Originally Posted by nate
Back in March it was proposed that teams can trade picks only if none of the picks are the pick currently on the clock. If we're going to allow pick trading again I think we should keep that policy.
I vote for 3-5 more spots. That should be plenty.
Last edited by redsfandan; 09-22-2009 at 06:39 AM.
I'm not necessarily for it, but if we're trying to be realistic, that's the most realistic.
Also, we might find we prefer rule changes that cause us to look into alternatives to Yahoo.
the 4 P spots that aren't designated closers or SP's are usually taken by closers or SP's. In my case i burned through my innings way too soon. to combat this, adding holds as a stat might actually benefit everyone in keeping their innings down.
Just a thought.
Dubito Ergo Cogito Ergo Sum.
I'm just going to say it--I hate Holds with a passion. Fantasy baseball has always used silly stats like Ws and RBIs, but Holds just takes the stupidity to a whole new level. Who actually follows/cares about Holds?
I was going to bring it up later but I agree with 'clogger. I think Wins, RBI and Saves are lame stats and depend more on the team than the player.
If we're making teams of players, let's use stats that aren't team dependent. Or, at least, use stats that are less team dependent. For example, replace RBI with SLG or OB% (yes, I know Yahoo probably doesn't supposrt that). Heck, how about OBP or wOBA instead of AVG?
For pitching, how about something like K-rate and/or K/BB instead of saves, wins and/or Ks? We might be looking at a MINIMUM inning requirement in that case.
I know this is all beyond the scope of Yahoo but as I said earlier, perhaps this league will move beyond that. I'm surprised there isn't an open source, Web2.0 fantasy framework out there.
Or maybe there is.
Nate, I love your thinking but it's fantasy baseball for a reason. I like using the silly stat categories. It adds charm to the game. But just don't include Holds, please!
I think RBI, pitching wins and saves are as silly as holds!
Nate, I love your thinking but it's fantasy baseball for a reason. I like using the silly stat categories. It adds charm to the game. But just don't include Holds, please!
I was curious about what stat categories were possible of the ones that nate listed. Unfortunately, when I checked I came across this:
We may not be able to increase the roster sizes beyond 30 unless we use something besides Yahoo.What are the customizable features of my Custom League?
Commissioners can customize their Custom Leagues in many ways — even after completing the registration process.
The Edit League Settings option found among the Commissioner Tools, allows for alteration of virtually all settings right up to draft day, and many all season long.
Rotisserie and Fantasy Points Settings:
Type of Scoring
Rotisserie;
Fantasy Points
Teams in League 1-20
Players per Team 8-30
Player Universe
All baseball;
AL only;
NL only
Maximum Player Acquisitions per Season
None Allowed;
No Maximum;
1-100
Maximum Trades
None Allowed;
No Maximum;
1-40
....
Well, I did not know that.
I checked the rules and confirmed your observation. Unless Yahoo changes their maximum roster limit of 30 next year we will not be able to exceed 30. So that pretty much ends the roster size discussion.
Let's just go ahead and expand the roster size by one to 30 and leave it at that.
Or we could discuss the idea that nate threw out:
Agreed. That is now an official rule.
I am not necessarily opposed to using a service other than Yahoo. My experience in prior seasons is that Yahoo is superior to the others, so I would have to be convinced that another service is as reliable and easy to use as Yahoo before I would consider switching.
CBS Sportsline has some good options for minor league rosters, but it is not free. I don't think it is as easy to use either. I wouldn't mind paying some money for a superior service, but it would have to be a unanimous decision.
I have not been impressed with the ESPN fantasy system, but I haven't tried it in the last couple years.
CBS Sportsline trumps all in my experience. It's got by far the most options. As you mentioned, though, it's not free. It's $160 per season.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
Less than $15 per team doesn't seem excessive to me but I don't know how everyone else feels about going from free to forking over a few bucks. I've heard that Sportsline also lists alot more prospects than Yahoo.
From my point of view it's simple--Yahoo is the easiest to use but CBS has the best features. But since Yahoo is free I don't really think it's very close...
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote