FF2011: Official GWJFFLK-specific discussion thread

With a nod to the previous name, I have named my team Old Man's Flaming Arthritis.

So Homer ends up with two tribute names? Fun.

After reviewing the discussion and since no official ruling has been implemented, I thought I would put in my $0.02 on the keeper inflation issue. I am totally on board with the $3 or 30% for draftees. It is simple to calculate and does not require much in the way of supervision to ensure it is applied correctly. I'm not quite as big on the $5 or 50% for free agents, but I can live with it because it does decrease the leanings toward a dynasty league. I am also in agreement with using the average cost method for players who were drafted, released, and claimed/added. I can envision some fringe instances where this might work greatly to someone's advantage, but I don't think there are enough of them to require a specific rule.

I'm sorry, per the rules of the league your $.02 automatically rounds up to $1.

oldmanscene24 wrote:
...but I don't think there are enough of them to require a specific rule.

Exactly my thoughts. Whatever method we use, if simple enough, is going to have an edge case that works to someone's advantage/disadvantage, but it's not worth obfuscating the rules over it.

Jolly Bill wrote:
I'm sorry, per the rules of the league your $.02 automatically rounds up to $1.

Awesome! I'm increasing in value already!

oldmanscene24 wrote:
After reviewing the discussion and since no official ruling has been implemented, I thought I would put in my $0.02 on the keeper inflation issue. I am totally on board with the $3 or 30% for draftees. It is simple to calculate and does not require much in the way of supervision to ensure it is applied correctly. I'm not quite as big on the $5 or 50% for free agents, but I can live with it because it does decrease the leanings toward a dynasty league. I am also in agreement with using the average cost method for players who were drafted, released, and claimed/added. I can envision some fringe instances where this might work greatly to someone's advantage, but I don't think there are enough of them to require a specific rule.

This is the gist of where it's going. I'll get something official-looking up someday but if you're calculating, you can use this as a basis. If it makes much of a difference, FA's _may_ be $4or40%

Anyone else having trouble getting into FleaFlicker? It just redirects me over to AOL when I try and log in.

I don't think so. This was discussed in the non-keeper FFL thread here if that helps.

Cmon everyone, go put in your times, we want to get the best/first pick at drafting for this league!!!

From the other thread:

Jolly Bill wrote:
C'mon GWJFFLK and GWJFFL2!! I want to get good times :-D

<br /> Your Events<br /> Created Name Results<br /> Aug 25, 2011 GWJFFLK Draft 2011 4 so far<br /> Aug 25, 2011 GWJFFL1 Draft 2011 4 so far<br /> Aug 25, 2011 GWJFFL2 Draft 2011 6 so far<br /> Aug 25, 2011 GWJFFL3 Draft 2011 5 so far<br />

1 and 2 already have no date/times that work for everyone and K and 3 only have date/times on Wednesday that have no conflicts at all. Remember that you can edit your submissions and be as flexible as possible.

Shall I open up some earlier dates and run the risk that someone gets injured after being drafted?

Grumpicus wrote:
Shall I open up some earlier dates and run the risk that someone gets injured after being drafted?

I'm okay with that. In fact, I have a draft on Monday, so ...

I resolved my issue by emailing FleaFlicker directly - they are awesome!

Looking at my roster, it's painfully obvious that my team overachieved and I'm not sure yet who I'd keep... how do we see what we originally paid for players?

Check the link in the OP

Awesome, found it.

Now to figure out who to keep... Orton ($3) and McFadden ($6) seem like no-brainers, but I'll have to see the final formula to know if Gates ($15), Sproles ($10) and Greg Jennings/DeSean Jackson ($25 each) make the cut.

NOTE: It's late. I'm tired. I may have royally screwed something up. All keeper prices are subject to change (though it won't be by much) until the day before the draft. They probably won't but it needs to be said just in case.

$2 keepers (there are no $1 keepers):
* Randy McMichael
* Anthony Gonzalez
* Bernard Scott
* Julius Jones
* Tarvaris Jackson
* Billy Volek
* Jerious Norwood
* Justin Gage
* Devin Thomas

Players that only inflated by $1 over their base:
* Dexter McCluster
* Anthony Gonzalez
* Bernard Scott
* Julius Jones
* Jerious Norwood
* Justin Gage
* Devin Thomas
* Montario Hardesty
* Jerome Harrison

Biggest percentage increases (base > $10):
* Michael Vick (FA) - 48.63%
* Ryan Fitzpatrick (FA) - 39.89%
* Arian Foster - 39.53%
* Aaron Rodgers - 37.17%
Those %10 FA fees really take a toll.

Biggest dollar increases:
* Brandon Jackson (FA) - $21 ($63 + 32.86%)
* Chris Johnson - $20 ($64 + 30.62%)
* Ray Rice - $20 ($65 + 30.77%)
* Adrian Peterson - $18 ($59 + 31.17%)
* Aaron Rodgers - $17 ($45 + 37.17%)

Just to be clear, this isn't necessarily a voting matter. I welcome your feedback, of course, but in the end, I've got to make a decision.

I can explain the details more after I've had some sleep but essentially, I appreciated the concept of "$5-or-50%" for players acquired through free agency (on top of "$3-or-30%" for players who were drafted) but found the numbers to be too punitive in implementation. As such, I started with 3or30/4or40 as my baseline and then started playing with numbers.

From there, I wanted a system that would help elite players to escalate more quickly while not "penalizing" role players so much that most of them weren't worth keeping. This still isn't a dynasty league but if you have a "project player" who still hasn't broken out, perhaps this system might make him a little more attractive.

Cutting to the chase, here's the keeper prices for all of your players. The column you're most interested in is column M.

Note that except for 10 "elite" players, prices are the same (43) or lower (193) than they would be under 3/4-or-30/40. On average, the price to save your whole team (not that you can afford it) is about $20 lower.

More tomorrow (if there's interest). Good night.

Jeez Grumps, that's some hard work there. Bravo.

Not sure I understand the #s, but I see that I got no consideration for keeping an injured Romo on my roster all year huh.

ukickmydog wrote:
Not sure I understand the #s, but I see that I got no consideration for keeping an injured Romo on my roster all year huh.

Yeah, but you get Holmes for $10.

garion333 wrote:
ukickmydog wrote:
Not sure I understand the #s, but I see that I got no consideration for keeping an injured Romo on my roster all year huh.

Yeah, but you get Holmes for $10.

Not sure what that has to do with anything, but ya...

ukickmydog wrote:
garion333 wrote:
ukickmydog wrote:
Not sure I understand the #s, but I see that I got no consideration for keeping an injured Romo on my roster all year huh.

Yeah, but you get Holmes for $10.

Not sure what that has to do with anything, but ya...

Just trying to make you feel better is all.

I don't think we've discussed it much yet, but when we submit our keeper lists, it would be a big advantage for one person to know other team's keepers in advance. In fact, I'd probably wait until the deadline to submit my keepers if it was public.

Any chance we could do a two round keeper selection process? First submit your keeper list, then once everyone has done so and the lists are public, add or drop a small number of players off of your list (maybe 1-3 players) to come up with a final list?

Unless someone has come up with a better option, I guess we'll be using ESPN for the auction draft again. I just dropped the two owners who've left and invited the two new ones. Please head over, log in, and clean out the cobwebs. Thanks.

Landshrk83 wrote:
I don't think we've discussed it much yet, but when we submit our keeper lists, it would be a big advantage for one person to know other team's keepers in advance. In fact, I'd probably wait until the deadline to submit my keepers if it was public.

Any chance we could do a two round keeper selection process? First submit your keeper list, then once everyone has done so and the lists are public, add or drop a small number of players off of your list (maybe 1-3 players) to come up with a final list?

Y'all discuss and I'll give it some thought. I'm still new to this whole keeper thing (obviously).

ukickmydog wrote:
Not sure I understand the #s...

I'm happy to answer any questions. I'm also happy to consider any feedback and suggestions. Though I'm generally happy with this overall formulation, I'd consider tweaks to the algorithms.

ukickmydog wrote:
...but I see that I got no consideration for keeping an injured Romo on my roster all year huh.

*notes your unused injured reserve slot*

*notes that Elliottx didn't get any "consideration" (by your definition) for keeping Montario Hardesty on his roster all year (though he did make use of his IR slot)*

*notes the ruling that players cut and claimed by the same team in the same week are treated as though the transaction didn't occur*

*notes that Garion essentially "suffered" the same fate with Kevin Kolb and is trying to make you feel better about your roster instead of complaining about his*

*notes that while you're admittedly disagreeing with Romo's "base" value, you only paid 23.42% inflation because this system gives "consideration" (by my definition) to players who were less productive last year (and Romo was no Montario Hardesty)*

*notes that while I appreciate how active and participatory you are, systems are defined by their rules and the rules attempt to benefit the greater good, and while I'm not encouraging you to do so, if you would prefer to find a different system, Pigpen would probably be happy to run your team for you*

ukickmydog wrote:
Not sure I understand the #s, but I see that I got no consideration for keeping an injured Romo on my roster all year huh.

Grump's a classy guy that clearly did a lot of work to come up with this performance based system, so I'm sure he'd never say it like this, but either shut up about your special considerations or go find another league to play in.

I've been thinking the same thing about a two stage keeper process. Not sure how much that's just wishing I had more info about other teams before picking mine though.... A more 'fluid' system would probably be better, but then no one would share info until the deadline. With the two stage solution there is incentive to obfuscate your true keepers with as much garbage as you're allowed. I would personally like a two stage solution if there was a fair way to do it that without a lot of complexity.

Oooo. New idea, although still complex. Only allowed to announce 1 keeper per day. That way everyone slowly gets dialed in on the keeper situation. I'm not really up for another rules discussion now, so once and done keepers might be best.

Grumpicus wrote:
Landshrk83 wrote:
I don't think we've discussed it much yet, but when we submit our keeper lists, it would be a big advantage for one person to know other team's keepers in advance. In fact, I'd probably wait until the deadline to submit my keepers if it was public.

Any chance we could do a two round keeper selection process? First submit your keeper list, then once everyone has done so and the lists are public, add or drop a small number of players off of your list (maybe 1-3 players) to come up with a final list?

Y'all discuss and I'll give it some thought. I'm still new to this whole keeper thing (obviously).

How about a closed keeper/cut list submitted privately to Grump by a specified deadline? This would keep the lists out of the public eye until all lists are submitted. We could then begin the official player-cutting process. The only real commissioner involvement would be in making sure that all the lists are honored by their respective owners.

Jolly Bill wrote:
I've been thinking the same thing about a two stage keeper process. Not sure how much that's just wishing I had more info about other teams before picking mine though.... A more 'fluid' system would probably be better, but then no one would share info until the deadline. With the two stage solution there is incentive to obfuscate your true keepers with as much garbage as you're allowed. I would personally like a two stage solution if there was a fair way to do it that without a lot of complexity.

Oooo. New idea, although still complex. Only allowed to announce 1 keeper per day. That way everyone slowly gets dialed in on the keeper situation. I'm not really up for another rules discussion now, so once and done keepers might be best.

Bold added is mine- that's why I was suggesting a very limited number of keepers that could be added or dropped once the first round went through- and I think for the most part people aren't looking to game the system too badly.

I'm fine with one and done keepers if everyone else is fine with that too.

oldmanscene24 wrote:
How about a closed keeper/cut list submitted privately to Grump by a specified deadline? This would keep the lists out of the public eye until all lists are submitted. We could then begin the official player-cutting process. The only real commissioner involvement would be in making sure that all the lists are honored by their respective owners.

I'm of the opinion that if you declare a player a keeper, you're keeping them (if we do a one stage process). Possible exceptions for players that are injured, or have other drastic situation changes after we declare keepers.

I agree. By "official player-cutting process" I simply meant the mechanics of removing them from rosters. I was primarily focusing on the privacy aspects of declaring keepers.

oldmanscene24 wrote:
I agree. By "official player-cutting process" I simply meant the mechanics of removing them from rosters. I was primarily focusing on the privacy aspects of declaring keepers.

Ahh, gotcha.