NFBC Message Boards

Draft slots aren't the problem. It's the league you get slotted in. Be it N.Y., CHI. LV. or even Tampa. You will get put in a league without any input. This has a bigger affect than where you draft. This will never change so changing the draft to make it fair is funny. Luck is Luck.

Injuries, Draft position, Crazy Managers etc.

It comes down to smart moves and luck.

You can end up in a league with 5 defending league champs or a league with 0 defending league champs. I think there are pros and cons to each. In my analysis of most competitive leagues, I found that my league ranked last. I know there were some returning managers, but how many I am not quite sure. Although you would think it would have been a big advantage to be in such a league, I found the draft, FAAB, and activating players (ie concentrating on certain pitching stats) to be most erratic. It was extremely frustrating to see certain players go off the draft board way before their time. And I don't mean the Morgan Ensberg's of the draft. Would this had happened as much with better managers? Who knows: I suspect not as much. IMO, I think drafting with more/better experts would have allowed me to carry out my draft strategy a bit better.



But even with that said, if Greg and Tom could come up with a way to disperse the expertise, then that's great. I think the Caraar standings is a good start, although I think its methodology should be altered a bit.

Originally posted by nydownunder:



But even with that said, if Greg and Tom could come up with a way to disperse the expertise, then that's great. This has to be one of the funniest things I've seen on the MB's.

UFS,



Perhaps you have misunderstood. It is meant to mean disperse higher ranked managers across each of the legaues within each location (without changing their location obviosuly). If you don't think there is difference between the top 1/3 of managers compared to the bottom 1/3 of managers when it comes to expertise/knowledge, then you are delirious.

Originally posted by nydownunder:

UFS,



Perhaps you have misunderstood. It is meant to mean disperse higher ranked managers across each of the legaues within each location (without changing their location obviosuly). If you don't think there is difference between the top 1/3 of managers compared to the bottom 1/3 of managers when it comes to expertise/knowledge, then you are delirious. I understood... It's still funny.



That would be suicide for Greg to try.





Where would brand new owners be listed?





How would you know their skill level?



I was 50-70 all year until a bunch of Sept injuries.



If we had such a concept, and I was #70 going into Sept, I'd tank to play against "so called" lesser owners next year. Well, at least GG would do that.



That's why it's funny. Just because someone had a bad season does not make them a bad owner.



[ October 14, 2005, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: UFS ]

I agree that doesn't necessarily make you a bad owner. My whole pitching staff got wiped out except Weaver, who might as well have and I finished around 200 or something. I would just hate to see a whole group of Lifetime Leaders all get stuck in one league...if possible.



It's not a huge deal though and I simply stated what the intial post implied. Really, its not worth debating.



[ October 14, 2005, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: nydownunder ]

I agree with UFS. It would be absurd to try and split up owners into groups. I was in with a group of guys who had had strong finishes in 2004. I thought that made it more fun and I'm not going to complain that Dyv and Doughboys were great players in my league who managed to beat me. It was my responsibility to succeed regardless of my leaguemates.



Remember, you still have the same mlb pool of players to choose from no matter who you're playing against. Because guys are good doesn't mean they're going to magically find 14 Derrek Lee's in the fourth round. There will still be one and he'll still go more-or-less where he goes. They're going to end up with the same overall league quality as everyone else.



Accepting that, there is more than one way to skin a cat as proven by the two guys from NY 5 this year. There aren't 25 perfect players you need to win. You need to build a team that works together to do it and there won't be one perfect version of that.



Like nydownunder, I actually think it can be an advantage to play against the best guys because many of them value players similarly. Nevertheless, I won't argue against getting 14 last-placers in there with me. It's all good. Put me with anyone; I'll be happy to try and win.

So would rating leagues be crazy? If someone could come up with the idea would it be bad to figure in the leagues power in a 20 league contest? Not rating the players but the league they play in. ESPN does it for alot less than is at stake in this contest. But the focus here seems always to be on the draft slot.

I think I have to agree with Walla Walla, though ESPN has trading and daily moves so things are a bit different there. Your point score should be combined with a modifier for your leage to produce your final score imho, but I understand the complexity of doing that.



Spy

This is an interesting topic started by John, but honestly there's no way we'd ever seed players in the NFBC, nor will you likely ever find that in any other high-stakes contest. For one thing, can someone go from a good fantasy owner from one year to the next? Is Artie Rastelli, our grand champion from 2004, any lesser of a player because he didn't finish in the top three of his league in 2005? Of course not. Things happen. If you win an Auction League title but finish near the bottom in the main event, does that make you a "bad" player? Only four NFBC owners defended their league titles last year, so repeating in the NFBC is obviously tough.



Also, how could you possibly seed the new owners? Doughboys wasn't in the NFBC in 2004, but led for most of the 2005 season and finished second overall. Last year we had 145 new owners for the NFBC, so obviously none of those could be seeded.



I've played this game long enough to know that I can look smart in one league and very dumb in another. This year I led an Experts NL Auction League almost from start to finish, but I also finished near the bottom in the XFL Experts League. I was smart and dumb at the same time.



Which league you get randomly slotted in is very important, no doubt about it. But everyone starts from the same point, so part of the challenge (and the fun) is beating whichever competition you're slotted against. If that's the dirty little truth, then so be it. The owner who cleans up in each league deserves what they get, which is $5,000 and a shot at $100,000.

so what nydownunder is saying, if he competes against weaker managers, it makes it tougher on him. pretty shaky logic, if need an excuse for doing poorly, the dog ate my cheat sheets always worked for me.

I agree with Greg whole heartedly on this one. While we can discuss the merits of bidding etc.. on slot pick, this is just impossible to manage / worry about.



Spy

For the Main Event: Wait for about 10 years. You'll have 50 different "Top 5" spots awarded by then.



If there's some set of 5 owners/teams that somehow make up a dominant share of those spots, then perhaps you could consider seeding those guys only (but I doubt it). It might even be MORE interesting if say, 2 "awesome" owners WERE in the same league, as opposed to always forcing them to be in separate leagues....



My guess would be that the Top 5 spots over that period of time will be pretty spread out among 20-30, maybe even 40 different owners by then.



With the growth each year it will be really tough to dominate 300 to (perhaps 500?) of the best players in the country year after year.



I couldn't see seeding some ranking of the Top 20-50 owners/teams just because they averaged between 10th and 50th out of say (avg) 400 in 7 out of 10 years....



My 2 cents.



[ November 18, 2005, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: GoldenEagle ]

Originally posted by duggan:

so what nydownunder is saying, if he competes against weaker managers, it makes it tougher on him. pretty shaky logic, if need an excuse for doing poorly, the dog ate my cheat sheets always worked for me. No Duggan, what I am saying is that 'not so good' managers make irrational decisions that can make it tougher in your league. I give you 3 types: 1) Drafts - either the mgr drafts someone 2-3 rounds earlier than they should have, and or doesn't take someone whom they obviously should, which in turn falls to a Good Mgr; 2) FAAB$ - they pay an exorbant amount for a players making it that much harder to predict values. Also for FAAB, is dropping good players far too early, and 3) Active/Inactive - the worse the decisions, the tougher for teams to take points away from your competitors. There is nothing worse than having to fight for a lead purely head to head (no help). Not that I had that opportunity.



Now I am not saying that is why I didn't do well. I know why I didn't do well. And although this is a hypothesis of sorts, it isn't something that is easily measured.



I just think with better managers, the smaller the variance of these sort of things, the more competitive your league will be (ie a tighter pack). Bad managers can really make matters worse or harder to compete against.



[ November 21, 2005, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: nydownunder ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nydownunder:

what I am saying is that 'not so good' managers make irrational decisions that can make it tougher in your league... 2) FAAB$ - they pay an exorbant amount for a players making it that much harder to predict values. Also for FAAB, is dropping good players far too early.



This from a guy who dropped J Cantu and H Street.

Originally posted by RichV:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nydownunder:

what I am saying is that 'not so good' managers make irrational decisions that can make it tougher in your league... 2) FAAB$ - they pay an exorbant amount for a players making it that much harder to predict values. Also for FAAB, is dropping good players far too early.



This from a guy who dropped J Cantu and H Street. Where were you when I needed you last year? I could have used those two players.

Originally posted by RichV:

[QUOTE]

This from a guy who dropped J Cantu and H Street. Rich V,



First off, how about some credit in drafting those two in the first place. Considering you were in my league, and picked both up in FAAB, you should know all this but let me remind you....



Houston was dropped well before Dotel's injury and perhaps less than 5% of the league owned him at the time, if that. And at the time I dropped him, Dotel, Mota, and Lyon had me well positioned in the Saves category.



As for Cantu, I had a ton of pitching injuries early on and at mid-season. Although not serious enough to outright drop the players, thus freeing up roster space. They included Mota, Dotel, Benson, Escobar, Thomson, and perhaps another (not sure if Halladay was on the DL at the time). Anyway, I needed pitching bad and at the time my offensive POWERS numbers and rankings were going quite well. My weakest offensive numbers were at SB and I had to make the choice between he and another MI at the time. Besides, Cantu was a rookie: you act as if the guy had a track record. In hingsight, it was a bad choice, but those were the circumstances I was in at the time(s) and they are not what sealed my fate.



With all those injuries, I was still a league leader in Pitching right up until 2-3 weeks after Halladay went on the DL. Until Halladay went down, I was right in the thick of things in our league. With the injuries I sustained from day 1, I am damn proud on how I competed and where I finished in my first year.



[ November 25, 2005, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: nydownunder ]

Explanations not necessary. Just having a little fun at your expense. But it does point out that we all make mistakes. Draft guys earlier than we should (J Reed), drop guys we should keep (Cantu, Street), hold onto guys we should drop (Grienke). None of which make us good or bad managers. Personally, at this level, I think there's very few "bad" managers. Just guys with different opinions and strategies. (Although I think there was one at our table we'd both agree was a bad manager).

(Although I think there was one at our table we'd both agree was a bad manager). Fascinated to hear if he landed in 15th. I think we are too quick to judge people when we don't know exactly what their strategy is. I guess it's personal to me because people were quick to judge me after draft day and they still do while I ended up in fourth place and that's not first and I take responsibility for my shortcomings, but the fact remains that it's in the top third and maybe there are better (or worse, as it were) people to pick on, though their strategies may be more comprehensible to the masses. I guesss if everyone agreed there was a bad manager and he ended in dead last there is more credence to the argument.



I am further disturbed by the argument that some managers take players too far ahead of where they should go and thereby ruin the draft for you. If those players are so integral to your team, perhaps *you* should have been the one taking them when you were sure you could get them. If you truly believe that the player belonged in the round three rounds later, then that other manager did you a favor by conceivably pushing back all the other accurately valued players by one pick. Then you have a chance to get an accurately valued player even a little farther back when the time comes.

Originally posted by bjoak:

quote: (Although I think there was one at our table we'd both agree was a bad manager). I am further disturbed by the argument that some managers take players too far ahead of where they should go and thereby ruin the draft for you. If those players are so integral to your team, perhaps *you* should have been the one taking them when you were sure you could get them. If you truly believe that the player belonged in the round three rounds later, then that other manager did you a favor by conceivably pushing back all the other accurately valued players by one pick. Then you have a chance to get an accurately valued player even a little farther back when the time comes. [/QUOTE]I am glad that Rich V actually brought up that team. They finished in the latter 3rd in our league. That team is a classic example of changing the chemistry/balance of our 15 team league. They didn't just make one or two mistakes in the draft, they made several.



Now BJoak, I'm not talking about the Burnett, Reyes, and Ensberg's of the draft. I am talking about players where 'Breakout' was not in their writeups or history and were going off 3-4 rounds earlier than consensus. And no, this did not ruin my draft - I was extremely happy (at the time) with my draft. I was well prepared if and when certain players went off the board.



My point is more like the domino effect, where mistakes start to build up in a draft which lead to a greater level of disparity among the teams in the 15 team league. Perhaps Rich V could comment, but I would argue half of our league were out of it (placing 1st-3rd) on day 1.



Keep in mind that all the posts on this subject (meaning everyone's) are just opinions which are arguable impossible to measure/validate one way or the other....so don't get so upset about the topic. Just enjoy the debate.



[ November 27, 2005, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: nydownunder ]

BJOAK- As far as my comment on our league's "one bad manager", you had to be at the draft table to "appreciate" how ill prepared he was. Continuously calling out players already taken, not making a pick in his allotted time over and over again. If he wasn't allowed to summon help on his cell phone, I hate to think how long we may have sat there while he tried to pick players that were available. Or how about picks like Steve Trachsel in the middle rounds, when it was already known for weeks he was out until September at the very earliest. We're not talking about different strategies with this guy, just totally unprepared for the draft.



As for the rest of our league. I didn't see the disparity at the draft. I raised an eyebrow or two on some FA moves people made, but that's each person's strategy and I'm in no position to judge what's good or bad for other teams. That said, the way our league turned out, there was a huge disparity between the top 1/2 and bottom half. Again, I feel that has little to do with being a good or bad manager, just the breaks of a season.

Thanks, guys. Makes more sense now. Yeah, Trachsel is a hilariously bad middle-round pick even--and I know this sounds hypocritical--when he is healthy.

I have not yet played so I don't know if I should comment but I will anyway. What is the big deal if someone drafts someone earlier then you think he should be drafted? So much the better for you right? Who would play in this league if everyone ranked all the players in the same manner? All the teams in the different leagues would be identical. Everyone rates players on how they think they will perform in the following year based on past history. Everyone pays their money and everyone is entitled to their opinion. If someone is not prepared they are not prepared, big deal, they paid their money honey and they can draft as they wish as long as it is within the rules. You guys make it sound like everyone should draft according to a predetermined order, by whose ranking? Yours? Just how good were your rankings? The only player with a nice ranking system this year that I can see is the big winner, Moneymaker. But what do I know, I am just a Rook thinking about entering.

Originally posted by The Rook:

I have not yet played so I don't know if I should comment but I will anyway. What is the big deal if someone drafts someone earlier then you think he should be drafted? So much the better for you right? Who would play in this league if everyone ranked all the players in the same manner? All the teams in the different leagues would be identical. Everyone rates players on how they think they will perform in the following year based on past history. Everyone pays their money and everyone is entitled to their opinion. If someone is not prepared they are not prepared, big deal, they paid their money honey and they can draft as they wish as long as it is within the rules. You guys make it sound like everyone should draft according to a predetermined order, by whose ranking? Yours? Just how good were your rankings? The only player with a nice ranking system this year that I can see is the big winner, Moneymaker. But what do I know, I am just a Rook thinking about entering.





I think you are going a bit overboard here no one said that.



Also a lot of people had good seasons and won a good bit of money besides Moneymaker.



Also do you really think you should join the most competetive fantasy baseball league on the planet- "I like to call it that" if you have to ask where the stats are. Maybe the thought of the the cricicism offends you because you will be that guy.......



On a side note I officially begin working on my 2006 draft lists next week. I am struggling with where to rank Ben Sheets which I swear is my last jab on that one.

Rook,

You are dangerous!



Chest,

Just a suggestion: I would start with a comparison on where Mark Prior went this past year. He went as low as 31, as high as 93 and averaged 66. Keep in mind that off the top of my head I don't know when Ben is expected to return. If he is suppose to be there from day one, then perhapos somewhere beteen 31-66 (Rounds 3-4).





Avg Min Max

Johan Santana 7 2 11

Randy Johnson 11 4 15

Jason Schmidt 17 10 23

Pedro Martinez 27 12 48

Ben Sheets 28 9 44

Curt Schilling 34 21 55

Roy Oswalt 38 23 54

Tim Hudson 49 27 81

Carlos Zambrano 49 26 67

Jake Peavy 53 17 87

Oliver Perez 57 32 82

Mark Prior 66 31 93

Josh Beckett 77 53 119

Rich Harden 81 60 102



[ November 28, 2005, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: nydownunder ]