FF2011: Official GWJFFLK-specific discussion thread

Grumpicus wrote:

What if, compared to a flat "$3-or-30%" formula (with or without a floor, that's a separate discussion), there was a system where the premium (i.e. "inflation") for studs was higher than role-players, players hampered by injury last year, and good-but-not-yet-great players? For example, Vick might inflate by around 40% (or $4, which is greater) while Reggie Bush would go up 20% (or $2) or so. Just throwing it out there.

Edit: I've got some other thoughts but I'm still at work. Besides, I'm grumpy today and you don't want to have to deal with it.

There's probably something workable in there, but how do you make the determination that a guy fits in one tier or another? Percentage of team snaps played would make sense, but it doesn't take into account players injured for part of the season. I'm not saying I'm opposed to a variable inflation percentage, just that it adds one more degree of complexity and one more thing for everyone to argue about.

Landshrk83 wrote:

Edit: the more numbers I crunch, the better a percentage based system (with some sort of minimum inflation) looks. I think it would let people keep some of those steals a little longer without overly inflating the every week starters.

Agreed. I think it also meets the requirement of simplicity. 30% means you multiply the guy's old value by 1.3 and you get his new value (rounding up to nearest dollar, of course).

And a $3 bare-minimum inflation means that anyone $10 or cheaper gets $3 inflation (since 30% doesn't exceed $3 until you get past $10).

So, for a $3-or-30% approach, it's:

$1-10: old value + 3 = new value
$11+: old value * 1.3 = new value

Not exactly daunting math. I think that's plenty simple while also ensuring that no player has an excessive inflation number. 30% is reasonable across the board, I think.

I'm fine with the flat inflation percentage or the progressive one, provided that the bell curve still falls largely in the 20-30% range.

I'm also fine with no floor or the low ($2-4) floors we're talking here. Just no high floors or arbitrary value minimums.

*Legion* wrote:

No arbitrary value minimums.

I just want to point out that the vast majority of players are acquired for less than $10. Just scanning the list, I'd say that between 1/3 to 1/2 are drafted for less than $5 and once you count in-season acquisitions, with all of the $0 pickups, I'd say that faction is even higher.

This league has the potential to get dynasty-like very quickly, even with a $3 (on average) minimum inflation amount. I'm not saying it's a problem, I'm just saying it's a possibility.

That's exactly why I was so against the idea of a $10 floor in last year's discussion. Minimum inflation is fine, just don't like a minimum final value. At least not one that high.

If around half of the players in the league have less than a $5 base value, then a $3 inflation minimum means most of those players are moving upwards by large percentages, pushing them up from the bottom half of the player values and into the top half.

I am on record for my bias preferring to lean closer to dynasty than away from it. It doesn't need to be full-on dynasty, but the idea of a keeper league with just 1 or 2 keepers per team seems uninteresting to me. We have our redraft leagues already; I'd prefer the keeper league not end up as "almost a redraft" league. Maybe we don't need a system that would lead to 10+ keepers per team, but I'd like to see 4-6 a lot more than 1-2.

Good points Legion, I was once again focusing on the exceptions instead of the average with the $10 floor idea.

I'm for the $3-or-30% plan.

I'm in.

As a side note, how do we see what we paid for our peeps from last year. I know I'll be keeping Mercedes Lewis, whom I'm pretty sure I bought on the cheap cheap, but I have no idea about any others until I can find how to get their prices to show.

Grumpicus wrote:

Actually, I don't think it will be that hard...

The average per game doesn't take into effect games missed from injury. A better way would probably be positional or overall ranking if you're going that way.

BlackSheep wrote:

I'm in.

As a side note, how do we see what we paid for our peeps from last year. I know I'll be keeping Mercedes Lewis, whom I'm pretty sure I bought on the cheap cheap, but I have no idea about any others until I can find how to get their prices to show.

Grumps has a list to the original draft list (with prices) by team linked in the OP. You can look up free agents by searching under just your team in the transaction log on FleaFlicker. Claimed players will show the price next to them. Added players are considered $1, I think?

To make it even easier, I'll include the list here. DRAFT PRICE

The more I look at the list, the more I'm on board with 30% or $3 (or maybe 30% or $4, to inflate <$10 keepers just a tiny bit faster).

My one problem with that is free agency. There's far less competition on any given week for free agents than during the draft, especially when we talk about free agents added after waivers. If you just happen to be the fastest person to your computer after a starter is injured and you see his backup available, you could have him for years on the cheap. I have no problem with you being rewarded for nabbing him, that's what we're here for, it's just a huge advantage for someone who might have picked up, say Michael Vick for 1$ if he had gone undrafted when Kolb got hurt.

Any thoughts on these options?

1) Free agents inflate like everybody else, at the price they were picked up for (or 1/2 that and draft price, if we go that way)
2) Free agents have a wage floor. $7 or $8 something. Not a big difference for the first year, but affects inflation later.
3) Free agents inflate at $5 or 50% the first year if kept, count as normal after that.

If this is too much of an edge case, no worries. I don't even know if anyone got studs off of free agency for cheap last year. It's so much easier to factor in the demand for players during the draft than during the season. I'm also happy with any executive decisions being made, I'm just uber excited for football and constantly thinking.

ukickmydog wrote:
Grumpicus wrote:

Actually, I don't think it will be that hard...

The average per game doesn't take into effect games missed from injury. A better way would probably be positional or overall ranking if you're going that way.

I'm not completely sure you are correct but either way, I figure it all factors in. If injuries lower a player's average (as you say), then it's an "injury-prone(?) discount" on his inflation. If it doesn't, then "no discount for you!" In the end, it's just a slightly-more-interesting alternative to $3-or-30%.

Jolly Bill wrote:

Any thoughts on these options?

1) Free agents inflate like everybody else, at the price they were picked up for (or 1/2 that and draft price, if we go that way)
2) Free agents have a wage floor. $7 or $8 something. Not a big difference for the first year, but affects inflation later.
3) Free agents inflate at $5 or 50% the first year if kept, count as normal after that.

If this is too much of an edge case, no worries. I don't even know if anyone got studs off of free agency for cheap last year. It's so much easier to factor in the demand for players during the draft than during the season. I'm also happy with any executive decisions being made, I'm just uber excited for football and constantly thinking.

I prefer #1, followed by #3, but nothing you suggest is outrageous or unreasonable.

If people are that worried about FA keepers, then #3 is a reasonably simple and elegant compromise.

ukickmydog wrote:
Grumpicus wrote:

Actually, I don't think it will be that hard...

The average per game doesn't take into effect games missed from injury. A better way would probably be positional or overall ranking if you're going that way.

Average per game does in fact take number of games played into account.

That's how Tony Romo (122.15 pts on the season) and Darren McFadden (270.4 pts on the season) are right next to each other on that list with 20.4 and 20.8 PPG averages. Romo's total is divided by only the 6 games he appeared in.

*Legion* wrote:
ukickmydog wrote:
Grumpicus wrote:

Actually, I don't think it will be that hard...

The average per game doesn't take into effect games missed from injury. A better way would probably be positional or overall ranking if you're going that way.

Average per game does in fact take number of games played into account.

That's how Tony Romo (122.15 pts on the season) and Darren McFadden (270.4 pts on the season) are right next to each other on that list with 20.4 and 20.8 PPG averages. Romo's total is divided by only the 6 games he appeared in.

Right, that's what I was trying to say. If we go by the average, then the higher inflation rate for someone who may have played 1 game but did really well then was injured the rest of the season would be the same as someone that played an entire season... Grump had said "there was a system where the premium (i.e. "inflation") for studs was higher than role-players, players hampered by injury last year, and good-but-not-yet-great players?" so I was saying that the average pt/game would not work for his scenario of studs > players hampered by injury.

ukickmydog wrote:

Right, that's what I was trying to say. If we go by the average, then the higher inflation rate for someone who may have played 1 game but did really well then was injured the rest of the season would be the same as someone that played an entire season... Grump had said "there was a system where the premium (i.e. "inflation") for studs was higher than role-players, players hampered by injury last year, and good-but-not-yet-great players?" so I was saying that the average pt/game would not work for his scenario of studs > players hampered by injury.

Ahh, I misunderstood you. My apologies.

I read "hampered by injury" to mean players who played but underperformed due to nagging-but-playable injuries (like how Maurice Jones-Drew played all of last season on a bad knee), not players who were excellent when on the field but then were removed from the field of play by injury.

Ok, so injuries are not factored into the inflation rate. Still doesn't seem like a big deal to me... though we could just as easily take the total and divide by X (e.g. 16), too.

*shrug*

I'm just trying to come up with something slightly more interesting, and perhaps even more "fair," than the one-size-fits-all of 3or30.

Grumpicus wrote:

Ok, so injuries are not factored into the inflation rate. Still doesn't seem like a big deal to me

I agree. I don't think Romo's value is really diminished much for the time he missed last year, for example.

I think we're getting down to the fine detail stage here. It sounds like everyone is roughly on board for something in the ballpark of the $3-or-30% idea, whether it's precisely that or some sort of modification to make things more interesting and/or attempt to address corner cases. Although maybe it's just me reading things that way because I think it's a good idea. Is anyone not at all liking this direction, or are we mostly agreed on this general path?

Grumpicus wrote:

Ok, so injuries are not factored into the inflation rate. Still doesn't seem like a big deal to me... though we could just as easily take the total and divide by X (e.g. 16), too.

*shrug*

I'm just trying to come up with something slightly more interesting, and perhaps even more "fair," than the one-size-fits-all of 3or30.

If you want to make it more interesting, give a bonus bump to any player in the top 20 at their position, as that's fleaflicker's default list size. Yes, QB's and TE's would face too much inflation, but as soon as we get positional it gets too complicated (which I think we decided last year as well). Call it high profile positions getting more inflation, if you want. I also still like the idea of free agents having more inflation. So how about this:

Inflation = $3 or 30% (whichever is greater)
top 20 total points at position = +$2
Free agent pickup = +$2

Anybody picked up on the cheap during the draft is barely affected by the $2, although it puts star players over the edge in one or two cases (it would on my roster, anyway). Free agents are barely affected, but stud free agents get the double whammy. Have QB's, TE's, and K inflate only in the top 10 if you like, either way it's a simple 'interesting' solution that includes player performance and free agents.

Something's been bothering me about this whole free agency thing. Now, last year was my first year with Goodjer FF and it's been a while so my memory is a little fuzzy, but the rules say that free agents aren't a first come, first served event. There's a bidding process. Sure, some people can be snagged for $1, but in the example given earlier, when Kolb got hurt, Vick as a free agent would not have gone for $1, he would've gone for $20 or whatever the bids got up to.

So why are we so worried about free agents? How many truly great players who will be kept around for 5 years went for $1?

(Sorry if that comes off antagonistic at all, my pain meds are kicking my ass right now, so I can't tell if I'm being jerky or not. ;))

Edit: Wouldn't an arbitrary floor make more sense than adding $2 for free agents. Perhaps even a floor per position. We had talked about that $10 floor last year, but that doesn't make much sense for TEs and might be too little for QBs or WRs or RBs. Okay, everyone other than TEs.

garion333 wrote:

Something's been bothering me about this whole free agency thing. Now, last year was my first year with Goodjer FF and it's been a while so my memory is a little fuzzy, but the rules say that free agents aren't a first come, first served event. There's a bidding process. Sure, some people can be snagged for $1, but in the example given earlier, when Kolb got hurt, Vick as a free agent would not have gone for $1, he would've gone for $20 or whatever the bids got up to.

Vick was claimed by Grump for $26.

We had talked about that $10 floor last year, but that doesn't make much sense for TEs and might be too little for QBs or WRs or RBs. Okay, everyone other than TEs. :P

Not a fan of the floor. $10 is a lot when that would be a 100+% increase for a very large part of the league. A minimum inflation value (for those players who are so low that a percentage increase wouldn't amount to much) is a lot more reasonable IMO. The thing to recognize is that the values are incredibly top-heavy. Looking at last year's draft, out of 20 players per roster, most people only drafted 4 to 6 players in the double digits. A $10 floor means anyone but one of your top ~5 players would be too expensive to be worth keeping.

IMO we shouldn't make over half the league un-keepable just for the sake of addressing this issue that we seem to be collectively over-paranoid about.

And you weren't antagonistic at all. We're having a nice healthy bat around of the issue. Everyone is being plenty civil IMO. It's probably one of the most civil rules discussions in any fantasy football league.

*Legion* wrote:

Vick was claimed by Grump for $26.

True, but if Kolb had been, for example, injured in practice on a Thursday, Vick could have been had for free by the first person to the website. Do we need to have different free agent acquisition rules for the keeper league? I'm just asking. Seriously.

*Legion* wrote:

IMO we shouldn't make over half the league un-keepable just for the sake of addressing this issue that we seem to be collectively over-paranoid about.

I agree. I also agreed with you last year on a lot of your "free market" views. I'm not sure the $3/30% is the best answer, but it's simple to understand and implement. According to you 30% is the high end of what keeper leagues usually do, so I think the higher inflation will make it more difficult for people get away with creating some sort of dynasty of $1 players.

I'd like to give the keeper league a shot if there's a room. I'm active in Madden and other leagues.

If that doesn't convince you... maybe my friend Mr. Washington will be able to convince you

IMAGE(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/United_States_one_dollar_bill%2C_obverse.jpg)

Grumpicus wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

Vick was claimed by Grump for $26.

True, but if Kolb had been, for example, injured in practice on a Thursday, Vick could have been had for free by the first person to the website. Do we need to have different free agent acquisition rules for the keeper league? I'm just asking. Seriously.

Maybe players acquired via the normal free agent process use the value they were acquired at, but players that are added (not bid on) have some sort of salary floor, maybe something like the average auction value from the previous year of the top 12 players at their position (franchise-tag style)? Or maybe make them exempt and ineligible to be kept?

Landshrk83 wrote:
Grumpicus wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

Vick was claimed by Grump for $26.

True, but if Kolb had been, for example, injured in practice on a Thursday, Vick could have been had for free by the first person to the website. Do we need to have different free agent acquisition rules for the keeper league? I'm just asking. Seriously.

Maybe players acquired via the normal free agent process use the value they were acquired at, but players that are added (not bid on) have some sort of salary floor, maybe something like the average auction value from the previous year of the top 12 players at their position (franchise-tag style)? Or maybe make them exempt and ineligible to be kept?

No.

Hmm, thought I had an example on my team of why I'm adamant against this.

Edit: Ah, yes, I do. I snagged Kevin Kolb in week 11 last year so I could hold onto him for the next season (or in case Vick got hurt). Also, I claimed Matthew Stafford for $0 and wasted a roster spot on him the entire season so I could keep him. I'd be ... unhappy if that move got killed.

garion333 wrote:
Landshrk83 wrote:
Grumpicus wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

Vick was claimed by Grump for $26.

True, but if Kolb had been, for example, injured in practice on a Thursday, Vick could have been had for free by the first person to the website. Do we need to have different free agent acquisition rules for the keeper league? I'm just asking. Seriously.

Maybe players acquired via the normal free agent process use the value they were acquired at, but players that are added (not bid on) have some sort of salary floor, maybe something like the average auction value from the previous year of the top 12 players at their position (franchise-tag style)? Or maybe make them exempt and ineligible to be kept?

No.

Hmm, thought I had an example on my team of why I'm adamant against this.

Edit: Ah, yes, I do. I snagged Kevin Kolb in week 11 last year so I could hold onto him for the next season (or in case Vick got hurt). Also, I claimed Matthew Stafford for $0 and wasted a roster spot on him the entire season so I could keep him. I'd be ... unhappy if that move got killed.

I'm just throwing suggestions out there. No matter what the solution, it's going to negatively impact someone's roster. I'm not saying we need to do any of the above, but I was trying to keep the discussion moving by tossing some ideas around.

Grumpicus wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

Vick was claimed by Grump for $26.

True, but if Kolb had been, for example, injured in practice on a Thursday, Vick could have been had for free by the first person to the website. Do we need to have different free agent acquisition rules for the keeper league? I'm just asking. Seriously.

Coaches who let their players get injured in weekly practices don't stick around the league very long. Given how much a weekly practice schedule in the regular season is geared around not beating up your players, I think we can chance it. Injuries in practice are usually sit-him-or-start-him hammy tweaks or stingers, not go-grab-his-backup catastrophes.

*Legion* wrote:
Grumpicus wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

Vick was claimed by Grump for $26.

True, but if Kolb had been, for example, injured in practice on a Thursday, Vick could have been had for free by the first person to the website. Do we need to have different free agent acquisition rules for the keeper league? I'm just asking. Seriously.

Coaches who let their players get injured in weekly practices don't stick around the league very long. Given how much a weekly practice schedule in the regular season is geared around not beating up your players, I think we can chance it. Injuries in practice are usually sit-him-or-start-him hammy tweaks or stingers, not go-grab-his-backup catastrophes.

Or any number of other things. It's not about the reason for picking up a free agent, it's about the timing of the pickup being after claims have come through.

If you're really that against additional free agent inflation or can't understand people picking up free agents at a lower price than they would otherwise get during a smart draft, then ok. It seems like something some of us want, but we don't need it. We can run it for a year at the base 3/30.

Maybe we should do what Grump alluded to earlier and change the pickup rules so that ALL free agents must be bid on and there are no free pickups after that point. The risk there is that someone get's hosed on the claims and ends up without a starter for a week because of the blind bidding process, but as long as we are agreed, it's their own fault.

Landshrk83 wrote:

I'm just throwing suggestions out there. No matter what the solution, it's going to negatively impact someone's roster. I'm not saying we need to do any of the above, but I was trying to keep the discussion moving by tossing some ideas around.

Sorry if my reply was a bit harsh.

I was really only saying no to that last part. The salary floor issue isn't something I'm as concerned about and it makes some sense for particular acquisitions, but I don't think anyone should be ineligible to keep. That, to me, breaks the idea of a keeper league. But for the non-outliers the $3 or 30% would take a $1 to $4, then $7, then $10. So, you'll have that player for 4 years before he hits "standard" price threshold. By that I mean that most players were acquired for around the $10 mark, give or take $3 or so.

I don't think 4 years for wasting a roster spot on, in my case, a broken Matthew Stafford is a terrible thing. I was negatively impacted throughout the season by wasting a spot on him. There's absolutely no guarantee the kid will ever finish a season, so there's a good chance I may not even bother keeping him after this season.

And if we institute a $6 minimum floor to keep a player, then he'll hit $10 in three years.