3RR Point/Counterpoint For The Magazine

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:43 pm

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:
I'm not sure, UFS. (re: WCOFF breakdown)

I'll agree that not many teams drafting 4-12 or 4-14 next year will have Ladanian Tomlinson, Larry Johnson, nor Steven Jackson as a solid foundation to build their team in 2007.

Nothing will change that.

I'll agree that 3RR will weaken the early picks who got a shot at drafting players that the remaining 11 teams never had a chance to draft...and that is a good thing. (I guess...but not if I am one of the top 3 teams)

I've always believed in random selection for draft slots...and that over a 14 year span...you will have many different draft slots to play from. I've never complained about poor draft spots...but see that in recent years...the top spots have made the league money. (my first goal)

I have a slight problem with catering to the drafters whims of having control over where they draft. It's like a poker player not sitting down...unless he can sit in the best seat at the table...it makes $$$ sense...but it is catering to the wimp who pouts if things aren't perfect...and if every player did the same thing...there'd never be a game.

I see the evolution of putting the draft slot selection into the hands of the player...and I have a problem with it. It's hard to explain. I just feel if the game is so screwed up in the mind of the player who must have control of his draft slot...that he will not play unless he gets that control...then either he is a wimp, or the game has major flaws that need to be looked into.

~Lance Lance, I understand where you are coming from..

There's the older group of players like us that say, sit down, shut up, and draft...

We're the kind that say a poker seat in randomly drawn, why shouldn't this be the same?

and then there are a few of these younger/newer "internet" players that have to find the perfect game that they'll never find and/or turn it into his second job and suck the living daylights out of all the fun that can be had playing the game.

Having as much control over the draft slot is a natural thing when the stakes are this high.

Diesel · Post by **Diesel** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:22 pm

UFS, I'm 34. I don't know if that makes me an older guy, or a "young internet player", but I see your point about people trying to re-invent the wheel.

I originally proposed the Kentucky Derby Method in 2004 with a post that was immediately shot down by a few players. Every now and then, a few more posts would expand on the possibility and eventually it broke loose. I read about it in a fantasy magazine around 2000, and my hometown league has been using it for awhile...

I was happy it was implemented into the NFFC's drafts and was ready to rock and roll with a fairer format. (and it was pretty cool knowing I started the KDS madness...lol)

Only one problem. The RANDOM picks. Even with my KDS preferences set, I have been awarded double digit draft slots for somewhere around 12 events. *For the record, the double digit draft spots were NOT anywhere near my top choices for my KDS.

I've kept out of most of this talk about the 3RR because I felt that I had a small part in starting the KDS two years ago, and to tell you the truth, I'm, not even happy with it...

BUT, now the 3RR comes into play. It's not re-inventing the wheel. It evens the playing field. I truly believe that this will enhance the game of 14 team high stakes fantasy football. I am sure that without the 3RR, EVERYONE sent in their KDS preferences with their first 3 selections as 1, 2, 3...Or any combination of those three. This is because we all know the advantage you get at those spots. With the 3RR, that's not true.

[ February 16, 2007, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Diesel ]

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:29 pm

Originally posted by Diesel:
UFS, I'm 34. I don't know if that makes me an older guy, or a "young internet player", but I see your point about people trying to re-invent the wheel.

I originally proposed the Kentucky Derby Method in 2004 with a post that was immediately shot down by a few players. Every now and then, a few more posts would expand on the possibility and eventually it broke loose. I read about it in a fantasy magazine around 2000, and my hometown league has been using it for awhile...

I was happy it was implemented into the NFFC's drafts and was ready to rock and roll with a fairer format. (and it was pretty cool knowing I started the KDS madness...lol)

Only one problem. The RANDOM picks. Even with my KDS preferences set, I have been awarded double digit draft slots for somewhere around 12 events. *For the record, the double digit draft spots were NOT anywhere near my top choices for my KDS.

I've kept out of most of this talk about the 3RR because I felt that I had a small part in starting the KDS two years ago, and to tell you the truth, I'm, not even happy with it...

BUT, now the 3RR comes into play. It's not re-inventing the wheel. It evens the playing field. I truly believe that this will enhance the game of 14 team high stakes fantasy football. I am sure that without the 3RR, EVERYONE sent in their KDS preferences with their first 3 selections as 1, 2, 3...Or any combination of those three. This is because we all know the advantage you get at those spots. With the 3RR, that's not true. What I find odd is that many private leagues use things like KDS and 3rr (or forms like it) all the time and many make it seem like something new.

In the late '80's every live draft we did used KDS where someone picked #1, and then chose where he wanted to pick.

Most KDS lists will be some combo of 1-2-3 again this year. The back picks will move up, but who would pass on LT and list #14 as their first choice?

[ February 16, 2007, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: UFS ]

Team Legacy · Post by **Team Legacy** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:36 pm

Originally posted by Nag':
I'm not really into writing articles. I'll leave that part up to my friend Lou.

My 3RR counterpoint that it IS a knee-jerk reaction is simple. It can be summed up in one sentence. One question, actually:

If this past NFFC 2006 final league statistics looked like those from the 2004 season, would there be a strong movement to go with 3RR, would the change have been made? Alex,

I re-read this question and have an answer for you.

No, I wouldn't be AS supportive for 3RR as I am now, if we had another 2004 season, however you STILL have to commend the guys that took Curtis and Tiki at the end of the first round in 2004. Those picks weren't "Locks" at those spots by any means. Guys like LT, LJ, Priest and Marshall are. You can't go wrong with those picks.

I have a question for you. (since you're into hypotheticals) What if 6 of the next 7 years the top spot DOMINATES the playoffs. Would you be MORE in favor of 3RR than you are now?

3INTBOY · Post by **3INTBOY** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:17 pm

Originally posted by Team Legacy:
quote:Originally posted by Nag':
I'm not really into writing articles. I'll leave that part up to my friend Lou.

My 3RR counterpoint that it IS a knee-jerk reaction is simple. It can be summed up in one sentence. One question, actually:

If this past NFFC 2006 final league statistics looked like those from the 2004 season, would there be a strong movement to go with 3RR, would the change have been made? Alex,

I re-read this question and have an answer for you.

No, I wouldn't be AS supportive for 3RR as I am now, if we had another 2004 season, however you STILL have to commend the guys that took Curtis and Tiki at the end of the first round in 2004. Those picks weren't "Locks" at those spots by any means. Guys like LT, LJ, Priest and Marshall are. You can't go wrong with those picks.

I have a question for you. (since you're into hypotheticals) What if 6 of the next 7 years the top spot DOMINATES the playoffs. Would you be MORE in favor of 3RR than you are now? [/QUOTE]Not correct on Priest and Marshall Scott.
Priest was not the concensu#1 until 2004. I drafted him in the middle of RD 1 2002 and 2003 and in 2004 combined him w/ Tiki at the end of RD2.
Marshall was drafted #1 in all WCOFF Leagues in 2002, and failed to come close that year.

But to respond to your unanswerable question yes, of course if for 6-7 years it worked out that way.
But there is no logic to that at all, because history shows it has'nt worked out that way in the past.

3'

Nag' · Post by **Nag'** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:27 pm

Originally posted by Team Legacy:
I have a question for you. (since you're into hypotheticals) What if 6 of the next 7 years the top spot DOMINATES the playoffs. Would you be MORE in favor of 3RR than you are now? That's too vague of a question. If we did NOT to to 3RR now and the following 6 of 7 years were similar to 2005/2006 I would be just as skeptical of it's effectiveness then as I am now.
You also have to realize, I do not see a problem with the last 2 year dominance of the top slots like you and the others. I like the idea that the top slots are the percieved "favorites". I think it's good for the game.

Btw, go back and check out the ADPs in 2002 and you will see a similar result to 2004 season. Also, although the top 2 RBs in 2003 (Priest & LT2) were, in fact top 2-3 picks in the drafts, the 3rd and 4th RBs were Green and Jamal who were generall drafted on the first turn. Along with a monster year from Moss, many of the top teams that year came from the bottom draft slot.

The point being, 3RR is meant to combat top slot dominance, not just because the top slots are slight favorites. But that dominance was only truly evident the last 2 years and 2 years does NOT make a trend.

Nag' · Post by **Nag'** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:29 pm

Originally posted by 3INTBOY/BFDFANTASY.com:
Not correct on Priest and Marshall Scott.
Priest was not the concensu#1 until 2004. I drafted him in the middle of RD 1 2002 and 2003 and in 2004 combined him w/ Tiki at the end of RD2.
Marshall was drafted #1 in all WCOFF Leagues in 2002, and failed to come close that year.

But to respond to your unanswerable question yes, of course if for 6-7 years it worked out that way.
But there is no logic to that at all, because history shows it has'nt worked out that way in the past.

3' Hey, don't be stealing my talking points!

3INTBOY · Post by **3INTBOY** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:32 pm

Originally posted by Nag':
quote:Originally posted by 3INTBOY/BFDFANTASY.com:
Not correct on Priest and Marshall Scott.
Priest was not the concensu#1 until 2004. I drafted him in the middle of RD 1 2002 and 2003 and in 2004 combined him w/ Tiki at the end of RD2.
Marshall was drafted #1 in all WCOFF Leagues in 2002, and failed to come close that year.

But to respond to your unanswerable question yes, of course if for 6-7 years it worked out that way.
But there is no logic to that at all, because history shows it has'nt worked out that way in the past.

3' Hey, don't be stealing my talking points!

[/QUOTE]O.K and I spelled hasn't wrong. Sorry for stepping on your toes...
Carry on...

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:25 am

Alex and Lou, I think the ultimate question is this: If you are paying this much money to compete for $100,000 and the recognition as the best fantasy football player in the nation, wouldn't you want as many factors in your control as possible? And if those controls don't upset the basis of the contest, wouldn't it make sense to use them?

There are luck factors involved in fantasy football, we all admit to that, but the skillful owners will still overcome those factors. Still, why not throw in another element of skill (3RR combined with KDS) and slightly eliminate the luck factor involved with random draft slots? To me, it's like allowing FAAB for free agent pickups rather than allocating free agents in reverse order of current standings (which we all did at one time).

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:40 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
To me, it's like allowing FAAB for free agent pickups rather than allocating free agents in reverse order of current standings (which we all did at one time). Sounds like Gekko! Could this mean that BBDS is around the corner?

That reminds me, did we ever get an answer concerning whether BBDS was necessary if 3RR is employed?