Fantasy Baseball 2014: All Hail Winner For Life Lamora

[AGar]

Going forward Zor, is there any way to force tiebreakers to be a certain thing or is Yahoo just stubborn there? Not that I care particularly but eliminating "Winning % in last week" seems like a good thing if we could possibly do it.

[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?)

[zoraster]

Going forward Zor, is there any way to force tiebreakers to be a certain thing or is Yahoo just stubborn there? Not that I care particularly but eliminating "Winning % in last week" seems like a good thing if we could possibly do it.

There is literally nothing I can do. I have three options for the playoffs:

1. Division Winners awarded top seeds
2. Division winners advance but seeds according to overall standings
3. All teams seeded according to overall standings

Beyond that, I can't do anything. Option 3 isn't really an option (why bother having divisions at all?), so the question is between 1 and 2. I think 2 better captures the possibility that one division might be dominant. In a 22 game season, it's not unthinkable that the two best records will be in the same division, though it won't happen most of the time (compare to fantasy football's 13-14 week season if divisional teams play each other twice where there's little chance of that happening).

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.

[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?)

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.

[AGar]

Going forward Zor, is there any way to force tiebreakers to be a certain thing or is Yahoo just stubborn there? Not that I care particularly but eliminating "Winning % in last week" seems like a good thing if we could possibly do it.

There is literally nothing I can do. I have three options for the playoffs:

1. Division Winners awarded top seeds
2. Division winners advance but seeds according to overall standings
3. All teams seeded according to overall standings

Beyond that, I can't do anything. Option 3 isn't really an option (why bother having divisions at all?), so the question is between 1 and 2. I think 2 better captures the possibility that one division might be dominant. In a 22 game season, it's not unthinkable that the two best records will be in the same division, though it won't happen most of the time (compare to fantasy football's 13-14 week season if divisional teams play each other twice where there's little chance of that happening).

Ok yeah, that's fair. I just was curious because Yahoo's system is shit apparently.

[zoraster]

Eh. At some point you have to make pretty arbitrary decisions about which team is in front of another. Whatever system you pick is probably as good as the next.

[AGar]

Previous weeks winning % is the worst of them all though.

For example, in the last week of our league #1 (as of now) Bert plays #16. #2 Zach plays #5 DGB. One of those two has an all but assured win. The other has an actual match on their hands. If Zach and Bert were actually vying for some kind of seeding (I know they're not but this was literally the best illustration), previous weeks winning % is literally the dumbest of things.

[Locke Lamora]

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.

[zoraster]

Previous weeks winning % is the worst of them all though.

For example, in the last week of our league #1 (as of now) Bert plays #16. #2 Zach plays #5 DGB. One of those two has an all but assured win. The other has an actual match on their hands. If Zach and Bert were actually vying for some kind of seeding (I know they're not but this was literally the best illustration), previous weeks winning % is literally the dumbest of things.

I think the idea is to select the team that was strongest most recently.

[Zachrulez]

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.

[AGar]

Previous weeks winning % is the worst of them all though.

For example, in the last week of our league #1 (as of now) Bert plays #16. #2 Zach plays #5 DGB. One of those two has an all but assured win. The other has an actual match on their hands. If Zach and Bert were actually vying for some kind of seeding (I know they're not but this was literally the best illustration), previous weeks winning % is literally the dumbest of things.

I think the idea is to select the team that was strongest most recently.

Which, in my opinion, is dumb.

But again, without shelling out money, we can't do anything about it.

I just hate Yahoo sometimes.

[zoraster]

today is going to be close, zach! i just need a damn HR!

[Zachrulez]

Well I got two today, so it's going to take more than that.

Was hoping to try to sneak away the cumulative pitching stats, but that looks like it's going to end in disappointment.

[Zachrulez]

Whew...

just barely...

[zoraster]

i demand a recount!

[Rhinox]

well my loss to the herons officially eliminates me from playoff contention. Looks like now the only playoff battles are whether KMD can sneak into the wildcard, and which of LL or Yiley will win the Sea Otter division.

[Zachrulez]

Well I clinched a playoff spot so I don't need to worry about that!

Looking good for both wild cards to come out of the division too, Zor and Goofball are winning that race so far.

[D3f3nd3r]

Clinches:
Bert, LlamaFluff (Clinched Siberian and Bengal Tigers, respectively)

Teams still mathematically in it:
Zachrulez - 14 wins
Zoraster - 13 wins
DGB - 12 1/2 wins
Yiley - 12 wins
Lamora - 11 wins
Kmd4390 - 11 wins

[zoraster]

zach is in already, though he hasn't clinched the division.

[Locke Lamora]

The Rangers finally put Choo out of his misery. I did not draft well this year. I think Sale's the only one of my first five picks who actually lived up to the slot. Even Miggy's not delivered what I hoped.

[D3f3nd3r]

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.

[Zachrulez]

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?

[Locke Lamora]

Matters a huge amount, especially in comparison to roto . I feel that especially with the teams which aren't really paying attention at this point, odds dictate that you should win comfortably, because they usually have a few hurt players, or guys who haven't had the role we were expecting in March, and there's also no strategy - they might be leaving some mediocre home-run prone starter in to start at Coors or leaving SB guys in their lineup even when they lead by 8 on the last day but need HR/RBI. If you run into them one of those weeks when their pitching ratios just happen to be ridiculous and a couple of guys in their lineup just go off for their best weeks of the season, that kills you. That would never happen in roto - you just don't finish behind teams which stop paying attention relatively early on as their random big weeks don't earn them anything and unless they had an incredible draft AND a ton of luck with injuries, their counting stats are just too poor to be a threat to someone who plays out the season.

The roto standings should also reward the people who never bench pitchers to protect ERA/WHIP leads in particular.

[Zachrulez]

The roto standings should also reward the people who never bench pitchers to protect ERA/WHIP leads in particular.

I never do that because I think it's dumb. I also can't think of an occasion where it's actually cost me a game either.

[D3f3nd3r]

I've done it something like two times. Once was by accident, one was to make sure my not-exactly-that-great-and-now-out-of-a-rotation starter didn't screw me over on a Sunday night start that I vividly remember being against Kershaw.