FFL - 2012-13 - Voting on Rule Change - draft order posted

[hamncheese]

I vote 45.

[insfo]

60

[Breakdown777]

I wanted 50

Since I'm all for a fair compromise, I'm willing to side with the majority of those who voted weekly. I'm voting 60.

We'll see how this works out. I for one am hoping we revisit this and vote again next year. I voted seasonal because it seemed to make more sense to me. Looking at the overall number of add/drops for each manager, it seemed like there were only a few players getting close to that max amount. If only about 25% of the league is playing that way, is it really the way the majority prefers playing? Why not change the league rules to fit the way the majority of it's managers play?
This boils down to tradition vs. pleasing the majority in my opinion.
I wouldn't argue the fact that it needed to be changed, but that it could be changed if a majority felt it would be better for them individually. Once again, I'm hoping we revisit and vote again next year. For all we know, this will create more borderline streaming issues, causing those who cried foul to revert on their initial stance.

This is oddly similar to politics in that there are some conservatives who have been around since the league inception voting for the status-quot (keeping their freedoms), while there are some newer players who want a change (and more over-arching control).

[hamncheese]

Does the seasonal limit include the playoffs or is it just the regular season? Last season, we had a seasonal limit and then a weekly limit for the playoffs. Is this what we will continue to do?

[Woody Allen]

Yes. It is the same as before. 3 moves per week during the playoffs.

[writersblock]

I vote 60. It's close enough to 3 per week for me. Also, we should keep in mind that we voted NOT to add a roster spot, so that means more need of the add/drop function in case of injuries.

[Hopper15]

45

[sabonis]

it should be 45, 60 is ridicilous.

[writersblock]

it should be 45, 60 is ridicilous.

We did 50 last year in a season that was cut in half, and we had no issues with streaming. I hardly think adding 10 more in a regular 21 week season is "ridiculous".

[floppymoose]

I disagree that we had no issues with streaming last year.

I vote 45.

[Woody Allen]

I disagree that we had no issues with streaming last year.

Floppy, quit calling people streamers just because they ranked higher than you.

[floppymoose]

Streaming means different things to us, apparently. To me, it means adding players repeatedly who you hold for only a few days. That definitely went on, so I'm not going to pretend it didn't just because you ask me to.

You can see an example of it in our league here:
http://archive.fantasysports.yahoo.com/ ... 2&count=25

That's just a short slice of Frans add/drops. He used all of them and he was just picking up guys to squeeze and extra game (or two) per week out of his bottom tier players, then dropping them a few days later. He wasn't the only one doing this. There's nothing wrong with it - perfectly legal. It's what I call streaming. I just prefer to minimize it because to me it makes the game more mechanical and less about drafting and trading. It's just a personal preference. I'm not going to argue if it's bad or good, but I'm certainly not going to let people pretend that it's not happening.

[Curtis Lemansky]

Streaming is the least of problems with Fran as far as I'm concerned. Not really making much of a case by showing Fran's moves as an example. You can limit the max moves to 30 and you'll still see that same short slice with Fran's add/drops. And where did Fran's streaming get him? 11th place?

The point is nobody won anything by streaming since we have implemented a max move limit a few years ago. No team snuck into playoffs undeservedly by streaming. Nobody got eliminated because someone streamed against them. There could be a few cases where a particular gm may have streamed (and I'm pretty sure that streaming incidents are limited to only one gm in particular, you can show me if there are others which did that) but it did not affect the end results. Did we have anyone at all complain that they are being beaten / eliminated in a week because somebody streamed against them? No.

So I dont see how it is really a problem when it did not affect results or did not receive any complaints by anyone.

[floppymoose]

That Fran came in 11th doesn't change things for me. When you say it isn't a problem, you mean it isn't a problem for you. It was a problem for Alci, who said he left the league in part because of it. It's a problem for me.

Your comment about the max movers not performing well, and that proving it's not an issue, are completely wrong. Two of the three folks who used max moves last season made the playoffs. Fran was the only one who didn't. All three made the playoffs the season before.

Instead of trying to argue this doesn't exist or isn't an issue, when it clearly does, and is, let's just vote and move on.

Btw, if anyone wants to see how many moves they or others needed in a full (non-lockout) season, here is a link to the view (from the 2010 season) of how many were used when the max moves were reset just before playoffs:
http://basketball.fantasysports.yahoo.c ... =&count=20

The number of moves the 20 managers used (sorted):
2
5
6
6
7
9
11
12
13
16
16
18
28
31
31
33
34
46
60
60

[writersblock]

Streaming means different things to us, apparently. To me, it means adding players repeatedly who you hold for only a few days. That definitely went on, so I'm not going to pretend it didn't just because you ask me to.

You can see an example of it in our league here:
http://archive.fantasysports.yahoo.com/ ... 2&count=25

That's just a short slice of Frans add/drops. He used all of them and he was just picking up guys to squeeze and extra game (or two) per week out of his bottom tier players, then dropping them a few days later. He wasn't the only one doing this. There's nothing wrong with it - perfectly legal. It's what I call streaming. I just prefer to minimize it because to me it makes the game more mechanical and less about drafting and trading. It's just a personal preference. I'm not going to argue if it's bad or good, but I'm certainly not going to let people pretend that it's not happening.

It's not that streaming wasn't happening. No one's saying that. It's that streaming is not a problem. If it's your personal preference, fine, but let's face it. Fran obviously lost, so why is streaming a bad thing? In fact, streaming has never proven to be a winning strategy in this league, in almost 10 years. If you don't like people padding numbers, that's fine, but it's still a strategy, and an apparently losing one at that. So what's the big deal?

[Curtis Lemansky]

That Fran came in 11th doesn't change things for me. When you say it isn't a problem, you mean it isn't a problem for you. It was a problem for Alci, who said he left the league in part because of it. It's a problem for me.

It is a problem for you because you prefer to play in a league where people dont make many moves. You are just using a false narrative of a streaming problem to get us play in a league with your preferred settings. You tried this in the old thread where your argument about the existence of a streaming problem has been ripped to shreds and you are again trying this in the new thread.

Your comment about the max movers not performing well, and that proving it's not an issue, are completely wrong. Two of the three folks who used max moves last season made the playoffs. Fran was the only one who didn't. All three made the playoffs the season before.

Please go ahead and read my post again. I have not said max movers dont perform well. However max movers does NOT equal streamers, a point which appears to be lost on you.

My post clearly indicates that nobody won anything by streaming, not a match-up, not a play-off round. Feel free to show an evidence to the contrary. Unless you can show me at least one instance of streaming affecting any end result, you cant really call it a problem.

Instead of trying to argue this doesn't exist or isn't an issue, when it clearly does, and is, let's just vote and move on.

Alright now this is getting on my nerves. It is CLEARLY NOT an issue. If it was an issue, at least a couple of gm's would have complained about it, raised their voice about it or at the very least would have supported you when you claimed the same thing about 2 months ago in the old thread. The only person who claim that it is a problem is YOU. I havent heard a beep from anyone else about a streaming problem. Even sabonis, who is pushing for a low number is proposing that not because of a streaming problem but because he thinks it adds a strategic dimension to the league (which he tried to explain it one of his older posts in the old thread). How is it clearly an issue when 90% of the league doesnt think so?

We have discussed about this so-called streaming problem for 5-6 pages in the old thread (starting from page 104) and not one gm besides you came out and said we have a streaming problem. Again you tried to create a streaming problem then and when we refuted all your points and nobody supported your claim, you posted:

I want to make it PERFECTLY clear that it was never my intention to imply that anything was wrong with managers that wanted to use 50 moves this prior season. I'm not saying, hinting, or anything else that you guys are somehow playing it wrong and I'm playing it right. Rather, that using that many moves adds a dimension to the game that lowers it's fun factor for some of us. It's just a matter of taste, nothing more, and it looks like there are some who really want to play that way, and some who really don't want to play that way.

Which was basically admitting what we have been saying all along. It is NOT A PROBLEM, it is a matter of your preference. which you are trying to push by using a false narrative of streaming problem.

I'm asking it here again: Does anyone else besides floppy think we have a streaming problem? If so, please let it be known.

[floppymoose]

In fact, streaming has never proven to be a winning strategy in this league, in almost 10 years.

Well, we just disagree on the facts.

I'm asking it here again: Does anyone else besides floppy think we have a streaming problem? If so, please let it be known.

Not sure why that matters. It doesn't change my or anyone else's mind about anything. The real question is:

45 or 60?

[writersblock]

In fact, streaming has never proven to be a winning strategy in this league, in almost 10 years.

Well, we just disagree on the facts.

What? What facts?
I see how streaming would be a problem in a regular 12-14 team league, but in this league, the facts are that no one has ever won streaming. You posted the "facts' proving this 3 posts ago. What facts are you referring to?

[Curtis Lemansky]

I'm asking it here again: Does anyone else besides floppy think we have a streaming problem? If so, please let it be known.

Not sure why that matters. It doesn't change my or anyone else's mind about anything. The real question is:

45 or 60?

It matters because if it is CLEARLY a problem, you'd think more than one gm would have voiced their concerns about it. Or all of us except you are incredibly dense since you are clearly the only one who seems to be capable of spotting this "problem".

[Curtis Lemansky]

Joe, I cant believe you are coming back at us with the same "streaming problem" argument again which we have refuted convincingly 3 months ago. At the end of the discussion you were forced to drop the entire "streaming problem" narrative and posted this which was what we have been telling all along.

I want to make it PERFECTLY clear that it was never my intention to imply that anything was wrong with managers that wanted to use 50 moves this prior season. I'm not saying, hinting, or anything else that you guys are somehow playing it wrong and I'm playing it right. Rather, that using that many moves adds a dimension to the game that lowers it's fun factor for some of us. It's just a matter of taste, nothing more, and it looks like there are some who really want to play that way, and some who really don't want to play that way.

The point is there is no streaming problem, there is simply the matter of preference.

And now you are trying the same thing again...