|
Zauper posted:I'd generally favor expanding roster for draft (and ignoring cap) and requiring compliance by 24h from draft end. I appear to have ownership of a team in the 2016 league, but not the 2017 league. Help? Thinking trade... anyone interested in Dez or McFadden?
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
That team, Titoons, had metapods email on it still. Hah, and the other one didn't have ANY email. I love MFL. What is your email addy? PM me or email lepers forums username@gmail
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Zauper posted:I'd generally favor expanding roster for draft (and ignoring cap) and requiring compliance by 24h from draft end. I dont think ignoring the cap and letting everyone draft whoever they want is a good idea. Last year we had guys stop drafting in round 4 because they were full. That left more guys for the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Zauper posted:I appear to have ownership of a team in the 2016 league, but not the 2017 league. Help? God dammit I swear I updated that team already, MFL also forgot Teemu's email earlier. loving... the web UI even remembered his name when I started typing it in! OK it's fixed. Spermy I've got Zauper's email addy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:I dont think ignoring the cap and letting everyone draft whoever they want is a good idea. Last year we had guys stop drafting in round 4 because they were full. That left more guys for the rest of us. Providing 3 temporary bench slots designated for rookies who are going straight to the taxi squad might make sense, though, as would permitting someone to temporarily bust the cap by the total of those three rookie's salaries. It'd effectively let us permit owners to do what we were talking about earlier (draft straight to taxi) without having to manually update rosters mid-draft. Essentially, they'd be fake "taxi squad" roster bench slots as a stand-in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
I'm in favor of fake roster spots
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Just occurred to me - does anyone have a slack or a discord or something? Might be more fun than relying on the MFL chat system, during the draft.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
Aug 31st, Sept 1st both fine for me... after 9:30est is fine, preferably later. I'm MST.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
We used GroupMe for the Fish Bowl draft. It worked pretty well
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:God dammit I swear I updated that team already, MFL also forgot Teemu's email earlier. loving... the web UI even remembered his name when I started typing it in! You do (and Spermy, it's myusername @ gmail). However... According to MFL I still don't own the team and didn't receive an email.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
Zauper posted:You do (and Spermy, it's myusername @ gmail). However... According to MFL I still don't own the team and didn't receive an email. Yeah, MFL cleared out the email of Straight Bass Homie and left your teams email to be the old owner. Apparently when you roll to 2017 very recent changes don't get rolled over. Weird. Just forwarded you the email.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:Yeah, MFL cleared out the email of Straight Bass Homie and left your teams email to be the old owner. Apparently when you roll to 2017 very recent changes don't get rolled over. I'm in now, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
The Zack posted:We used GroupMe for the Fish Bowl draft. It worked pretty well why is there yet another loving group chat thing, why
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Group Me can be done via text too. Not just an app. So it's sort of unique, but having your phone ding ding ding ding ding before you chuck it across the room is annoying. I have groupme and discord I think. I was just gonna fire up the webcam and see if Lepers balls fall out of his shorts again this year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
I've already got IRC, skype, mumble, slack, and discord installed on my PC. It's like every time I get used to another chat thing, all the cool kids are using yet another loving thing. And yet the old ones still get enough use that I can't just dump them either. I remember when IM clients proliferated, we had meta-clients like Trillian and then Pidgin. Is there something like that for the modern ones?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
can we just do an AIM chat?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
dammit we're gonna do a party call on a hard phone line, AT&T or somebody must still support that, right? Someone get me a capn' crunch whistle so I can blow 2600hz into the receiver in a phone booth
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
I have a Webex, GoToMeeting, and Teamviewer account and we could use any one of them to host a 25-way conference call or video call. Just throwin it out there as an option.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
I have discord and groupme and also hangouts I guess e: also I didn't forget to look over everything, I'm on my way home from work now
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
I just changed blind bid waivers settings so you cannot add rookies. We will turn that setting back on after this coming wednesday's waivers. In the meantime I don't know if the interface will explicitly block you from trying to add a rookie, so just... don't try to add a rookie. They all have (r) after their names in MFL.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
I just tested if as commish we can see waivers pending for other teams. We can. Team McLean has no pending waivers right now (because he has roster violations and cant). I mentioned it to Leper and he found a way to lock us as commish out from that. If there are any issues we will need to turn it back on, but you will all get an email on it as you saw a minute ago. This prevents us as commish from seeing blind bids and ensures a level playing field.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
I started putting in the season schedule but got distracted by stuff so I'll finish it tomorrow probably. In the meantime if you want to see your matchups for the year, check the "2017 Season Schedule" tab on the spreadsheet. The method I use to create the schedule ensures that the team you don't play each year is different, and that the two weeks you play each of your division rivals rotates so that you play a given rival a different pair of weeks each year on a three-year cycle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
Our 13 weeks of regular season matchups have been entered. Please take a moment to look over your matchups. You should face each in-division rival twice: one on weeks 1 and 9, one on weeks 4 and 11, and one on weeks 7 and 13. For the remaining 7 games, you should face one ex-division team once and once only; and there should be one ex-division team you don't face this year. For example, BALLS OF FURY faces First Down Syndrome weeks 1 and 9, Who Da Titoons? weeks 4 and 11, and Gridiron Chefs weeks 7 and 13; and BALLS will not play I'm Pretty Garbage At This this year (unless they meet in the post-season). Also, Spermy Smurf and I appear to both favor Option A. If any of the rest of you care, please weigh in soon; I'd like to get that nailed down, since it may affect people's decisions about whether, and when, to drop players (e.g., we all need to know in advance whether we can set up free agent adds that drop players if the bid wins, vs. just bidding on players straight.) Leperflesh posted:Option A: Secondarily, I think it'd be cool to go ahead and add three bench slots just before the rookie draft; after the draft, for each of those slots that aren't empty, you must move a rookie to your taxi squad, and I'll then remove the bench slots. Doing this means you do not need to clear as many bench slots ahead of the draft: for example, if you are intending to draft four rookies, you'd only have to clear one bench slot, since three of your rookies can fit on your taxi squad. We should also set a specific date after which taxi squad thefts can begin. Like, maybe a full day after the rookie draft, to give everyone a chance to shuffle around their rookies etc.?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
Option A seems fine to me especially with the extra bench slots for the draft.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Epi Lepi posted:Option A seems fine to me especially with the extra bench slots for the draft. Agreed. (Also, we are allowed to drop players currently, right?)
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
Zauper posted:(Also, we are allowed to drop players currently, right?) Yes, get your team set up for the Waivers and the draft.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:Yes, get your team set up for the Waivers and the draft. Gotcha -- Anyone interested in Dez? I'm dropping him otherwise, so this is a chance to deny him to your opponents!
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Dez for $45? Ugh that's steep. If you drop him and we all bid on him like idiots it's probably not going to drop much either. Should be a fun waiver period this year!
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:Dez for $45? Yeah, I think he's a bit overpaid at that price, but he's still likely to be a top contributor -- just doesn't fit with two other highly expensive WRs on the team, yikes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
I just noticed we have conditional blind bidding turned off. Conditional bidding allows you to use logic within a set (or "group" as MFL calls them) of bids. So for example, Group 1 bid: $5 for player BOB BOBBERSON Or $3 for player SMITH SMITHERSON Group 2 bid: $8 for player DUDE DUDEBRO Or $3 for player SMITH SMITHERSON With this bid setup, you would first bid for dude dudebro. Regardless of whether you got him or not, you'd next bid for bob bobberson. Then, if you didn't get either dude or bob, you'd bid for smith smitherson. If you got either dude or bob, the system would ignore your smith smitherson bid. Here's MFL's help pages on it: http://www64.myfantasyleague.com/2017/support?L=79286&FAQ=266 This one spells out examples in full detail: http://www03.myfantasyleague.com/2016/support?L=71137&FAQ=537&SKIP=1 I really want to turn this on. It means for example if you're trying to pick up one free agent at a position, but you're not sure your bid will be high enough, you can bid on two or three or four players in that position while still guaranteeing you don't accidentally wind up with all four guys. Given we seem to be going for Option A, this is important: if you by chance overload on guys in the auction, you could wind up filling your roster and unable to make any drops before the rookie draft, potentially limiting your rookie picks to as few as three. Any objections to turning on conditional bidding? e. note the system can be surprisingly weird if you don't fully understand it. The last example on that second page is quite surprising: quote:Conditional Blind Bid Example #2: You might think Team A should get Player 2 for his $101 bid, but he doesn't, because that bid was part of Group 1, as his second choice. Even though he lost his Group 1 first bid for Player 1, the fact his bid for Player 2 was covered up - in second rank - means anyone with a first-rank bid on Player 2 gets priority. Team A could have avoided losing Player 2 by reversing the order of his bids in Group 1. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Aug 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:
I vote to turn this on so I can cut down my 12 bids that would waste my entire FAAB budget for the year if I won them all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
We can also limit how many groups a given owner can enter. The dropdown permits any number between 1 and 8. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:We can also limit how many groups a given owner can enter. The dropdown permits any number between 1 and 8. I'd vote turn it on at 5 or so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Teemu dead. And yeah, at least for this waiver thing turn on maybe 5.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
My weekend has been crazy, but I'm back now. I know you already moved forward on some of this stuff, and I didn't see anything that I thought looked particularly incorrect, but I'm just gonna give my gut reactions to everything for posterity. 1. Add the defensive flex position and one more roster slot. Bearing in mind we only have a plurality decision there, and two members were against it. Yes, Add defensive flex, add 1 roster slot,. I would even say we could use 2 or 3 with a slightly nerfed scoring to get some of the better IDPs off the wire, but that's a different can of worms that we probably shouldn't open 2. Decide on the salary rules for next year, but make no changes to the rookie/free agent salary scale this year. The general consensus is to increase them, but only half the league said to do so, with one opposed and six non-voters. Suggestions for next year's scale? I'm with Spermy on the 3 year ELC type deal if we could figure out how that will be implemented. Otherwise, I don't see much that could really change w/r/t the upper limit of cost. I think maybe a more gradual reduction in cost might be the way to go, again, that's something we'll probably have to workshop. What Spermy posted seems like a pretty great start 3. separate out rookies from free agents. It's unclear if we should also postpone that for next year. I'm inclined to do it immediately: we have over a week before our probable drafting day, so we could have a one-week free agency period/FAAB of non-rookies only, and then do the rookie draft; or, we could do the rookie/free agent draft the same as last year, and plan for that FAAB period next year. I'm also not sure whether this one-off FAAB period should come out of the annual FAAB budgets or not. Probably not? It's not a hill I'm willing to die on, but I don't feel too great about deducting pre-season FA acquisitions from the in season FAAB budget. You guys seem to know more about how much money is typically thrown around in season, but I do think it's very common for in- and end-of-season values to change drastically from those during the pre-season. I just have visions of someone dropping a not-insignificant chunk of change on an FA RB during the pre-season waiver period, only to have that guy go down during the season, and then not having enough money to make a serious push for that guy's backup. I'm inclined to believe that as long as you're cap compliant before the season starts, there's no reason to make cap management a harder to navigate prospect by tapping into your FA money before the season even starts. 4. None of the above seems to affect the 10% salary increase, so unless one of you speaks up in the next 24 hours, I'm gonna do it No issues 8. Someone needs to set up the FAAB schedule in MFL. I keep getting dire notifications from them about how the interface has changed and all leagues need to do it over since last year. And on this note, we discussed last year moving the second FAAB auction to Saturday evening and the general consensus at the time was that that would be fine. The poll said “no changes to waivers periods” so lets not change anything same 9. We have several more rules changes to discuss. None of them affect things for the next week, but we do need to add interception return yards, blocked field goal return yards, and fumble recovery return yards. This got voted down go with the consensus: QB Hits, QB Hurries, Sacked yards, tackle for loss yards QB Hits and Hurries voted to go, the rest of it didn’t. go with consensus Recovering a fumble could be worth something. If the QB fumbles it and the RB jumps on it, that could be 2pts to the RB or something. But then we'd have to make losing a fumble -3 so that if you recover your own fumble you still get -1 overall or something. I dunno. This was a tie, and I voted for it so…. I vote yes to the following: -2 to fumbles(same as current), +1 for recovering fumbles same I propose a new rule: teams eliminated from the real playoffs should have their taxi squad players be immune from theft, and teams on BYE cannot steal players. Otherwise these last three weeks, there's too much shenanigan potential by teams just looking to grab value for next season. Good idea, I am in favor Some ideas for weekly incentives, "best scoring RB" or "closest game loser" or whatever. This got voted down hard so I vote no go with consensus consolation bracket winner getting 1.13 draft pick or something of the sort. This got voted down hard so I vote no go with consensus 1: An owner can only try to steal one player from another owner's taxi squad in any given week. (That means you can try to steal from three different owners simultaneously, but only one player from each.) 2: Rule 9.9.1 currently says you notify the owner, plus the three commissioners. In practice, it's easier to just notify everyone. So I propose to change the rule to say that you have to both post in this thread, and, sent a message to the league. That should be easier and less confusing. Voting yes. same 3. Rule 9.9.3 uses the word "player" when it should be "owner". I'd like to fix that for clarity. 4. There should be a deadline after which taxi squad players can't be stolen. I suggest after the week 13 games (which is when playoffs are entirely settled). Voting yes. same 5. Possibly there should be another restriction: I think it'd be fair to say that teams mathematically eliminated from playoff contention should not be allowed to steal taxi squad players. This prevents a "sour grapes" theft from a playoff-contending team just to screw with them, without regard to the actual startability of the taxi squad player. The intent of the taxi squad theft rules is to let a struggling team grab a startable player to help them win matches from another team that isn't using him - not to allow kingmaking or punitive thefts to punish rivals. I'm not suggesting that's actually happened, it's just an obvious exploit we haven't covered. Voting yes. same Weekly prizes? No same Oh, and does our taxi squad stealing specify it cant start until Rosters are editable on Tuesday? If not it should. Should be able to post in the thread and email the intent, and it’ll take effect Tuesday so the owner of the player can think about it and let him go or play him. agree Yeah I agree, we definitely should make it so IDP guys can get credit for rushing and receiving yards and touchdowns. Help me remember to do that after the season's over. Voting yes, this is just a blanket scoring change. Under the “Rules for QB RB WR TE” it’ll just add in “LB, DE, DT, CB, S” so it’s really a non-issue.. agree We should put something in the rules that anyone being claimed via taxi squad is ineligible to be traded away either. Voting yes, thought that was the case anyway agree Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Aug 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I just noticed we have conditional blind bidding turned off. I just turned this poo poo on. We've got 24hrs before drops are locked, so we gotta move on this.  Edit: This clears any and all waivers anyone had put in so redo your waivers.
Spermy Smurf fucked around with this message at 13:06 on Aug 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
When are waivers supposed to process?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
The initial FAAB Waivers which is Vets only that we talked about is Wednesday at 11am. Then it's locked until the draft again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
poo poo, sorry for some reason I thought I'd already done it. Thanks Spermy, and sorry everyone for the delay. This weekend got suddenly busy when we noticed water running out our A/C unit, through our furnace, and onto the ground under the house, and it's been doing it for probably months. Got that sorted out though, thank gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
Teemu Pokemon posted:Yes, Add defensive flex, add 1 roster slot,. I would even say we could use 2 or 3 with a slightly nerfed scoring to get some of the better IDPs off the wire, but that's a different can of worms that we probably shouldn't open Did this last week. I agree with your logic but yeah we should discuss that for next year. quote:It's not a hill I'm willing to die on, but I don't feel too great about deducting pre-season FA acquisitions from the in season FAAB budget. You guys seem to know more about how much money is typically thrown around in season, but I do think it's very common for in- and end-of-season values to change drastically from those during the pre-season. I just have visions of someone dropping a not-insignificant chunk of change on an FA RB during the pre-season waiver period, only to have that guy go down during the season, and then not having enough money to make a serious push for that guy's backup. I'm inclined to believe that as long as you're cap compliant before the season starts, there's no reason to make cap management a harder to navigate prospect by tapping into your FA money before the season even starts. Yeah I really don't know how this is going to go, it's a big experiment. I have no sense of how much people are digging into their faab dollars for this veteran auction. It's weird, I started playing around with the conditionals and even with only 5 groups max, it's possible to overestimate how much other owners are bidding and wind up maybe winning all five and blowing a ton of money if you're not careful. There's a handful of stars on the waiver wire that could bring in a lot of money! Or maybe not! I just... yeah, there's no advice for this, we're on our own. I think once we see how this year goes, we'll have a better shot at figuring out if this was a bad idea. quote:The poll said “no changes to waivers periods” so lets not change anything same IIRC it was mostly... atomictyler?... who wanted the saturday waiver to be pushed later in the day - late enough to see who practiced and use that to decide whether or not a Questionable player is gonna play. He made a pretty impassioned argument! But maybe nobody else cares. My own approach has always been to assume a Questionable player might not play, and be sure to roster a replacement by saturday; I don't gamble with the possibility of having nobody to start at a position. This costs bench slots and overall flexibility, so there's a tradeoff to being prepared, and I think that tradeoff is interesting and worthy. That said, pushing the auction back from saturday morning to saturday evening doesn't seem like a big change that would really screw owners, so I'd be willing to discuss it again. And the vote for "no change" was as previously mentioned very poorly attended, and I don't remember if the two guys who dropped out this summer voted which could reduce further the tiny plurality that is controlling this decision if we go with the vote result. Right now the status quo prevails. quote:QB Hits, QB Hurries, Sacked yards, tackle for loss yards QB Hits and Hurries voted to go, the rest of it didn’t. go with consensus One point each? Half a point each? A quarter? We have never discussed the points values for these. quote:Recovering a fumble could be worth something. If the QB fumbles it and the RB jumps on it, that could be 2pts to the RB or something. But then we'd have to make losing a fumble -3 so that if you recover your own fumble you still get -1 overall or something. I dunno. This was a tie, and I voted for it so…. I vote yes to the following: -2 to fumbles(same as current), +1 for recovering fumbles same OK I agree: -2 pts for fumbles, +1 pts for fumble recoveries. Our current scoring is set to: Across all positions (including offense and IDP) we have "Fumbles Lost (to Opponent)" (-2pts) and "Fumble Recoveries (from Opponent)" (+3pts). Additionally, on IDP players only, we have "Fumble Recoveries on Defense" (+3pts), "Fumble Recoveries on Special Teams" (+3pts) and "Forced Fumbles" (+4pts). Our options for fumble scoring are:   OK so to get what we want, we need: ALL POSITIONS: Fumbles (-2 pts) ALL POSITIONS: Fumble Recoveries (from Opponent) (+3pts) ALL POSITIONS: Number of Own Fumble Recoveries (+1pts) "Own Fumble Recoveries" is for a player's own team, not just himself, so this should cover all cases. Right? quote:I propose a new rule: teams eliminated from the real playoffs should have their taxi squad players be immune from theft, and teams on BYE cannot steal players. Otherwise these last three weeks, there's too much shenanigan potential by teams just looking to grab value for next season. quote:1: An owner can only try to steal one player from another owner's taxi squad in any given week. (That means you can try to steal from three different owners simultaneously, but only one player from each.) Added to our rules document, section 9. Rule 5 here adds to the one above to basically say, owners eliminated from playoffs can neither steal nor be stolen from, so that's the new Rule 9.11. quote:Oh, and does our taxi squad stealing specify it cant start until Rosters are editable on Tuesday? If not it should. Should be able to post in the thread and email the intent, and it’ll take effect Tuesday so the owner of the player can think about it and let him go or play him. agree Added to our rules document quote:Yeah I agree, we definitely should make it so IDP guys can get credit for rushing and receiving yards and touchdowns. Help me remember to do that after the season's over. Voting yes, this is just a blanket scoring change. Under the “Rules for QB RB WR TE” it’ll just add in “LB, DE, DT, CB, S” so it’s really a non-issue.. agree IDP guys already get credit for rushing and receiving TDs, just not yards. If I just add those positions to the "Rules for QB RB WR TE" they'll also benefit from our .5 ppr, throwing passes, poo poo like that. To be safe, since we didn't discuss that, I'm just adding rushing and receiving yards to the "Rules for DT, DE, LB, CB, S" group. 0.1 points per rushing yard and 0.1 per receiving yard added. Note that negative numbers are allowed, so an IDP player who loses yards on a gimmick rushing play will have points deducted! quote:We should put something in the rules that anyone being claimed via taxi squad is ineligible to be traded away either. Voting yes, thought that was the case anyway agree Added to our rules document, rule 9.15. I've heavily modified Section 7 of our rules document, for the new free agent auction + rookie draft setup and the rules decisions we've made around it. This included making a decision about the complexity of the salary cap and what to do if someone fucks up. I'll put this in a subsequent post, to highlight it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 22:36
|
|