|
I think the first year it should just be two separate leagues, and then we will put the 12(?) playoff teams from each league into Tier A the next season. e: adjust accordingly for total # of teams. e2: 14 team league with 8 team playoff, 12 team league with 6 team playoff, teams selected at random, 14 playoff teams go to Tier A, 12 non-playoff teams into B Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Dec 14, 2012 |
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 05:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 06:46 |
|
|
I guess the most fair way, would be to just make the first year a full placement year and then worry about keepers year two.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
Darko posted:Yeah, how do keepers work? Players can't really be shared with tiered leagues like that unless the matchups are artificial and handled outside of sites. My understanding is that only the teams in Tier A that aren't relegated will have keepers, and the teams that are dropped to B will have their players added back to the pool e: The problem is that there will be the same players across teams in the first year while we are creating the top tier, there might be a way to do it but it'll probably involve something. crazy like: A) Maybe only let the playoff teams that get promoted keep one player the first year with preference going to whichever team has the better record/more points/advanced further in their respective playoffs? Or B) Maybe a pre-draft keeper-only auction draft between all of the players claimed as kept between the two leagues? That would be kinda nuts and hard to pull off but has some pretty awesome potential 
Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
I'm also guessing that we will be having these keeper dynasty style (ie. their rounds don't matter, they're just added to your team at the end of the draft in the last X amount of rounds) because if we're doing it round dependent, it's going to probably get really complicated and hard to manage.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
Also, I vote that this league is IDP, and we have 2 Offense, 2 Defense and 1 choice (or something along those lines) because team defenses suck
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 05:46
|
|
|
old dog child posted:I am voting against IDP because I'm scared and afraid of change. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ur69rjRQFs
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 06:04
|
|
|
HiroProtagonist posted:I'm in for this. I agree on points 1 & 3. I could really go either way on point two, I get the appeal of only having D flex spots instead of actual roster positions, but if we're doing a point-per-tackle / .5/asst. tackle system, there's going to be A LOT of guys out there worth rostering, so I don't know if we really need to get rid of the positional restrictions. Plus, it's fun to make everyone roster a DL or two.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 07:11
|
|
|
^^ e: I'd say the order of importance for IDP stat scouting are: tackles>>PD>>>Sacks>>INT>Fum>>>>TD The system my league uses is pretty fair, it's mainly tackle dependent but will reward for turnovers. The best players are LBs and run-stopping corners/safeties on teams with bad offenses, bonus points if they are a returner. Tackle: .85 (can be 1) Asst.: .425 (can be .5) Pass Defended: 1 Sack: 2.5 INT: 3.5 FFum: 3 FRec: 3 TD: 6 Safety: 4 Block: 3 TFL: .65 (makes a TFL worth 1.5 total, if making tackle worth 1, I'd make this .75) Turnover Ret. Yards: 20/point This will give you a top tier of IDPs (Washington, Mayo, Bowman, Briggs, etc.) getting ~160 points, and a whole bunch of guys over 100.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 07:44
|
|
|
We can make each position a roster spot (S, CB, LB, DE, DT) but the preferred way is just a simple DB, DL, LB. DB encompasses S and CB, DL is both DE and DT. My league uses DBx3, LBx3, DL, and D flex
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 07:48
|
|
|
Zypher posted:This would actually solve one of the bigger problems I'm trying to figure out: how to be commissioner for both leagues but only have a team in one league. Other than having someone volunteer as commissioner in the Tier that I'm not in. If it's a Yahoo league, you can just create both leagues, and then just make someone a co-manager of whichever team is in the league you're not and hand control of the roster operations over to them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 09:05
|
|
|
I think that making the lower tier a re-draft would probably be better and a lot easier to manage. I also think that the keepers should either be round-dependent or at the end of the draft, otherwise everyone will probably just keep their first rounder every year or drop everyone and try to get their pick from the player pool of the relegated teams. Unless you end up with two of the top tier guys (Foster/Peterson/Brees/Johnson etc.) there's really no incentive to burn a 2nd round pick on a keeper player who you can probably just re-draft in a later round. And then you'll just get 7 teams keeping the same guys every season if they don't get relegated and then just a regular re-draft player pool
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 21:48
|
|
|
Zypher, here are the Scoring Settings/Rules for the keeper league I run with my friends (and will probably be starting a variant of in TAQ next season). I know a few of the rules aren't applicable here, but feel free to pick out any ones, if any, you like and want to use.quote:Roster Positions: QB, WR, WR, WR, RB, RB, TE, W/T, W/R/T, K, D, DB, DB, DB, DL, LB, LB, LB, IR, IR, BN, BN, BN, BN, BN, BN, BN, BN
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
zeroordie posted:I think this make a lot more sense than just a blanket first round pick cost. I definitely see the appeal with both, and I get where Zypher is coming from for the purposes of this league as it'll make it even more unbalanced for promoted teams. I do think though that for a non-snaking draft, it makes more sense for the keepers, however many we allow per team, to be at the end of the draft. I already talked about how having them at the top won't give most teams incentive to keep more than one or two players, but I also think that giving everyone equal access to the top of the remaining player pool will promote more parity, especially when the promoted teams are getting the first picks of every round, therefore getting the better talent. e: I also would really like to see some sort of scheduling system like the one I have set up for that keeper league where your previous years performance will help determine your schedule/division so that it would add even another wrinkle making where you finish important even if you don't get promoted/relegated. Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Dec 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
What are we capping this at? 26 people (14 team Tier A, 12 team Tier B)? Tier A: Easy, 13 weeks, play each team once, 8 team playoff, bottom 4 in a relegation bracket Tier B: 3 Divisions of 4 set as such: Div. A: Relegation #1, #6, #7, #12 Div. B: Relegation #2, #5, #8, #11 Div. C: Relegation #3, #4, #9, #10 Weeks 1-11: each team plays each other once Week 12: A1 vs. A4, A2 vs. A3, B1 vs. B4, etc. Week 13: A1 vs. A3, A2 vs. A$, B1 vs. B3, etc. Top 6 make playoffs, division winners get top seeds, two teams in the final and winner of the 3rd place game get promoted. The Tier B playoffs is the same playoff structure I posted for that keeper league. We could also just do a straight 12 team with no divisions, have the last two games scheduled as random but that's not as fun, and I feel like anything we can go to make it more in depth, the better. e: an 8-team playoff might be fun in Tier B, even though 8-of-12 is a pretty lovely playoff ratio, it leaves promotion wide open, and then there's little chance of someone winning a division with a lovely record and bouncing someone out, then division winning would only determine what your seeding is. Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Dec 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
Zypher posted:That sounds great. Personally, I've always done 8 playoff teams in 14-team leagues, but that does make sense. Let me ask you, are you dead-set on Tier A being the bigger tier? Because we could always do it in reverse, with Tier A being the 12 team and Tier B being the 14 team. Tier B could be a a straight league with an 8-team bracket, top 3 still getting promoted, and Tier A could be the 12-team league with the 6-team playoff and 3 losers of the 4-team consolation getting relegated. Then we could set up the more complex scheduling system for the keeper tier with the 3 promoted teams taking the bottom spot in each division. Feel free to disagree, I'm just spitballing here. e: then the "watering down" of the regular season wouldn't really matter because all of those teams are basically just fighting to get up to the big show, so turning the entire season into one long seeding battle isn't really a problem, it would if anything, make the trek toward promotion a little more difficult and exciting. Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Dec 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 03:21
|
|
|
Zypher posted:See above, I actually think it might be better to have both leagues be the same size. We can keep them both at 12 with the complex scheduling. Oh, I thought we were doing a 12 and a 14, carry on then.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 03:26
|
|
|
Faltese Malkin posted:On a related note that's actually relevant to the league: I agree with most of the rules Obama Yo Mama's posted. The only one I don't like is the negative points for a rushing attempt, and that's only because I don't really understand the impact (I think OYM mentioned it somewhere though) In a 15 yards/point league, each rushing yard is worth .07. so having each attempt being worth -.07 makes a run for one yard a neutral play. Then I added an extra 1.75 to the 100-yard bonus (25x.07=1.75), so essentially what it does is rewards your RB for having a better YPC. I'm assuming that a 4 YPC is the average (even though it should probably be a little higher), anything above is slightly rewarded, and anything below is slightly punished. 100 yards on 25 carries would get you the standard bonus, but 100 yards on 10 carries would get you a few more points. 100 yards on 30 carries would get you slightly less. Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Dec 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 03:28
|
|
|
And all of the sudden Arian Foster is going 7th overall e:  e2: Charles would get 31.64 and Martin would get 33.33 not including whatever the TDs/40+ yard rushes/catches/rec. yards are Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Dec 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 03:36
|
|
|
I actually kinda like the idea of a supplemental draft for the promoted teams. Then the new teams won't be at a complete disadvantage, not to mention we can just throw all of the keepers at the front of the draft and be done with it. e: Now are we going to be doing this dynasty style, where everyone keeps an entire starting roster and we just draft bench players? Or are we going to have an X amount of keepers? I was under the impression that it's going to be the latter. Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Dec 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 08:27
|
|
|
Zypher posted:OYM, what's the method behind the madness of your receiving scoring setup? Is it simply 20 yards per point because your league has so many WR slots? The method to the madness is that I find that those scoring settings allow for the top-50 players in the league to be pretty balanced between the positions. Obviously the top QBs will rise to the top (that's the reason why it's 50 yards/point, 4 for TD, and -3 for INT to kind of nerf them a bit), but 15 yards/point rushing and 20 yards/point passing end up working out to a pretty even scoring. That's the scoring settings for a Yahoo league, which allows for fractional points, so it has the same effect. I've ran that league for 4 years and I've never seen a tie (although there have been two games within .1) Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 08:43 on Dec 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 08:40
|
|
|
And I just had a a interesting idea for a tweak re: Supplemental Draft If we have a supplemental draft, we can actually have keepers with value based on where they were drafted, which I personally think is a lot better. Then let's say a team drafted Andrew Luck in the 8th round but then got relegated, you can almost bet that Luck would get taken 1st in the supplemental draft because his inherit value would be more than, let's say, Andre Johnson who got picked in the 2nd. Then that team would get Luck in the 7th round in the actual draft. I think that has potential to be pretty awesome. e: And let's say we only have 5 keepers, then there would be a 5-round Supplemental Draft. Let's say we want to neuter the promoted teams a little more, we can make it that all players drafted in the first 2 or 3 rounds of the Supplemental Draft would have 2 rounds added instead of 1. So Luck in the aforementioned scenario would be a 6th round pick if drafted #1. Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 09:09 on Dec 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 08:42
|
|
|
That's not how it's worked for my league. When Charles only had 2 yards earlier today, he was listed as having 0.14 points. I guess ESPN scores differently.Obama Yo Mama posted:The method to the madness is that I find that those scoring settings allow for the top-50 players in the league to be pretty balanced between the positions. Obviously the top QBs will rise to the top (that's the reason why it's 50 yards/point, 4 for TD, and -3 for INT to kind of nerf them a bit), but 15 yards/point rushing and 20 yards/point passing end up working out to a pretty even scoring. 2012 leaders YTD: 1. RB A. Peterson - 288.78 2. QB R. Griffin III - 247.37 3. QB T. Brady - 246.81 4. RB D. Martin - 234.18 5. RB A. Foster - 225.43 6. QB C. Newton - 221.02 7. QB A. Rodgers - 216.22 8. QB D. Brees - 210.45 9. QB P. Manning - 208.58 10. QB M. Ryan - 202.18 11. WR B. Marshall - 199.90 12. WR A. Green - 197.78 13. WR C. Johnson - 194.70 14. QB M. Stafford - 190.71 15. RB J. Charles - 190.17 16. QB J. Freeman - 188.53 17. RB R. Rice - 186.39 18. QB A. Dalton - 186.37 19. RB M. Lynch - 179.91 20. QB C. Palmer - 176.21 21. QB T. Romo - 170.22 22. QB M. Schaub - 169.45 23. QB A. Luck - 169.01 24. WR D. Thomas - 164.30 25. WR V. Jackson - 163.75 26. RB T. Richardson - 163.32 27. WR V. Cruz - 163.30 28. WR R. Cobb - 162.95 29. RB C. Spiller - 162.89 30. RB S. Ridley - 161.77 31. QB J. Flacco - 155.59 32. QB E. Manning - 155.52 33. WR D. Bryant - 155.07 34. WR R. White - 148.65 35. WR A. Johnson 146.45 36. RB A. Morris - 145.16 37. RB F. Gore - 143.01 38. RB B. Green-Ellis - 141.77 39. WR R. Wayne - 141.37 40. WR J. Jones - 141.17 41. WR W. Welker - 140.58 42. RB C. Johnson - 139.67 43. QB B. Roethlisberger - 138.60 44. QB R. Wilson - 135.91 45. QB R. Fitzpatrick - 131.28 46. TE R. Gronkowski - 128.95 47. WR M. Colston - 128.30 48. RB A. Bradshaw - 127.66 49. TE T. Gonzalez - 124.50 50. RB M. Turner - 123.04 QBs: 19 RBs: 15 WRs: 14 TEs: 2 e: Bonus Top-20 IDPs YTD: 1. DL J. Watt - 135.45 2. LB V. Miller - 130.60 3. LB D. Washington - 130.60 4. DB C. Tillman - 122.95 5. LB L. Kuechly - 115.70 6. LB J. Mayo - 115.40 7. LB A. Smith - 113.00 8. LB L. David - 111.08 9. LB P. Posluszny - 109.75 10. DB R. Barber - 108.93 11. LB W. Woodyard - 108.15 12. DB D. McCourty - 107.80 13. DB S. Brown - 107.45 14. LB J. Laurinatis - 105.68 15. LB L. Briggs - 105.65 16. LB C. Greenway - 104.95 17. LB D. Jackson - 104.73 18. LB B. Wagner - 102.90 19. LB D. Johnson - 102.53 20. DB R. Sherman 102.00 Which puts most of the IDPs aside from the top-5 guys starting around 60th overall in scoring. Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 09:03 on Dec 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 08:55
|
|
|
Zypher posted:One potential problem -- does it give promoted/relegated teams an unfair early advantage at grabbing fantasy free agents that have had major offseason changes? For example, if Frank Gore announces his surprise retirement, would I be able to pick up Kendall Hunter at an insane discount? Not unless he was already rostered by one of the relegated teams. The Supplemental draft pool would be compromised only of players from the 3 relegated teams. All free agents, ie. players remaining after the non-relegated teams have set their keepers and the 3 promoted teams have the supplemental draft, can only be acquired by being drafted in the main league draft. Zypher posted:Ah, that's really interesting to see. I thought the WR scoring would have been watered down more, but it seems on par with what you would expect. When I first made up this scoring system 4 years ago, I literally spent two weeks tinkering with it before I got it to a point I like. There was a shitload more math and equations involved than I'm ever going to admit. But it has resulted in what I really believe is the best scoring system I've ever used so v  v
Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 09:48 on Dec 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 09:40
|
|
|
If my keeper league were tiered and doing promotion/relegation, here's all of the players that would be available for the Supplemental Draft, ie. players on the rosters of the bottom 3 teams, ordered by round drafted (keep in mind, we've been doing this for 4 years, so there are a few guys, like Graham, Rice, Nelson and McCoy, who are in much lower rounds than they should be. Also we value FA pickups as 16th round picks): 1ST ROUND Trent Richardson Chris Johnson Aaron Rodgers 2ND ROUND Dez Bryant Ryan Mathews 3RD ROUND Jeremy Maclin Dwayne Bowe Julio Jones 4TH ROUND Matt Stafford Aaron Hernandez 5TH ROUND Ray Rice Brandon Pettigrew BenJarvus Green-Ellis 7TH ROUND Jacquizz Rodgers Santonio Holmes Randy Moss 9TH ROUND Randall Cobb Jermaine Gresham 10TH ROUND Jimmy Graham Russell Wilson 13TH ROUND Jordy Nelson 14TH ROUND LeSean McCoy Josh Freeman 16TH ROUND Mark Ingram Colin Kaepernick Josh Gordon Vick Ballard Jeremy Kerley Bilal Powell Montell Owens Dwayne Allen Bernard Pierce Jason Witten Brian Hartline Andre Roberts Andre Brown Devery Henderson Darius Reynaud 17TH ROUND Austin Collie 18TH ROUND Nate Washington 24TH ROUND Davone Bess Each player gets one round added the next season. You can bet that McCoy, Rice, Witten, Graham, Nelson, Kaepernick, Freeman, Wilson and Cobb would be taken in the Supplemental Draft e: I didn't include IDPs to make it easier, but in our league we have 5 keepers (2 offense, 2 IDP, and one choice) so our Supplemental Draft would be 15 picks (3 teams x 5 rounds) Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 10:28 on Dec 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 10:13
|
|
|
All of that looks good, though I'd say that if the first year is going to be entirely for the purpose of placement, we should forego the divisional format until year two and just do two straight 12-team leagues. Standard leagues with divisions are the worst. Nothing like being tied for the best record and ending up with the 4th seed. Or just have the divisions so we can do the same scheduling, but make the seeding based on record, not division winners. I was actually just thinking up of a bunch of ideas for registration fee/pay-out systems, but it seems like none of them really work toward what you're looking for  Option A - $20/$10 Tiered Split Rate - $20/team in Tier A, $10/team in Tier B - $240 pool in Tier A, $120 pool in Tier B - Tier A payouts 1st: $120 2nd: $70 3rd: $40 #1 Seed in Playoffs: $10 - Tier B payouts 1st: $60 2nd: $40 3rd: $20 Option B - $20 Flat Rate Standard - $20/team, pool of $480 - Tier A payouts: 1st: $200 2nd: $75 3rd: $35 - Tier B payouts 1st: $100 2nd: $50 3rd: $20 Option C - $25 Flat Rate Standard - $25/team, pool of $600 - Tier A payouts 1st: $250 2nd: $100 3rd: $50 - Tier B payouts 1st: $100 2nd: $75 3rd: $25 Option D - $25 Flat Rate Expanded - $25/team, pool of $600 - Tier A payouts 1st: $150 ($200) ($200) 2nd: $100 ($75) ($100) 3rd: $50 ($25) ($0) #1 Seed in Playoffs: $10 Highest Score Each Week: $5 - Tier B payouts 1st: $75 ($100) ($100) 2nd: $50 ($30) ($50) 3rd: $25 ($20) ($0) #1 Seed in Playoffs: $10 Highest Score Each Week: $5 Personally, I think the payouts in Tier A should be a little more than the payouts in Tier B, since the object is really to get up to the top tier, but I'm fine with either. Zypher posted:In regards to rosters, I'd prefer sticking to the standard 1 QB 2 RB 2 WR TE FLEX K for offense. What's the IDP equivalent? Would 2 DL 2 LB 2 DB be fair? Pretty much, yeah, that's good. DLs kinda suck for fantasy though, as there's only like 15 good ones, so I usually don't like having more than one. I'd recommend replacing one of the DLs with a D Flex, but that's a fine setup if you'd prefer it. Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 11:39 on Dec 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 11:23
|
|
|
To be clear, I am totally for divisions deciding the seeding from Year 2 onward. I like the idea of your previous year's record affecting your placement/schedule/chances at a bye. Not sure if I made that totally clear. Normally I'd say 6 bench would be enough for a starting roster of that size, but an extra two guys isn't bad since it's a keeper. I'd also recommend adding an IR spot since it's a keeper. I don't know if they're standard in ESPN, but I know they aren't in Yahoo and you actually have to turn them on. Nothing sucked more than Brady tearing his ACL and then having to burn a bench spot on him because I wasn't going to drop him and open him up to be someone else's keeper.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 11:44
|
|
|
Thinking about it more, I think 7 would probably be the perfect amount of bench spots. 8 is definitely too much, 6 would be fine for a re-draft but I like the idea of an extra spot for a keeper. Essentially that would let you roll with a bench of: QB, RB, WR, WR, D, D, ?. It won't make byes super-easy to get through like 8 probably would, but will still give you some flexibility for managing them that 6 probably wouldn't, and that ? spot is essentially "The Keeper Slot"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 12:12
|
|
|
HiroProtagonist posted:D FLEX/DB/DL is the standard roster layout for IDP. With 12-team leagues, it doesn't run into depth problems. You severely under-estimate how many good IDPs are out there. The only shallow position is DL, but there are enough decent ones out there for each team to roster one and be able to snag a bye-week filler. DB and LB are quite deep, I run a 12-team with 3 of each DB and LB and a D flex, every team's got a pretty decent lineup.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
e: I probably did, I thought you were saying that there should only be 3 IDP slots per team. There's plenty more than 36 useful IDPs.Zypher posted:That's how I initially felt about divisions, too. OYM's reasoning made sense to me last night, but we should probably leave that up for further debate. I love divisions mattering in keeper/dynasty leagues. It's fun and it fosters more competition/creates rivalries. The scheduling system we'd be using changes the divisions and schedule each year based on the previous year's performance. Also, the extra 2 games are divisional games so it's not like you're just thrown in random like most divisional set-ups are, you can actually control where you end up seed-wise by beating the teams in your division. I know divisions are scary because most people just make divisions and don't care, but there's actually a lot of thought put into this, it will work I promise so don't be scared old dog child posted:But that's just my no-fantasy-football-experience two cents. Remember though, Tier A is a keeper league, so we don't want to make the benches too shallow, there will still be plenty of movement, but there needs to be a bench spot there for at least one player who you might want to keep and really just can't afford to drop. For the record, I love having both the WR/TE and WR/TE/RB flex spots, but I'm fine either way. Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Dec 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 19:22
|
|
|
Yeah, it's basically the equivalent of having 3 WR instead of 2, with the exception of being tempted to start Jermaine Gresham and only getting 2 points.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
Zypher posted:How do we feel about an unlimited # of keepers? I'd rather tweak the penalty system to find the right balance than choose an arbitrary number of keepers. I'd probably prefer dynasty style to unlimited keepers (keep your whole starting line-up and just draft a new bench) but I feel like if we're going promotion/relegation, that'll probably make it unnecessarily difficult on the promoted teams. If we're going to do unlimited keepers, then there's going to have to be a tiered system for round penalties (top 5 rounds cost 1st round pick, rounds 6-10 cost 5th round pick, etc.), but then we'd still need to have added penalties if someone wants to keep more than one player in the same tier, and also even more penalties if someone decides to keep more than one player in the top tier because, by virtue, you're being rewarded with that second keeper by getting him in the 2nd when he should be a 1st rounder.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 23:08
|
|
|
The way that I solved this in my league was that for every 1st round keeper you have, you have to add an extra round to your lowest keeper. Draft players in Round 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, 16 Next year values: 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 14 Draft players in Round 1, 2, 5, 12, 14, 20 Next year values: 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 18 Draft players in Round 1, 2, 3, 6, 13, 17 Next year values: 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 15 Draft players in Round 1, 2, 3, 6, 12 Next year values: 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 And so on. e: seems like that's pretty much the same thing Zypher's saying if I'm reading it properly.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
I feel like it works better my way, because if you keep pushing the higher keepers even higher, eventually you're just going to run into a bunch of guys not getting kept because they'll all cost 1st Rounders. Plus, if the rounds get added to the lower guys, you'll have guys like Morris getting added back to the player pool a lot quicker if they end up on a team with a Rodgers/Johnson/Peterson that keeps getting kept in the 1st every year. If you drafted Morris in the 16th, he could end up being an 8th round pick within two years if you incur enough penalties, and eventually he'll become too expensive to keep. The other way around, he'll pretty much be on your team until he starts to suck or retires. e: tl;dr: in the long run it hurts you more value wise if you force your lowest keepers to move up more rounds. e2: but regardless of where the rounds get added, this is probably the framework for the best system. Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
I feel like anyone you keep in the first 10 rounds is eventually going to become too expensive to keep anyway, so it's sort of redundant to penalize those guys doubly, and you're pretty much just creating player movement for the sake of player movement. You'll be pretty quickly running into those scenarios, where a guy kept in the 6th one year goes right back into the pool the next year, essentially making it a re-draft league with a one-year waiting period, which I don't think is what we're trying to go for here. If someone's keeping a 1st, 2nd, 7th, and 15th, they're going to have to give up 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 11th the next year. That would still accomplish what you're trying to do, while also hurting the value of the lower player. If you're throwing the penalties on the higher guy, you'd end up with 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 14th which will also probably put that 4th rounder back into the pool the next year, but works out a lot better for that lower round player. If someone ended up with Calvin Johnson in the 1st, Peterson in the 2nd, and Russel Wilson in the 17th round, they can just keep a random 10th rounder every season to absorb the Johnson/Peterson penalties and have 3-top tier players at prime positions and still have 7 of their top 10 picks from now until 2017 Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 22:00
|
|
|
dalstrs posted:Honestly, I don't think keepers or dynasty will work well with a money league. You are going to have a lot of players quit after the first season cause their team sucks and they can't compete with the top teams, so why waste the money. If their team sucks, they get demoted to the re-draft league which also has a payout. I also run a keeper-league with a buy-in and it's never really been an issue. A lot can change within a year.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
<- my logic irl e: How about we just make the penalties apply to whichever player scored the most points in the previous season? That way the best player gets the harshest penalty. Or is that too hard to keep track of and/or too arbitrary?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 22:36
|
|
|
I dig it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 08:08
|
|
|
I think the fair and logical solution would be to let the teams that stay in Tier A to keep the picks they traded for and for any picks traded away to teams relegated to Tier B should just be skipped in the draft, but the problem lies in execution. I know for a fact that yahoo doesn't let you skip picks and draft picks must be traded for an equal number of picks. I don't know if ESPN/CBS/NFL operate differently. Maybe there's a separate, customizable draft client we can use and then just have Zypher input the results manually, otherwise I don't see how it'll work, and then we'll probably just have to ban trading picks outright just for the sake of ease and continuity. Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Dec 19, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
IDP is not that hard, it's seriously a lot easier to scout and fluctuates much less from week to week than D/ST. I promise you, once you try it, you'll never want to go back. I've been doing IDP for 6 years and whenever I'm in a D/ST league I loving hate it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 06:46 |
|
|
Zypher posted:I also chose to go with ESPN Standard scoring rules (with the exception of 0.5 PPR). Not a problem, I'm probably going to start a keeper/dynasty (haven't decided yet) with those settings next season. Zypher posted:Anyways, bear with us with the keeper minutiae... we're not done yet. I'm trying to create a unique experience that a) is still fair b) rewards owners for good decisions c) doesn't suck the fun out of draft day. I'm sure there will be some more issues that I'll pose to the group that will seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I promise that during the day-to-day play of this league you won't need to consult a cheat sheet or hire a translator. Zypher posted:I'm sorry that OYM and I nerding out on the rules has caused confusion/mess; you're watching sausage get made. Yeah, I don't think you can emphasize these points enough. Really what's going on right now just us fleshing out how this is going to work. These are complicated goings-on and there are going to be a lot of ideas that are getting thrown out and a bit of confusion, that people aren't going to like, but eventually we're going to land in a place where everyone will be happy with what we've worked out. There's a reason why this thread is being posted like 7 months in advance. Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 08:24 on Dec 20, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2012 08:18
|
|