New Rule to allow a backup to designated (1 Viewer)

[GregR_2]

...This hybrid stuff is a joke. There will always be scenarios where people feel like they lost because the were "unlucky".

The goal of this rule is to not put at more of a disadvantage than is necessary those owners who can't be at the computer for the 30 minutes to an hour preceding kickoff when the status of GTD players is announced. I don't care if there are scenarios where people felt they lost because they were unlucky. Luck has little to do with why this rule is a good idea for my league. Recognizing that others in the league have other priorities, like their families, and not trying to turn them doing the right thing into a game time advantage against them, is what this is about.

 

[SSOG]

This hybrid stuff is a joke. There will always be scenarios where people feel like they lost because the were "unlucky".

I agree. Does that mean we shouldn't still strive to minimize the luck factor? We'll never eliminate it entirely, but we can certainly mitigate it to a great degree. Does that not sound like a worthwhile goal?

In practice it's kind of a mute point. It's more about the work involved.Look at it this way...In any given league/week, you normally only have two or three studs whose sudden unexpected absence will all but doom you to a loss. These are the guys you want to back up.

Why? If my RB3 is T.J. Duckett, and I use him to back up Tomlinson, then it's not like I'll be any better off if Tomlinson is out and I have backups than I will be if Tomlinson is out and I don't. The effectiveness of the backup rule doesn't depend on the value of the player being backed up, it depends on the value of the player doing the backing up.

If you're trying to back up your WR4 playing for your WR3 on a bye with your WR5 because WR4 is questionable, then you're just adding un-necessary work. After all, if you're deciding between WR4 and WR5, even the thought of an injury seals the deal.Not so when dealing with QB1 or RB1. His backup is an RB3 or RB4. It matters.

What if it doesn't, though? What if I'm deep at WR? And why is backing up RB1 any different than backing up RB2, since I'm backing up with RB3 either way?

Therefore, there are several good reasons not to have unlimited backups:1. The team with fewer byes and "out" injuries is given an un-necessary advantage due simply to quantity.

But the team with fewer byes is SUPPOSED to have an advantage. If my league has 11 starters, then I know that 11 times during the year I will be operating at a disadvantage. That's okay, because I know my opponents will be, too. Having backups doesn't put a player with byes at a disadvantage, having byes puts a player with byes at a disadvantage.

2. By placing significant limits on how many backups you use, you maintain a high level of strategy involved in the decision process. The smart player won't play the questionable WR3 and use his backup, he'll play his WR4 and use the backup for his uninjured stud RB.

By not placing significant limits on how many backups you can use, you maintain a high level of strategy involved in the roster construction process. The smart player will try to acquire depth at WR5 if both his WR1 and WR2 are nursing injuries.Also, if there are limited backups, then anyone who backs up an uninjured player is an idiot. If Tomlinson goes down, you're losing all of his points whether your backup is Julius Jones or Michael Pittman. Those points are gone. Consider: you expect Tomlinson to score 20 points per game. You expect your RB3 to score 5 points per game. You expect your WR4 to score 8 points per game, and you expect your WR5 to score 5 points per game. Whether you back up Tomlinson or your WR4, you get a 5-point bonus when you collect on that backup. Why waste a 5-point bonus on a guy who you're unlikely to collect for (Tomlinson) when you've got a guy with a high likelihood of collecting, instead? It's not like your RB3 is going to score 20 points just because he's backing up Tomlinson.As I said before, the effectiveness of your backups is 0% tied to the effectiveness of the player they are backing up, and 100% tied to the effectiveness of the backup himself.

3. It adds an un-needed level of work to the league to allow folks to backup every player. Trust me on this, allow only one or two backups. In the end, it's only those stud players that matter anyway. Even more, for those afraid of this eliminating some strategy, extreme limits on the # of allowed backups returns it, and definately still rewards the smarter fantasy players.

Perhaps you missed the part where I commish a league with unlimited backups. You tell me to trust you, but I don't NEED to trust you- I am currently in the perfect position to gauge how much work this adds, because I'm currently the guy doing the work to make this rule go. You know how much extra work this makes for me? 15 minutes a week. The trick is to put the onus on the owners. The OWNERS post their backup scenarios (which I never even bother to read before the games). The OWNERS have to make a post in the official thread asking to get a backup score. the OWNERS provide the link to their backup request and the official NFL gamebook. All that's involved on my part is clicking the link to verify that the request was made, clicking the second link to verify that the player didn't go, and then manually editing the owner's roster. It's a total breeze for me. And if any of the owners feel that it's too much work for them, they can feel free to simply not claim their backups.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Personally I dont like the rule, why not just count the points from your full roster, then you dont have to make any tough decisions at all.

Fantasy football is all about making decisions.

Silly response...if that is the case this ads ONE more decision to make, who your backup is, so clearly you think it is better... of course I don't believe this, but I was just pointing out the absurdity of "all about making decisions" because you still have to make the decisions, but in the event of a player not playing at all (which you would know if you were a coach) you have your starting lineup realistic.

devils advocate...it's not really "realistic" because most likely you are replacing your starter with a starter from another team whereas that real NFL team is starting a back up.....you are getting starter stats as opposed to back up stats.....I will say I am warming to this rule slightly if implemented properly and not able to be manipulated.....because I would be the first to manipulate it if possible...

This is how you get my respect in this forum. Stinkin' Ref is reading with his own opinion, but being open minded to look at the best solution. he may disagree by the end, but he is clearly open to the event and that is a good thing Both GregR and Renasauz make good and fair points. I think Greg's comparison to the first come first serve is a very valid one. Guys like HK, would say that there is skill to being home reading the ticker all day and being the first to know about "Marion Barber breaking his leg" so that he can pick up Felix Jones; but that is not skill and is clearly not fair to the guy who spends 3 hours a night with fantasy football, but was at work when the news broke. There has to be some common sense placed here and late injuries or unknowns is where common sense should be used because racing towards the computer right next to the TV when you find out your starter is not playing because of a tweak in his ankle in pregame is not showing any skill. The comment of being able to predict the injuries that a coach said is equally as silly as even the coach's who usually speak the truth may be off this one time and then what does it do to the game?This rule makes good common sense and it fair to everyone; this is why I like it and I am glad others have showed me this way!

Just discussed this rule with some league members. We had discussed it at length last year and decided to not propose it for adoption. But after going over it with input from this thread we're going to push for it now.I think the difference for me this year over last year is that I'm more cognizant that the effect of the rule is very different if you limit the number of backups. Last year we were talking about allowing a backup at every position. (That is, you would have been able to name one QB, one RB, one WR, etc, and any player at that position who didn't play, the backup would go in for.) But after this thread, I think the way we want to do it is you limit the number of slots and you have to backup a specific player rather than the entire position. I.e. Clinton Portis not just "my running backs".We have 26 starting players each week, though 2 are team units (coach and kick return), with a roster min of 45 and max of 55 (salary cap league, so some teams go for fewer but more expensive players). We're going to push for 2 backup slots, which would be one slot for every 12 players who start... about like having 1 slot for a standard setup.By doing it this way, I'll point out this example from Liquid Tension wouldn't be covered:

when you find out your starter is not playing because of a tweak in his ankle in pregame

The way we're looking to implement it, you'd probably still be SOL on this one if it was a new injury. You would only set your backup slots on guys you felt there was a chance they wouldn't play. The only way an injury that came out of the blue would be mitigated is if you didn't have anyone you were worried about and got lucky that you used the slot on a guy who then did get suddenly injured and didn't play at all. If a guy plays any snap, his score counts.I think that's going to address the issue our league most wants to, of having to be tied to the computer for the player you know may or may not play, but not over do it to the point where someone can be lazy and just count on a backup at every position.

I am glad that this thread aided in making a decision that I hope works out well for you and your league.I am not as "hung up" on backing up a specific player because the "tweaking of the ankle" in pre game is something that forces one to sit in front of the TV 10 minutes before the game and that is not strategy/knowledge/skill that I enjoy.In thinking it through, I am OK with allowing a backup to go in for whoever doesn't play at all because the strategy is still there if a guy is injured and you think he will play at a limited level.

 

[Liquid Tension]

We're going to push for 2 backup slots, which would be one slot for every 12 players who start... about like having 1 slot for a standard setup.By doing it this way, I'll point out this example from Liquid Tension wouldn't be covered:

when you find out your starter is not playing because of a tweak in his ankle in pregame

The way we're looking to implement it, you'd probably still be SOL on this one if it was a new injury.

Exactly.The rule doesn't work if you limit the players you can cover. If you cover everyone, then you still have guys that will only last a play or series and injuries will still be a determining factor....then the next step to mitigate that is Best Ball. This hybrid stuff is a joke. There will always be scenarios where people feel like they lost because the were "unlucky".

Outside of your no productive comment about it being a "joke" I agree that there will always be luck. However, doesn't it make sense to try and reduce the amount of luck and frustration while still trying to keep the purity of the fantasy league? Isn't this why all the rules are in place? I purposely keep TD's at 6 points because there is a "purity" of football that I like to keep in fantasy.I might be wrong but I believe GregR has a league where they have created a scoring system that is supposed to make all positions equal. IMO, I am ok with the disparities, but it is really a matter of preference of where you draw the line.Again, my view is to keep it as pure as possible yet make rules that are fair and limit the frustration and luck factor; where that line is drawn for all of us is obviously different.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Therefore, there are several good reasons not to have unlimited backups:

1. The team with fewer byes and "out" injuries is given an un-necessary advantage due simply to quantity.

2. By placing significant limits on how many backups you use, you maintain a high level of strategy involved in the decision process. The smart player won't play the questionable WR3 and use his backup, he'll play his WR4 and use the backup for his uninjured stud RB. 3. It adds an un-needed level of work to the league to allow folks to backup every player.

Interesting angle on this

 

[Liquid Tension]

You know how much extra work this makes for me? 15 minutes a week. The trick is to put the onus on the owners. The OWNERS post their backup scenarios (which I never even bother to read before the games). The OWNERS have to make a post in the official thread asking to get a backup score. the OWNERS provide the link to their backup request and the official NFL gamebook. All that's involved on my part is clicking the link to verify that the request was made, clicking the second link to verify that the player didn't go, and then manually editing the owner's roster. It's a total breeze for me. And if any of the owners feel that it's too much work for them, they can feel free to simply not claim their backups.

SSOG, wouldn't it make sense to allow the owners to post a depth chart that is used all the time until they change it, yet still have the onus on the owners to notify you when a backup should be placed in the lineup while sending you the link? Everyone would know the posted depth charts and could easily make the mental change in their mind when they hear so and so didn't play. If the owner let me know asap I could make the change early in the game and this way they don;t have to mentally adjust the score.

 

[VTjkru]

Why are so many posters arguing about the addition of backup players in a league they are not in? Im sure there are rules that you play by that others think are ridiculous as well.

This is the first year that my dynasty league will be using backups. We are starting slow and allowing one backup player per week. A starting player has to be designated out and/or not see the field for a player to be eligible to be replaced by a backup.

 

[Godsbrother]

Personally I dont like the rule, why not just count the points from your full roster, then you dont have to make any tough decisions at all.

Fantasy football is all about making decisions.

Silly response...if that is the case this ads ONE more decision to make, who your backup is, so clearly you think it is better... of course I don't believe this, but I was just pointing out the absurdity of "all about making decisions" because you still have to make the decisions, but in the event of a player not playing at all (which you would know if you were a coach) you have your starting lineup realistic.

Not really. In order to be fair you would have to designate a backup at each position as it certainly doesn't seem fair to let a guy designate a RB or QB as a backup for a TE or kicker. If your rosters are deep enough to allow multiple backups at every position then you may have a point. Otherwise the backup decision was probably pretty obvious anyway. For example, if you only start 1 TE then you probably only have 2 TEs on your roster so you would obviously choose the other guy as his backup. And what happens if your only backup at a position is on a bye?

If this problem (starting players ruled out due to injury) really bothers you I would say a better way to handle it would be to use the average weekly score of that player if he does not play due to injury.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

We have a very simple rule called "If not then". You simply say... Barber if not K.Jones. If Barber does not see the field at all then K.Jones would be implemented as the starter.

You are only able to use this on one starter and it must be posted on the league website and emailed to to the team you are playing.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Personally I dont like the rule, why not just count the points from your full roster, then you dont have to make any tough decisions at all.

Fantasy football is all about making decisions.

Silly response...if that is the case this ads ONE more decision to make, who your backup is, so clearly you think it is better... of course I don't believe this, but I was just pointing out the absurdity of "all about making decisions" because you still have to make the decisions, but in the event of a player not playing at all (which you would know if you were a coach) you have your starting lineup realistic.

Not really. In order to be fair you would have to designate a backup at each position as it certainly doesn't seem fair to let a guy designate a RB or QB as a backup for a TE or kicker. If your rosters are deep enough to allow multiple backups at every position then you may have a point. Otherwise the backup decision was probably pretty obvious anyway. For example, if you only start 1 TE then you probably only have 2 TEs on your roster so you would obviously choose the other guy as his backup. And what happens if your only backup at a position is on a bye?

If this problem (starting players ruled out due to injury) really bothers you I would say a better way to handle it would be to use the average weekly score of that player if he does not play due to injury.

If your backup TE is on a bye and you are worried about your starter playing then you should pickup a TE on waivers.The average weekly score is not something I am in favor of in any way.

 

[pinequick]

The trick is to put the onus on the owners. The OWNERS post their backup scenarios (which I never even bother to read before the games). The OWNERS have to make a post in the official thread asking to get a backup score. the OWNERS provide the link to their backup request and the official NFL gamebook. All that's involved on my part is clicking the link to verify that the request was made, clicking the second link to verify that the player didn't go, and then manually editing the owner's roster. It's a total breeze for me. And if any of the owners feel that it's too much work for them, they can feel free to simply not claim their backups.

This is *exactly* how our league does it. It's the owners' job to do all the work. And, as I have mentioned before in this thread, if they don't lodge their challenge by the following Wednesday then that challenge is moot, regardless of its validity. It's their job to manage their team, not mine = hardly any work for me.

 

[Godsbrother]

The trick is to put the onus on the owners. The OWNERS post their backup scenarios (which I never even bother to read before the games). The OWNERS have to make a post in the official thread asking to get a backup score. the OWNERS provide the link to their backup request and the official NFL gamebook. All that's involved on my part is clicking the link to verify that the request was made, clicking the second link to verify that the player didn't go, and then manually editing the owner's roster. It's a total breeze for me. And if any of the owners feel that it's too much work for them, they can feel free to simply not claim their backups.

This is *exactly* how our league does it. It's the owners' job to do all the work. And, as I have mentioned before in this thread, if they don't lodge their challenge by the following Wednesday then that challenge is moot, regardless of its validity. It's their job to manage their team, not mine = hardly any work for me.

Then in your league the shark move would be to designate a backup for every starter every week in the off chance that one tweaks a hammy in pregame practice or comes down with a stomach flu. Would you allow this?

 

[pinequick]

The trick is to put the onus on the owners. The OWNERS post their backup scenarios (which I never even bother to read before the games). The OWNERS have to make a post in the official thread asking to get a backup score. the OWNERS provide the link to their backup request and the official NFL gamebook. All that's involved on my part is clicking the link to verify that the request was made, clicking the second link to verify that the player didn't go, and then manually editing the owner's roster. It's a total breeze for me. And if any of the owners feel that it's too much work for them, they can feel free to simply not claim their backups.

This is *exactly* how our league does it. It's the owners' job to do all the work. And, as I have mentioned before in this thread, if they don't lodge their challenge by the following Wednesday then that challenge is moot, regardless of its validity. It's their job to manage their team, not mine = hardly any work for me.

Then in your league the shark move would be to designate a backup for every starter every week in the off chance that one tweaks a hammy in pregame practice or comes down with a stomach flu. Would you allow this?

I don't really know that I would call it a "shark move" (though I've always hated that stupid term). But you'd be dumb not to, yeah.ETA: (And we have guys in our league who are dumb and don't... cost a guy two games one year and a playoff berth)

 

[H.K.]

We're going to push for 2 backup slots, which would be one slot for every 12 players who start... about like having 1 slot for a standard setup.

By doing it this way, I'll point out this example from Liquid Tension wouldn't be covered:

when you find out your starter is not playing because of a tweak in his ankle in pregame

The way we're looking to implement it, you'd probably still be SOL on this one if it was a new injury.

Exactly.The rule doesn't work if you limit the players you can cover. If you cover everyone, then you still have guys that will only last a play or series and injuries will still be a determining factor....then the next step to mitigate that is Best Ball.

This hybrid stuff is a joke. There will always be scenarios where people feel like they lost because the were "unlucky".

Outside of your no productive comment about it being a "joke" I agree that there will always be luck. However, doesn't it make sense to try and reduce the amount of luck and frustration while still trying to keep the purity of the fantasy league? Isn't this why all the rules are in place? I purposely keep TD's at 6 points because there is a "purity" of football that I like to keep in fantasy.I might be wrong but I believe GregR has a league where they have created a scoring system that is supposed to make all positions equal. IMO, I am ok with the disparities, but it is really a matter of preference of where you draw the line.

Again, my view is to keep it as pure as possible yet make rules that are fair and limit the frustration and luck factor; where that line is drawn for all of us is obviously different.

Here is the thread title:"New Rule to allow a backup to designated

To avoid having to watch up until the last second for injuries"

The problem is that any player is at risk to miss a game (i.e. - pulling a hammy in pregame). Covering one GTD player with a back up does not help satisfy the goal.

An owner knowing his player is at risk to miss a game actually provides him an advantage over another owner who has no idea that his formerly healthy player was a scratch 20 minutes before game time.

If the rule worked as presented, that would be great. However, truly addressing the concern requires an umbrella policy.

 

[tebuckey]

at the definition of "the hardcore player" checking all his lineup choices on the NFL pregame. I have another name for it... geek. Try getting a life; maybe meeting a girl and having a family or even a career.

Says the guy posting to a fantasy football message board

Huge difference between checking out the latest info after a long day at work and spending your Sunday afternoon glued to the TV to set your fantasy line-ups. If I have to explain that, I feel sorry for you.

So you dont watch the games?

 

[SSOG]

You know how much extra work this makes for me? 15 minutes a week. The trick is to put the onus on the owners. The OWNERS post their backup scenarios (which I never even bother to read before the games). The OWNERS have to make a post in the official thread asking to get a backup score. the OWNERS provide the link to their backup request and the official NFL gamebook. All that's involved on my part is clicking the link to verify that the request was made, clicking the second link to verify that the player didn't go, and then manually editing the owner's roster. It's a total breeze for me. And if any of the owners feel that it's too much work for them, they can feel free to simply not claim their backups.

SSOG, wouldn't it make sense to allow the owners to post a depth chart that is used all the time until they change it, yet still have the onus on the owners to notify you when a backup should be placed in the lineup while sending you the link? Everyone would know the posted depth charts and could easily make the mental change in their mind when they hear so and so didn't play. If the owner let me know asap I could make the change early in the game and this way they don;t have to mentally adjust the score.

I don't understand what you're saying. Could you provide an example or perhaps rephrase?

The trick is to put the onus on the owners. The OWNERS post their backup scenarios (which I never even bother to read before the games). The OWNERS have to make a post in the official thread asking to get a backup score. the OWNERS provide the link to their backup request and the official NFL gamebook. All that's involved on my part is clicking the link to verify that the request was made, clicking the second link to verify that the player didn't go, and then manually editing the owner's roster. It's a total breeze for me. And if any of the owners feel that it's too much work for them, they can feel free to simply not claim their backups.

This is *exactly* how our league does it. It's the owners' job to do all the work. And, as I have mentioned before in this thread, if they don't lodge their challenge by the following Wednesday then that challenge is moot, regardless of its validity. It's their job to manage their team, not mine = hardly any work for me.

Then in your league the shark move would be to designate a backup for every starter every week in the off chance that one tweaks a hammy in pregame practice or comes down with a stomach flu. Would you allow this?

I allow it in my league. There's still a lot of strategy involved, though. Say my RB1 and RB2 are both questionable. I have a very good RB3, and a lottery ticket at RB4. Do I back up my "more questionable" RB with my quality RB3 and my "less questionable" RB with my lottery ticket? Or do I back both RBs up with my RB3 and hope that they don't BOTH sit out?

 

[H.K.]

You know how much extra work this makes for me? 15 minutes a week. The trick is to put the onus on the owners. The OWNERS post their backup scenarios (which I never even bother to read before the games). The OWNERS have to make a post in the official thread asking to get a backup score. the OWNERS provide the link to their backup request and the official NFL gamebook. All that's involved on my part is clicking the link to verify that the request was made, clicking the second link to verify that the player didn't go, and then manually editing the owner's roster. It's a total breeze for me. And if any of the owners feel that it's too much work for them, they can feel free to simply not claim their backups.

SSOG, wouldn't it make sense to allow the owners to post a depth chart that is used all the time until they change it, yet still have the onus on the owners to notify you when a backup should be placed in the lineup while sending you the link? Everyone would know the posted depth charts and could easily make the mental change in their mind when they hear so and so didn't play. If the owner let me know asap I could make the change early in the game and this way they don;t have to mentally adjust the score.

I don't understand what you're saying. Could you provide an example or perhaps rephrase?

The trick is to put the onus on the owners. The OWNERS post their backup scenarios (which I never even bother to read before the games). The OWNERS have to make a post in the official thread asking to get a backup score. the OWNERS provide the link to their backup request and the official NFL gamebook. All that's involved on my part is clicking the link to verify that the request was made, clicking the second link to verify that the player didn't go, and then manually editing the owner's roster. It's a total breeze for me. And if any of the owners feel that it's too much work for them, they can feel free to simply not claim their backups.

This is *exactly* how our league does it. It's the owners' job to do all the work. And, as I have mentioned before in this thread, if they don't lodge their challenge by the following Wednesday then that challenge is moot, regardless of its validity. It's their job to manage their team, not mine = hardly any work for me.

Then in your league the shark move would be to designate a backup for every starter every week in the off chance that one tweaks a hammy in pregame practice or comes down with a stomach flu. Would you allow this?

I allow it in my league. There's still a lot of strategy involved, though. Say my RB1 and RB2 are both questionable. I have a very good RB3, and a lottery ticket at RB4. Do I back up my "more questionable" RB with my quality RB3 and my "less questionable" RB with my lottery ticket? Or do I back both RBs up with my RB3 and hope that they don't BOTH sit out?

This format fits the intent of the OP much more than just designating one player.