|
|
Post by luxurytax on Sept 18, 2009 20:23:15 GMT -5
I draft Zydrunas Ilgauskas - Cle - C As per normal rules, Browntown was able to change his defaulted pick if he did so within 3 made picks of his default. So I've changed his pick to Ilgauskas. Since Turiaf would then have been the highest ranked available player for Webber4ever's default, I've moved him in there and placed Bonner back on the available player list. hoopitup is still OTC until 2:33 am (proboards time) Sat Sept 19. -Luxury Tax Just a quick comment regarding the changed pick. This is basically why we only allow replacement picks to be made within 3 picks... This particular change and the resulting changes are about as complicated as I want to get as far as retroactive alterations go. An argument could be made for just leaving Webber's default as it was to keep things simple... but I'd rather keep things on the level as far as how the defaults are assigned. Since Turiaf was the highest rated player available at the time of webber's default, Turiaf should be who he gets. As long as a replacement pick is made within 3 picks of the default, I will endeavor to make sure no one is negatively impacted by any retroactive changes. And that's where the big gray area comes in. Without outlining every possible scenario, I can still see how the GMs who have made picks since the default might take issue with the releasing of the original default back into the available player pool... Or more specifically, may have wanted to draft such a player if they had not been default assigned prior to their pick. While I would hope this is a rare scenario, I'm not naive enough to believe that it wouldn't happen. If such a situation were to occur, I'd be willing to consider any arguments made by affected GM's on a case by case basis. However, the goal of these kinds of retroactive alterations is to be as fair as possible and allow for legitimate reasons for missing a drafting deadline. The limit of making a replacement pick within 3 picks is to limit the amount of damage that is done to the integrity of the draft by allowing such a replacement. It may be that we are being too forgiving in this case. I'm interested in what you all think as far as whether allowing for replacements to be made for defaulted picks is a good idea or bad. Certainly we will not change the format for this particular draft, but I'm interested in seeing if we can improve things for next year. Comments? -Luxury Tax |
|
|
|
Post by bluefox on Sept 18, 2009 20:37:18 GMT -5
I'm O.K. with the way you're doing it. I would like (if possible) that the defaulted pick is still considered as an available player. For example, let's just say that I'm picking after a defaulted pick, the default pick is Turiaf and I want to pick Turiaf. I should be able to claim him and the previous pick has to be changed in order for me to get Turiaf and the other guy gets the next player in the rankings. I think it would be unfair to not be able to pick a guy just because the other guy didn't make his pick and gets the player that I want (it's an ever more rare scenario, but I wanted to make it clear).
Someone picking the player that you want is part of the game, being unable to pick the guy you want because of an inactive manager it's very unfair.
If you're looking for a replacement, there are a couple of guys on RK looking for a team. I know realsccr23 and dannyrude from some other leagues and I know they are active.
|
|
|
|
Post by luxurytax on Sept 18, 2009 23:50:07 GMT -5
Well, bluefox, you're actually in a position to be the perfect example. Just based on what happened in this case, if you had rather wanted Turiaf to your pick of Delfino (not saying you do... just hypothetical...tho if you do let me know), then I kinda feel that you have a legit case in asking for Turiaf instead of your pick.
The only issue I have with that is the possibillity of delaying the draft over multiple people wanting to alter their picks based on the re-availability of a player... so say for example you did want Turiaf, then hoopitup goes "oh I'd rather have Delfino" and then Lakers goes "oh I'd rather have Lawson" (again...not saying this is the case, just as an example)... the question I have is where do you draw the line?.. or is it necessary to do so?
In a case like the one I just outlined, in an ideal situation everyone would be logging on frequently enough that it could be done with little disruption, but as we know the draft is a far from ideal situation. (the ideal draft would be to have everybody online at the same time and give 2-5 minutes per pick until the draft is over... but the logistics are just not workable with everyone's availability... so we have to do something like what we've got...)
Anyways, I definitely appreciate your point, and agree that you (or whoever picked after the changed default) should have a shot at the re-available player. I'd just like to find a way to insure the draft doesn't bog down to deal with such a scenario.
|
|
|
|
Post by luxurytax on Sept 18, 2009 23:57:09 GMT -5
If you're looking for a replacement, there are a couple of guys on RK looking for a team. I know realsccr23 and dannyrude from some other leagues and I know they are active. Oh and if either of those guys are interested in taking over Webber's team, get them to e-mail 4pt at wiitigo@hotmail.com . I'd say just have them join in to the proboards site and claim the team, but 4pt might already have something in the works. Either way, have anyone who might be interested send an e-mail to 4Pt at the above e-mail address expressing interest in Webber4ever's team, and we'll take it from there. Hopefully we can get a gm in there before Webber's next pick. |
|
|
|
Post by bluefox on Sept 19, 2009 0:49:06 GMT -5
Lol, don't worry, I didn't want Turiaf (actually I forgot that I picked after a defaulted pick).
But It would be nice if it can be done without making another pick. In that case, I would been able to post something like "I pick Turiaf so Webber Defaults to Bonner", so the next person can freely pick someone without making corrections, unless he wants Bonner.
|
|
sc
Junior GM
Posts: 53
|
Post by sc on Sept 19, 2009 15:33:50 GMT -5
I don't really mind the system you're using for defaults. I can see how it can get complicated, but if everybody stays on top of their picks it shouldn't be a problem.
I worry more about going into the season with ghost GM's (like for team Webber). For every defaulted pick I think there is going to be less and less interest in taking over that team (the draft is the maybe the funnest part of FBB)... which leads me to my next point.
It doesn't really seem fair to use last years Yahoo statistical-based rankings as this years defaulted rankings. Even though we're only using that list for GM's who aren't on the ball, those rankings kind of tend to suck. For instance there is a PF/C at the top of the defaulted rankings right now that per-yahoo ranked ahead of Al Jefferson, D. Rose, Kevin Martin, Ron Artest etc, when clearly with his team in real life gaining depth this off season he won't have much fantasy value at all... Why don't we use Yahoo's O-rankings from this year as the defaults? So maybe when somebody does take over that team, or does get passed up for whatever reason, they don't feel as slighted and compelled to change the pick.... Even using "% owned" over those rankings I feel would be a better idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by luxurytax on Sept 23, 2009 17:29:46 GMT -5
It doesn't really seem fair to use last years Yahoo statistical-based rankings as this years defaulted rankings. Even though we're only using that list for GM's who aren't on the ball, those rankings kind of tend to suck. For instance there is a PF/C at the top of the defaulted rankings right now that per-yahoo ranked ahead of Al Jefferson, D. Rose, Kevin Martin, Ron Artest etc, when clearly with his team in real life gaining depth this off season he won't have much fantasy value at all... Why don't we use Yahoo's O-rankings from this year as the defaults? So maybe when somebody does take over that team, or does get passed up for whatever reason, they don't feel as slighted and compelled to change the pick.... Even using "% owned" over those rankings I feel would be a better idea. Sorry it took me so long to respond to this. I actually agree with you. I would have preferred to use this year's O-Rankings as well. Here's the thing. Normally Yahoo doesn't open league registration until much later than we usually start the draft, so usually those O-Rankings are not available. Last year's actual rankings are usually the most fair list to go by. This year however, Yahoo was on the ball and opened League reg early, making those O-Rankings available. Had I the time prior to the draft to collate this years O-Rankings into my excel files I would have, but With getting everything ready prior to the draft and trying to get everyone's keepers named, I simply didn't have the time to grab the list from yahoo prior to the draft. I usually prefer not to make wholesale changes to a system that is already in use, and changing the default player list now could conceivably cause some real issues for anyone who has defaulted already (ie going back and retro actively changing defaults to match this years O-Rankings). If all you're suggesting is to use this year's O-Rankings from here on out, I'd be willing to do so, but I would want the support of the majority of the GMs before implementing it. IF enough people think we should use this years O-Rankings rather than last year's actual rankings for default players, I will change it up. So I guess I should add a poll to this thread.-Luxury Tax |
|
|
|
Post by 4PointPlay on Sept 25, 2009 8:00:47 GMT -5
I like the idea of changing it to the O-Ranking, but it will have to go into effect for next year as we are already done half of this years draft using the current system.
|
|
