Quick Survey: Handling Weekly Moves

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue May 05, 2009 9:10 am

Originally posted by Dyv:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by Dyv:

Well, if the goal is to truly 'manage' a team then being able to set the lineup on Monday and Friday seems very adequate and takes care of any and all DL or not really DL or kinda really but not sure DL effect.

If there truly are owners out there who are cool with setting lineups on Monday for the week but would balk and walk away from the game if they also had to set their lineups on Friday I'd be shocked.

Are there truly people out there who play this game and can't re-set their lineup on Friday? Really? Who are you? (and, btw, thanks for your money....) Dyv, I don't think you lose net # of players for the main event, but of course you'll lose #'s in the satellites and the auctions. [/QUOTE]KJ, WHO? Can you name any single person who is unable to do this? I mean we keep defending this mythical person who would rather NOT have an option to change out their lineups. Who IS this person? Where's Waldo? There are ESPN, Yahoo, CBS, etc. leagues all over the place with DAILY Transactions with millions of players. I'd hate like hell to go to that, but twice a week adds a touch of management skill that I think helps the game.

And before I get worried about this unicorn-fantasy baseball player who can't change their lineup on Friday or in advance of Friday I'd sure like to know they exist. [/QUOTE]I am your unicorn Dyv.

While I tend to be very independent by nature, I don't think I'm THAT independent to be the only one that feels this way. In fact I'm fairly certain of it from having these debates in past seasons.

... and you know you just created a visual opportunity than Q can't possibly pass up, right?

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Tue May 05, 2009 9:14 am

Looking at the results after nealy 50 people have voted, all I can say is when Greg said "you can't please all of the people" ...he wasn't kidding.

ETA...

How many people would drop out if nothing changed? Zero?

[ May 05, 2009, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: sportsbettingman ]

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Tue May 05, 2009 9:20 am

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Looking at the results after nealy 50 people have voted, all I can say is when Greg said "you can't please all of the people" ...he wasn't kidding.

ETA...

How many people would drop out if nothing changed? Zero?

And by the same token, that silent majority is NOT squarely behind you, Lance.

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Tue May 05, 2009 9:22 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by Dyv:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by Dyv:

Well, if the goal is to truly 'manage' a team then being able to set the lineup on Monday and Friday seems very adequate and takes care of any and all DL or not really DL or kinda really but not sure DL effect.

If there truly are owners out there who are cool with setting lineups on Monday for the week but would balk and walk away from the game if they also had to set their lineups on Friday I'd be shocked.

Are there truly people out there who play this game and can't re-set their lineup on Friday? Really? Who are you? (and, btw, thanks for your money....) Dyv, I don't think you lose net # of players for the main event, but of course you'll lose #'s in the satellites and the auctions. [/QUOTE]KJ, WHO? Can you name any single person who is unable to do this? I mean we keep defending this mythical person who would rather NOT have an option to change out their lineups. Who IS this person? Where's Waldo? There are ESPN, Yahoo, CBS, etc. leagues all over the place with DAILY Transactions with millions of players. I'd hate like hell to go to that, but twice a week adds a touch of management skill that I think helps the game.

And before I get worried about this unicorn-fantasy baseball player who can't change their lineup on Friday or in advance of Friday I'd sure like to know they exist. [/QUOTE]I am your unicorn Dyv.

While I tend to be very independent by nature, I don't think I'm THAT independent to be the only one that feels this way. In fact I'm fairly certain of it from having these debates in past seasons.

... and you know you just created a visual opportunity than Q can't possibly pass up, right?

[/QUOTE]hahahaha, well...

You truly wouldn't value the ability to adjust your lineup on Tues/Wed/Thur leading into Friday and setting up for any DL issues, pitching matchups, etc? I find that hard to believe. Truly?

Are you wearing a fake horn??

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue May 05, 2009 9:35 am

Originally posted by Dyv:

You truly wouldn't value the ability to adjust your lineup on Tues/Wed/Thur leading into Friday and setting up for any DL issues, pitching matchups, etc? I find that hard to believe. Truly?

Yeah I'd like to do it, but not for 12 teams. I don't have the time to consider all of those matchups during the week. Would I do it for a few teams, and like it? Yeah.

The more time intensive Friday becomes, the less teams I'll have next season. The only one I can do without dropping any teams is the "one Friday call-up" idea, or the "one Friday call-up" + the existing DL (which Q suggested), all other options result in me cutting back.

Honestly, I'd be ok with cutting back my team count if this was Greg's decision. The main options I'd stronly object to are those that involve unlimted pitcher moves more than once a week, that is too much of a game-changer which I don't think should be a consideration right now.

I would rank all the options I've seen as follows:

1) one Friday move

2) one Friday move plus the existing DL rule

3) any Friday move for hitters, DL moves only for pitchers

4) DL rule modified to take effect on any day

5) existing DL rule

6) twice weekly lineups for the live events only

7) no DL rule or Friday move

8) twice weekly lineups for all players, all events

9) daily moves

[ May 05, 2009, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Tue May 05, 2009 9:44 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Looking at the results after nealy 50 people have voted, all I can say is when Greg said "you can't please all of the people" ...he wasn't kidding.

ETA...

How many people would drop out if nothing changed? Zero?

And by the same token, that silent majority is NOT squarely behind you, Lance. [/QUOTE]I don't see anyone aggreeing with me here on the MB...so all of the support is silent...and it is the majority!

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Tue May 05, 2009 9:52 am

I stated elsewhere I would prefer to do away with the DL rule and that is how I voted.

However, it is interesting to note if choices were posed a little differently, and in complete fairness, this is a SURVEY and not a VOTE, but if the choices were

A. NO DL

B. STATUS QUO

C. CHANGE THE RULE TO ALLOW SOME LEVEL OF ADDITIONAL MOVES

then based on the results so far, about 50% would have voted for C.

Then of course it would be the job of another survey to narrow down the most popular change.

[ May 05, 2009, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: ToddZ ]

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue May 05, 2009 9:59 am

Originally posted by ToddZ:

I stated elsewhere I would prefer to do away with the DL rule and that is how I voted.

However, it is interesting to note if choices were posed a little differently, and in complete fairness, this is a SURVEY and not a VOTE, but if the choices were

A. NO DL

B. STATUS QUO

C. CHANGE THE RULE TO ALLOW SOME LEVEL OF ADDITIONAL MOVES

then based on the results so far, about 50% would have voted for C.

Then of course it would be the job of another survey to narrow down the most popular change. Right on the mark Todd. It's fairly clear a strong majority don't want to go backwards, so at some point there should be a survey to determine the top two viable alternatives to the existing rule. Once that is determined, a third to see how the preferred new method stacks up against the status quo.

Or Greg can just infer from all of the discussion and pick the one he likes.

[ May 05, 2009, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue May 05, 2009 10:02 am

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Looking at the results after nealy 50 people have voted, all I can say is when Greg said "you can't please all of the people" ...he wasn't kidding.

ETA...

How many people would drop out if nothing changed? Zero?

And by the same token, that silent majority is NOT squarely behind you, Lance. [/QUOTE]I don't see anyone aggreeing with me here on the MB...so all of the support is silent...and it is the majority!

[/QUOTE]Valuable data ... and The survey says, "Grumpy old men account for 17% of NFBC players".

Crazy Like a Fox · Post by **Crazy Like a Fox** » Tue May 05, 2009 11:14 am

Originally posted by ToddZ:

I stated elsewhere I would prefer to do away with the DL rule and that is how I voted.

However, it is interesting to note if choices were posed a little differently, and in complete fairness, this is a SURVEY and not a VOTE, but if the choices were

A. NO DL

B. STATUS QUO

C. CHANGE THE RULE TO ALLOW SOME LEVEL OF ADDITIONAL MOVES

then based on the results so far, about 50% would have voted for C.

Then of course it would be the job of another survey to narrow down the most popular change. Now we're getting somewhere.

That brings us to, one move per week for offensive players (regardless of day or injury), leave the DL rule on Friday for pitchers.

CASE SOLVED!

"Speech, speech!"

I would like to thank all the little people......

Jackstraw · Post by **Jackstraw** » Tue May 05, 2009 11:52 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by ToddZ:

I stated elsewhere I would prefer to do away with the DL rule and that is how I voted.

However, it is interesting to note if choices were posed a little differently, and in complete fairness, this is a SURVEY and not a VOTE, but if the choices were

A. NO DL

B. STATUS QUO

C. CHANGE THE RULE TO ALLOW SOME LEVEL OF ADDITIONAL MOVES

then based on the results so far, about 50% would have voted for C.

Then of course it would be the job of another survey to narrow down the most popular change. Right on the mark Todd. It's fairly clear a strong majority don't want to go backwards, so at some point there should be a survey to determine the top two viable alternatives to the existing rule. Once that is determined, a third to see how the preferred new method stacks up against the status quo.

Or Greg can just infer from all of the discussion and pick the one he likes.

[/QUOTE]Hmmmm... Todd added #3 and #4 and got 50%, so KJ says that is a strong majority.

George adds #1 and #2 and gets 50%. Does that mean that there is a strong majority against C?

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:15 pm

Originally posted by Jackstraw:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by ToddZ:

I stated elsewhere I would prefer to do away with the DL rule and that is how I voted.

However, it is interesting to note if choices were posed a little differently, and in complete fairness, this is a SURVEY and not a VOTE, but if the choices were

A. NO DL

B. STATUS QUO

C. CHANGE THE RULE TO ALLOW SOME LEVEL OF ADDITIONAL MOVES

then based on the results so far, about 50% would have voted for C.

Then of course it would be the job of another survey to narrow down the most popular change. Right on the mark Todd. It's fairly clear a strong majority don't want to go backwards, so at some point there should be a survey to determine the top two viable alternatives to the existing rule. Once that is determined, a third to see how the preferred new method stacks up against the status quo.

Or Greg can just infer from all of the discussion and pick the one he likes.

[/QUOTE]Hmmmm... Todd added #3 and #4 and got 50%, so KJ says that is a strong majority.

George adds #1 and #2 and gets 50%. Does that mean that there is a strong majority against C?

[/QUOTE]George, what I said was there is a strong majority against going backwards to no injury moves, which is very true at 80% or so.

A survey with multiple options as this cannot get to the most preferred solution, it would take a series of surveys.

If conducting a professional consumer survey, you would want participants to rank options in order of preference - that would provide far more insight.

If you run a survey with multiple options, the most popular option could also be the most hated option.

If I do a random poll asking "who would you most like to see as our next President":

- Hilary Clinton

- Al Gore

- Joe Biden

- Jeb Bush

Jeb would probably get the highest number by a big margin, even though he would probably lose head-to-head against any of other three options right now. If you disagree, just change the names, but I think you'll get my point.

[ May 05, 2009, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Jackstraw · Post by **Jackstraw** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Ditto, that's why I posted my comment. There is too much talk about the results in this thread that people can read and then take the survey. I was just trying to point out to anyone reading that there is nothing that is conclusively leaning one way or the other or the other or the other.

Shhhhhhhhhh....... There are still a lot of people left to take the survey. They don't need any help in figuring out the answers.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:24 pm

Originally posted by Jackstraw:

Ditto, that's why I posted my comment. There is too much talk about the results in this thread that people can read and then take the survey. I was just trying to point out to anyone reading that there is nothing that is conclusively leaning one way or the other or the other or the other.

Shhhhhhhhhh....... There are still a lot of people left to take the survey. They don't need any help in figuring out the answers. I think the more they read about the pros and cons, the more meaningful the vote.

eddiejag · Post by **eddiejag** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:43 pm

I tried to vote but it wouldnt let me ,said you dont have permision to vote.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:44 pm

I give you permission Eddie

Jackstraw · Post by **Jackstraw** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:49 pm

Originally posted by eddiejag:

I tried to vote but it wouldnt let me ,said you dont have permision to vote. That's what you get for winning too much. This vote is only for losers, thank you

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue May 05, 2009 1:00 pm

Originally posted by eddiejag:

I tried to vote but it wouldnt let me ,said you dont have permision to vote. Lance conspiriacy theory is imminent.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Tue May 05, 2009 1:45 pm

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by eddiejag:

I tried to vote but it wouldnt let me ,said you dont have permision to vote. Lance conspiriacy theory is imminent.

[/QUOTE]Oh yea...You voted Old School dark ages, caveman style, Eddie! I hooked your vote up!

Navel Lint · Post by **Navel Lint** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:39 am

Bump

Hard Heads · Post by **Hard Heads** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:34 am

I just wish I could vote. Says I have already voted and never did.