[FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST

[TDav540]

Originally Posted by MARS_James

Honestly just saying "A trade up in position during a future draft rotation yet to be determined" would have put everyone at ease.

+1

[EricH]

Brennan's got it--this is for fun.

I might consider putting a couple of trade restrictions in--but I much prefer "gentleman's agreements" that, say, full trades be announced. There's a couple of days to work with for considering, as Wednesday is an official off day for drafting (and we don't seem to have any drafts to catch up on.)



On another topic: Joseph, Falcon will be taking full random in San Diego tomorrow. (St. Louis will depend on whether I'm online when my slot opens.)



On yet another topic: For a future event, I happen to want points, without having teams at all, not even random ones. Obviously, I would be up for taking some point penalty short of having no points at that event. Would median team score, times three, work, or is there some better idea? (I'd probably be writing this one into the rules under a specific name--there's a very specific reason for this particular topic of discussion.)

[TDav540]

Originally Posted by EricH

On yet another topic: For a future event, I happen to want points, without having teams at all, not even random ones. Obviously, I would be up for taking some point penalty short of having no points at that event. Would median team score, times three, work, or is there some better idea? (I'd probably be writing this one into the rules under a specific name--there's a very specific reason for this particular topic of discussion.)

So, I'm of the mind that no risk, no reward. You shouldn't be able to gain points on any player due to not playing. So here's my thought: you can take no teams, but
1) You cannot make any trades related to that draft
2) You are ineligible to pick up teams off waivers for that event
3) Your score for that event is XX (agreed upon number or percentage) below the lowest scoring picking player.

Those would probably just be starting points. Loopholes would have to be closed for this.

[MARS_James]

Originally Posted by EricH

On yet another topic: For a future event, I happen to want points, without having teams at all, not even random ones. Obviously, I would be up for taking some point penalty short of having no points at that event. Would median team score, times three, work, or is there some better idea? (I'd probably be writing this one into the rules under a specific name--there's a very specific reason for this particular topic of discussion.)

I am curious as to why but I think this is actually a rule that if implemented could potentially be used unfairly. Lets say we have an event with 27 teams and 9 fantasy teams in the league in theory the teams should score in a point system similar to 27 down to 1 meaning the 9th pick gets 19, 18, and 1 point for 38 points but the median score would be 14 which times 3 is 42 meaning you get more points for not playing.

I also dislike this because in traditional fantasy sports, to my knowledge, you can't just say "I want the average score of all running backs across the league for my rb1 slot" (which btw would be really stupid)

[EricH]

Originally Posted by TDav540

So, I'm of the mind that no risk, no reward. You shouldn't be able to gain points on any player due to no playing. So here's my thought: you can take no teams, but
1) You cannot make any trades related to that draft
2) You are ineligible to pick up teams off waivers for that event
3) Your score for that event is XX (agreed upon number or percentage) below the lowest scoring picking player.

Those would probably just be starting points. Loopholes would have to be closed for this.

Basically, I want zero, repeat zero, teams in that particular draft. So the first two points are fine. But, I would rather be "with the pack"--that is, I don't want to lose position because I don't participate in a draft. (You'll have to trust me when I say that I have a really, really good reason not to play in that particular draft.) That puts the third point as unacceptable--I have seen players that are within 20 points of each other in final pre-champs score, no joke.

What about some score determined by unpicked teams? Naturally, FF players will pick the top teams wherever possible, but there's the offchance for a fluke. Average the unpicked teams, multiply by X (where 2<X<=3)?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by MARS_James

I am curious as to why but I think this is actually a rule that if implemented could potentially be used unfairly. Lets say we have an event with 27 teams and 9 fantasy teams in the league in theory the teams should score in a point system similar to 27 down to 1 meaning the 9th pick gets 19, 18, and 1 point for 38 points but the median score would be 14 which times 3 is 42 meaning you get more points for not playing.

I also dislike this because in traditional fantasy sports, to my knowledge, you can't just say "I want the average score of all running backs across the league for my rb1 slot" (which btw would be really stupid)

Right. One item I would have in the rule would be that the commissioner would have to approve the usage--or, the draft runner for that draft AND whichever draft runner was scheduled to run the most drafts (or second-most, if the first two were the same person), in the event that the commissioner is the one asking or is unavailable--and would have to be informed of the specific reasons prior to approving.

I had considered the "more points for not playing" part--I don't like that myself--and figured that usage should be very tightly controlled. As in, there has to be a specific reason to invoke it.

[EricH]

I've been asked to clarify the Northern Lights and San Diego situations.

So, just to state things as they stand:
Northern Lights, F3 has 2883 and RF has 27. (Result of trade requested and approved--as a result of RF drafting for F3.)
San Diego (not yet approved): RF currently HAS #7 (traded #2 to Untitled for a loosely-equivalent slot in AZ North), and is now working on trading #7 and #20 to F3 for #5 and #23.

Requested draft slots for RF: #5 (+2), #17 (original), #23 (-3)
Requested draft slots for F3: #7 (-2), #14 (original), #20 (+3)

I think that's fair, but I pity the San Diego draft runner keeping things straight!

The rulings:
I'm going to rule that San Diego is a fair trade.
I'm also going to rule that Northern Lights is a fair trade--it happened AFTER the draft was over, and there's no restriction on trading teams after the drafts (other than waivers, which this wasn't). Could have been a completely independent trade.
And one final ruling: All further slot trades are on hold until Shenzhen is posted. This is to give further discussion time and give a rookie draft runner a break from the hectic-ness around those trades. If something needs to be done to clarify slot-trade situations, then it'll be done and announced by the time Shenzhen is posted. Or there'll be a "nothing changing" announcement.

TBH, I'm mainly trying to buy some time here while the discussion(s) and considerations continue. I've got limited availability tomorrow due to non-FIRST volunteering (there is such a thing?), and Wednesday is a scheduled off-day, so there's time to consider things then.

[JosephC]

What about something like 60-70% of the mean drafted teams score times 3?

The only issue with the non-drafted teams mean is that it would probably be extremely low, considering the amount of teams in a regional that don't get picked. This could be offset by multiplying that mean by 1.5x or such, but then you run the risk in small regionals where the non-picked teams randomly pop off and score a lot of points.

Also with the non-picked teams, it doesn't account at all for your pick position, say if you were #1(It's entirely possible you invoke this as 1st pick given a good enough reason)(I can think of two off the top of my head). Using your #1 pick up for that rotation for points that would basically equal last pick or atleast close would definitely impact your ranking.

Another way would be to use pick position as a indicator of expected points and multiply the mean of picked teams by that, say +5-10% for each position you are above pick 5, -5-10% for each position you are below 5.

It's important to remember that the system would be extremely hard to abuse, as you'd need a very good reason to evoke it, and it'd have to be accepted, not just a "we can't make the draft today, instead of randoms or a picklist we want to evoke this rule". Also, I don't really see this being used by any teams with more than one member, its basically just a way for single person teams to completely remove themselves from a draft completely so they have no connection to any supposed bias for the event, at least thats how I infer it based on what Eric has been saying(say you end up being a judge of some sort for a competition and you end up giving a reward to a team you happen to have drafted, just one example of possible uses that I can see).

[Brian Maher]

I think a fair solution here would be to give someone who does not make a pick 2-3 times the average score of the top ten (maybe fifteen?) unpicked teams. That way, there is less of an inherent disadvantage of using this option at larger events with more teams that won't be picked.

[TDav540]

What about this: a score 5-10% lower than the lowest scoring player OR a score equal to the median of all undrafted teams, multiplied by three.

Take the score that's higher.

[Bkeeneykid]

Originally Posted by TDav540

What about this: a score 5-10% lower than the lowest scoring player OR a score equal to the median of all undrafted teams, multiplied by three.

Take the score that's higher.

Still, you have the problem with larger events of being a lot of unpicked teams, leaving you with a much lower score than a smaller event. How about the top number of teams that would have been picked including that team, if all drafted? So in a 10 team draft, the top 30 teams would be then taken the median from, then multiplied by three. Presumably, even with full random, you would still be off the median because you are either picking teams above the median, or with random, you would be taking teams below the median on average because the higher performing teams would be taken by the teams actually drafting.

[TDav540]

Just to help the San Diego draft runner, here's all the adjustments made in draft slot for that event:

Untitled Team owns TRF's first pick (#2)
TRF owns F3's first pick (#5)
F3 owns Untitled Team's first pick (#7)
F3 owns TRF's third pick (#20)
TRF owns F3's third pick (#23)

If I'm missing anything let me know, but I think that's it.

[BrennanB]

Why is there a scenario where you should be permitted to take zero teams? If I'm last pick in like. Shenzen (a weakish even that not many people know anything about) for example. If I just want an average and be guaranteed an average score.

I don't see a legitimate case where you wouldn't just take randoms. Randoms are more entertaining anyways. Maybe you get some killer teams maybe you don't.

I think FF should do everything in its power to incentivize actually picking teams and discourage people from not picking. I mean that's the whole point of this league is it not? We are here to pick teams not find some weird meta where it is better to not pick anybody.

As a side note. Should pick slots continue. I believe we should only be allowed to trade equally in the same teir. Matching pick order isn't enough.

If the rules don't change TBC will be accepting every and all trades of equal value where we get a better first team slot and you get a better second team slot. Or we get a better second team slot while you get a better third team slot. Contact us at an point as we will gladly take an inherently unfair trade to gain advantage from people. We would be glad to gain a significant advantage over everyone else

With this approved trade RF just boned F3 again. I'm sure it wasn't collusion, but one team definitely got the advantage. Though the draft position delta was the same. Teams don't follow a linear performance in points. RF definitely got the better deal (I mean it's still way better than the previous one)

TBC (pending approval) is also interested in trading for some select #3 overall pick draft positions.

[Pratik Kunapuli]

Just wondering, when will the San Diego (CASD) thread be up?

[JosephC]

Originally Posted by Pratik Kunapuli

Just wondering, when will the San Diego (CASD) thread be up?

Before the time the draft is supposed to start