FFL 2009-10 [Champion: sly!]

Post #21 » by **Young_Star11** » Thu Apr 9, 2009 10:14 pm

writersblock wrote:I noticed you have Ham as a replacement for Cenga...and if I can put in my own commendation for him...As you know, he's been one of the most active managers in FFDL. He's usually quite competitive too. I think he'd make an excellent addition....

He's not a definite, but a man of George's calibre was the type of replacement was exactly what I was looking for.

Post #22 » by **Cyrus** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:55 am

I'm committed, i gotta avenge my last place showing, that was embarrassing.

bww78 · Post #23 » by **bww78** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:08 pm

Stick, I got your messaage. I'm in.

sabonis · Post #24 » by **sabonis** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:29 am

I'm commited unless I do military service starting in august

Woody Allen · Post #25 » by **Woody Allen** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:53 am

I'm interested.

Post #26 » by **sly** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:41 pm

Bad, bad showing for me... I'm in, with more time and energy for 09-10, I'm sure...

jfrost · Post #27 » by **jfrost** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 4:13 pm

Count me in!!!

Wayland The Smith · Post #28 » by **Wayland The Smith** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:09 pm

i'd want to join if you have place..

sabonis · Post #29 » by **sabonis** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:54 pm

I think we should vote about these things:

max moves:
regular season per week: 4/5/6/7
playoffs: 3/4/5

how many players can you name for your IL spot:
2/3/4/whole team
how many players can be in your IL spot at the same time:
2/3/4

how many games a player should miss before being eligible for IL:
2/3/4/5

those are the rules I regulate in a league which I'm the commish. and it's been working like a charm. but it's of course up to Jordan.

writersblock · Post #30 » by **writersblock** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:37 pm

sabonis wrote:I think we should vote about these things:

max moves:
regular season per week: 4/5/6/7
playoffs: 3/4/5

how many players can you name for your IL spot:
2/3/4/whole team
how many players can be in your IL spot at the same time:
2/3/4

how many games a player should miss before being eligible for IL:
2/3/4/5

those are the rules I regulate in a league which I'm the commish. and it's been working like a charm. but it's of course up to Jordan.

I really don't think there's any need to complicate things by voting on stuff like this. Sly set up the league and it works like clockwork. IL eligibility is 5 games. Done. IL spots are 2. Done. Max moves during the season have also not been an issue as Sly has always argued that the talent pool is far too dry in a league with 20 teams to merit any worry about it. Look at my team. I had like 100 moves and I didn't even make the playoffs!!

Now, the only thing I think that we should consider is dropping IL altogether. It would save a ton of headaches. But, if not, that's fine...I don't think there's any reason to vote on anything.

sabonis · Post #31 » by **sabonis** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:47 pm

but please give me a logical explanation why a team should wait for 5 games while there is a report that says the player is out for 2 months. I simply don't understand that at all.

btw maybe you had a few injuries to pull you back but fraan for example got a pretty decent boost thanks to his streaming.

Post #32 » by **sly** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:56 pm

sabonis wrote:but please give me a logical explanation why a team should wait for 5 games while there is a report that says the player is out for 2 months. I simply don't understand that at all.

btw maybe you had a few injuries to pull you back but fraan for example got a pretty decent boost thanks to his streaming.

The problem with this is that a standard has to be set. Reports come out all of the time that a player is expected to miss a week, or two weeks... and the player only misses a part of that. Or a player is only expected to miss a few days... and it takes a few weeks for the player to come back. To rely on reports and guesses becomes problematic.

It really is a tough system to enforce and to ease the guessing and legwork of the commissioner this system was put in place. If there's any change, I would say eliminate the IL personally. Otherwise, I have yet to find a IL system that works better, personally.

Post #33 » by **sly** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:59 pm

caps on games played is a rule that I don't mind, personally. it helps with streaming [a little] and eases some manager's minds. My philosophy has always been - for this 20-teamer - is that more talent is dropped to the wire in streaming than gained. And if a manager overdoes it to the extreme where it actually factors into winning ... than that circumstance is rare, and there's some embarrassment in that win. I'm either/or for this rule change, as I don't think it has that big of an impact on a league. When setting it up and tweaking the rules, I would have rather had the more active league than one that has caps.

sabonis · Post #34 » by **sabonis** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:06 pm

sly wrote:
sabonis wrote:but please give me a logical explanation why a team should wait for 5 games while there is a report that says the player is out for 2 months. I simply don't understand that at all.

btw maybe you had a few injuries to pull you back but fraan for example got a pretty decent boost thanks to his streaming.

The problem with this is that a standard has to be set. Reports come out all of the time that a player is expected to miss a week, or two weeks... and the player only misses a part of that. Or a player is only expected to miss a few days... and it takes a few weeks for the player to come back. To rely on reports and guesses becomes problematic.

It really is a tough system to enforce and to ease the guessing and legwork of the commissioner this system was put in place. If there's any change, I would say eliminate the IL personally. Otherwise, I have yet to find a IL system that works better, personally.

yeah I know a standart has to be determined, I agree with that. but why 5 games? I mean I think 2 games is enough, maybe 3 can be good as well but I really don't understand 5... that way you can't benefit from the IL at all, if your players get injured for 2 weeks.

Post #35 » by **sly** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:45 pm

Because players miss two games with the flu, or a death in the family, or a pinky strain... and for the commissioner to have to drag minor injuries back and forth from the wire is a little too straining. I mean, if Jord-o wants to, by all means... but, it gets pretty intensive and too involved for even the best of commissioners.

For example, if your player missed two games and came back for the third game and that player was still sitting on the wire... that manager would feel a ripped off that the commissioner didn't get their star player back in time and was subbing in mostly crap.

The Commish, unfortunately, can't always log lots of time into the league at every moment. I - personally - wouldn't think it's fair to get the Commish that involved over minor, minor impact to stats in the overall scheme of things. But that's just me.

tkunit · Post #36 » by **tkunit** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:16 pm

IL should be dropped to 1, and cap the weekly moves at 5. Other wise I see no reason to mess with the league. Hell I do'nt even care aobut weekly moves to be honest. Its a good league!

sabonis · Post #37 » by **sabonis** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:45 pm

sly wrote:Because players miss two games with the flu, or a death in the family, or a pinky strain... and for the commissioner to have to drag minor injuries back and forth from the wire is a little too straining. I mean, if Jord-o wants to, by all means... but, it gets pretty intensive and too involved for even the best of commissioners.

For example, if your player missed two games and came back for the third game and that player was still sitting on the wire... that manager would feel a ripped off that the commissioner didn't get their star player back in time and was subbing in mostly crap.

The Commish, unfortunately, can't always log lots of time into the league at every moment. I - personally - wouldn't think it's fair to get the Commish that involved over minor, minor impact to stats in the overall scheme of things. But that's just me.

in the league in which I'm the commish, I don't touch the waivers at all. all of the 14 managers check the yahoo posts before adding a player. It's not that hard.
and also we all name 2 players in our teams as injury protected. So the players that can be put on IL are determined before the season starts. That helps as well but even without that, but still the commish shouldn't feel a lot of load on his shoulders as long as other managers check the yahoo post before adding players.

Post #38 » by **sly** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:06 pm

yes... that would work too. But would require the trust in all of the managers to manage it themselves. Just as the other option - with streaming - trusts managers to not go overboard. I'd be fine with self-rule; but, what happens if a manager accidentally enters a healthy IL roster player into their starting lineup? This came into play when deciding the rules of this league... as that manager can't really be punished for it. We thought having the IL go through the commissioner would save some hassle and worry. Not that I'm critiquing... just saying that's where we came from.

sabonis · Post #39 » by **sabonis** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:26 pm

yeah I know where you came from. and it's totally okay if you criticize my rule. no problem about that
in 2 years, a manager adding an IL player only happened twice and I corrected that on the same day. Actually in one of those incidents, the manager himself noticed it and dropped the player immediately.
as I said with only 24 players that can be dropped as injured makes that easier as well but as long as people check the yahoo posts, I think this will be okay.

oh and by the way we definitely should decide what is IL worthy. A player falling out of rotation missing 5 games in a row shouldn't qualify as IL, or a player getting a suspension shouldn't as well, or a player having a dispute with his team/coach (marbury, harrington, tinsley etc) as well... This should definitely be revised...

bww78 · Post #40 » by **bww78** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:30 pm

I use the self-police method of IL regulation in the Money League, and I think it works well.

I think the IL is needed. Otherwise, a team is punished for bad luck twice. First, it loses the player it drafted to injury. Second, it loses the player permanently if it drops that player thinking he'll be out for a long period of time only to find he won't be out as long as predicted. Conversely, some other lucky manager gets himself a great new player for nothing.

This situation isn't only a possibility, it's extremely likely. And it could drastically alter the outcome of the league.

I think the IL is necessary. But I am for shortening the time you need before a player can be stashed from 5 games to 3.