Dreams And Dwightmares

2018 Commissioner's Corner

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Brotherbock said:

 

Oh I totally agree. Like I said, you could do this in one long weekend afternoon with a bunch of beer and nachos. Not a three month process by any means. But I think it would still be fun. Everyone sits down with their player data and calculates week 1, then you announce the results, player by player, and add up the totals for each matchup. Determine the winners, talk some smack, and move on to week 2. Could be something you do before your league's yearly regular FF draft. If everyone's got a phone/laptop/tablet, shooting over to pro-football-reference to get your team's stats would be easy enough. Wouldn't take too long at all. 

 

Then the next time, those particular years for those players are off limits, and you could do it again. :) 

 

Sounds horribly boring and pointless.  The entire fun and point of fantasy sports is the unexpected.  You draft guys based on predictions not on actual results.

 

I’d rather play “fantasy throw rocks at each other.” The basic premise is that you throw rocks at each other.  Someone says the word “fantasy” at some point so that it has relevance to this forum.  

 

I have plenty of other equally stupid ideas. I can do this all day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Brotherbock's idea.  Not enough to actually do it, but as an idea it is great.  I have thought about something similar.

 

Eras are different, though.  Roger Staubach is one of the greatest QBs in league history, but his passing numbers are a bit pedestrian by today's standards.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Rainyy said:

 

Sounds horribly boring and pointless.  The entire fun and point of fantasy sports is the unexpected.  You draft guys based on predictions not on actual results.

 

 

So you'd know off the top of your head the exact week-by-week stats of a given player in a given year? Quick, who had more passing yards in Week 3 in 2011, Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees? You know that off the top of your head? Incredible. I am truly impressed that such a league would not at all feature any unexpected results in the win-loss columns for you. Wow. Yeah, I guess if you have that kind of otherworldly memory, then playing in a game like this wouldn't be fun for you.

 

I suspect for people like me, just sad people going through life without being able to remember the weekly stats of hundreds and hundreds of players across decades, this might contain the unexpected. To each their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brotherbock said:

 

So you'd know off the top of your head the exact week-by-week stats of a given player in a given year? Quick, who had more passing yards in Week 3 in 2011, Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees? You know that off the top of your head? Incredible. I am truly impressed that such a league would not at all feature any unexpected results in the win-loss columns for you. Wow. Yeah, I guess if you have that kind of otherworldly memory, then playing in a game like this wouldn't be fun for you.

 

I suspect for people like me, just sad people going through life without being able to remember the weekly stats of hundreds and hundreds of players across decades, this might contain the unexpected. To each their own.

 

I think his point is that all the information is available.

Edited by K197040

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, K197040 said:

 

I think his point is that all the information is available.

 

His point was that we play FF for the unexpected. Saying that this wouldn't be fun, given his reason, implies that he thinks there wouldn't be anything unexpected. What I'm trying to point out is that almost everything actually will be unexpected.

 

You wouldn't do something like this as a 'total points' league. That clearly would be just a matter of adding up season stats and you're done. But as a weekly head to head league, everyone with 'the greatest players' in history on their teams...no idea who is going to win on a given week. 

 

Not being defensive about whether anyone would like it. Probably most people wouldn't want to take the time to actually do it. I haven't yet :) But the idea that there's nothing unexpected to find out is just incorrect.

 

(In fact, it would be an even cooler challenge to do it with people  who haven't looked at the exact stats first. You remember Randy Moss set the receiving TD record...one year. But do you remember which year? If you could get people to not look first, that might even be more fun. You think you got Randy's great year, but you accidentally drafted his Raiders year! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Brotherbock said:

 

His point was that we play FF for the unexpected. Saying that this wouldn't be fun, given his reason, implies that he thinks there wouldn't be anything unexpected. What I'm trying to point out is that almost everything actually will be unexpected.

 

You wouldn't do something like this as a 'total points' league. That clearly would be just a matter of adding up season stats and you're done. But as a weekly head to head league, everyone with 'the greatest players' in history on their teams...no idea who is going to win on a given week. 

 

Not being defensive about whether anyone would like it. Probably most people wouldn't want to take the time to actually do it. I haven't yet :) But the idea that there's nothing unexpected to find out is just incorrect.

 

(In fact, it would be an even cooler challenge to do it with people  who haven't looked at the exact stats first. You remember Randy Moss set the receiving TD record...one year. But do you remember which year? If you could get people to not look first, that might even be more fun. You think you got Randy's great year, but you accidentally drafted his Raiders year! :)

 

I'll go back to my original response..."wtf"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, Brotherbock said:

 

Which is still as helpful and informative as ever :)

 

For this to work, you have to have some variability to it.   And not just rely on the old stats.    Those older players stats need to be adjusted as if they were playing in today's NFL with current rules.   

 

Also, you could build a simulation program that would upgrade those older players bodies using more recent training/nutritional regiments.   And then generate new stats for them based on their new physical traits.    

 

To get away from using the old stats, you could also make it so that each NFL player had a corresponding current NBA player so you would combine the known stats of the NFL player with the unknown stats of the current NBA player using the ongoing games.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, K197040 said:

 

 

For this to work, you have to have some variability to it.   And not just rely on the old stats.    Those older players stats need to be adjusted as if they were playing in today's NFL with current rules.   

 

 

 

 

Will just address the mildly serious part there. It actually is interesting, despite you not meaning it to be, to think about how to compare stats of someone like Unitas with someone like Manning. This league idea aside. Would there be a reliable multiplication factor that could be used to get a good read on how many yards Unitas would pass for in 2018? I'd think it would be possible with enough data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Brotherbock said:

 

 Would there be a reliable multiplication factor that could be used to get a good read on how many yards Unitas would pass for in 2018?

 

Yes...with the player being defined by x...

 

x * p

 

with p being the factor needed to bring player x to 2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, K197040 said:

 

Yes...with the player being defined by x...

 

x * p

 

with p being the factor needed to bring player x to 2018

 

Right, so we just have to solve for p :)

 

1959, Unitas passed for 2899/32. Holy crap, just looked that up. That's huge for that era. Anyway, if we claim that his 1959 is the 2013 Manning of his era, we're off and running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Brotherbock said:

 

Right, so we just have to solve for p :)

 

1959, Unitas passed for 2899/32. Holy crap, just looked that up. That's huge for that era. Anyway, if we claim that his 1959 is the 2013 Manning of his era, we're off and running.

 

so that gives me an idea to make it more interesting and not just based on old stats

 

every week, generate a random value for p for all the players.   the value should be from between -1 and 10.

 

Since you'd be doing this every week,  there would be some excitement in not knowing the results.  And if someone had a lesser player but had the luck of p=10, they could overcome a tough match up.   It would simulate lower ranked players "going off" on any given weekend.  

Edited by K197040

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few owners in my league are upset over a Week 4 trade of Lindsay & John Brown for K. Hunt. 

 

Two issues brought up by these owners

 

1. They think the trade is lopsided (which I think is BS). League policy is to reject obvious lop-sided deals. 

2. The Commissioner approved his own trade. However, the league rule is the Commissioner approves all trades (there's no co-commish).

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pooskay said:

A few owners in my league are upset over a Week 4 trade of Lindsay & John Brown for K. Hunt. 

 

Two issues brought up by these owners

 

1. They think the trade is lopsided (which I think is BS). League policy is to reject obvious lop-sided deals. 

2. The Commissioner approved his own trade. However, the league rule is the Commissioner approves all trades (there's no co-commish).

 

Thoughts?

 

The trade must stand.  First, this trade isn’t so lopsided as to threaten the balance of your league.

 

Lindsay has been a solid RB2 and he has upside for more with Freeman hurt.  Brown has a ton of potential and came off a great week. WR2 isn’t out of the question. 

 

Yes, I think the Hunt dude won, but I certainly see scenarios where Brown/Lindsay outperform.  Every trade involves some degree of risk.  

 

Second, your league’s failure to address the situation where your commissioner himself makes a trade, is not the commissioner’s problem.

 

The rule is literally that the commissioner shall review trades. He did just that.

 

One question though:  you say league policy is to reject facially lopsided trades.  How has this determination been made in the past? Does the league discuss for X amount of time? Does the commissioner do it sua sponte?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, K197040 said:

 

so that gives me an idea to make it more interesting and not just based on old stats

 

every week, generate a random value for p for all the players.   the value should be from between -1 and 10.

 

Since you'd be doing this every week,  there would be some excitement in not knowing the results.  And if someone had a lesser player but had the luck of p=10, they could overcome a tough match up.   It would simulate lower ranked players "going off" on any given weekend.  

I would eliminate any era adjustments, but just go on raw numbers. So sure, most of the would be modern.

 

But, you could make it interesting by giving it a bunch of randomness.

First, take the numbers 1 -17 and thrown them in a hat. Then, everyone sets their lineup for week 1. Then, once all the lineups are set, you draw out of a hat to determine which week's stats you use in week 1. (in other words, in week 1, each team might be using week 12's stats for their players). Do this for every week.

 

Also, you could use a multiplier as suggested. Just use a dice or something and each player's total output is multiplied by their dice roll. I wouldn't make it too drastic, say a 1 gives you 90%, a 2 gives you 95%, 3/4 is 100%, and 5 is 105% and 6 is 110%.

 

If you really wanted to get fancy you could get a die with more than 6 sides and go nuts. But if you did it this way, you actually might not know the final score until the dice rolls are over, making the game exciting while everyone sits around watching.

 

I've got a few  more idea here, but I feel I've nerded out way too much already.

Edited by andypro77
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, andypro77 said:

I would eliminate any era adjustments, but just go on raw numbers. So sure, most of the would be modern.

 

But, you could make it interesting by giving it a bunch of randomness.

First, take the numbers 1 -17 and thrown them in a hat. Then, everyone sets their lineup for week 1. Then, once all the lineups are set, you draw out of a hat to determine which week's stats you use in week 1. (in other words, in week 1, each team might be using week 12's stats for their players). Do this for every week.

 

Also, you could use a multiplier as suggested. Just use a dice or something and each player's total output is multiplied by their dice roll. I wouldn't make it too drastic, say a 1 gives you 90%, a 2 gives you 95%, 3/4 is 100%, and 5 is 105% and 6 is 110%.

 

If you really wanted to get fancy you could get a die with more than 6 sides and go nuts. But if you did it this way, you actually might not know the final score until the dice rolls are over, making the game exciting while everyone sits around watching.

 

I've got a few  more idea here, but I feel I've nerded out way too much already.

 

That's too complicated.  No one would want to play under those parameters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, K197040 said:

 

That's too complicated.  No one would want to play under those parameters.

How so? The dice is just running with your idea of a random p value, that's all.

And figuring out which week's stats to use takes 5 seconds to draw it out of a hat, and another 10 seconds to match the week with the stats for the player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, andypro77 said:

How so? The dice is just running with your idea of a random p value, that's all.

And figuring out which week's stats to use takes 5 seconds to draw it out of a hat, and another 10 seconds to match the week with the stats for the player.

 

It just seems like you added unnecessary levels of complexity.   

You even mentioned a die with more than six sides.   I appreciate the thought you put into it but I think you're taking a simple game and turning it into an laborious mental exercise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rainyy said:

One question though:  you say league policy is to reject facially lopsided trades.  How has this determination been made in the past? Does the league discuss for X amount of time? Does the commissioner do it sua sponte?

 

Commish determines if trade is lopsided. This  policy has basically made every trade accepted. In the past, there was a time when a co-commish existed and the trade would be discussed and then approved/rejected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Pooskay said:

 

Commish determines if trade is lopsided. This  policy has basically made every trade accepted. In the past, there was a time when a co-commish existed and the trade would be discussed and then approved/rejected.

wonder what happen when the trade involve both co-comish and comish? LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pooskay said:

A few owners in my league are upset over a Week 4 trade of Lindsay & John Brown for K. Hunt. 

 

Two issues brought up by these owners

 

1. They think the trade is lopsided (which I think is BS). League policy is to reject obvious lop-sided deals. 

2. The Commissioner approved his own trade. However, the league rule is the Commissioner approves all trades (there's no co-commish).

 

Thoughts?

First, it’s a bit late to be upset about it now, isn’t it? Did they protest it week 4?  Or were they ok with the trade when Hunt wasn’t exploding every week? Secondly if it doesn’t appear to be collusion then I see no reason to veto it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GreatScott! said:

First, it’s a bit late to be upset about it now, isn’t it? Did they protest it week 4?  Or were they ok with the trade when Hunt wasn’t exploding every week? Secondly if it doesn’t appear to be collusion then I see no reason to veto it. 

 

Spot on. Owners got salty after Hunt blew up and the protest was virtually non-existent week 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TonyVH said:

wonder what happen when the trade involve both co-comish and comish? LOL

 

lol good question.

 

The trade policy is pretty open and easy with the way it is right now. Commish just rejects blatantly lop-sided trades. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Virtually all commissioners play in the leagues they run.  Who else would care enough?  We have a "Council of the Wise" system for reviewing controversies involving the commissioner's team directly.  One trusted veteran team manager from each division (three divisions) reviews the issue and makes a decision.  It works great but we have not had to use it in several years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pooskay said:

A few owners in my league are upset over a Week 4 trade of Lindsay & John Brown for K. Hunt. 

 

Two issues brought up by these owners

 

1. They think the trade is lopsided (which I think is BS). League policy is to reject obvious lop-sided deals. 

2. The Commissioner approved his own trade. However, the league rule is the Commissioner approves all trades (there's no co-commish).

 

Thoughts?

Trades are trades unless collusion can be proved. We don't even have a veto system, it's just league manager approved. 

 

We also play 150 per squad and future draft picks can be traded, so that completely dissuades collusion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...