IDP discussion.

[Ben Kenobi]

A more useful system is to BAPAY according to percentage of ownership.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I honestly don't really care. I've just copy pasted this system from what we did before I took over. If it seems like most of you want to change, then I'll copy paste the BAPAY rules from DST. *shrug*

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Oh, and I'm going to open up rosters to changes tomorrow. I don't think Prater is worth a supplemental pick, we usually only do them for season-ending issues.

[ColdWizard]

I'm not saying it's right or fair; it's just how the current system evolved. The nominally punitive element was somewhat deliberate. And I know it's not all bad, since I've seen an all-BAPAY team make the playoffs (not at Poly) using this method.

I agree that a new BAPAY system is worth considering.

Interesting, I didn't know it was somewhat deliberate. I'm still not certain it needs to be there though. We do have a fairly reliable group of players, or so it seems. Except possibly Dr. Guynemer, all busy with the baby vaccinations, vitamin K shots, and telling parents that 30 mins of no poo is not constipation. Who may or may not have gotten a PM... which while I was intending to be funny initially, brings up situations of PM failures, failures to send, etc. Not necessarily the fault of the person that gets BAPAYed. If people here were more malicious, could bring up all sorts of drama over intentionally not sending a PM in hopes of getting someone BAPAYed. Theoretically speaking.

Oh hell no. Projected blows donkey chunks. And BAPAYing a rookie? I'd have to explicitly say, "don't bapay me a rookie, bapay me by actual performance. All 'projected' measures is the wishful thinking of analysers. It's as useful as masturbation to conception.

Sperm donors I certainly rely on opinions of analyzers, you don't?

A more useful system is to BAPAY according to percentage of ownership.

Rookies will be owned. And it won't take into account the our scoring system. And will need to have some sort of tiebreaker system.

[-Jrabbit]

Oh, and I'm going to open up rosters to changes tomorrow. I don't think Prater is worth a supplemental pick, we usually only do them for season-ending issues.

I was going to ask about Sam Bradford, but it appears that, in our collective prescience, he was not drafted in IDP.

[ColdWizard]

I honestly don't really care. I've just copy pasted this system from what we did before I took over. If it seems like most of you want to change, then I'll copy paste the BAPAY rules from DST. *shrug*

I'm not sure if I like the order of DST positions (primarily from not having looked at them); I think ours is adequate. Also this is not a change I'm going to take a firm stand on, mostly brought it up to see other opinions. Intentionally punitive aspect and rookies being viewpoints I wouldn't have thought of, for example.

[-Jrabbit]

Ah, the time between the end of the draft and opening day -- when a young man's fancy turns to thoughts of rules.

[ColdWizard]

Next offseason would be a much better time. But I would have only remembered that I wanted to bring this up after we had already started next years draft.

[-Jrabbit]

No, this is the perfect time for this discussion. No one can be bothered during the off-season.

[Ben Kenobi]

I certainly rely on opinions of analyzers, you don't?

Analyzers had Philip Rivers ranked something like the 15th, 16th QB last year.

My IDP was again showing him to be QB 12, and 13.

So no, I don't think analyzers have a great track record at evaluating the relative value of talent. Which is crucial in a draft. They had me ranked as the 2nd worst team last year, and I was the 3rd best by points scored.

[Greadius]

They overvalue "safe" picks versus lottery tickets. You can only start a fixed number of players. Bench points don't count. You win on a week to week basis. So where a player who consistently scores 10 points is valuable if you're starting them and counting the end of the season, they're not as valuable as a player who may give you 15-20 a week by mid-season or may not play. The challenge with those players is knowing when to start them.

Philip Rivers is a good example. After how he ended 2012, he was ranked low going into 2013. I picked him off waivers after week 1, but wasn't confident enough to start him over Russell Wilson for a few more weeks.

Nobody was starting Keenan Allen or Rashad Jennings in their breakout games, either. A lot of players had 20+ point games and didn't score double digits the rest of the season.

The point is what analyst do is impossible to accurately project the best value of hundreds of players months in advance, but the BAPAY penalty for later rounds is mitigated by that fact. There are always good players available at every position, ever year. The skill is in predicting whats a fluke and starting the right ones. Even a BAPAYed roster can be salvaged.

[Ben Kenobi]

After how he ended 2012, he was ranked low going into 2013. I picked him off waivers after week 1, but wasn't confident enough to start him over Russell Wilson for a few more weeks.

I drafted him in the latest round I could after I picked everyone of my other starters. He was still there. He did better than Matt Ryan, who was my hedge and I drafted him in the second round.

So no, I don't see BAPAYs based on 'projected' being more worthwhile than actual year over year performance.

[Greadius]

To be fair, Philip Rivers finished 2012 21st in points among QBs, so basing it off year over year performance would mean he goes undrafted in 2013. Projected tries to make predictions for changes in roster make up, expected decline or improvement based on age and trends.

Also, you drafted Bishop Sankey, Torrey Smith, Lamar Miller, and Arian Foster based on LAST YEARS numbers?

[snoopy369]

Bishop Sankey's numbers last year were pretty good ...

[-Jrabbit]

Trying to provide the "best player available" assumes that the manager should be rewarded for delaying the draft. Frankly, I don't see rewarding that behavior as desirable. And since we allow BAPAYs to be swapped out, I don't see it as necessary either.