ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
ProFSL Front Office => Franchise GM: Transactions => Franchise GM => MLB DYNASTY GM HOME => Franchise GM: Invalid Transactions => Topic started by: Colby on November 29, 2010, 11:12:51 AM
-
I forgot that Fantrax can handle multiple opponents within the schedule. This means that we could blend the weekly lineups with the feel of many games and daily opponents. If we set it up so that each team has seven opponents every week then 23 weeks times 7 games equals 161 games - one short of a full MLB season. This brings more realism to the league and it doesn't mess with the league scoring system. It also promotes more divisional play and less luck. Please let me know what you guys think of this.
-
Sounds like it solves all of the problems and as long as everyone has an equal amount of common opponents
-
This would be a good idea if we had daily lineups. There is the possibility of playing your biggest rivals with no SPs or best offensive players in the lineup. With weekly lineups there is still a lot of luck involved.
-
This would be a good idea if we had daily lineups. There is the possibility of playing your biggest rivals with no SPs or best offensive players in the lineup. With weekly lineups there is still a lot of luck involved.
Daily lineups can never truly work for the reason given. There will still be an element of luck, but the additional wins and losses and increased divisional schedule will even some of the luck out and add realism to the record.
-
We do have daily lineups. We do not have weekly lineups. I am for the schedule change. It will be a lot of work but I think would be beneficial especially since we are using head to head as a means for tiebreakers.
-
We do have daily lineups. We do not have weekly lineups. I am for the schedule change. It will be a lot of work but I think would be beneficial especially since we are using head to head as a means for tiebreakers.
We are doing weekly lineups in 2011.
-
No we are not. That did not pass the vote. Colb please clarify..
-
No we are not. That did not pass the vote. Colb please clarify..
I'm pretty sure we moved to weekly lineups (the vote that did not pass was for weekly SP start limits, there was not a vote for weekly vs. daily).
-
I'm pretty sure we moved to weekly lineups (the vote that did not pass was for weekly SP start limits, there was not a vote for weekly vs. daily).
Its ok, Colb will clarify that we are still doing daily lineups. If there was no vote then we can not switch.
-
This would be a good idea if we had daily lineups. There is the possibility of playing your biggest rivals with no SPs or best offensive players in the lineup. With weekly lineups there is still a lot of luck involved.
I'm not sure I see where the advantage for daily lineups comes into this... you will still play everyone for a full week, so you will still have 7 days to get your stars in the game. The difference is you would play more than one team at a time, which is a pretty interesting idea - will take away the luck of beating a team only because they had a terrible week, or losing when you have a great week but the other guy has an awesome week.
-
I agree Ben. I am for the schedule the change. It will be a lot of work, but be worth it. However I do not support weekly lineups and have been told we are not doing weekly lineups. So Colb will clarify that part. But I do agree playing more opponents is a good thing. It will make the head to head tie breaker much more valuable as well as make the weeks more interesting. Just hope you dont have any bad weeks, 0-6 for a week is tough to take. Some of the March Madness Athletic Directors just found that out.
-
Its ok, Colb will clarify that we are still doing daily lineups. If there was no vote then we can not switch.
We settled on weekly lineups instead of a weekly starts limit. The position eligibility rules will limit how many RP slots will have SPs. There will still be plenty of opportunity for big market teams to buy their way into situations of starting 7+ different pitchers at a time.
-
Sorry I didn't read the post well enough. If we play 7 games against each of the 7 teams the weekly lineups would work.
-
What did we decide on for position players? Was it to eliminate defensive scoring? That would allow us to play qualifying players at different positions during the week
-
What did we decide on for position players? Was it to eliminate defensive scoring? That would allow us to play qualifying players at different positions during the week
We improved the eligibility settings and added a request system.
-
OK.
BTW- Love the new team icons :toast:
-
If we go to 7 games per week it might be a good idea to only play 145 games. That way we would play each team 5 times per year. We could also start the playoffs 2 weeks earlier and avoid part of the impact of players being shut down early and the resting of MLB playoff teams' players during our League Championship and World Series weeks.
-
If we go to 7 games per week it might be a good idea to only play 145 games. That way we would play each team 5 times per year. We could also start the playoffs 2 weeks earlier and avoid part of the impact of players being shut down early and the resting of MLB playoff teams' players during our League Championship and World Series weeks.
1) 7 x 23 weeks = 161 games, You are recommending cutting the season short. We would have to vote on that.
2) To clarify... We did make rulings on using an improved schedule, fixing the eligibility requirements, going with weekly lineups, and settling on regular season tiebreakers. The weekly lineup ruling was confirmed in the eligibility rules as there is a provision to allow the commissioner to make a change to the lineup during the week at the request of a GM in the event of injury or demotion.
-
I think the playoffs should be earlier than last year, a lot of guys were sitting during the last two rounds of the playoffs - Texiera is one that comes to mind.
-
We could do a 20 week schedule, extend the playoffs, and have 8 opponents per week for a total of 160 games.
-
We could do a 20 week schedule, extend the playoffs, and have 8 opponents per week for a total of 160 games.
The 20 week schedule would work but I don't think the playoffs and WS should last longer than the 24th week.
-
The 20 week schedule would work but I don't think the playoffs and WS should last longer than the 24th week.
Agreed. We can have the Divisional Series in Week 21, the Championship Series in Week 22, and the World Series spanning Weeks 23-24. Eight opponents per week for 20 regular season weeks equals 160 games. A win and a loss will be added to all records to bring the total to 162 games without affecting the standings. I don't think this is something that requires a vote as we already voted on an improved schedule. We can all agree that we want a more effective playoffs without having to worry about star players being benched.
-
Daily wins in the vote...16 is a majority, regardless of other votes...
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=13191.0 (http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=13191.0)
-
Daily wins in the vote...16 is a majority, regardless of other votes...
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=13191.0 (http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=13191.0)
The scoring periods are still weekly.
-
The scoring periods are still weekly.
right, just pointing out that the first page of this discussion there was confusion on daily lineups. they specifically had said "daily lineups". Weekly scoring hasn't changed though I know.
-
A win and a loss will be added to all records to bring the total to 162 games without affecting the standings.
The Brewers don't take losses, please add two wins to our record :toth:
-
:bump: Corey, didn't you have a sample schedule outlined?
-
yep, for all teams.
-
Could you email it to me? I can start updating the schedule at least for the first couple weeks.