Fantasy

 Out of all the major fantasy sports, (Baseball,Football, Basketball)who would you say is currently the number #1 sure-thing that you can’t pass up when building a team?

Who are your top 5 players across the board?

Make a Comment: ( 67 so far )

blockquote and a tags work here.

67 Responses to “Fantasy”

RSS Feed for The Watercooler Guys Comments RSS Feed

I think that Dice-K will still end up having the better fantasy season, despite losing to King Felix on Wednesday night.

Raible
April 13, 2007

I’ve gotta go with Felix. I heard Steve Phillips (aka the metrosexual bible) talking the other day, actually wait, it was Buster Olney but I wished it was Phillips. Anyway, he was talking about how Felix really got serious about his life, his routine and every aspect of baseball. He lost weight and really worked hard. Not to mention simply being off of Casey Sussman’s fantasy team has lessened the pressure. It would have been nice to hear these things, oh, say, a month ago, before he went at the end of the 4th round in our fantasy draft, but nonetheless I think he’s going to bring it this season.

Dice-K will be interesting. Will teams catch on to him or will he get better and better as the season goes on? A huge difference and whichever happens could make or break his season. I also think he’ll have a great season and his big advantage is playing on the Red Sox. The emphasis on wins isn’t as great as last season but they still are a nice little bonus.

One thing is for sure and they both look like long term potential keepers.

Haver
April 14, 2007

I wish I could remember the source but I read a great take on this exact issue. The guy basically said that Dice needs his great command to get guys out while F-Her can get away with more mistakes. Now this makes easy sense and it’s well-known that overpowering guys have a greater margin for error. But the relevance for our debate, in this writer’s opinion, was that Dice’s fastball has been labeled nasty along with the rest of his tools, when in fact it is simply a change of pace. If this is the case it would stand to reason that Dice would be slightly over-rated in fantasy. (If you don’t have that excellent heater it’s harder to get away with less than steller command.)

I think King F-Her has more potential for volatility. His arm motion looks more dangerous to me, and this point was backed up by a different article on espn.com I think. Plus when things go wrong he may be more likely to overcompensate due to youth and end up needing a few starts to figure things out.

The other Dice advantage should be in soft wins but I really can’t factor that in too much. When you go 8 and allow 2 you’re going to win a lot unless you pitch for the Astros.

For what it’s worth I wouldn’t trade The King for Dice in any format but that doesn’t mean I’m correct. I have followed prospects on several websites to a pretty disgusting degree long before starting fantasy this year. I’ve been hearing about Felix since he was 18 and I was crossing my fingers to be able to get him, as well as a few other favorite prospects. So I’m biased and I hope he becomes the best.

I have heard the same things Haver mentioned about Felix and am in the camp that says he wins multiple Cy Youngs. Biased? Yes. Irrationally exuberant? Perhaps. Do I think Felix has more upside than Dice for this year? Definitely. (By definitely I mean it in the way that 25 is definitely greater than 24- they are very close, but 25 is definitely greater.) Will this translate to better performance? Umm, yes if I have to guess.

IF Felix is better this year I’ll make this prediction- the games where Dice slips are the ones against very good, very deep, very patient lineups who will work the count, sit on the “not quite excellent” heater when the offspeed stuff isn’t there and make him pay for the mistakes he does make. He will pitch against this lineup several times this year because they are in his division, which will give Felix the edge he needs.

thegreatawakening
April 14, 2007

King Felix has unbeliveable talent. me being from seattle and a mariners fan gives him the better side of my heart. with felix’s injury and being n the DL that will for sure hurt his fantasy stats. i predict Dice-K will ave a better year due to the Red Sox producing alot more runs for Dice than the mariners for Felix. besides both of these guys, lets talk Jake Peavy and Josh Beckett.

ryan
May 7, 2007

I really think my Aaron Hill pick. I took him as a backup utility infielder(2b/ss) in like the 18 rd or something and he’s top 5-10 at both positions. I thought he’d be solid, but not this good.

On the flipside, I sat on 1b and took Conner Jackson. Now I haven’t given up on him, but he is off to a terrible start. I took Kevin Youkilis as insurance and that has been big as he’s been a top 10 1b thus far. He scores alot of runs in that Red Sox lineup and with his OBP being solid that’s huge.

For pitchers, I’ve had too many injuries at sp making KROD that much more valuable of a pick. I thought I took him too high, but he’s been consistent keeping me in alot of weeks.

So far Jason Jennings and Schmidt have not worked out. I’m not surprised that Schmidt is injured, but I thought getting out of Colorado would do wonders for Jennings. It’s too early too tell, but he may be on the waiver wire before mid-season.

Wells
May 10, 2007

Fantasy Baseball Pick that has paid the Most Dividends: Tim Hudson – I waited on Starting Pitchers, and much to my liking, Hudson is resembling the pitcher he was in Oakland.

Fantasy Baseball Pick that has paid the Least Dividends: Carlos Quentin – He was the last hitter that I drafted, so I can’t be too upset, but Quentin found himself injured at the start of the season and he just can’t seem to get himself going.

Raible
May 11, 2007

Fantasy College Football sounds sweet! I have seen it run a few different ways; the way Sportsline runs theirs is:

You draft a team’s position (i.e. WVU QB) instead of an individual player (i.e. Pat White). This is obviously done so that no one gets screwed by the constant substitutions that seem to dominate the college game. I have seen leagues run where you can only draft players from certain leagues (i.e. BCS conferences only) or from any conference in the country.

I think that if I were to put in my 2 cents, I think I like the idea of drafting a team’s position, especially because it helps you to not have to know who the, say, top WR is for Hawaii (but you know he’s gonna grab Colt Brennan’s balls…yeah, I just typed that). I think that opening the rosters up to the entire country is interesting if only for the fact that a meaningless game between Troy and Middle Tennessee State immediately becomes sweet if you have the Troy Kicker.

Raible
July 19, 2007

I tried the team position’s and hated it, but that’s just my opinion. I like stacking rosters since there are so many teams I think starting 3 QB’s, 5 RB’s, 5 Wr’s, 2 TE, 2 Kickers, 2 Defense isn’t that bad..Those numbers are just rough and are definitely negotiable..

Point system would be the same as our NFL league for offense, but you’d probably want to bump receptions up to a point with less games. Also, award more points for FG’s because these guys aren’t as polished…so a 0-30 is 4, 30-40 is 5, 40-50 is 6, 50+ is 7.

Now this is where it get’s interesting how do you draft and what conferences do you draft from, etc.

My thinking is you have to draft:

QB- 1 BCS, 1 Non-BCS, 1 Either
RB’s- 2 BCS, 2 Non, 1 Either
WR’s- 2 BCS, 2 Non, 1 Either
TE’s- Doesn’t Matter
Kicker’s- Doesn’t Matter
Defense- 1 BCS/ 1 Non

Also, we should have to draft atleast 1 BCS/ 1 Non at each position for bye weeks and such….Except TE’s/Kickers who we just draft 1 bench for each… That’s 28 rounds but if we keep the league relatively smaller, we might be able to knock it out pretty quick…Another idea is to draft our starters, then have a message board draft for bench….Or message board for both….Or all 28 at once….It would actually be a fun thing to do on WCG, I could put up a new page…

Then as far as transactions go we’d have waiver start with the last pick to the first and move it’s way forward so..

1st week- last team to pick in draft
2nd week- 2nd to last
3rd week- 3rd to last, etc.

As for team defense we could do:
Shutout-10
1-7- 7
8-13- 5
14-17- 4
18-21-3
22-25- 2
25-30-1
31+- 0

Def/SP Td’s 6 (includes punts and kickoffs)
Fumble Rec: 2
INT’s: 2
Safety: 2
Sack:1

Again this is a real rough sketch and I’ll take any suggestions. Since this is the first year we should try to keep it simple if we can, then we can build up each year if it’s successful. If that means we start less guys first year then so be it.

Finally, I’m not sure what would be better a total point league or head to head.

Food for Thought,

-Wells

Wells
July 19, 2007

Wells, starting a Fantasy College Football league is not an option. It’s a must.

Before we go off thinking all sorts of rules, is it important to look around on sites and see what kind of options we have? Running it through WCG would allow us to do anything, but also be a lot more work.

I think Raible’s system of Team positions has some positives to it, but I’d also like to have specific players if possible.

Some quick thoughts that I might not even agree with but just throwing them out there
-Only BCS players?
-Start a player from each conference?
-Keeper league, as in Keep your whole damn team!! Seriously, how sweet would that be? Keep your entire roster, but players graduate and leave early so it’s not like anyone has anyone for 10 years.
-A limit of how many non BCS players you can start per week
-Individual defensive players

I thought I had more to say but I think this is a good starting point. I can nitpick with the scoring system at a later date. This will happen.

Haver
July 20, 2007

1. There’s no excuse to ever have kickers in any league.
2. I got in a free public league on sportsline last year for the hell of it and:
A. Using team units instead of players sucks- I can’t stress this enough.
B. Using players from outside the main conferences just messes it up too in my opinion.
3. It has to be a keeper league.

The inconsistency of opponents in college makes it tough either way. When you have team units it really gets out of hand, like when a great power running team plays a DII scrub and wins 70-0. With individuals at least you limit the bullshit games somewhat.

I’m in favor of a pretty vanilla system- only the major conferences, individual players, keeper style, and standard football scoring. Not that I think weird roster stipulations are terrible, I’d just prefer a plain, wide open set up like most NFL leagues.

thegreatawakening
July 20, 2007

Well I got fucked out of another post by this shitty site…..
but anyway here’s my thoughts (i did a public one last year on sportsline)

1. No excuse for kickers in any league ever
2. team units really sucks- i can’t stress this enough
3. non-major conf teams sucks too in my opinion
4. its gotta be a keeper, that would be great

The inconsistencey of opponents in ncaa is bad enough. when u have units those WVU 70 East Milwaukee games just mess up the scoring if you get points for the 3rd string rbs. using individuals keeps it somewhat within reason.

I’m in favor of a pretty vanilla system- keeper style, only big conf, individual players, and the normal football scoring. weird roster restrictions might make it interesting but i’d vote against them for now at least. and seriously, no kickers.

thegreatawakening
July 20, 2007

…

thegreatawakening
July 20, 2007

I only want to use Team Kickers from all conferences BUT the BCS Conferences…screw the rest of the positions and the BCS Conferences! Each team gets to select 5 Team Kickers from non-BCS schools, add up the points, and you are left with a Fantasy College Football Genius!

Raible
July 20, 2007

So I was going to make a huge post on what I think the rules should be, but I came across a site that runs college leagues.

Check it out @ http://www.collegefootballfantasy.com

and let me know what you think. Because right now it is pointless to argue all of these things if we can get in a league that has it set up already.

Wells

Wells
July 26, 2007

Honestly it’s solid but there are things we are probably looking for in our league that this site does not provide.

Another one is U-sports.com.

Wells
July 26, 2007

More about College Fantasy

-Wells was thinking of setting it up where you’d have to start 1 BCS QB and 1 Non-BCS QB, 2 BCS RB’s and 1 Non-BCS RB’s, etc. but I wanted to tinker that a little bit. I think the reason to limit non-BCS is so a team can’t stack their team full of players from the five worst teams in D-1 but yet dominate our league. However, I don’t like the mandatory non-BCS spots. I think if you want to start Pat White and Brian Brohm at QB, you should be able to. You shouldn’t say, “Ah man, I can’t draft Brohm, I gotta grab Cory Leonard from Arkansas State. My point is that if we’re having 2 QB spots I’d like a maximum of 1 non-BCS starting but you’re not forced to use one. RB’s-3 starters, 1 maximum non-BCS. And so on.

-Franchise league is tougher than I originally thought. In the NFL, you can get away with a franchise league because the only remaining players are bums or rookies. In D-1, there are just simply too many players to actually end up keeping the majority of your players.

-A limit of keeping players is good.

-Any way to encourage us to continue to keep the same people is good.

-Should we minimize moves at all? I don’t want to get picky, but I seem to be more intrigued by a huge roster with minimal moves throughout the year than a smaller roster with tons of moves every week.

Important to think about but also important to just keep this topic going. We really should try to figure things out sooner rather than later.

Haver
July 27, 2007

Ok since we need to attack this immediately if we want to do a Fantasy College Football League, we have to knock out the rules immediately so we can start drafting soon.(Season starts late Aug-Sept 1) So I want to break this down and establish the rules one at a time:

First topic: It seems like people want to run a keeper league.

Now I’m a firm believer that you have to have a set number of keepers to keep the playing field level. We don’t want to have a draft where one guy keeps 15 guys and another keeps 5.

Therefore, I am in favor of a 7 keeper limit. I am definitely negotiable on this, but if we draft about 20 guys the first year, I feel like 7 is nice because it’s a nice base. (we start 6 positions and I’m almost positive all keepers will be QB, RB, WR’s)

Let me know what you think….Next up, rosters limits.

Wells
July 27, 2007

Ha, I’m sorry Wells and this isn’t intentional but I thought about this before bed. Every other fantasy sport I’ve ever done, I’ve not began with a keeper league. It seems to be not only our biggest holdup but our biggest question mark. We’re not even sure who’s going to be in this. Why don’t we do year 1 as an experiment and not do a keeper league? Do it as vanilla as we can and by next year we’ll have a better idea of what we’d like in a keeper league.

That’s my suggestion, as I think we might create more problems than necessary trying to have a keeper league. Let’s do this for fun, like 10 or 20 bucks each with a winner takes all type of deal and hope to build on it as seasons come.

Haver
July 27, 2007

After some thought and conversation’s with Haver, I think we have decided that we are going to do a vanilla college football league this year. I think Dean will be fine with that.

With that said, I think we should do it through one of these sites that already have leagues set up. This way with all of the players we don’t have to keep track of the scores ourselves.

I would like to start drafting sooner rather than later and be able to knock out most of the draft before it’s too late so I am thinking about setting up a page on here to do our draft, then we can switch over to a live draft if need be.

Keep in mind when you are drafting that this could easily become a keeper league after this year so draft accordingly.

I think if there is enough interest from people we should have a big league. This is because the talent pool is so large it would be nice to thin it down by adding more people. I am down for anything from 12-18 teams.

Let me know if you guys have any problems with this, because I am going to begin inviting people. We have to pick one of the sites I posted on this page, so let me know which one you guys like better. They are:

http://www.U-sports.com

and

http://www.collegefootballfantasy.com

I am down for a $20 entry fee because this is going to be a trial year. Furthermore, I think we can use this site as our message board on the page that we draft, to talk shit or to talk about ideas for a long term league.

- Wells

Wells
July 30, 2007

Things I LOVE
-I love yhis idea in general.
-I love keeping shitloads of players. Perhaps everyone.

Things I HATE

-I HATE not doing a keeper league right away. If it blows we can start over- maybe we can agree that if 75% wants to start over we will no matter what. The players will be gone within 4 years anyway so any mistakes will be short-lived.

-I HATE involving non BCS players (just my opinion obviously). Boise State and Hawaii aren’t playing the same game as LSU and Michigan. I personally would like to do a league with only one or two conferences if the league was small enough to keep things apples to apples. But I think having garbage teams with garbages stats will just make things really lame. Imagine a fantastic 3 TD Teebow game in a 21-14 win over Tennessee that gets blown away by some 7 TD game by some asshole from who knows where.

-I HATE kickers. I might refuse to play just to rid my life of kickers once and for all.

thegreatawakening
August 14, 2007

CMON ITS TEBOW. And there’s no chance you like him as much as I do.

thav916
August 14, 2007

Ok, a little more.

At first I liked the idea of non BCS players just as long as we limited them. I also thought we might have about 20 people in this league. Since we’re lookin more in the 8-12 range, maybe BCS only is the way to go. Could easily still have massive rosters.

I was against a keeper league because I thought it just wouldnt work out. But if we went BCS only and had a limit on pickups, then maybe we could have a lax keeper rule in place as Dean stated above.

I even like the idea of a massive roster, big starting lineups, limit on pickups, keep as many guys as you want. But you can also keep as few of guys as you’d like. And then next year’s draft we just work it out that if you keep less, you pick before the teams that kept more to even out your team.

Team A keeps 6 guys
Team B keeps 9 guys

Team A gets 3 picks and then they start alternating.

Obviously that’s as basic a rule as possible. And maybe we could agree on some type of very minimum to keep.

Please quit whining about kickers like it actually matters. I almost want to demand using kickers to spite Dean’s whining.

We thinking….
2 QB
4 RB
4 WR
1-2 TE
2-3 DEF
10 K’s (or 1-2)
14-18 starters, roster of like 30?

Just thinkin out loud here.

thav916
August 14, 2007

Here’s my thoughts:

- BCS Keeper league if that’s what everyone wants + Notre Dame(they are independant)
- You must start atleast one player from every BCS conference.
- We have 6 keepers- One from each BCS conference(one keeper could be from ND in lieu of a BCS keeper)
- Starting Rosters(I like Haver’s start):

2 QB’s
4 RB’s
4 WR’s
1 TE
1 K
2 Def

That’s 14 starters.

Now I say we draft 11 bench players, and you are only allowed to make FIVE(5) Pick-ups the entire year. BYE WEEKS COME INTO PLAY PRETTY BIG IN COLLEGE…

That’s a roster/draft of 25 players/rounds..

Too much/Not enough?

Let me know… I want to start the draft Monday and figure we could pick the order while we are in Belmar this weekend so we know it’s legit.

-Wells

Wells
August 14, 2007

Wells-HUGE

I’m perfectly fine with the starting lineups and going with a keeper league if that’s what the people want.

My concerns. I think a pickup limit is good but possibly a little more than that. The main reason is I don’t like the idea of having about 8 guys at the very beginning of the season that you wish you could get rid of and being stuck with 3 of them all year AND no other flexibility. If we’re gonna go with that low of a limit, I say rosters of 30. If you’re worried about draft bein too long, I think we could easily make the draft 20 or 25 rounds no matter what and just say filling out your roster by opening day is first come first serve free agent style.

10 pickups per year?
1 pickup per week?
2 pickups per week?

I don’t want pickups to dominate our league and the draft not to matter but I’m equally worried about drafting players we hate and being stuck with players we just simply dont like.

Example-We have a TE we pick on a whim. He sucks, we waste 3 pickups on a TE, we’d barely have any other moves for the entire rest of the roster. If we don’t waste the moves, we’re just stuck with a TE we hate all year.

Do we really need the rule of starting 1 player per conference? What does this balance out? With 14 players, we might have variety anyway. Im just bringing these things up, as I’m not actually against this rule.

thav916
August 14, 2007

Thoughts on fantasy draft heading into the season:

Favorite Move: Adrian Peterson – I expect this guy to be a stud and, if he stays healthy, a potential keeper for the next 10 years.

Least Favorite Move: Ahman Green – While I both like Green and expect him to be a solid contributor, I chose Green over Brandon Jackson of Green Bay (I had narrowed my choice down to these two). Jackson, who appears headed for a monster rookie season, went almost 2 rounds later.

Biggest Regret: Hindsight is 20/20, but not taking Jackson would certainly qualify.

Most Excited About: Brett Favre – For the first time in years, I landed Favre as my backup QB. Favre is my favorite player, and with Vince Young as my #1, I don’t even care if #4 isn’t as good as he used to be.

Raible
September 7, 2007

Also drafted Adrian Peterson in a keeper league and also love it.

I’ll continue with that league first.

Really went with a lot of guys I wanted. I had AP, Housh and Calvin targeted as my first 3 players (it’s a 10 team 2 keeper league) and I got those exact 3 players. I don’t think that’s ever happened before. I got my boy Lendale later in the draft. Drafted Leinert and Cutler, Winslow and Heap. Chargers defense. Really like my squad except for my WR’s. Couldn’t figure out who to pick as my 3rd WR and the one player on my team that I’m just not excited about is Mark Clayton. He already got me a goose-egg in week 1. Already pissed.

In the league where a lot of us are in I loved the 4th round when I had 3 picks and got Brandan Jackson, Lamont Jordan and Michael Turner. Paul Wells thinks BJack is great and Raible passed on him at the last second. NUFF SAID. I really think Jordan is poised for a bounce back year and love that Turner will be an unrestricted free agent after the season.

I have 4 amazing WR’s but was so close to getting Randy Moss or Calvin Johnson as my 5th. Woulda absolutely loved that. Ended up with Braylon, who I am a big fan of, and just hoping the Brady Quinn era starts soon.

This was the one league where I really waited on my QB and am perfectly content with Roethlisberger.

The main thing I’ll have to watch in this league is that I essentially traded Frank Gore and Travis Henry for Steve Smith, Torry Holt, a 1st round pick and 2 4th round picks.

thav916
September 13, 2007

I’m gonna post this pretty much everywhere I can, but NHL Hockey is right around the corner. Anyone feel like doin a basic Yahoo league for 10-20 dollars a person? Thinkin we should be able to get 8-10 people.

thav916
September 18, 2007

For those of you that prefer to check this site…

League Name Burgh-er Kings
League Type Private
Draft Date September 24, 2007, 8:30 PM ET
Draft Style Live Draft
Member Count 6 of 12 needed to draft

Password: crosby

This is on CBS Sports.com, by the way. $10 entry fee.

Raible
September 19, 2007

Wow, what a great question! The first obvious question is whether or not you are building a team in a keeper or seasonal league. But, since it’s Wells, I am going to assume a keeper league. With that being said, the first thing to do is figure out who you would draft with the #1 pick in each of the major fantasy sports.

In Baseball (which is my favorite of the major fantasy sports, by the way), I’m still taking Alex Rodriguez. He might be 32, but A-Rod is coming off arguably his best season as a pro and, by all accounts, has at least another 10 good years left in him. It’s hard to pass on a guy like Pujols, Reyes, or Hanley, but I think A-Rod is my pick in baseball.

In Football, if I am taking one guy in a Keeper League with no limit on the number of years I can keep him, I think I’m taking Adrian Peterson, believe it or not. The kid already leads the NFL in rushing yards while splitting carries with Chester Taylor, and he should only continue to get better. It’s tough to pass on Tomlinson or even Tom Brady or Peyton Manning, but I think Peterson is my #1 guy right now in football.

LeBron James is a no-brainer for me in Basketball. In fact, I don’t even think I need to explain why.

As far as my #1 in all of sports, I think the best way to look at it is to see how much bang I can get for my buck. The average NFL career is about 3 and a half seasons, the average MLB career is about 5 years, and the average NBA career is less than 4 years. However, no sport features its stars more than the NBA. With that in mind, my Top 5 players across the board:

1. LeBron James
2. Dwyane Wade
3. Carmelo Anthony
4. Dwight Howard
5. Kobe Bryant

Yes, I’m taking nothing but NBA players in my Top 5. I’m looking forward to what everyone else thinks.

Raible
October 26, 2007

Such a tough question to compare different sports. LeBron has to be number 1 in basketball and the only person to rival him in all of sports is playing a sport that isn’t included, Sidney Crosby. Alex Rodriguez and LaDainian Tomlinson are the top in their respective sports right now and I give the edge to LT, as he’s been the clear cut top in his sport for a few years now. Both are a little older, which is why LeBron is my #1 in all of sports for keeper purposes.

Baseball seems to have the most guys that could be mentioned at the top. A lot of fluctuation as well. Johan, Peavy and Beckett could all be the top pitcher and you have a handful of guys that could be the top hitter. That’s what is tough for me, is I can’t even decide how to rank Pujols, ARod, Hanley, and Holliday. That’s why it’s a little tougher for me to put ARod at the top, because you don’t know if he’ll duplicate those stats, and if he doesn’t, you just took a 32-year-old that high.

In NFL, the fact that LT has stayed at the top makes him the top player. But in the back of your mind you’re saying to yourself, “Is he next to bust?” which makes it tough. Just when you’re about to put Steven Jackson at the top he doesn’t do much this season and then you have what happened to Ronnie Brown. Adrian Peterson certainly looks to be a special player and I think he’s also my 1B to LT.

One thing I completely disagree with or maybe simply don’t understand, are Raible’s rankings. I don’t understand how you list 4 players for the NFL, and 2 are QB’s but QB’s routinely don’t go in the top 5 of a keeper league. Even one step further, we just had our NBA Fantasy Draft and you took Dirk Nowitzki 5th, over DWade and Carmelo Anthony. Based on your rankings here wouldn’t Wade have been your selection? If not, shouldn’t Dirk be on your top 5 list?

I’m gonna take a different route with my rankings and say that NBA stars having longevity just comes with the territory and so does NFL players with shorter careers. I think there’s no other sport than Fantasy Football where one guy can lead you to a championship. I think for that reason I have to have some NFL players high up on the list.

1. LeBron James-Already best fantasy in sport, has youth, and will be around forever. That triple threat puts him one.
2. LaDainian Tomlinson-Gives me the overall best chance to win a title in the next 3 years and I’m confident I’ll be able to rebuild when he falls off
3. Adrian Peterson-He looks THAT special. The more he gets on his resume the more we’ll know, but right now it’s early and I love every single thing I see.
4. Dwight Howard-Center eligibility, I believe will still continue to get better and will be a rock forever. I think putting him this high you’re expecting him to eventually average 25-27 and 15 boards. Will he, I don’t know. But to even think he could makes me want to select him and find out.
5. Hanley Ramirez-Tomorrow this ranking could be different, but Hanley seems to have the best mix of all of the other top baseball guys I can think of. Whoever you want to compare him to, he’s either younger, plays a harder position, has more power, faster, or hits for a higher average.

thav916
October 28, 2007

Ok, no Raible rebuttle to anything I said, Wells hasn’t even given his thoughts to his own question and Dean is still formulating his top 1000. VERY DISAPPOINTING. I’ll try to continue a little on my thoughts and get this going again.

After thinking harder, it’s probably tough to not put ARod at the top spot of baseball. I think you very easily could take a Holliday or Hanley or other young guy, hit the jackpot and have the best player in the game for the next 12 years. BUT, we’re not really sure yet if those guys will continue to perform like they did this past season. They’ll obviously be great players but can’t guarantee better. Arod and Pujols are two guys that are pretty much guaranteed top 5 players. They have proven themselves. Arod gets the nod because of position. Things could change depending on where he ends up but it’s probably safest to go with Arod first overall in baseball before a cutting edge pick like Hanley, Holliday, etc.

I also think while LeBron is the top spot in hoops, an argument could be made for Kobe at #2. Him and Dwight Howard are very close. Wade would obviously be right in the mix but gets knocked for his injuries. As for football, I can’t even think who would be 3rd after LT and Peterson. Jackson, Gore and LJ have only regressed this year, Ronnie Brown emerged and then got hurt, Brady and Peyton are QB’s. As I stated originally NFL might be the sport that’s most important to get a stud but I think the studs are very unpredictable these days.

Anyway, I’ll keep my top 4 the same, slide Hanley down a little bit, and put ARod and Kobe at 5 and 6.

thav916
November 2, 2007

What Timothy David Haver wants, Timohty David Haver gets…

“I don’t understand how you list 4 players for the NFL, and 2 are QB’s but QB’s routinely don’t go in the top 5 of a keeper league.”

After the play of Brady and Manning this year, coupled with the play of many of the so-called stud running backs, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that 2 QBs could go in the Top 5 of Fantasy Football drafts anymore.

“Based on your rankings here wouldn’t Wade have been your selection? If not, shouldn’t Dirk be on your top 5 list?”

Our Fantasy Basketball league has a 5-year limit on keepers, which then kicks into a pay for your guy-type of thing that I will probably never participate in. With that in mind, I take Dirk over D-Wade and Melo for the next 5 years, but I’d take D-Wade and Melo over Dirk if there was an unlimited number of keeper years.

Raible
November 2, 2007

I believe my question was a little vague- i.e. keeper limts, etc., but I think everyone has attacked it very well so far. Wish would could get Dylan Sachetti to calculate VORP for me, but I think I’ll take a stab with what I know.

Real quick, I think too often people get caught up in the fact that “this guy is 19 and this guy is already 23″ and overvalue youth. Not saying anyone specifically here, but when you look at fantasy keeper drafts, too many people pass up a sure thing, for a guy “I COULD HAVE FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS.” If history has taught me anything, it’s that you take the sure thing and hope that one of your young guys pans out.(Of course, I drafted DeAngelo Williams in both fantasy football leagues this year.)

Baseball- I think it’s safe to agree that AROD and Pujols have been the cream of the crop. Hanley, Holliday, Reyes, are definitely the next generation with batters. But as Haver mentioned how valuable is it to have a stud SP that’s going to get you guaranteed points each week? I think the common thought process is Hitter over Pitcher because they play everyday, and therefore here’s my top 5 baseball:

1. Albert Pujols- Who knows how old this guy really is, but he’s a stud.
2. Arod- Just way too consistent and will probably play another 10 years.
3. Jimmy Rollins- People overlook the fact that this flat out produces at a premium position. Plus he just seems to get better every year.
4. Hanley Ramirez- Young stud who is only above #5 because of position.
5. Matt Holliday- I’m not sure this guy will ever hit a slump.

Basketball-

1. LeBron- Youth and skill make him a fast rising fantasy stud.
2. Garnett- Are you kidding this guy is a freak.
3. Kobe- The guy is just straight nasty.
4. Dirk- Another consistent performer who’s only 28?
5. Dwight Howard- Another guy on a mercurial rise. Could be top 2 by end of the yr.

Football

1. LT
2. Everyone else. No seriosuly though #2 is really a toss-up. I prob would have had LJ , but as Haver said, he is not getting any better. Still scares me everytime I play him though.
2. Adrian Peterson- Could you imagine him with 25 carries?
3. Brian Westbrook- Quietly gets the job done. Has to stay healthy to keep this spot though.
4. Joseph Addai- Young, another guy who needs to stay healthy, but as long as he is and on the Colts he’s my #4.
5. Peyton Manning- All things aside he has been THE mark of consistency with a good 7-10 years left.

My overall top 5-
1. LT- absolutely dominating fantasy sports like no other.
2. Pujols- So consistent year in and year out.
3. LeBron- He’s LeBron.
4. AROD- Another guy that just can’t be overlooked.
5. Adrian Peterson- 1st year guy dominating fantasy stats.

There you have it…Eat your heart out Haver!!!!!

Wells
November 2, 2007

I just finished eating my heart out and let me tell you, it tasted good (coulda been all the Fish Oils). That right there is the difference between when this site isn’t good and when this site is great. To me it’s not just about posting your thoughts and moving on. It’s about posting your thoughts, others posting thoughts, and then the original people answering and commenting more.

It’s interesting that the 5 year rule has that much of an effect.

I do think that based on the unpredictability of RB’s nowadays and Peyton and Brady being incredible that they could be drafted higher than usual next year (maybe Manning was already top 5-10). But, I think the real reason that QB’s are just not the same is because of the setup of most leagues. 10 or 12 owners and you start 1 QB and either 2 or 3 RBs. Just puts an emphasis on RB’s that is so strong. It’s actually why I’d love to experiment and talk about adding another QB to the mix. I think in a 10 team league you SHOULD start 2 QB’s. In a 12 team league, I’d love to look into a “Mega Flex” where you can start a QB/RB/WR in addition to the 1 QB, 2 RB, and 3 WR. Now you’d have to tinker with the scoring for a QB a bit so they weren’t far outscoring other positions but I think it’d be great. In a situation like that, I like a Peyton or Brady is a slam dunk of a top 5 pick because you can then follow it up in the 2nd or 3rd round with a Carson Palmer and have a clear advantage over another owner. In a league like ours when you can wait forever and still come away with Ben Roethlisberger, Eli Manning or Brett Favre, QB’s just aren’t important. I know it’s a little off of “Top 5 Fantasy” but I think there is a direct correlation to why these guys are or are not top 5.

I was going to bring up a point but didn’t but I’m glad Wells did. The whole “drafting a young guy to have him 20 years.” I think it will be very interesting to see how the next 5, 10, 15 years go in all of our sports. The only keeper league we’ve had for a while now is Football and I think we’re learning a little about that. Basketball and baseball will be fun to follow. While I do think that Wells’ point is correct about drafting youth to have them “Forever” I think the main cause is another reason. I think a lot of people look for break out stars.

Player A is 28 years old and averaged 18, 5 and 3 last year
Player B is 20 years old and averaged 12, 3, and 2 last year

You feel like Player A is “Guaranteed” 18, 5 and 3 again. However you think Player B could jump up to 21, 6 and 3 and therefore you take Player B. The problem with this is often Player A ends up with his 18, 5 and 3 while Player B averages 14, 4 and 3.

I think that is the main cause for drafting young players. For the breakout season and upside.

I’m interested in hearing if Raible’s thoughts are changed after reading my thoughts and Wells’. Seems like Wells tended to agree with me, that while football players don’t last as long they could be the most important to have. It’s possibly just something you didn’t think of. Looking to see if thoughts are changed?

Wells those are really good rankings. Mine would be different and I might try to do something similar. I feel like I don’t want to nitpick because they can all change so rapidly and all obviously based on opinion. I do think you might have to put a SP or two in the top 5 of baseball just because of how much a 2 start dominating pitcher can carry you. The tough part about baseball is not only are those top 5 hitters you mentioned awesome but you can come up with another 5 that are just as good (Wright, Reyes, Cabrera, Braun, Prince come to mind off top of my head, you get the idea).

How good does Wells think Raible’s NFL keeper situation is?!?!?! Peterson 2 and Westbrook 3! And how bout Yetti’s baseball team. 18 team league and he has Holliday and Beckett. I’m not sure if anyone in our league has 2 top 10-15 players like he does.

thav916
November 2, 2007

Not sure why there’s been no love for David Wright, but whatever…The Champ is happy to welcome him back for another year!

I really don’t think that my opinions have changed too much. While I understand that I have probably overvalued young stars in the NBA, I still think that I would rather lock up a NBA stud than a stud in another league. I understand the notion that landing a great player in football can win you a title, but injuries are just so much more prevalent in football. Look at a guy like Ronnie Brown. He could have won people a title this year. He tears an ACL and now won’t even be a guaranteed keeper for many teams out there.

I think that I’m sticking to my guns, for now, with the NBA guys. And, yes, as of 11:49 PM on November 2, 2007, I am pretty excited about my keeper situation for football next year.

Raible
November 3, 2007

Haver, thanks for elaborating on the point I made and completing the most glaring weakness of most fantasy owners. I can’t tell you how many times guys get so wrapped up in the breakout star, flier, can’t miss rookie and overlook a solid vet that could help them win games NOW.

Wells
November 3, 2007

I did mention David Wright. Don’t know if you skipped over him or what.

Had a feeling you’d stick to your guns but appreciate the answer. My main difference is the direct correlation to NFL superstar to championship compared to NBA superstar and championship but that’s of course only my opinion.

Wells, while I agree, I don’t always think it’s a bad thing. Sometimes I think when you just go by the book you’re just setting yourself up for a solid team. Now don’t get me wrong, that Player A I illustrated above can always break out as well out of nowhere (think Carlos Boozer) and going with the safe choices with a few breakouts could be the smarter way to go. But I think sometimes the teams that win championships are the ones that get lucky with young guys that break out. My best example was Senior year when I was drafting in the beginning of the second round. To this day I remember Jon Frank saying, “I think this pick is pretty obvious.” He was referring to Baron Davis. I, on the other hand, took Dwyane Wade, looking at the trade of Odom, Caron and Grant and projecting him to have a monsterous year. Eyes rolled when I made the pick and then he went on to dominate. I think going with Player A is the safe and USUALLY smarter thing to do. But if you hit it right with Player B and that guy does emerge, you get someone far better than Player A.

Make sense?

thav916
November 3, 2007

Makes perfect sense and I’m not against gambling on young guys. I just think their are people that ALWAYS gamble on young guys and a majority of the draft is dedicated to drafting alot of players that COULD BE THE NEXT BIG THING, instead of mixing the young with the solid. I rolled the dice on MJD last year and it paid off, but I didn’t take him until later in the draft.

Young guys can definitely pan out but the statistics probably show that there’s not a TON of them every year that pan out. It’s usually like no more than 5-10 guys out of the hundreds we draft, and most people actually pick those players up early in the season.

Just rambling, but fully understand what you are saying…

Wells
November 3, 2007

Ya, I think we’re saying a lot of the same things, just in different ways. I guess my original point was that I don’t think people were always thinking they can keep the guy for 20 years but more so for the breakout year. I can sum it up, and think you might agree, that when you take a young guy thinking he’ll break out and he does, there is nothing better. When you take a young guy thinking he’ll break out and he doesn’t, there’s nothing worse. Because of the “there is nothing better” result we’re all tempted to try for it probably more often than we should. It’s also impossible to predict which players will have those breakout years and everyone hopes they can guess correctly.

Our own Great Awakening once said, “Everyone wants to take the next John Smoltz, a guy like Matt Cain,that can either not be great or be as good as John Smoltz. I’ll take John Smoltz, who will be John Smoltz.” I thought it was the greatest thing ever. Such a great point. And the funniest part, is he’s also the kid that took Felix Hernandez in the draft, which sums up that as much as someone doesn’t want to take a chance on young guys that could emerge, it’s still human nature to do so.

thav916
November 3, 2007

Sorry I didn’t even notice this was going on. I’m too excited to finish reading before I post:

“2. LaDainian Tomlinson-Gives me the overall best chance to win a title in the next 3 years and I’m confident I’ll be able to rebuild when he falls off”

Is pretty much the start and end of my initial thoughts on the subject. Quick quiz: what percent of winning baseball teams had A-Rod last year, and what percent of winning football teams had Tomlinson? Seriously this year was the only baseball draft I’ve done but it looks to me like almost nothing was decided in the early rounds. Anyone know someone who got Tomlinson in the first and Brady in the 2-3 wrap this year? It’s pretty much over.

Now the longevity factor is where opinion comes in, and I agree with the above opinion. I had a guy in my league trade down from 1 to 3 in a new keeper league to get Bush, because Tomlinson’s older and he’ll only be in his prime for a few more years. That’s understandable, and I’m looking at 2010 as much as anyone, but give me rings in ‘07 and ‘08 and I’ll worry about he future later. Everything changes year to year- Bush might be an injury-riddled bust by next year, and so could LT for that matter. So I’ll take the guy who I know is good now and use later picks and trades to speculate on the future.

There is certainly an appeal to grabbing James and knowing (as much as you can know anything) that you’ll have a top player for over a decade. I don’t really have a feel for hoops yet though so I’m not sure. My main point is that i take a short term perspective to keeper leagues.

Okay now I’m gonna read the rest.

thegreatawakening
November 3, 2007

My football keeper list…..

1. Tomlinson
2. Addai
3. Peterson (might be high)
4. Parker
5. Manning (money in…)
6. Brady (…the bank)
7. LJ (still believe)
8. Westbrook
9. Jackson
10. Bush
11. McFadden

thegreatawakening
November 4, 2007

By the way, every league I play in uses 2 QB. (They’re all 10 teamers.) It adds a new dimension in my opinion. It really opens up different approaches owners can take to the draft and roster management in general. As has been said, in 1-Qb leagues you can build a complete roster and then grab Eli and Cutler in rounds 7-8 and figure you’ll end up with someone decent by midseason. When you need 2 that’s out the window. For one, Manning through McNabb are gone by the end of the 3rd, at which point only half the teams have even one starter. On top of that, the backup (now the 3rd QB) means a lot more because you have 2 bye weeks and double the chance of bust or injury. All of a sudden you’re picking towards the end of the 4th and you realize if you take your 2nd WR and then a flier on a rookie RB you’re looking at Eli, Ben, Rivers, Hasselbeck, etc. potentially coming off the board before you pick again. And this goes on until the end of the draft or until you have 3. Every round you’re disgusted with the QB you’re going to have to take over a sleeper you love, but petrified of what will happen if you continue to wait. Kitna-Campbell-McNair is pretty ugly and it’s still going to cost you picks that might have been a top 5 tight end or Braylon Edwards or Lendale White. Maybe that description doesn’t make the system seem appealing, but to me it just gives you more options early and adds a little difficulty by eliminating the last position with enough good players to go around. If you take Manning at 7, but all the RB you liked are gone by 14 and you really like Brady this year, you can take him and still get Jacobs, Portis and Betts in the 3rd, 4th, and 8th (keep in mind an entire round of starters has been added to the starting lineups so questionable starters and their handcuffs always slide). At the end of the day I think the draft becomes a lot less straight forward, and if you really analyze the way things are going you can identify undervalued players and positions and build unothodox but potentially dominant teams.

thegreatawakening
November 4, 2007

Man I might have to move Adrian Peterson straight to the top of the list after that performance today. I still think that if you were able to cross trade in leagues and someone had LeBron James and someone had Adrian Peterson that person with Peterson would not make the trade and the person with James would swap him with Peterson in a heartbeat but it’s impossible for Raible to change his mind so I’ll try to stop.

I wish my 10 team league went to 2 QBs. Think it should be a no brainer. Hate that they are stubborn. I don’t think it’s as easy and simple to do in a 12 team league. If you could have 2 QB’s you wouldn’t have to change anything with the scoring and it’d be great. Adding the QB as a mega flex would mean you’d have to at least start with changing passing yards to 1pt/25 yards and go from there. In a 12 team league we could try starting 2 QB’s and only being allowed a 3rd on the roster if one of your starters was on a bye. I don’t think there’s any other way it works.

Dean’s excitement was awesome. There’s also nothing better on WCG that Dean quoting something you said and then agreeing with it.

thav916
November 4, 2007

Yea with 12 teams it really doesn’t work because of the bye weeks. With 10 teams everyone gets 3 and 2 get 4, which is tight, but at least you’re always going to have a 2 starters if you do it right. One league I’m in gives you the rights to all the backups of the QBs you own for protection. I don’t really like it though- speculating on unproven backups is part of fantasy in my opinion. We’ve also been at pt/25 passing for a few years, and I like it a lot. The idea of not allowing an unused, playing QB on the bench isn’t a bad idea- QBs 25-32 would basically be available at all times. I would understand if a conservative 12-man wouldn’t vote to allow this though (why are fantasy football players so tight by the way? I’vce noticed this too.) That reminds me, I’ve done away with the whole voting thing in general in my league. I’ve decided that I’m a just monarch, so I just decide everything after listening the input of my serfs. I wouldn’t do anything as drastic as switching from 1 Qb to 2 without consent, but for minor things it just eliminates a bunch of pain in the ass votes, and at the end of the day nobody ever really complains.

Peterson. I had Tomlinson in my keeper league the last two years. We started over, and now I have Pete. I don’t think I can even think of a way to explain yesterday’s joy to someone who doesn’t own him. It’s so unfair. Right on the heels of our discussion, Peterson explains with his performance why football is unlike the other games.

thegreatawakening
November 5, 2007

And, in the same weekend, a supposed stud, can’t miss, keeper RB in Larry Johnson, who has been struggling since the first snap of the season, injures himself and will be forced to miss some time. I’m not saying what is the best strategy; I just wanted to play Devil’s Advocate. :)

Adrian Peterson is awesome!

Raible
November 6, 2007

we doin fantasy college hoops??????????

thav916
November 6, 2007

I think I might be able to do it….But there are so many players to choose from, ideas?

Wells
November 6, 2007

COULD IT BE?!?!?!?! SAY IT AINT SO?!?!?!?! Ben Raible’s first ever correct prediction?!?!?!?!

On August 25, 2007 Raible said……….
“Danks’ QBs are sick, Dean loves Big Macs, I like Jon’s RBs, Haver’s team looks solid, and I think that Murph might have had, overall, the best 3 first picks. At this juncture, however, my guess is that Haver wins this league because, well(s), he’s Haver!”

thav916
November 19, 2007

With the fantasy football season wrapping up let’s put some issues on the table for debate.

Issue #1: Tomlinson vs. Peterson

I have Peterson in a keeper league and can trade him for Tomlinson straight up.

My personal approach to keeper leagues is always focused on the short run. I think the most costly mistakes I see in keeper leagues involve overweighting the age factor. I’ll generally take whoever I think is most likely to explode tonight and I’ll worry about tomorrow tomorrow. But Peterson has exploded on the scene like no other.

Let me know what you think, and put another issue on the table if you’d like.

thegreatawakening
December 26, 2007

Dean: I’d take Tomlinson for Peterson. As you suggested, trying to predict the future should be left to assbeaters like Biff Tannen. As of today, and heading into next year, I think that Tomlinson is just better right now than Peterson. As a result, I think you take the trade.

Issue #2: How early does Tom Brady get drafted next year?

Brady is putting up stats like no other QB has, but is he worthy of a Top 5 or, dare I say it, the #1 pick in seasonal leagues next year? I know a lot depends on the type of scoring system, but let’s say we’re talking about a QB-weak scoring system which rewards passing TDs as 4 points.

I think I still take a guy like Tomlinson #1 over Brady, but I also think you’d be hard pressed to find 4 more guys (Peterson, Westbrook, etc.?) that are definite selections over Brady by the time the #5 pick rolls around.

Thoughts?

Raible
December 27, 2007

BRADY

Factoring his track record, health, and the fact that he’s never pressured I’d consider him a safe bet to help your team next year as an every week starter. Considering this great season, he obviously has tremendous upside as well. Take a look at the group who fits the description “safe bet” over the last 2-3 years. In a 2 QB league like I play in, I’ll be all over both Manning and Brady next year.

In a 1 QB league it becomes much tougher. Brady’s season has been awesome this year, and his production has gone so far above and beyond average that even in 1 QB leagues he’s provided a crushing advantage. But if he regresses to his norm next year- due to Moss’s departure, a better running game, problems along the line, or anything else that causes production to regress- the advantage you will have quickly shrinks, especially when your league format leaves 6-7 teams set at QB and only 3-4 mixing and matching guys like Garrard, Garcia and Warner depending on matchups.

I would think that the RBs and WRs would fly off the board in 1 QB leagues. In my leagues guys like Jacobs, Lynch, McCallister and others might have been available in the late 3rd-early 4th for the guy who took Brady/Manning late 1st-early 2nd, making the pick stomachable. In 1QB leagues this probably wouldn’t be the case.

I guess the final decision depends on how comfortable you are mixing and matching the various positions. If you’re a waiver wire hound and you get the Grants and Grahams every year then I think it’s easier to make this pick in the top 5 over a Jackson, Addai, or Westbrook. At the same time if you have no problem grabbing Hasselbeck and Garrard and you’d rather plug in one of those three backs and forget about it I could see that too.

In a 1 QB league I think I’d take Tomlinson, Westbrook, Peterson, Addai, and Jackson first, mainly because I think you are counting on too much VORP from Brady if your 1RB is the 16th or 17th overall pick. But after that I think I would take both Brady and Manning next. One of Parker, Gore, Mcgahee, Brown, Portis, Bush, Barber, Lynch, Jacobs, LJ, Jones-Drew would be your RB1 either way, so I think I’m taking a QB for sure.

thegreatawakening
December 27, 2007

I really don’t think Brady’s season is THAT much different than Peyton Manning’s a few years back. Manning had incredible weapons and was far ahead of Marino’s pace and slowed up at the end just like Brady. He went maybe an average of 5th through 10th?

A few things stand out….
-Drafts next year could be different in general. Keepers, too. In the past, you HAD to keep RB, WR or Peyton/Gates. Now I wonder if you’ll keep Romo over Gore or Winslow over MJD. I’m just throwing those out there to get the idea. Bottom line, I think people might be a little off of the “MUST TAKE RB KICK” and wouldn’t be surprised if Brady went extremely high.

-I also think just like Manning in the past, Brady will simply go to someone that loves Brady/QBs. A specific person could say beforehand, I’m taking Brady 1st and take him 1st if he gets the selection. But that person might also end up drafting 8th and find himself behind 7 people that pass on Brady.

-Also agree it really can be based on the system. It’s not that RB’s are better than QB’s it’s that when a system allows 30-36 starting RB’s compared to 10-12 starting QB’s the demand is just simply not there. Lots of QB’s had bigtime seasons this year. Yes, just about any team with Brady made the playoffs this year but that’s also Brady as a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th rounder. Will not be the case next year with him as a 1st rounder. Still tough to pull trigger on “Brady 1st round or ________ 8th round.”

TOMLINSON-PETERSON
I think as of now I also take LT over Peterson.

Some things to watch out for….
-Chester Taylor vs Michael Turner

-Philip Rivers vs Tavaris Jackson

-Pass catching

Right now, the Chargers seem to have everything in place to continue to be a great team. Michael Turner is clearly not a threat to LT but Turner will probably be gone and that can only be good for LT. If Chester is still around, he’ll continue to take bigtime carries off of Peterson. I drafted AD this year because I thought he’d be too good to not get carries, but still if Chester is there, he’ll get carries. With Tavaris at the helm, there are gonna be insonsistencies. No reason the Vikings couldn’t be 3-13 next year or maybe 13-3. I think with the Chargers you know a little bit more of what you’re getting. Look, they were “horrible” this year and gonna have 10-11 wins. Also, LT’s receiving is a huge bonus and don’t think AD will be able to duplicate.

-Tough thing is you keep wondering “When will the perfect time to get rid of LT be?” Even getting rid of him 1 year early could be a great move if it’s for the right player. But it’s just soooo tough to say who that right player will be. AD’s upside is also ridiculous. We’ve probably seen the best we’re gonna see from LT and we know it’s AMAZING. But Peterson’s upside, with Chester gone, better QB play, natural development, etc. could be like 2000 yards and 20 TD’s. That always makes you nervous to trade him.

For me, it’d be impossible to pull the trigger EITHER WAY right now. What will happen in the offseason? O-lines? Free agency? Drafts? Reports? So tough.

thav916
December 28, 2007

I definitely feel like Tomlinson can be counted on for lots of reasons, many of which you stated:

-Bad game for the Chargers (kind of rare)- LT still ctaches 5 balls for 40 yards and I get 7.5 points on top of his rushing yards. Vikings get killed (like you said, could become a regularity) and Peterson gets 16 yards- end of story.

-LT has never had a serious injury. Peterson has been injured a lot. If he pulls a Ronnie Brown next year my team is dead and his value is shot.

I make almost every tough decision based on what I would do if it wasn’t a keeper league. I think that would be LT. But there’s still that allure of upside, and the fact that I could get LT age 22 for LT age 28.

It’s brutally tough and I almost wish it hadn’t been offered.

thegreatawakening
December 28, 2007

Good fantasy debate. This is a much better place to debate these types of things than your actual Fantasy site, where people will either freak out or not even respond. I like the idea of throwing out ideas here, having 3 or 4 solid opinions thrown back and forth (sorry Wells, you don’t always count) and then possibly bringing it up in the actual league. Anyway, a topic I’d like to talk about is NFL Roster Size.

Forever, rosters have been around 15-17. Always wanted a small bench so that owners couldn’t just hoard a ton of people on their roster. But I’m starting to re-think this. My idea is to have rosters about 25 deep and here’s why….

I’m just tired of not being able to handcuff. I’m tired of a person with the highest waiver priority picking up the latest greatest RB. I’m tired of really liking someone and having to cut them because I simply can’t afford to keep them and then 3 weeks later, his starter goes down and someone else reaps the benefits. Now, I know I know, you are able to handcuff and if you think someone is THAT amazing you should be able to find a spot on your roster. But the fact of the matter is that I believe no you can’t. The roster size combined with bye weeks just make it too damn tough.

With a large roster size, you could have more freedom of selecting who you think could be good if the right situation arises. If I have Ronnie Brown I could make sure to have Jesse Chatman on my team. But it’s not like I’d be given Chatman. I’d have to make sure to select him and someone else could draft Chatman if they thought he could emerge as the man. Hell, maybe you select Brian Leonard because you think he’ll be the man and it completely fizzles on you, it’s not like everytime it will work out. Likewise with Brady Quinn. Or if you have Lamont Jordan, you could have also drafted Fargas and Rhodes.

I guess I just see the end result with a lot of leagues this year and teams that won picked up the Ryan Grants, Earnest Grahams, Jesse Chatmans, etc. etc. Now you could call these “savvy” pickups but 9 times out of 10 the owner that picked them up got pretty lucky.

Now the clear downfall is that people get bitchy and whiny after 16 rounds of a draft let alone 25. But something could be done that somehow, whether immediately after or simply in a system before the first game of the year the roster was expanded to 25. I also think that a large roster makes it much easier to have no pickups in the playoffs, which I feel is a good thing.

Ok, you guys get the idea. Thoughts?

thav916
December 30, 2007

I always say “the more, the merrier.”

Raible
December 31, 2007

I had a response get deleted last night but here are my basic thoughts.

Larger rosters cause emerging players to be picked up earlier, because the last on the bench becomes less valuable and more expendable the larger that bench gets. You could argue that this will allow the sharpest owners to grab the Grahams and Grants of the world before a big game makes the players rosterable to whoever’s closest to the computer or first on the waiver order. At the same time you could make the argument that if a hunch that isn’t powerful enough to make you drop your 4th receiver, then it isn’t much more than noticing a player rise on a depth chart and being aware that he may have better results than his predecessors, and the savvy owner should “earn” his breakout player by making a difficult decision.

Another issue I can see with expanded rosters is the inavailability of decent fill-in players. It’s nice to carry several handcuffs and sleepers, but allowing for those players also often results in players like Shaun McDonal and Kevin Curtis clogging up the end of a bench instead of free agency.

There’s a lot more to the debate but that’s all I have time for right now. At this time I think I’m against expanding my rosters (I personally have 8 offensive starters and 8 bench spots). I generally have an interest in several more players than my rosters allow for, but I like to walk the line where every add/drop decision is a difficult one.

I’ll add some more later. Feel free to address what I’ve said and/or the things I glossed over.

thegreatawakening
January 3, 2008

I’m torn on the idea. I mean we did this in college football, but the talent pool is much larger.

I definitely agree that the worst teams reaping the waiver wire rewards sucks. However, expanding the rosters doesn’t seem like a direction I’d like to go in.

Like Dean said, people would just have productive players sitting on their bench which would most likely take away from trading. Most trading in our leagues RESULTS from people needing an extra player for a playoff/championship push while someone might use want a draft pick to rebuild. Also, I think the value of trades goes down with people making eight player swaps, just because they can.(Some may see this as a plus?)

Anyway, I like the roster sizes but think there need to be different ways to make the waiver wire more fair. That’s why I like the idea of auctioned pick-ups or limited transactions.

For auction, you get a certain amount of points each year for pickups and can use them to auction for a player you want off the waiver wire. This would still make handcuffs valuable to people, but could also keep the worse teams from snatching them up every week.

Limited transactions could work the same way. I might not gamble too quickly on someone after one good week because I only have a few pickups and need to use them wisely.

Just some other ideas that have probably been brought up at some point.

Wells
January 4, 2008

I should have mentioned that I don’t use a waiver wire, just come and go as you please free agency. The races that occur when players get injured are lame, but it is nice to be able to have your eye on someone and go get him mid-game after you see that he’s getting carries or having success. I’d never use the waiver wire.

I hadn’t thought about the impact on trades, but I hate 8-man leagues for a similar reason. Everyone has plenty of talent,to the point where the emerging impact players are hardly even in demand. Trading becomes limited to swapping slumping stars and other forms of “mixing it up.”

In general I like to see fantasy roster decisions resemble normal NFL decisions. You start a couple receivers/running backs, carry a couple steady veteran backup (NFL-injury/fantasy-bye weeks), and a prospect with upside at each spot.

thegreatawakening
January 4, 2008

Good points all around. I might be playing devil’s advocate more than anything but…..

-I don’t buy the “If you really had a hunch you wouldn’t have minded dropping your 4th WR” line. What if you like everyone on your roster? Or simply having 3-5 guys on a bye one week. Maybe opinions change, but we have 10 starting spots and 6 bench. Very different than 8 starting spots and 8 bench.

-As for trades, how many big trades we we see anyway? The majority of our trades are a bad team trading a good player to a good team for a pick. Those trades would continue. I even went back and noticed you said these are the types of trades. If Tony Romo is on a bad team and a good team has 2, 3, or 10 awful qb’s, the good team is still gonna give up a pick for Romo.

-Once again, we’re talkin about a different type of league here because Kevin Curtis and Shaun McDonald were both primarily starters in the 12 team league I’m in and even the 10 team league. So I don’t think those are good examples.

-The comparison to real life football is nice and all but cmon, they can’t be any more different.

-I’m not even addressing waivers, which we can do at a later date and time.

Even if 25 is stretching it, something like 20 from 16 would make a major difference.

thav916
January 5, 2008

League size and format are clearly going to make a big difference in this debate. My league starts QB QB RB RB WR WR TE W/R and then a team def and three guys from that D. Then I have 8 bench spots after that. (You have to keep the 4 def positions at all times so you can’t carry extras on O throughout the week.) If you guys are limited to 6 bench spots then keep that in mind when reading my thoughts. I have room for two more handcuffs/sleepers/whatever than you guys.

As far as which players are the last men on the bench or the top replacements available in free agency, (the McDonald/Curtis thing), it doesn’t matter who the players are. I just threw out two borderline guys off the top of my head. My point was just that I prefer to maintain acceptable fill-ins in FA to reduce the impact of injuries and other uncertainty. This is my opinion obviously.

Regarding the tough NFL-style decisions……sure the situations aren’t the same. The point here is that I think that just as NFL teams would like to keep 3 project receivers plus 3 proven backups yet have to make tough choices, I think fantasy owners should have to prioritize and make veteran bench sacrifices to chase upside or vice versa. Again this is just my opinion. Either way that was the purpose of comparing the situations- I’m not arguing that when in doubt fatasy should mirror the NFL.

Brutal bye week stretches are definitely a pain in the ass. Again this comes down to opinion- does dealing with byes represent a reasonable challenge or a huge problem in need of correction? I tend to go with the former, but once again my league has more wiggle room than yours.

At the end of the day, looking at all these issues I think it simply comes down to everyone’s individual point of view. THav’s response to one of my points was “what if you like all of your guys?” To me this just indicates that we look at things a little differently. I always have an interest in many more players than I can carry, and I’m constantly torn on who to grab, keep, or drop, particularly when byes and injuries come into play. But I see this as one of the things that makes fantasy sports a fun challenge. It would be nice to carry 3 Denver running backs, your top pick’s backup, and a couple of rookies, but I prefer the enviornment of tough decisions and sacrifices where there are always attractive options out there for whoever wants them most and is willing to suck up the opportunity cost*. But I’d be interested to hear how you guys would feel if you added a couple bench spots to make our experiences more comparable. I think it’s likely that we’d start to see things much closer to eye to eye.

(I understand the devil’s advocate thing, and we’re all doing it to some extent. So if it sounds like I’ve attached an opinion to one of you that isn’t really yours…just know that I’m aware of this possibilty. Feel free to point it out or elaborate.)

*For example, let’s say I really think Ryan Grant can do well when I hear he’s going to get a chance to carry the load, but I don’t feel like I’m able to part with anyone due to the small rosters. Then he starts to do well and someone else grabs him. I might blame the rosters for missing out on a guy I was on to, but you could also say that I missed out because I wasn’t willing to give up on Vincent Jackson before my opponent was willing to do something comparable. With fairly tight rosters I’d assume that whoever gets a given breakout player has been forced to drop a decent asset to do so. Maybe with large, loose rosters the first man to see the potential gets the payoff, but with tight rosters the reward goes to the first man willing to pay the price to take the gamble. Certainly a trade off either way, and I think it’s an interesting question that really puts the issue of what’s most fair and just under the microscope.

thegreatawakening
January 5, 2008

Ya, all of this is really picking the lesser of two evils. I actually think one point against that hasn’t been brought up is, “Well, yeah, you could act like a person that thought Earnest Graham or Ryan Grant was gonna be great and had them on their roster is a well-deserved move, but cmon, the owners are gonna have every RB possible on their rosters and then simply get lucky by who gets injured.” I had been thinking that and wanted to see if anyone else did. To argue the point I just made I’d still say well compared to randomly picking up Graham or Grant due to whatever waiver system you had……..being the closest to the computer when Cadillac gets hurt or Grant has his first long run OR having the worst record and highest waiver priority still might not be as fair or just or whatever word you want to use as carrying the guy on your roster already.

I also understand the part about being able to fill your rosters with the McDonalds/Curtis’s but my point about the larger rosters are you’d already be prepared with more backups, you’d have to think ahead in case of injury, and you wouldn’t simply be able to say, “Oh darn, Marvin Harrison is out, I’ll just pick up _______” You’d have to already have _______ on your roster.

I guess the main point in this is that as nice as the tough decisions are, I don’t always think they work out the way they are intended to. Not that I am positive that changing to larger rosters would work out perfectly either, and I think Wells alluded to that originally. Bottom line with my reasoning is that Fantasy sports are already incredibly lucky. I think it really sucks that a season long injury can cause teams to be horrible. You can argue that it’d be good or bad to be able to handcuff and carry everyone you want as Dean said. But someone makes a great draft pick in Ronnie Brown this year, their season looks great, and then he gets injured, someone else picks up Jesse Chatman and becomes a great team. Same with Cadillac/Earnest Graham, etc. I think that’s the main thing I don’t like.

My friend had a league a few years back where if your RB went down you automatically got his backup. I hate that. I think you have to earn that. If you have Brown, you have to have Chatman on your roster. Someone else could have him all the same and think that Brown is injury prone and going down.

The more I think about it and the discussions we’ve had, I’m kinda thinking 25 is just way too many. Maybe you’d have to have a limit of how many RB’s you had on your roster, but with a roster that big I think you could simply have whoever the hell you wanted on your roster and it could eliminate tough decisions. What I’m thinking could be ideal for what I’m looking for is a 20 man roster. We start QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 RB/WR, 1 TE, 1 DEF, 1 K. 10 spots. Going from 16 roster spots to 20 would give a lot more flexibility to handcuff, take a chance, keep guys you have hunches on, but yet would still be forced with tough decisions, not just carrying people for the hell of it, etc.

thav916
January 5, 2008

I definitely think you guys should expand the bench by at least a spot or two. I think you’ll find that it makes a big difference.

We’re on the same page as far as being annoyed somewhat by the luck involved, and think perhaps we’re both looking at a grass-is-greener scenario. You’re seeing a lot of breakout players getting picked up by the low man on the waiver wire, and I’ve seen leagues where I’ve headed over to grab a guy just to find out that he’s been wasting away on someone’s huge bench since the draft despite being deactivated for 6 weeks.

I think what you said at the end is the ideal measuring stick- are people carrying players just for the hell of it? You know you’re too big when you’re stretching to find someone decent to add to your bench. I think if done right getting your injured players replacement isn’t often a huge problem. With 8-man leagues there seems to be no urgency to take a flier on Earnest Graham (keep in mind Caddy hasn’t exactly been killing it for the last 18 months, so a lot of people just dropped the Bucs RB spot from their radar) and with 12-man ones there’s such desperation that anyone who’s even *rumored* to be in line for carries is picked up immediately. Just another reason why I think the 10-man setup is optimal (although larger leagues are fun challenges as well). From what I remember of the leagues I was in there wasn’t exactly a rush to FA to grab Chatman when Brown got hurt, and frankly he didn’t really pay off that massively anyway. While the guy obviously carried some upside as the replacement to a productive back, the size of the league and size of the rosters made the enviornment such that a questionable journeyman like Chatman was a natural fit for the Brown owner but more of a reach for the rest of us. This is just one example and that’s not to say that the luck of FA has been eliminated by any stretch. But I do think that if you continue to fine-tune your league format you can get to the point where you are more or less comfortable with impact of the flash-pan free agents.

thegreatawakening
January 5, 2008

Fair enough, I think we’ve gone far enough on that topic and don’t want to continue to say the same things. I think adding spots to our rosters would be sweet but I don’t see it happening. One thing I do see happening and could indirectly help is changing the waiver system. Deano, I can’t believe you do the “first come first serve” waiver system. I feel like that’s what I used in 9th grade and as I got older quickly realized it was horrible. We currently have a waiver order that resets each worst with records worst to first. I think we need to change to the opposite draft order and then never reset through the year. If your at the top and pick someone up, you better want him because you’ll then fall to the bottom. I’m not opposed to a world of charging a small fee for pickups or a limit on pickups, either.

THAT ACTUALLY BRINGS ME TO MY NEXT TOPIC.

This will even be better because all 4 of us are in Yinka and Alfonseca. But I really think we need to go to a system in each of these leagues that either charges for pickups (either immediately or after a limit), or have free pickups and simply have a limit.

Now, maybe this could harm the owner that actually loves making tons of legitimate moves and always whealing and dealing. But I think that owner would still have flexibility and could make the moves he felt most important. The reasons for each league are similar and I’m the perfect example of why there should be. In Yinka, I shouldn’t be able to have a constant rotating door with my 6th and 7th starters, picking up whatever hottest free agent has 4 games in the week, and then cutting him the next week for someone else with 4 games. My opponent shouldn’t be penalized for going with the same 6th and 7th guys every week, even if he plays 3 games. In Alfonseca, the same thing applies to picking up random 2 game starters for the week. In each league, it’s an advantage to have more games played for the week. Also, in Alfonseca (or Yinka but I think it’s less here), you can add/drop 5-6 guys on your team just so they’re on waivers and other owners aren’t able to pick them up.

If there was a small fee or a limit for moves in these leagues, I think you’d see owners stick with their real teams more and only make moves when actually important.

DON THOTTS?

thav916
January 6, 2008

No question that the 2-start situation messes up baseball. It’s great to have two starts to root for so I wouldn’t want to average them or anything, but it would be nice to find a system. Like you indicated most teams won’t have a 4th and 5th starter that is better than your average 2-start FA even if they are well above the league average. I think I had a couple suggestions during the season that I’ll scan the comments section for. Either way I’m interested in debating it.

As for hoops I guess I haven’t tracked what’s going on a closely so I don’t have a goof feel for the impact this has had. Sounds like a similar problem to baseball although of course going from 4 starts to 3 is much better than 2 to 1. I guess in any sport you could argue that there’s nothing wrong with rewarding whoever’s willing to work the hardest on his roster, but it does kinda suck to penalize people who just don’t want to commit hours to the game.

***

I’ve never used waivers, mainly because it never seemed to work well in the leagues I was in that had them (in my opinion). Repeatedly getting players because your team sucks just strikes me as out of whack. I think the other way you suggested is preferable if waivers must be used. Like I said before open market free agency works better as the rosters get bigger.

thegreatawakening
January 6, 2008

I’m in favor of unlimited pickups with no fees, particularly in Baseball and Basketball. I have absolutely no problem with anyone picking up as many people as they want to, then simply dropping that person after a week for a different guy. I am under the impression that a strategy like that will ultimately not be successful.

I believe that a league’s scoring system is the item that can be adjusted to most fairly represent everything. I have stated that I am a fan of using averages in sports other than Football because I believe that it makes for a more fair league. Confusing? Sometimes…but it takes the extra starts out of the equation and makes free agent pickups less of an issue.

As for paying for pickups: If we have to pay for pickups, then I will probably honestly decide to not make any moves whatsoever. I have little money as it is and spend enough on fake sports. I don’t mean to sound like a hard ass, but if my strategy isn’t successful in not picking people up, then I’ll just drop out of leagues.

Fantasy Sports are seemingly becoming more and more like a job. And, unfortunately, it doesn’t pay nearly enough. Sure, I enjoy Fantasy Sports as much as the next guy. And, as a result, I often just stick to what I understand and enjoy the most; I don’t trade draft picks, I try not to worry about keepers, etc. And I’ve actually done rather decent over the last year in all of our leagues.

However, I always feel like I enjoy Sports, as a whole, more when the Fantasy season ends. Did my team losing in Football completely suck and make me upset? Absolutely. But, after losing, I really feel like I was able to enjoy the NFL more.

I really have no idea where I am going with this post. Fantasy Sports are obviously still a hobby of mine, but I feel like I think long and hard every time a season is about to start about doing them. More rules and regulations will either make things way sweeter or way worse.

Raible
January 7, 2008

After a little thought I can say decisively that I hate the idea of paying for pickups. I’m sure some teams won’t do it at all, and this will hurt the competitive integrity of the league especially when teams begin to fade in the playoff race.

Limiting pickups could be reasonable although I hope it doesn’t happen because I generally make close to the most moves in every league I’m in. A limit would bring a new challenge and add another layer of strategy, but when in doubt I think simnpler is usually better so I’m not sure where this leaves us.

thegreatawakening
January 7, 2008

Even though my last few questions for a simple discussion have led to emotional sob stories I’ll try again. You know how those 3 for 1 or 4 for 1 trades in fantasy just never make great sense because the team getting the 4 guys has to cut 3 players and the guy getting the 1 gets to pick up 3 others? What about a rule where if you made a 3 for 1 trade and you were the team getting the 3 you’d now have 2 extra roster spots on your team? Now, you could never go under the limit, so for instance in the current basketball league you’d never have less than 10 roster spots. But, if you made a 3 for 1 trade, the one team would now have 12 roster spots to work with.

Alright, maybe it’s my fault for trying to have fantasty discussion. I really don’t intend for these questions to become serious matters. I’m not even sure if I’d go for a lot of the things I talk about. To me it’s just fun to kick some ideas around.

thav916
February 16, 2008


Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...