All-Time non-Elite Fantasy Draft, Draft Thread

[Owly]

Ok, so I think we need to move towards hard deadlines for everything. Write-ups, voting, etc. If someone doesn't do write-ups, you'll just have to vote and imagine the coach got suspended for the game. Can we move towards something like Wednesday 8 PM for the lower seed write-ups, Thursday 8 PM for the higher seed response, Friday 12 PM/8 PM for both rebuttals, and then Sunday 8 PM for final votes? Then rinse and repeat. Just examples, times can change. At this point we might be looking at next week as the start, but maybe not.

Agree we should take control. My opinions ...

I wouldn't say imagine the coach got suspended. People can figure in their own mental punishment or absence thereof for not posting, but we picked a coach external to us. My personal interpretation would probably be assume 32-16 split at each position (probably without regard to position strength), plus a marginal mental penalty if it appears to be absence through laziness (i.e. poster seemingly awol, rather than misinterpreting or not understanding present rulings or notifying competitors that they aren't able to post). I think that carries some punishment/deterrent, without ignoring a coach who has already been picked. That's just how I'd interpret it, like I say, personally I'd let each person react to absences in their own way.

Given we've had people strongly favour blind seedings, I wouldn't give any time advantages to the higher seeds (the implicit endorsement is advantage enough).

Any timings would need a time zone given.

I was wondering about staggering matchups (with some overlap) so that people could concentrate on comparing other matchups rather than worry exclusively about their own. However I'm now inclined to think the delay-extension caused would make the project more likely to die/peter out before completion.

WRT a games "GM" leaving discussions (after a counterpoint deadline), I think you'd be fine allowing them to converse (for instance clearing up misconceptions) and just be aware that overdoing it might be to their disadvantage.

Priorites would appear to be a voting window and who we are allowing to vote. You [JeepCSC] have suggested "involved members of the player comparison board", if we are going with that we'd need to nail down what (who) that means (and whether we're asking specific people to vote or pimping our threads on the PC board)? If I get time I may check into whether previous such leagues tended to decide results internally or have external voting.

[JeepCSC]

I'm fine with letting the voters decide the penalty if someone doesn't do a write-up, and I'm fine not allowing any time advantages. I'm fine with basically anything that gets this moving.

[thizznation]

Owly has a good point about perhaps breaking up a few of the games, like we only run the voting for 2 or 3 games at a time. It seems like it could be overwhelming to vote on half a dozen games while you concentrate on your own write up as well.

[trex_8063]

Spoiler:

Ok, so I think we need to move towards hard deadlines for everything. Write-ups, voting, etc. If someone doesn't do write-ups, you'll just have to vote and imagine the coach got suspended for the game. Can we move towards something like Wednesday 8 PM for the lower seed write-ups, Thursday 8 PM for the higher seed response, Friday 12 PM/8 PM for both rebuttals, and then Sunday 8 PM for final votes? Then rinse and repeat. Just examples, times can change. At this point we might be looking at next week as the start, but maybe not.

Agree we should take control. My opinions ...

I wouldn't say imagine the coach got suspended. People can figure in their own mental punishment or absence thereof for not posting, but we picked a coach external to us. My personal interpretation would probably be assume 32-16 split at each position (probably without regard to position strength), plus a marginal mental penalty if it appears to be absence through laziness (i.e. poster seemingly awol, rather than misinterpreting or not understanding present rulings or notifying competitors that they aren't able to post). I think that carries some punishment/deterrent, without ignoring a coach who has already been picked. That's just how I'd interpret it, like I say, personally I'd let each person react to absences in their own way.

Given we've had people strongly favour blind seedings, I wouldn't give any time advantages to the higher seeds (the implicit endorsement is advantage enough).

Any timings would need a time zone given.

I was wondering about staggering matchups (with some overlap) so that people could concentrate on comparing other matchups rather than worry exclusively about their own. However I'm now inclined to think the delay-extension caused would make the project more likely to die/peter out before completion.

WRT a games "GM" leaving discussions (after a counterpoint deadline), I think you'd be fine allowing them to converse (for instance clearing up misconceptions) and just be aware that overdoing it might be to their disadvantage.

Priorites would appear to be a voting window and who we are allowing to vote. You [JeepCSC] have suggested "involved members of the player comparison board", if we are going with that we'd need to nail down what (who) that means (and whether we're asking specific people to vote or pimping our threads on the PC board)? If I get time I may check into whether previous such leagues tended to decide results internally or have external voting.

Agree with Owly and thizznation to just let people do their own mental penalty (or lack thereof) for failure to post.

I seem to recall some fantasy league vote threads on the PC board once like a year ago. If we want votes from the PC forum as a whole, I don't see a problem with posting the match-up/vote threads there (I'll double-check with penbeast to make sure that's cool). And then we probably just let whoever votes vote (unless you want to make some loose rules about whose vote counts and whose doesn't, but that could get kinda dicey and rude). EDIT: penbeast suggests we make the threads here (which I see Jeeps has already done), but maybe make a single thread in the PC forum (which perhaps he could sticky) with links to each of the vote threads. Also, since Jeeps posted all eight first round games, I think we need to leave the voting open for awhile (it's kind of a lot for people to sift thru, as thiznation mentioned).

I'm undecided on whether to have some rules on who gets to post first/last, rebuttal first/last. Kinda makes sense to allow the higher seed opportunity to post or rebuttal SECOND, after they've had a chance to see what the other said. However, the potential problem with that relates directly to the concerns touched on above: what if someone isn't posting? Top seed could end up waiting a long time for someone who's AWOL.

[JeepCSC]

We could do a staggered first round over a couple weeks. If we could get by with four days of debate, we could do Monday-Thursday for two matchups, Wednesday-Sunday for two matchups, then repeat. Or we can do four matchups and a week's worth of debates each as well.

If we do the pc forum, I like the rule used in the top 100 list that you had to contribute to get your vote counted. And if we decided to restrict the outside voting, I guess the top 100 jury would be a good place to start.

[trex_8063]

We could do a staggered first round over a couple weeks. If we could get by with four days of debate, we could do Monday-Thursday for two matchups, Wednesday-Sunday for two matchups, then repeat. Or we can do four matchups and a week's worth of debates each as well.

If we do the pc forum, I like the rule used in the top 100 list that you had to contribute to get your vote counted. And if we decided to restrict the outside voting, I guess the top 100 jury would be a good place to start.

It is; although I'd welcome the opinions of guys like andreww, Sasaki (who were NOT on the top 100 jury, iirc). So I don't think we should necessarily have a rock-solid rule on this.

If we try a staggered something or other, who starts? The high/low seeded match-ups? Or the middle ones? (can I post my arguments now, is what I'm asking)

[JeepCSC]

If we did staggered, it should be done in pods of either two or four. So 1/16 and 8/9 go together if we do two at a time, or 1/16, 8/9, 4/13, 5/12 go together if we do four. The actual order of the pods doesn't matter though.

[SkyHookFTW]

Let's just get it going, I'm up for whatever suits everyone else best. It would be fun afterwards to get the GB opinion too.

[JeepCSC]

I pm'ed giordunk last week but obviously no response. Can we get some resolution done on specifics this weekend for how and when to proceed. We are coming up on a month since the draft was completed with no beginning in sight.

[thizznation]

I say with playoffs in full swing we do a max of 6 games a week, perhaps even as few as 4. There will be less and less playoff games as the rounds advance and then we can up the games per week.

[trex_8063]

General question for when voting on the match-ups:

Are we considering each player in his peak year? I noticed Jeep citing peak year stats for his players (like present day Steph Curry), but I seem to recall when drafting we were specifying a 3-year period. So I figured we were assuming an amalgamation of (that is: the average of) those three seasons. Was I wrong?

[Owly]

General question for when voting on the match-ups:

Are we considering each player in his peak year? I noticed Jeep citing peak year stats for his players (like present day Steph Curry), but I seem to recall when drafting we were specifying a 3-year period. So I figured we were assuming an amalgamation of (that is: the average of) those three seasons. Was I wrong?

No, you were right. It's three years (ideally team posts will have made the years chosen as clear as possible). Curry is (presumably) 13-15 and plays to roughly the average of those 3 years.

[JeepCSC]

It is a 3-year period technically, and I have the years in the spoiler tag of owly's post on that page. I only had advanced stats by year though, so it made sense to go with peak. I'll edit to avoid confusion, though it seems weird to go into this without stats. It also seems weird to use a hybrid player that no one ever saw play. It won't actually matter because I imagine everyone will be thinking 1976 Dr. J, though if someone wants to imagine 1975 Dr. J and 2002 McGrady, it wouldn't be the worst thing I suppose.

[JeepCSC]

Since this is piecemeal as is, we'll just open up all threads to debate. We'll close voting next Sunday at 8 PM. If anyone wants to try bringing some outside voices, be my guest.

[trex_8063]

Since this is piecemeal as is, we'll just open up all threads to debate. We'll close voting next Sunday at 8 PM. If anyone wants to try bringing some outside voices, be my guest.

I posted a thread on the PC forum (which I've asked penbeast to sticky, if possible) containing links to each match-up thread and guidance to anyone wishing to participate.

[SkyHookFTW]

You could toss it on the GB too, at least we'll get other opinions that may be interesting.

[Owly]

@the board as a whole: A couple of questions
1) Are we happy that if posts seem to suggest a failure to read/comprehend the writeups, posters should be asked to reconfirm their vote?
2) Do we want the introductory posts' lineups updated? I say no because it's redundant and it would accomodate/encourage not actually reading the threads, but I'm willing to take input.

[trex_8063]

@the board as a whole: A couple of questions
1) Are we happy that if posts seem to suggest a failure to read/comprehend the writeups, posters should be asked to reconfirm their vote?

I agree with that. Perhaps we can all be vigilant, and not leave that responsibility solely to you, as well.

2) Do we want the introductory posts' lineups updated? I say no because it's redundant and it would accomodate/encourage not actually reading the threads, but I'm willing to take input.

I don't think that's necessary, and I don't think it fair for us to ask that of you. I'm appreciative that you took the time to post all of that and copy initial write-ups for all 16 teams; asking you to now edit them after reading arguments (because they're your posts, it would have to be you editing each of them.....for each round of the tournament, too), is asking too much of you.
I think it's simply on the rest of us to actually read the arguments/strategies that people post prior to voting or commenting (that's really not asking much of us, guys).

[trex_8063]

.

.

.

.

.

Well, I believe the initially proposed end date for the 1st round vote was yesterday. At this point, I don't think leaving it open longer is going to do anything by way of significantly improving voter turn-out. I propose we end the first round and move on. Will anyone else second that motion?

[Owly]

.

.

.

.

.

Well, I believe the initially proposed end date for the 1st round vote was yesterday. At this point, I don't think leaving it open longer is going to do anything by way of significantly improving voter turn-out. I propose we end the first round and move on. Will anyone else second that motion?

Seconded.