|
Post by Jacksonville Jaguars (Jordan) on Nov 26, 2018 12:44:16 GMT -5
Ahh see that’s where you’re wrong because the #8 seed isn’t the weakest team. TB is the #8 seed and he’s 14th overall in scoring. But the #6 and #7 seeds were 19th and 20th in scoring respectively. So SEA is actually worse off for earning the #1 seed. Listen I want to see SEA lose as much as anyone else but it also seems like it’s not quite fair to him. I guess it depends for me. Which TB are you getting? The one who attempts to start only 7 or 8 players, or the one who lucks into his lineup being automatically set for that week? Because the former Tampa Bay is what got him the #1 overall pick, and the latter Tampa Bay is...a guy who lucked into the #1 overall pick. I'm sorry, are we supposed to pretend that we live in a world where that guy isn't horrible and doesn't know what he's doing? Also, didn’t TB cost himself a playoff spot this week? DAL is #8, no?
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Eagles (Andrew) on Nov 26, 2018 12:50:55 GMT -5
They have the same record now but TB scored more points overall and they never played head to head. So it would still be TB getting into the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by Jacksonville Jaguars (Jordan) on Nov 26, 2018 12:55:41 GMT -5
They have the same record now but TB scored more points overall and they never played head to head. So it would still be TB getting into the playoffs. I’m not a master on tiebreakers, but I think TB is eliminated via head to head loss vs. GB. Therefore it would come down to points between GB and DAL, which goes to DAL. Someone correct me if I’m wrong (I very well could be).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2018 13:15:19 GMT -5
As interesting as this seems, I honestly think it changes the integrity of the league. Teams either benefit or suffer from the way the match-ups fall. That's how it is supposed to be, not really picking your opponent, but that is just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on Nov 26, 2018 13:23:01 GMT -5
As interesting as this seems, I honestly think it changes the integrity of the league. Teams either benefit or suffer from the way the match-ups fall. That's how it is supposed to be, not really picking your opponent, but that is just my opinion. Agree. That’s what Week 1 is for.
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Eagles (Andrew) on Nov 26, 2018 13:46:37 GMT -5
They have the same record now but TB scored more points overall and they never played head to head. So it would still be TB getting into the playoffs. I’m not a master on tiebreakers, but I think TB is eliminated via head to head loss vs. GB. Therefore it would come down to points between GB and DAL, which goes to DAL. Someone correct me if I’m wrong (I very well could be). You might be right on that. I’m not sure how it works when you have this triangle of teams in a tie. TB would beat out DAL, but they lost to GB. This is a pretty weird situation. I guess DAL gets in? Idk
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Eagles (Andrew) on Nov 26, 2018 13:53:41 GMT -5
As interesting as this seems, I honestly think it changes the integrity of the league. Teams either benefit or suffer from the way the match-ups fall. That's how it is supposed to be, not really picking your opponent, but that is just my opinion. I’m pretty surprised how much pushback there is to this. To address your point though, teams will benefit or suffer from how the matchups fall regardless of if we use a draft or not. It’s just a question of whether or not you’re going to give any control to the teams at all. Seems like if this idea is shot down then “resting your starters” should be allowed. Someone might argue that it falls under the umbrella of tanking but that’s hardly the case since you’re not doing it for draft capital reasons. Also since the league is no longer correcting illegal lineups, it kinda seems like resting starters shouldn’t be prohibited either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2018 14:01:29 GMT -5
I have never heard of teams at the top of a fantasy league, resting their starters? Is that a thing? What benefit would that have?
As far as illegal line-ups, there was so much push back on LMs doing that, so it was stopped. People who are having trouble setting their line ups, will not/should not be in the league much longer.
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Eagles (Andrew) on Nov 26, 2018 14:45:21 GMT -5
I have never heard of teams at the top of a fantasy league, resting their starters? Is that a thing? What benefit would that have? As far as illegal line-ups, there was so much push back on LMs doing that, so it was stopped. People who are having trouble setting their line ups, will not/should not be in the league much longer. You haven’t heard of it because it isn’t allowed haha. A few years ago I tried to do it was was told that I wasn’t allowed. There was a significant difference in who I would face if I was the #1 seed vs who I would face as the #2. I was forced to play all my good players so I won week 12 and became the #1 then I was beaten in the first round by a #8 seed who was far better than the #7 seed that I wouldve faced if I had sat my good players.
|
|
|
Post by Houston Texans (Ryan) on Nov 26, 2018 14:56:02 GMT -5
I agree with Philly. Let's give Seattle more of an advantage.
|
|
|
Post by Jacksonville Jaguars (Jordan) on Nov 26, 2018 14:57:46 GMT -5
I agree with Philly. Let's give Seattle more of an advantage. He needs all the help he can get. Should we open it up to allowing him to pick from the AFC as well? Methinks yes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2018 15:01:12 GMT -5
I have never heard of teams at the top of a fantasy league, resting their starters? Is that a thing? What benefit would that have? As far as illegal line-ups, there was so much push back on LMs doing that, so it was stopped. People who are having trouble setting their line ups, will not/should not be in the league much longer. You haven’t heard of it because it isn’t allowed haha. A few years ago I tried to do it was was told that I wasn’t allowed. There was a significant difference in who I would face if I was the #1 seed vs who I would face as the #2. I was forced to play all my good players so I won week 12 and became the #1 then I was beaten in the first round by a #8 seed who was far better than the #7 seed that I wouldve faced if I had sat my good players. Ahhh....the way you put it there makes sense on the whole "benching your starters". I just couldn't grasp the concept I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on Nov 26, 2018 15:23:48 GMT -5
As interesting as this seems, I honestly think it changes the integrity of the league. Teams either benefit or suffer from the way the match-ups fall. That's how it is supposed to be, not really picking your opponent, but that is just my opinion. I’m pretty surprised how much pushback there is to this. To address your point though, teams will benefit or suffer from how the matchups fall regardless of if we use a draft or not. It’s just a question of whether or not you’re going to give any control to the teams at all. Seems like if this idea is shot down then “resting your starters” should be allowed. Someone might argue that it falls under the umbrella of tanking but that’s hardly the case since you’re not doing it for draft capital reasons. Also since the league is no longer correcting illegal lineups, it kinda seems like resting starters shouldn’t be prohibited either. Well, as Philip Seymour Hoffman playing Art Howe infamously said to Brad Pitt playing Billy Beane in the film adaptation of Moneyball, "It's my lineup card." Basically, no matter how suspect a lineup may look to you or I, provided it doesn't include inactive players with active players on the bench, it's at least arguable that the GM who set that lineup thought he was making the best decisions for his team. Just look what GB did this week. Does it look like he set a lineup so that he could lose and not make the playoffs/improve his draft position (And even then, he still won)? Yes. But could he argue that he thought that group of players would have the best week? Absolutely. And just like in trading, how do we qualify what we think vs. what the person making the trade thinks? Who is right? Who is more important? Whose opinion matters more? And there we are, back at opinion. Everyone thinks they're right, but nobody can know 100%. As far as resting specifically goes, this is very interesting, and something that came up when I worked for Rotoviz. Even more to the point, what penalties should teams incur when they refuse to improve their team via free agency, especially when they're clearly so bad that pretty much any free agent put up for bid would help their team? Anthony Amico, several other writers, and I had this discussion and it even ended up spilling over into my podcast about the strategy of tanking. Here was essentially the verdict: While GMs are in no way REQUIRED to go out and sign or acquire players who make that team better (And this is especially true in dynasty and keeper leagues, particularly like ours, where contracts are involved and there is a financial disincentive to play the waiver wires each week to add and drop players left and right the way one might in a standard redraft league), there IS an unspoken responsibility for teams to not intentionally or negligently tank by starting inactive players. Essentially, that means, if you're bad, there should be no one breathing down your neck to force you to sign players that make you slightly less bad. You're still going to be bad, and that act alone might cost you the opportunity at landing a player who will make you much less bad than you are. But if you're bad BECAUSE you're intentionally TRYING to be bad by starting a lineup that guarantees you lose, that's an illegitimate way to acquire a top pick and is cheating the game. Instead of using the 76ers strategy of being really bad (Refusing to sign players that would make them slightly better with their mountain of cap space, and therefore assuring they'd get a high draft pick that would make them MUCH better long term), it would be like a basketball team only running 3 players out onto the floor versus the other team's full 5. So, in conclusion, starting a lineup that may be intentionally set to throw a game to get a better playoff seed falls under the umbrella of not against the rules, but perhaps shady, whereas not starting active players would fall under the umbrella of actively tanking and cheating the rules.
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Eagles (Andrew) on Nov 26, 2018 17:33:31 GMT -5
I agree with Philly. Let's give Seattle more of an advantage. My favorite part about this comment is that you make it sound like I’m creating the disparity that exists between SEA and everyone else but the truth is it’s GMs like you who make SEA what he is. You traded him a mid-round 1st and 2nd for a 32 year old TE who is just average at this point in his career. Come April he’s going to trade those picks for young star players.
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Eagles (Andrew) on Nov 26, 2018 17:39:25 GMT -5
I agree with Philly. Let's give Seattle more of an advantage. He needs all the help he can get. Should we open it up to allowing him to pick from the AFC as well? Methinks yes. You guys are clearly missing the point here.
|
|