Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

Wanted to start a new 2018 thread about this...been using the Classic for 10 years and have been playing around with the online version and am still leaning towards the classic as you can pick the windows you want up and make it more customization to what you want to view. 

Interested to hear everyone's thoughts!

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too been using Classic version for about the same amount of time along side projection dominator to import multiple expert projections. .   I feel the classic version is more flexible when it comes to setting base lines.  Our league is an auction draft league and I have draft results for the past 6 years and base my baseline on that history.  I find the on line dominator does not adequately accommodate my requirements in that area.  I also have more confidence in the auction values reflected in the classic version especially when it comes to adjusting those values as players are drafted.

The on  lime version is more flashy and "modern" looking, but I'm more interesting in flexibility and accuracy than look and feel. .   

 

Just my two cents. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally, the DD online is better unless you have a workflow that works really well for you in classic.

@BlueMeanie for auctions I would strongly recommend checking out DD Online and getting familiar with it to build up that confidence in the app. Personally my main league is an auction. The app has more flexibility and adaptiveness for auctions than classic.

In particular you can use the positional adjustments to adjust baselines and the studs and duds slider to set the auction value of the top players in accordance with how your league drafts.

This year you can also save your drafts in the cloud and auto-import all your league settings into DD Online. There's a ton more changes too; those are probably the two most important.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simon

We had a long discussion about this when the online dominator first went live. I have the draft history for our league for the past 10 years in a database which I run various analysis reports on.  One of the reports shows me how many players are drafted for the $1 minimum bid. As one with auction draft experience, you know that as you get toward the end of the draft, many players are picked up for $1 and if you spent your budget wisely, there is an opportunity to pick up some $2 bargains if you are the only one left with enough of your allocation. 

I set my base lines, using the classic’s “User Configurable by Position Rank” VBD baseline, such that the VBD values for these $1 players is less than 0.  For example, let’s say I set QB baseline at 15.  I expect QB’s ranked from 1-15 have auction values greater than $1 and positive VBD values. Same is true if I were to set RB value to 25, the expectation is RB’s ranked 1-25 are greater than $1 and VBD is greater than 0.   Let’s say the overall the sum of these base line values is 120.  Then I expect any player whose overall rank is less than 120 to have a auction value greater than $1 and VBD value greater than zero.  Since 168 players are dratted (12 teams/14 player rosters) the values for players ranked 126-168 (overall) should be $1 and VBD values less than 0.  To verify the numbers, I’ll take and sum the overall ranking auction values for overall rankings 1-168.  That should add up to $1200 ($100 budgets for 12 teams)

I can’t seem to find a way to replicate this with online dominator. 

 

As a retired software developer, I commend you on the work you’ve done with the online version.  I’m sure many of your users find it a very useful tool.  I may be the only person on the planet that does this type of baselining, but it has worked quite well for me making the playoffs 8 out of the last 10 seasons.

Edited by BlueMeanie
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is too detailed for me to analyse in the heat of August! I’ll review it next offseason

 

in the meantime sounds like you have a great workflow with Classic that you’re happy with so I’d stick with that 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2018 at 0:41 PM, Simon Shepherd said:

This is too detailed for me to analyse in the heat of August! I’ll review it next offseason

 

in the meantime sounds like you have a great workflow with Classic that you’re happy with so I’d stick with that 

I have to agree with @Simon Shepherd  If you have the a stable league with players who know what they are doing and a baseline of your drafts going back at least 3-5 years, you can really maximize the capability of the Classic.  That said, FBG's decided a few years ago to focus on the iPad app - there were many great suggestions that were never implemented and the Classic has is more of a 'what could have been'.

If you are in a redraft league with owners who don't put much effort into their draft and don't have draft tendencies, I would use the APP - it's more powerful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would love to see this discussed in April/May this year, not August! There are still a lot of very valid reasons to use Classic! I actually use both the app and Classic DD for prep. But, at the Draft, Classic DD still rules! The ability to plug in your own league's previous draft tendencies is invaluable! The mock draft capabilities of the app is invaluable too. I really think you need both!

 

RR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.