 9 3
10. Crimedogg32 21-33-0 .389 14.5 4-5-0 8 3
11. Statsman88 20-33-1 .380 15 5-4-0 2 8
12. trip*dub 20-34-0 .370 15.5 3-6-0 10 8

Octagon ROTO
Standings Full Standings
Rank Team Points Pts Change Waiver Moves
1. The Anti-Twardzik II 82 1 10 6
2. Kud Idijoti 70 -9 1 10
3. No Co. For Old GM's 66 2 2 4
3. We are the Robots 66 4 9 4
5. Crimedogg32 59 4.5 5 -
6. trip*dub 57.5 7.5 3 9
7. Team Jennings 57 -4 6 18
8. Blaze 54.5 -2 4 9
9. Statsman88 51.5 3 11 14
10. Dutch Warriors 48.5 -2.5 8 1
11. Dime Baggers 46.5 -3 12 23
12. We got Deng 43.5 -1.5 7 8


Note that identical records are handled differently by Yahoo in Roto and H2H leagues. SC and ed were tied for 3rd in yesterday's roto standings update ... Yahoo assigns each of them to 3rd place, then skips down to 5th place. The H2H league standings, in which samo, thelimey, and geodbear all have identical 29-24-1 records, Yahoo treats differently -- apparently assigning each manager a ranking based on some criteria I'm not aware of.

I think we can all agree how Yahoo defaults on the roto scoring of ties. Both teams get the higher ranking, like SC and ed tied for 3rd. The question is, what about the H2H league? You can see how the Yahoo default during the "regular" H2H season ranks teams with tied records separately. Intuitively, you'd think this ranking would be based on their H2H records against each other, but I don't know if that's the case ... samo (highest rank) beat geodbear (lowest rank) 6-3 but lost to thelimey 4-5 (middle rank) ... geodbear and thelimey have not matched up ... so you might say samo has the best overall record against common opponents (10-8), thelimey 2nd best (5-4), and geodbear the worsts (3-6) ... but really I have no idea how Yahoo came up with samo 3rd place, thelimey 4th place, geodbear 5th place when we all three have identical overall win-loss records.

Once the H2H fantasy playoffs begin, we'll be keeping track of our own H2H records since Yahoo stops keeping track of full-season win-loss records, but the question remains how to most fairly rank teams that have the same overall win-loss records relative to the league but different win-loss records relative to each other.

Sooooooo, what are the current overall standings?

Its obvious that SC, as of yesterday, had a 1 in H2H and a 3 in Roto (due to a tie). That gives him 4 / 2 = 2. SC has an average score of 2.

Its not so obvious what geodbear's average score is. He has a 1 in Roto, that's clear. What is his H2H score? Do we treat it like Roto and say he's tied for 3rd so he gets a 3? Even though he has a losing H2H record against the team(s) he's tied with? If we treat it like Roto, geodbear has a 3 in the H2H league and a 1 in Roto for an average score of 2, meaning he's tied with SC for FIRST PLACE overall. Option 2 is to go with what appears to be the Yahoo default and break ties by using H2H matchup records. Option 2 would give geodbear a 5 in H2H and a 1 in Roto for an average score of 3. That would put him in THIRD PLACE overall (behind SC with 2 and samo with 2.5). Option 3 is to average the rankings of all the tied H2H teams and divide by the number of tied teams. In our case in H2H, we've got 3 teams taking up ranks 3, 4, and 5 = 12/3 = 4 ... we're all in 4th place. That would put our overall standings as: SC in FIRST with 2, geodbear in SECOND with 2.5, and samo in THIRD with 3.

Personally, I think Option 3 gets us closest to the actual performance of each manager. I'd go even farther and suggest ties in Roto should be handled the same way. That would put ed and SC each in 3.5 place in Roto instead of 3, which is actually a more accurate representation of the facts, since they're not sharing 3rd place but are actually sharing 3rd AND 4th place, which gives us an average of 3.5. SC would stay in FIRST PLACE overall, but his average rank would drop from 2 down to 2.25 (1 + 3.5 = 4.5 / 2 = 2.25). Geodbear would be in SECOND PLACE overall with an average rank of 2.5 (1 + 4 = 5 / 2 = 2.5). Samo would be in THIRD PLACE overall with an average rank of 3 (2 + 4 = 6 / 2 = 3).

I'm an Option 3 guy, and I encourage the league to apply the same rationale to handling Roto ties as well.

Comments from league membership are welcome, then the current Executive Committee of mbuser, Rounders Block, and samo, along with acting commissioners bokzg and jaytizy, will decide how ties are to be handled in each upper league for purposes of calculating an average rank.

Please discuss. :-o :-o :-D
samo
General Manager
General Manager

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

Re: FBC Octagon Scoring Discussion

Postby geodbear » Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:10 am

samo wrote:I think we can all agree how Yahoo defaults on the roto scoring of ties. Both teams get the higher ranking, like SC and ed tied for 3rd. The question is, what about the H2H league? You can see how the Yahoo default during the "regular" H2H season ranks teams with tied records separately. Intuitively, you'd think this ranking would be based on their H2H records against each other, but I don't know if that's the case ... samo (highest rank) beat geodbear (lowest rank) 6-3 but lost to thelimey 4-5 (middle rank) ... geodbear and thelimey have not matched up ... so you might say samo has the best overall record against common opponents (10-8), thelimey 2nd best (5-4), and geodbear the worsts (3-6) ... but really I have no idea how Yahoo came up with samo 3rd place, thelimey 4th place, geodbear 5th place when we all three have identical overall win-loss records.


I can answer that question. Yahoo! ranks h2h ties based on the previous week record. You were 6-3, thelimey was 4-5, and I was 3-6. Hence, the order. If that was tied, Yahoo goes back to previous week and so on. I doubt we'd want to do that.

I'm partial to option 3 myself. I don't think looking at individual h2h matchups is the way to go because that was the whole point of not using playoffs and coming up with a way to look over the long haul. My matchup against samo could be considered skewed because I happen to have both Lebron and Duncan out with injuries.
Yes, Warriors sold at last!
geodbear
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterCafe MusketeerLucky Ladders ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown Survivor
Posts: 4087
(Past Year: 266)
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: FBC Octagon Scoring Discussion

Postby The Thrill » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:01 pm

Well, while I like option 2 for the wild card factor, option 2 would have required up front knowledge of doing so in order for teams to potentionally draft with that factor in mind. I like the concept that teams need to still be strong all the way to the end to try to get the best record they can every week. And, yes, I recognize there's the whole minutes played by the superstars argument that would shake it's head at that notion, but I still like it as a wildcard factor.

That said, I believe option 3 is the best option to go with, especially given this is establishing a rule "in season." And I would agree, the rule should apply to Roto as well.
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: FBC Octagon Scoring Discussion

Postby thelimey » Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:46 pm

I think option 3 makes the most sense, especially sharing the positions in roto.
thelimey
High School Hoopster
High School Hoopster

User avatar

Posts: 219
(Past Year: 48)
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Europe

Re: FBC Octagon Scoring Discussion

Postby jphanned » Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:16 pm

Option 3 sounds good to me as well. If we put the rule in place it should be in effect for both H2H and roto to make things fair. Thanks for bringing up the issue geodbear and thanks to samo for elaborating on the idea and typing up that lengthy post. ;-D
Find me on Twitter
jphanned
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
EditorModeratorCafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterGolden Eagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterPick 3 ChampionTrivia Time Trial ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 7579
(Past Year: 400)
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: The Bay to LA

Re: FBC Octagon Scoring Discussion

Postby nebgib5 » Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:29 am

Option 3, and I can't see any reason why roto shouldn't be handled in the same fashion. As I understand it, if the system is left in place as it is, one gets the same number of points for tying for 3rd place as actually passing the guy and finishing in third alone, which doesn't make any sense, to me at least.
nebgib5
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
EditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown Survivor
Posts: 5214
Joined: 16 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: hangin' with becky

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 1:32 hours
(and 99 days)


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