Yahoo! update
Dear fantastic fantasy friends,
Thanks again for all the good natured debate regarding the proposed new rules and switch to Yahoo's website. Most of you have voted about next year's league setup, but some have not...so if you haven't voted your preference on the new rules please do so here.
As the discussions have been going on, I have been checking in with Yahoo's customer service on how their site will work with some of our pre-existing rules.
Unfortunately, I found out today that though Yahoo has some great features, it's missing one of the features we used most on TQStats -- the ability to adjust rosters retroactively. So if someone were to make a roster change that required commissioner intervention, and I was not able to log in and make that change until after the start of a player's game, then you will lose that player's stats for that game...with no way for me to adjust your score to get them back.
I know I've been harping about how I want to run the league with a minimum of commissioner intervention. With this news, it now seems imperative that the league be set up so that it does not rely on commissioner controls to run the league on a day-to-day basis. I will let you know how this will impact the 3 Yahoo options after people finish voting, and when Yahoo customer care gets back to me on a couple more things.
One other thing I found out -- with regards to the 82 game limit. The 82 game limit handles the problem with inactives this way...if a player doesn't set foot on the court, then that does not count towards one of the 82 games for that roster spot.
Peace - out.
posted by TVDave at
3:58 PM
6 Comments:
the loss of ability to adjust stats retroactively is a pretty big thing... with that revelation then the transactions would have to be 100% operated by each us. that means that we need to have our rules 100% in line with Yahoo's rules so Yahoo can make the judgments and no one gets any points they shouldn't by putting in a transaction that is against the rules. And no transactions should require commissioner posting lest someone miss out on points if Dave isn't around to post that particular day. The last thing we need is someone bitching about how they lost on 30 points one night... heck something like that could have made the difference in the Layden this year.
This means we may have to change some of our rules... the biggest one that we've talked about being an elimination of the trade supermove. As I recall, Yahoo can't handle it. Also, we'd have to change the waiver wire. Yahoo can't handle last place team with first option on a waived a player.
Was TQ Stats really that bad? I understand it's not perfect and some were not enthralled with the interface, but personally I didn't have much problem with it and the message board has been one of the keys to us all staying in much better touch with each other over the last few years. I had all the information I needed to make decisions about my team. As a former commissioner I can attest that posting a transaction in the system takes about 1-2 minutes each... not too hard though it can wear on you by the end of the season. I'd think seriously now about going back and honestly that is my preference today until someone else convinces me otherwise. If we want the bench rules instead of injury replacements TQ Stats can still handle that with its set up.
Let's not change just for change sake. Let's have a good reason to change. Someone please tell me what that reason is?
By
Knick33, at 11:02 AM
Yahoo does allow trade supermoves. I checked. Although it might be a trick to do one on the basis of position eligibility -- if Yahoo's system sees that you don't meet the position requirements, it might bar a trade....even if you plan to use a TS afterwards.
I'm less concerned about the waiver wire. I can keep that set so it's in the order of worst to first...and Yahoo automatically bans a GM from picking up their own waived player...so that could be manual, if it happens.
My biggest concern though is idea that we allow trades and supermoves throughout the week, while freezing the rosters for any other moves (bench replacements). The way Yahoo is set up, you should really choose 1 or the other. A hybrid league would force us to open up the controls to all transactions, even ones that are illegal under our rules. And like Knick 33 says, someone would fuck up and it would affect their score for the year.
If people wanted a weekly league, it'd be better to freeze the roster completely. Then free-agent pickups and waiver wire pickups can happen during the week...but they become part of your bench. Trades would happen, but would actually "go down" on the days rosters become unlocked.
This is why I'm a fan of the 82-game limit. You can do transactions anytime during the week. No one could do anything illegal, and the 82-game limit keeps a lid on it. It just makes sense.
(And I would be happy to expound on why a weekly roster will involve more roster maintenance than an 82 game limit too. Just ask!)
By
TVDave, at 1:32 PM
Why let Yahoo dictate how we play MoonBall? We should decide what kind of league we want, and go with the website that can accommodate us. I agree with Knick33 --- I never thought TQ Stats was all that bad. Sure, there were quirks and kinks (as there are on Yahoo, as we are already seeing), but TQ served its purpose. And making people post messages on the board is a nice feature in a league composed of friends (and former friends), compared to the anonymous do-it-yourself world of Yahoo.
Bring back TQ!
By
jLev, at 10:09 AM
I agree with Knicks33 and Jlev: I am down on using the whole Yahoo system if it does not allow retro-active changes. No retro-active changes mean we either (a) think there will be no human error, or (b) we have to mold our rules to exactly match the Hoo!
Commish: Would you perhaps start a new thread in which we could have this discussion. We have time to mull over all angles. I am sure that Yahoo user MeWolves will have some different perspectives.
Because however bad TQ was at times, we could adjust it to our rules, correct our own mistakes, and be assured that the standings were ultimately accurate.
Also, is there any other alternatives? Not to create more work, but perhaps there is a site better than TQ, but with the same manual controls.
I appreciate your research and reporting of the Yahoo system.
By
The Green, at 1:25 AM
WB, my thoughts exactly. I've been mulling it over the past couple days, and I'm ready today to start a new thread.
By
TVDave, at 10:00 AM
bring back TQ
By
monkeyshoes, at 3:12 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home