Offseason Moonball Adjustments
Since it’s the moonball off-season, it’s a good time to look forward to next year and address some issues that came up during last year’s play. Plus I'd like to propose some changes for the coming year. Please read through this post, and then reply with your comments.
Why make changes?
I've noticed a general discontent with TQStats over the past couple years. The site has been quirky, the waiver wire is broken, some position listings were wack. By the end of last season, it seemed like there was a league-wide interest in leaving TQStats for greener pastures.
On top of that, we had the NBA rule changes -- with the league’s new inactive rules and 2nd day box score verification to see who was actually played on any given night, there were some legitimate concerns about moonball injury replacements being too high-maintenance.
I will be the first to say that I have enjoyed playing Moonball at TQStats, and that last year was as fun and exciting as ever. But I also feel that the moonball league could be improved with the website doing more of the heavy lifting. By moving to a new website and implementing a few rule changes, we could simultaneously take more advantage of the tools that fantasy websites have to offer and change the way we deal with player replacements by using a bench.
Therefore for the advancement of moonball, I propose a new moon order:
Hosting: Change from Total Quality Stats to Yahoo
Rather than have the commish manage all the player movement behind the scenes, like the great and powerful Oz, why not have a website that manages it for us?
Yahoo features automated trades and player replacement, so each team does its own transactions in real time. It also still has a message board and personal messages similar to TQ Stats.
According to esteemed co-commissioner Sneep, who played in a Yahoo league last year, Yahoo is smoother, it has a number of better tools, and it can even e-mail you when new messages and transactions are posted. (That would be nice for me, since I can no longer monitor fantasy league sites from work, because of corporate censorship.) There are also better player metric reports, so we won’t have to be poindexters to figure out player averages and other key stats. Yes my friends, slack is back.
Yahoo’s league registration opens in September. I have reviewed Yahoo's custom league rules, and they should be able to accommodate most of our scoring and style of play. The biggest changes that would happen by moving to Yahoo – they set their own positions (so, no more exciting discussions about what position Rasheed plays).
My biggest concern is more cultural – that the message board would be less integral to the functioning of the league, since you don’t technically have to “post” your transactions.
When HP posted last year’s message board a few weeks back, it reminded me how much I liked it when everybody stuck their head up to say their peace, as they were making a move. Therefore, I would propose that each team post their trades and acquisitions on the board as they happen, so we can still nickname players, create excitement and make fools of ourselves (for all to enjoy).
Rule Changes
To take advantage of Yahoo’s automated transactions, and to try something new in our moonball league to change how injury replacement works, I am suggesting the addition of bench players. Here’s how I see it working:
Teams:
All teams will have 14 players. Each team will be composed of 10 active players and 4 bench players. The 10 will be 4 guards, 4 forwards and 2 centers. The bench can be any combination of the 3 types.
The bench can be used for reserves and injury replacements. Each team is responsible for adjusting its lineup each week, to determine who is an active player and who is reserved on the bench.
You can make as many adjustments as you’d like to your upcoming lineups during the week. Then, the week's lineup is set each Sunday at midnight.
Injury replacement
Injury replacement will now be accomplished by using players from your bench. If one of your players is hurt during a given week, you may replace that player the following week with a reserve from the bench. There will be no injury replacements from the free-agent pool. Free agents can only be picked up by supermove or trade supermove.
Supermoves
There will be 4 supermoves and 4 trade-supermoves per half-season. More supermoves have been added to account for injury replacements. Supermoves would work as before…allowing teams to replace their players with players from the free agent pool. Waived players would go to the waiver wire, and could be claimed the same way as in the past.
There is no Rabinowitz exception. (Just like any player replacement, season-ending injury replacements can only be made by supermove or waiver pickup.)
The addition of a bench is a big change, but one that I think will be fun and strategic. Having a bench will allow teams to think ahead about replacements, and keep a few interesting fill-in players around. And we’ll be able to hang on to injured (or suspended) starters without having to wait for them to be deemed “inactive”, putting them back into our lineups when we feel they're ready...not just after they've been active for a week. You can also demote players to the bench without giving up on them entirely. In other words, you're more in control of your own destiny.
Another big benefit of a bench is that it encourages trades. There would be a lot more combinations where bench players could be swapped for active players, and vice-versa.
Lastly, this arrangement will require less hands-on work from the commissioner. It’s not just that I’m lazy...but it’s nearly impossible to find a fantasy site that is not blocked by the filtering software used at my workplace. Therefore, the more transactions that can happen automagically, the better for all.
That's what I've got so far. Please use “Comments” to discuss this proposal, or post any questions or ideas you wish to offer. Happy offseason!
25 Comments:
I have no qualms about leaving TQ Stats behind. A few other clarifications and questions:
- I assume that once lineups are set on Sunday night that there are no changes allowed during the week regardless of any injuries. You can only start earning points from a bench player when lineups are re-set the next week. Is this correct? Personally, I think that is the only way to go. If someone is injured during the week, you've just got to suck it up but there are not long-term repercussions. If not, then we are stuck in the same silly situation as last season.
- What about trades? If lineups are set for the week do trade go through immediately or do they wait for the next lineup change on a Sunday night? I would hope immediately.
-- Waiver claims should be immediate too. But, this lets me circumvent changing my lineup in mid week. So, if I have Vince C. and he sits out with hang nail on Monday and Josh Smith comes off waivers on Tuesday, could I claim Smith waive a scrub from my bench and move VC to the bench on Tuesday?
-- And thinking of trades, will Yahoo be able to handle my favorite type of transaction -- the trade supermove? From my quick read of the set up and rules, I wasn't clear it would work. We need to tell Yahoo a maximum number of trades and free agent pick ups. How do you define a FA pickup that is part of the trade? If they are not equiped for that, one way we could handle it is to put a no max into the Yahoo system, but rely on the honor code for people posting their own transactions and the commish to enforce. Then to do a trade supermove would require a trade transaction plus a FA transaction in the Yahoo system and we would just all know what was happening. This is another good reason to enforce that rule Dave mentioned about everyone must post transactions to the message board even though we can do our own transactions.
-- If people are posting their own transactions directly into Yahoo, the commish needs to be able to overrule them since we always have screw ups (CCK are you out there at all?)
- Are we going to have a maximum number of games played allowed per position? This is a common feature on many sites, including Yahoo. If we don't want that is there a way to disable that feature on Yahoo?
- If we do Yahoo, I think we should be sure to do an offline draft. On Yahoo, if you don't select in 90 sec then they select for you. We've been good, generally speaking, about keeping it moving and the Yahoo on-line draft would just detract from the fun.
-- Throwing away our position list and going with Yahoo's is fine with me as well. The confusion always arose in the past because our positions didn't match up with TQ Stats.
-- Does anyone want to consider a head-to-head league rather than fantasy points style we've been playing? Or, is that just too much change all at once?
All in all I think it's a good thing and these are just minor issues that are providing another opportunity for procrastination.
By Knick33, at 10:28 AM
Dave "that Highest and Esteemed shit is so last year" Meier hit the nail on the head - the message board banter is what is most important.
I will adapt to whatever other changes are agreed by those with more time on their hands as long as I only have to adjust my roster on a weekly basis.
By HP All-stars, at 12:16 PM
Great questions, Knick33. You are all over this issue.
-You are correct that bench players cannot replace active players until the week is up and lineups are reset. So if K-mart's knee acts up on Monday, you get zeros all week until you can bench his ass. The bench is not a safety net. Zeros will still be earned. The nice thing is that you probably won't lose more than a game or two before you can reset your lineup.
-Lineups are trickier when it comes to midweek trades, and there is no question it will necessitate some use of the bench during the week on occassion. I think lineups should be able to shift to acccomodate trades or supermoves midweek. But those shifts should only fill holes left by traded players and allow teams to meet position eligibility requirements.
-If Yahoo's management tools cannot handle something in our rules, I will have supreme super-commissioner-power to change lineups through commissioner controls (like TQ Stats). I already know this will be necessary for waivers, for example. Even though Yahoo will allow 7 day waivers, they cannot currently accommodate our method of waivers wherelowest team gets first dibs. I have written them, and they may add this feature...but I will probably have to do waiver pickups manually. The same holds true for different trade and supermove scenarios. I will be able do them manually if necessary. I just want to move away from a league setup that requires EVERY move to be made manually by the commish.
-As far as your VC hangnail scenario, my feeling would be that any waiver pickups should maintain the status of the person they are replacing, unless position eligibility requirements cannot be met. So if Vince is active and you waive JChill who is on the bench, the waiver pickup should replace JChill on the bench. Then you could bench Vince the following week.
-Now, to get really technical, we can discuss games per position. I don't like the idea of limiting the number of games per position. For those who aren't following that...basically, you'd limit each position to 82 games only. So if you had Vince, and he got traded to a team with more games left, he could potentially play more than 82 games (unless he's on the Rabbis and the bastard gets hurt again). Likewise, if you draft Vince, he plays 20 games, gets hurt, and you pick up Chucky Atkins who has 65 games left...you only get 62 of them if you have Yahoo limit the games per position. In my opinion, part of a player's value is that he HAS more games left, which is part of what you consider when you pick him up. I think ALL regular season games from a player should be counted.
-I'm not interested in a shifting to a head-to-head league, I think that's too big a shift right now....although it would be fun to square off and beat your ass.
As for you, HP, please remember that I am still the highest and most esteemed, but quieter, like a ninja, ready to smite you with my silent but deadly WMDs.
By TVDave, at 12:54 PM
While we're at it on next year, I think it's high time that we held the lottery to determine the draft order.
By Knick33, at 2:25 PM
There will be a large confluence of moonies when Weedblazers and his Weedwoman come to town this summer. A live draft will be held up north under the aurora borealis at the Rat House family cabin in late August. That will still give us two months of preparation and speculation. Maybe Cous Cous will get Vince 10th or 11th this year. Time will tell.
We'll also need to determine a place to have the draft -- Minny and Cincy have been suggested by Josh/Jenny/Jason. Hopefully most of us can make the live draft again this year.
By TVDave, at 2:47 PM
To clarify an earlier post --
Draft ORDER will be determined in late August.
The moonball draft will be in late October, of course. NBA Regular season starts 10/31. Anyone have a problem with that prior weekend (10/28-29) for the draft again? If not, save the date!
By TVDave, at 5:21 PM
Unless we're doing Cincy (which I'm fine w/not doing - I realize it's not convenient for any but the Chi-town ballers) it would work better for me to look at the weekend of the 21st instead of the 28th. Two reasons -I've got a work thing that would keep me from getting to MPLS until probably Sat morning, which might mean I'd miss (though the year I won was when I drafted online, so maybe i'll have to think about that again). Second is that I am tired of annually getting shit for missing halloween stuff...
By Jason N, at 5:44 PM
Mpls or Portland - either one work for me, if Cincy is out-voted.
By Jason N, at 5:45 PM
Since NBA rosters generally aren't set until the last weekend, doing the draft the weekend of the 21st could be tricky --- but I suppose it can be done. It might just mean more speculative draft picks.
As far as the proposed new MoonBall rules, the whole bench thing should provide a potentially exciting new dimension to the league. Having to draft 14 players deep will be interesting.
I do just want to point out, though, that the new bench system likely means injuries are going to have greater (negative) impact than they have in the past. It's not really true that an injury at the beginning of a week will mean losing "only a game or two" --- each team plays an average of 3 to 4 games per week during the 82-game/25-week NBA season --- and we likely will be saddled with injured players on our active rosters more frequently than we would even with the one-game-boxscore rule discussed last year. You can’t count on injuries happening only on Sundays. In short, we almost certainly will see more games lost to injury (i.e. zero-point nights) overall.
Add to this the fact that each team's pool for injury replacements is (basically) limited to four players, rather than the entire free agent pool, so you can't use injuries as an opportunity to upgrade your team in the same way you used to be able to (which also makes supermoves that much more valuable).
I'm not saying this all is necessarily a bad thing --- as I have said before, injuries are supposed to hurt (just ask the 2005-06 Rockets, among others) --- but I don't want to hear a bunch of whining about how unfair this system is later on. The good news about the proposed bench system is it's very clearcut, compared to the more haphazard system that prevailed last season.
On other fronts:
I concur that trades, supermoves, trade supermoves, super trademoves, and waiver-wire pickups should take effect immediately, rather than waiting until the Sunday-night roster lockdown. If nothing else, it gives us a reason to log in to the site Monday through Saturday.
Under the new rules, I presume we also eliminate the ban on picking up Inactive players from the Free Agent Pool or Waiver Wire? That is, if you want to use a supermove or waiver claim to stow away an injured player on your bench, that’s your prerogative.
I'm in favor of going with whatever Yahoo says regarding positions, and thus eliminating our preseason and midseason squabbles over position assignments. (Either way, I absolutely think we have to eliminate midseason position shifts.) Does Yahoo allow for multi-positional players (F-Gs, F-Cs, G-Cs, C-F-Gs), which TQS did not? The swing players are such a valuable commodity that it would be a shame to lose that.
That's all I have to say... for now...
By jLev, at 5:52 PM
Interesting point on the addition of IL players to the roster. I like it. If you have a 4 person bench to use, I agree that it's up to each one of us what we want to use it for.
As far as Yahoo positions, they do have swing players. We'll have to wait to see a list until the Yahoo season opens in Sept. I'm hoping it will be similar to our current list.
By TVDave, at 12:21 AM
This is all fine with me. I was the biggest complainer about TQStats I think, so I'm glad to be moving from them.
As for the new rules, they are sure to make it even easier for David to win again, but he's my friend so I won't fight it.
The new era is off to a great start with super-mishy Dave. Thanks for doing all of this legwork.
And as for the draft, as the great J Mascis once said, "whatever's cool with me." While I very much want to come, I'm far from reliable this year, sad to say.
Rock on TV-Dave.
By Ironwood Flash, at 10:09 PM
I'm generally in agreement with all the rule changes. I'm striving for a kinder, gentler, less-controversial (and perhaps better finishing) CCK for next season.
One comment: if I understand the proposals correctly, barring a trade, one's lineup cannot be changed except once a week. Any reason for me to log on more than once a week?
I am obsessive-compulsive by nature, so I imagine I'll continue to check in 30 times a day, but I'm wondering if an unintended consequence of the bench and injury replacement rules will be to take away any incentive to check in frequently.
Possible remedy: if a guy gets hurt (IR or DNP-CD?!?!) just replace him from your bench.
By Huskers, at 12:41 PM
One way around the once a week roster mod limit is in fact to create an 82 games position limit. Then you can change your roster as often as you want, but if you try to switch too often, you'll run out of games. I think I like that better than arbitrarily freezing the roster (and I say that with full knowledge that I'm likely to be one of the, um, less frequent switchers...)
By Jason N, at 1:09 PM
I didn't like the 82 game roster limit at first, but I'm coming around...it's really interesting. It allows us the freedom to either micromanage the rosters or let it ride, and it erases the need to set weekly lineups.
It also accomplishes (some) of what the injury replacement did last year, to cushion the blow of injuries. (With immediate bench replacement, there would be fewer zeros.) Yet the 82 game limit keeps teams from taking advantage of roster switches to get "free" points.
Anyone else want to chime in on the 82 game limit?
Crazy to think that if the Anderson brothers use up their games at the rate they use their supermoves, they could be done in March...
By TVDave, at 12:36 PM
I likah the new rules.
The 82 game limit sounds good, especially if we then eliminate the once-a-week line up change. It is the fairest, simplest solution to the injury problem. Now that we have a bench, we can choose to manage the bench.
2007 is the Year of the Weedblazers, muthasuckas!
By The Green, at 3:55 AM
I’m gonna cast my vote against the 82-game limit. Just seems one more thing I don’t want to have to worry about. Too much thinking and micromanaging involved. The adjustment to benches is enough to get used to for the 06-07 season.
To avoid the once-a-week limitation, why don’t we just allow for injury replacements from our bench any time a player is made Inactive? (Not to replace DNP-CDs, only a boxscore-verified Inactive.) We could still set our starting lineups at the beginning of each week, but not lock out valid injury replacements (or waiver-wire/supermove/trade transactions). The only thing you can’t do, then, is bench/activate players on a whim to take advantage of nightly matchups in the NBA.
Alternatively, we could set the rosters at the beginning of the each week, and give each team X number of transactions per week (2 or 3?). You could use the transaction to deal with an injury, or you use the transaction to take advantage of matchups, but we would still have roster stability---and those of us who don’t want to micromanage our rosters on a nightly basis are at less of a disadvantage.
I vote for setting rosters once a week, allowing for injury replacements from your bench for legitimately inactive players (unlimited), and no 82-game limit.
But if I’m outvoted and we do go with the 82-game limit, one thing I don’t understand is, what happens when you re-activate an injured player and shelve someone other than the player who replaced him in the first place? In other words: Dwyane Wade is injured. You bench him and activate Randy Foye. Wade comes back, Foye is playing red-hot, and you bench Brandon Roy to make room for Wade. Are Wade’s games divided in two different roster spots? I realize Yahoo would keep track of this, but there is an element of strategy here in trying to get the most out of your 82 games at each roster spot --- requiring more long-term strategic planning than I want to worry about.
By jLev, at 10:39 AM
Also, if we do allow for injury replacements as they happen, we wouldn’t necessarily have to insist on prior boxscore verification of inactivity, since you’re only allowed to take players from your own bench and thus there’s no danger of erroneously pulling a player out of the free agent pool. That is, we could allow for the WeedBlazer-style, "I was listening to Dwight Jaynes’ radio show and someone from Gresham called in to say that his barber told him that Joel Przybilla is supposed to be inactive tonight." If it proves not to be true, then the transaction is invalid but nobody else is affected. (Or we could insist on the boxscore verification prior to the transaction, acknowledging that an injury is a bad thing. Either way.)
By jLev, at 10:49 AM
Here is what I think I mean by the 82-game limit (and what I think the Yahoo capabilities are): You have ten rosters slots. Each slot has 82 games. So, if you had an injury scenario as JLev described, Wade's game would be attributed to the slot that Roy occupied.
Am I correct that this is how the 82 game cap works?
Also, another question: When did JLev start worrying more than Eyore?
"doing the draft the weekend of the 21st could be tricky"
"I do just want to point out, though, that the new bench system likely means injuries are going to have greater (negative) impact than they have in the past."
"Just seems one more thing I don’t want to have to worry about. Too much thinking and micromanaging involved. The adjustment to benches is enough to get used to for the 06-07 season."
Let's add a tad of zippity-do-da to your Moonball outlook, JLev.
By The Green, at 12:57 PM
I hear you JLev. But I'm pretty much done with boxscore verification. I think that is a lot more micromanagement than trying to milk the best 82 games at each position out of your available players.
As I understand the Yahoo game-limit system, you are correct that Wade's points would be split between two different guard positions and Yahoo would keep track. However, to simplify things, Yahoo actually looks at the total games cumulatively by position:
From Yahoo---
"If your league uses more than one of any position, the allowable total for those positions will be the sum of each individual spot. So, if you allow a maximum of 82 games per position and have three center spots on your roster, you will have a total of 246 combined center games."
I agree that there will be strategy involved with 82 game limits. Those who don't get a full 82 games out of each position are at a clear disadvantage. I don't know that micromanaging will allow teams much greater advantage...although a little shuffling will probably help.
At the end of the day, you'll still kick yourself when you get a great game from a bench player and a crappy game from a starter.
By TVDave, at 1:49 PM
"When did JLev start worrying more than Eeyore?... Let's add a tad of zippity-do-da to your Moonball outlook."
Dude, how long have you known me? I ain't zippity-do-da-ed since I was 12.
"Rather than have the commish manage all the player movement behind the scenes, why not have a website that manages it for us?"
"I'm pretty much done with boxscore verification."
And why, exactly, do we have a Commissioner anymore?
You think looking at a boxscore is micromanaging; I think switching your roster around every day is micromanaging. Tomayto, tomahto.
By jLev, at 3:04 PM
No work for the commissioner?
Come now, JLev. There will always be the occassional trade supermove and waiver wire transaction to facilitate.
And as soon as this debate winds down, I'll be looking at the necessary constitutional modifications.
Plus I have a photo shoot coming up, so that I will have a portrait ready to send future commissioners who want to honor me by hanging my picture on the wall, for sparing them the pain JLev, WB, HP and K33 had to endure in their tenures...a pain so great that it somehow took the Zippity out of JLev's Do-Da.
Other than that, it's just sit back and watch my team kick ass, and read the boxscores whenever I damn well please!
By TVDave, at 4:49 PM
That's a fair question, Rat.
Despite my tough talk yesterday to your huz, I actually love checking box-scores (I just don't want to be a box-score cop). So let me state up front that I'm in the more-moonball-is-more-better camp.
By allowing daily transactions, we will all probably be better off opening a paper or website more than once a week. So this model will require a more consistent effort than the weekly roster, you're right.
But I think the 82 game limit will allow more freedom to all, without conferring a disproportionate advantage for doing so. The season's outcome will still be determined by draft, luck and maybe just a little skill, like it always has.
Compared to last year, I predict that this set of rules is going to be lower maintenance. If you're already playing your 10 best guys, you do nothing. And if someone's hurt, you will no longer have to snoop around boxscores to find out if they're inactive...you'll even have the freedom to switch a player out before a game.
Additionally, you usually won't have to consider the entire free agent pool when making an injury replacement like last year. Each of us can look only as far as our bench, unless we want to burn a supermove. On your bench, you'll probably only have a player or two to choose from. How much time does it take to dial up Hedo Turkoglu every now and again?
Now, when you're bench goes south, or when it turns out J.R. Smith sucks, then you might want to consider a supermove. Since you only have 4 per half, that requires a visit to the free agent cess about once a month....plus maybe a few trades (if only you'd ever get back to me on my generous proposals...)
I don't mean to make it sound like it will be gravy, because people will still get zeros, and find out they are boxed into a corner by injury and have to pick up the Kandi man or some such slouch....perhaps even dumping a better bench player to do so. The people who are making more moves will look with envy on those who are only making a few moves. Because Lord knows, freedom isn't free.
To your overall point of high vs. low maintenance and the climate of this league, you might be outnumbered. Login times on the old site showed that most people were checking in almost every day. And some are like lab monkeys who push the button for more cigarettes and blow. (I think some of us are just a little competitive maybe...). But even a quick check with your wi-fi connection during a Leah B. Olson halftime featurette on Mark Blount's favorite breakfast cereal should be enough time to make a bench move.
By TVDave, at 5:06 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By Jason N, at 9:09 AM
I guess I already stated my preference before this turned into a formal vote, but I’ll take the opportunity to expound on why I think Option #2 is the best compromise:
It avoids the daily roster maintenance of Option #1, while not handcuffing teams with the once-a-week roster lock-down of Option #3.
By jLev, at 10:28 AM
And how are we determing 'inactive'?
I like option #2, but seems like we are back to defining inactive.
You all want me listening to am radio to try and get the latest dirt onj injured Blazers?
By The Green, at 7:38 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home