Grouperman941 wrote:I find CBS more intuitive and easier to read and look at for long periods of time.
It may be because I have been using it as long as it has existed so I am used to it. I had a hard time getting used to Yahoo in my league the past two years.
I think intuitiveness is a pretty subjective thing.
I am having a strange sense of deja vu ...
The constant theme whenever this topic comes up is that guys who started with Yahoo then went to CBS prefer Yahoo, and vice versa. Which makes sense. This is my first year in CBS and there is lots to love... as I said, a few minor tweaks/improvements would go a LONG way to making it better.
"The government cannot give to anyone anything that it does not first take from someone else"
Lofunzo wrote:Not to take away from wrveres' post above but, while we're at it, could you describe the method to the madness that is position eligibility in fantasy hockey??
Figured that I'd bump this up and ask the FSG PM me if he could about this because it is off topic.
As for this topic, I don't know the exact process or how many man hours need to go into it but can't there just be consistency?? I see what FSG explained and I understand the difference but I guess that I just agree to disagree. How about a set process?? Something like once a prospect is called up to the bigs, they get added to the player database. Or once they play 1 game, they get added. Something consistent.
My only beef with Sportsline is that day-to-day player's stats aren't very intuitively displayed and their version of "stattracker" is horrible. I'd really, really prefer having stats sorted in columns like Yahoo's... on CBS is just "1-4, R, SO, RBI, .250 OBP." I know it's setup to be like a box score, but it would be nice to have those stats lined up and then totaled at the bottom so you can see who's doing what at a glance.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Fantasy Sports Genie wrote:So we do appreciate the feedback. I guess I still don't entirely understand why it is so frustrating for you that prospect A is treated slightly different than prospect B, if each guy gets fair treatment for all managers in your league, but I believe it does frustrate you, so I'm trying to understand that better. I don't know if there is a problem I'm missing, or if you're just being jarred by mismatched expectations since you believed we tried to only put players into the game when they actually had pitched (when in fact the driving factor is that they are going to be desired by managers).
Hope this helps. Thanks again...
wow, you type insanely fast.
As always I do appreciate your feedback.
What is frustrating is that there are no set guidelines.
You make it sound like there are a few guys sitting around in a room giving thumbs up or thumbs down to each player based upon the fanatical calling of a few. (ie us cafers)
There really should be some set structure as to who is in and who is out. It won't change anything this year, I realize that.
As a commish what am I supposed to tell the guys with number one waiver, "Sorry you were at work when the new hot prospect got called up, your screwed"
Players like Hamels last year and even Hughes this year had to clear Waivers. It was a fair process to all involved. But by taking a slect few minor leaguer that many players, I would guess (50% of your your team owners) may have never heard of, and sticking him in the database, only to see him fall to page 25 is not a fair process. You have just rewarded the guy who happened to be sitting at his computer at 6 PM when the news broke.
I guess they way I see it is, if you are going to have guys in the database that have never even pitched 50 innings, or above A ball for that matter, then you should include them all, or none at all. Since it appears that having all the minor leaguers in will cause issues, I propose none of them get added to the database until they actually pitch.
Fantasy Sports Genie wrote:I guess I still don't entirely understand why it is so frustrating for you that prospect A is treated slightly different than prospect B, if each guy gets fair treatment for all managers in your league, but I believe it does frustrate you, so I'm trying to understand that better. I don't know if there is a problem I'm missing, or if you're just being jarred by mismatched expectations since you believed we tried to only put players into the game when they actually had pitched (when in fact the driving factor is that they are going to be desired by managers).
it's real simple: like so many other things, managing a roster is a game of INFORMATION - acquiring information, processing it, then acting on it. Whomever does this best, over 162 games, wins. Having such a shallow database puts a floor on how deep you can go to try and "out-manage" your competitors. If you can get information, but not act on it, you can't separate from your competition.
Further, in CBS you are rewarded for acquiring information first - sounds like in Yahoo you could be first, and by a longshot, to know about something, but by the time the player is added, there's 10 other managers with waiver claims, half of whom learned of the player the day prior. It takes the "skill" of gathering information completely out of the game, and delegates it to luck - or waiver claim order.
I've never used Yahoo, but it sounds like half of the information I learn here at the Cafe I couldn't use in a Yahoo league. I think that would frustrate me immensely.
by Fantasy Sports Genie » Fri May 04, 2007 12:29 pm
I think I see what you're saying. You're concerned about the case of a guy who is in the player pool at draft time but nowhere near playing, who can become a free agent race when he's going to be brought up? Lincecum being a good example?
My main league has pretty deep benches, so this is a problem I don't think about much, so thanks for the perspective. One of our managers drafted Lincecum and has eaten a roster spot on him all year. For owners who do deep research, there is no secret about him. He's been in the player pool, and if he was untaken in your league, whoever was willing to suck it up and add him first "wins". It gives merit to taking the chance on him sooner. But I do appreciate more than I would have in the past that if you only have 5 bench slots for your whole team, that's pretty tough to do.
To present the counterpoint: every time one of these guys is going to be brought up and isn't in our player pool, there is tons of Yahoo cursing and screaming about what idiots we are for not having them in the player pool Hard to imagine us saying, "Yes, we know about him. We know he's good. We know half our leagues are dying to pick him up. We'll be adding him in 4 days."
In my personal opinion, the right answer is for us to loosen the reigns a bit and provide a deeper player pool to begin with. But that isn't my call, and isn't as simple as what I just said. But I'm definitely pointing the "right people" at this discussion so we can take it under consideration.
It seems like half the players not listed in the Yahoo database when they're called up were listed in the fantasy baseball pre-season mags' prospects sections. I think everyone knows who the most relevant prospects are before the season starts, so there's really no good excuse for Yahoo to be asleep at the switch on guys like Billy Butler and Hunter Pence. These two were in every single pre-season mag I saw, so this whole thing about weeding through who is & isn't a relevant prospect is a very flimsy excuse.