[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Undefined array key 5652030 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Trying to access array offset on value of type null Fantasy Baseball 2014: All Hail Winner For Life Lamora - Mafiascum.net
In post 20, zoraster wrote:Yeah, for waiver wire bids are blind at the next day they resolve. You may always bid 0.
Almost always a bid of $0 would win a waiver claim last year. Most people bid something <$10 "just in case". Waiver budget was pretty much entirely irrelevant - people had $100's left at the end of the season iirc. Not sure there's really a fix for that other than going to something like weekly waiver resolutions to increase the chances that multiple people would claim a player at the same time.
I believe it's mostly meant to eliminate the luck factor that comes into play with having a waiver order, I don't think it's meant to actually be a major factor other than when more than one team wants the same player at the same time.
Post
Post #50 (isolation #6) » Fri Feb 14, 2014 4:02 am
Postby Zachrulez »
In post 45, zoraster wrote:Given the large number of managers in our league, I'm also considering reducing Utility position to 1 and Bench reduced to 5 (from 6). Right now, we each have 24 roster spots, which means we'll draft 384 players. That's compared to last year where we drafted 336. If we reduce the rosters by 2, that means we'll draft 352.
I don't think drafting more players is a huge deal and hope the roster size stays the same. In fact it should help separate people who draft depth well from those who don't.
Post
Post #153 (isolation #12) » Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:47 am
Postby Zachrulez »
When I look at the scoring page is says the waiver time is 1 day, so maybe it's rounding the waiver time up? Dunno. The only claims I think I've done so far were pre-season ones so I haven't had to check to see how long it took for them to actually process.
Edit: Was answered as I was writing the post...
I'm actually completely oblivious to how the scoring works over on the auction side except to know that I apparently had a good day yesterday. (From 9th to 4th)
Post
Post #197 (isolation #19) » Thu May 01, 2014 8:02 am
Postby Zachrulez »
I tend to set my rosters a week out and then poke in every now and again. I'm not watching things like a hawk like if a fielder ends up suddenly not starting for example.
Post
Post #204 (isolation #21) » Thu May 15, 2014 5:08 am
Postby Zachrulez »
My pitching is out of it's mind this week. None of my starters or relievers have given up a run yet. I'm sure it's not going to stay that way, but it's a pretty good track to a crazy low era this week.
Post
Post #240 (isolation #24) » Mon Jul 07, 2014 4:25 am
Postby Zachrulez »
In post 234, Locke Lamora wrote:This is the problem with daily FAAB - you get so used to people not bidding because people don't pay attention for 180 days straight, then when you do pick up a player you don't put a real bid in. I should have done the same on Polanco but I didn't think about it and DGB got him. There's no way anyone's going to spend even close to their budget either.
I generally see picking up players as free agency for the most part, but the FAAB seems to do it's job in dealing with situations where multiple people want a player. I mean I don't really think having teams actually use a significant portion of their budget is really a measure of success in a system, but whether or not it works well at what it does, being a fair way of dealing with claims on players who aren't on a team.
In other news last week was really the week I needed my players to play out of their mind to even have a chance against Bert, and they picked that week to just... not play much at all...
In post 234, Locke Lamora wrote:This is the problem with daily FAAB - you get so used to people not bidding because people don't pay attention for 180 days straight, then when you do pick up a player you don't put a real bid in. I should have done the same on Polanco but I didn't think about it and DGB got him. There's no way anyone's going to spend even close to their budget either.
I generally see picking up players as free agency for the most part, but the FAAB seems to do it's job in dealing with situations where multiple people want a player. I mean I don't really think having teams actually use a significant portion of their budget is really a measure of success in a system, but whether or not it works well at what it does, being a fair way of dealing with claims on players who aren't on a team.
In other news last week was really the week I needed my players to play out of their mind to even have a chance against Bert, and they picked that week to just... not play much at all...
Yeah, it does work in that regard. I guess my issue is that the part of the strategy where you have to think about how you spend your money to avoid running out is completely redundant based on our activity level with FAAB. You could just spend a few bucks on every free agent you wanted, win them all and still finish the year with $70 or $80. Of course, if everybody started bidding then it wouldn't happen, but that was kind of my point in the first place. I am more used to using it for football where it is more competitive to get players through FAAB anyway so perhaps my perspective on it is a bit skewed.
I've used the budget system for football too, and I guess you can end up in a few more situations where you're actually bidding for a guy, but generally my approach to claiming players is to try to get them for free. I kind of consider the budget something to save for if/when there's an incredibly hot player lighting up the stat board that you really need the money for.
Post
Post #248 (isolation #27) » Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:27 am
Postby Zachrulez »
In post 247, Locke Lamora wrote:Yeah, not a good week for that. Cliff Lee should be back after the break, though, and at least Tanaka doesn't definitely need Tommy John...
I'm pessimistic about that, but hopefully Derek Holland coming back soon offsets that somewhat...
Post
Post #287 (isolation #34) » Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:21 am
Postby Zachrulez »
It will still be possible for either of us to win the division even after losing here, but winning will definitely put the victorious team in the driver seat.
It's quite exciting that all these division games between us are going to matter a ton!
Post
Post #289 (isolation #35) » Mon Aug 18, 2014 4:18 am
Postby Zachrulez »
The standings are really strange because they have me in 2nd place but with Zoraster as the division leader. Surely that means he should also be the #2 seed at present. Boggles my mind.
But yeah, everyone in our division has at least some kind of shot at the playoffs.
Post
Post #294 (isolation #37) » Mon Aug 18, 2014 10:53 am
Postby Zachrulez »
In post 291, Zachrulez wrote:Yeah, but then that still poses the question of why I'm ahead of you in overall standings?
I hope that I didn't lay this out in a confusing way, but the league shows you with the division lead but also as the third seed with me falling short of the division lead on tiebreakers but somehow having the 2nd seed. If you have the tiebreaker for the division, doesn't it stand to reason you should be the 2nd seed atm and not me?
Division Champ is divisional winning percentage first, so my 100% beats your 33%. Wild card uses highest winning percentage in the last week of the season. We both lost the last week, so it's the highest winning percentage in second to last, etc. You won two weeks ago, so did I. Three weeks ago we both won. Four weeks ago you won and I lost. Therefore you win the wild card spot
Sorry! Just think it's weird to theoretically lose the division but still be seeded higher than the winner of the division I'm in.
If it's possible to change it for future seasons while retaining the overall record seeding you could probably set it so that divisional tiebreakers also break overall ties, that way a division winner is never seeded lower than a runner up. Hopefully it doesn't actually happen this season.
Post
Post #301 (isolation #39) » Tue Aug 19, 2014 2:07 am
Postby Zachrulez »
I mean I don't see a problem in terms of fantasy sports with seeding by divisional winners. I don't see wild cards actually amassing a good enough record to get a bye often enough for it to be an issue. (I would expect the frequency to be really close to never.)
Just bothers me that within the same division a runner up could end up seeded HIGHER than the winner of the division. That makes no sense to me. I'm not saying anything HAS to be done about it, just complaining aloud. (It sounds like yahoo needs to fix the issue itself by having the overall tiebreaker be something that's actually substantial?)
In post 301, Zachrulez wrote:I mean I don't see a problem in terms of fantasy sports with seeding by divisional winners. I don't see wild cards actually amassing a good enough record to get a bye often enough for it to be an issue. (I would expect the frequency to be really close to never.)
Just bothers me that within the same division a runner up could end up seeded HIGHER than the winner of the division. That makes no sense to me. I'm not saying anything HAS to be done about it, just complaining aloud. (It sounds like yahoo needs to fix the issue itself by having the overall tiebreaker be something that's actually substantial?)
Complaining is so unlike you, Zach!
The truth is that it doesn't matter if I win the division and you win the wild card and get seeded over me. Only one of those can be a basis for choosing who gets the bye. So if it makes you feel better, call yourself the divisional winner (in the current standings) even if it indicates I won the division.
I know right!?
What I'm really complaining about is that yahoo has an obviously flawed way of seeding within a division. I don't actually have a problem with the concept of seeding based on overall standings because I can understand that people might have an issue with a team winning a division with a losing record and getting seeded over one of us in our division with the record we're likely to finish with. I just prefer the division winners being seeded higher in general.
Since it's on yahoo's end, there really isn't anything to be done but point and laugh at their flawed system.
Post
Post #309 (isolation #41) » Wed Aug 20, 2014 7:21 am
Postby Zachrulez »
In post 307, Locke Lamora wrote:I guess this is what we get for our (lack of) money. I figure there are much more friendly formats for customising your tiebreakers out there, but I don't know what they are or whether they're free.
When I played a lot more fantasy football with friends, we used Fleaflicker. Not sure it has the customizable options for baseball, but I remember having the options to set various levels of tiebreakers for Fantasy Football.
Post
Post #321 (isolation #45) » Thu Aug 28, 2014 5:54 pm
Postby Zachrulez »
In post 320, D3f3nd3r wrote:I had a lot of time on my hands and put together what the H2H league would look like as a Roto league through the end of Week 20. Through 20 weeks DGB would be winning, with Bert and Zachrulez in close second and third. If anybody wants to see the chart I can put it up on Google Docs.
Shows that it matters to a degree who you play and when doesn't it?
Post
Post #351 (isolation #53) » Mon Sep 22, 2014 11:54 am
Postby Zachrulez »
In post 344, Locke Lamora wrote:DGB wins because it goes to your record against each other in regular season matchups first.
I guess whatever the tiebreaker was going to be it was going to suck because pretty much the only options you have are to base it on some kind of regular season results.
(It sounds like yahoo needs to fix the issue itself by having the overall tiebreaker be something that's actually substantial?)
