NRLFF community managed fantasy team

I thought we might want to have a crack at running a forum managed fantasy team.

I'm throwing this topic up to chat through some ideas how this might work. I'd be looking to lock this down ahead of the new season so we know what the go is.

Some early thoughts....
- a vote by position for what players to pick. We might need some flex here around combos to ensure we hit the salary cap etc. This seems to be the easy and most fun part
- through the season we vote for what trades to make. We might need some discussion on options - perhaps taking proposals from the forum and putting up a vote for the proposals or breaking down to a vote on how many trades to make first etc. This needs some thinking about....
- lastly, if the team wins a prize (LOL) then we donate it to charity rather than fight over a few bucks each

Any ideas? Suggestions?

Regarding trades I think we should set the numbers in advance. eg. go hard and max trade early, taper off a couple, go hard for origin, leave a few for late injuries. Then if we need to change we can but it cuts a lot of noise out week on week.

Great idea, would be keen to help out/contribute to this.
Sounds fun

Also we would have to decide if we err on the side of making some riskier choices to have more fun or do we go with a conservative approach.
The conservative means we will probably have very similar teams to our main ones to start with due to the popularity of players.

If we go riskier then if our main team tanks we will still have some interest in this

Youll run out of trades by week 15 because nobody (or at least not the majority) will vote for the unsexy option of "not trade" every round.

Sounds fun though.

Boozecluez wrote:Great idea, would be keen to help out/contribute to this.
Sounds fun

Also we would have to decide if we err on the side of making some riskier choices to have more fun or do we go with a conservative approach.
The conservative means we will probably have very similar teams to our main ones to start with due to the popularity of players.

If we go riskier then if our main team tanks we will still have some interest in this

Hmmm, good point. Perhaps the votes will throw out some less conservative decisions anyway. We're more likely to play it safe with our own teams and will perhaps be a bit more aggressive with this one. I'm thinking the start team will be 80% cookie cutter with 20% left field picks driven by some less cautious votes. Also the balance will be fudged - I bet the budget will be blown with early voting options and we're left with some risky picks later on to hit the cap. It'll be interesting how it plays out.

ryno_ wrote:Youll run out of trades by week 15 because nobody (or at least not the majority) will vote for the unsexy option of "not trade" every round.

Sounds fun though.

To be fair a trade diminishes in value the longer you leave it. An early one has far more impact in fixing your team or creating value than one made later in the season
Only have to look at the autopick teams from the last few years to see how that plays out.
(Not exact science but the best we have to use for analysis)

But I completely understand if we get a perfect week with no injuries, positional changes and all our cows and guns firing then we can bank some haha

Could allocate share of cap by position, then get everyone bidding by position, with the highest voted combinations that fit within the cap for that position getting in the team.

A suggestion would be $600k per player for the 13 as the budget cap, when the 13 have been allocated the remaining budget is spread across the bench.

Cheers for sticking your hand up for this Verbal. I thought about doing something similar last year. It will be hard but if we get started on it earlier we could churn out a stellar team.

Boozecluez wrote:

To be fair a trade diminishes in value the longer you leave it. An early one has far more impact in fixing your team or creating value than one made later in the season
Only have to look at the autopick teams from the last few years to see how that plays out.
(Not exact science but the best we have to use for analysis)

But I completely understand if we get a perfect week with no injuries, positional changes and all our cows and guns firing then we can bank some haha

I think with a voting type of system we'd end up max trading all the way through and still have a pretty much cookie cutter team.

You could introduce some randomness into the process for choosing the initial team.... Wouldn't be that hard to do....Still go with the ranking idea but then instead of just choosing the top ranked players in each position you give each or the top 20 players in each position a chance of making the final team relative to the consensus rankings.

That said, my advice for this is for verbal to read all the suggestions and then just make some executive decisions about how the whole thing will be run. Then people can choose to be involved or not, but understand they will go along with how he has set things up.

We can skip the need to executive decide / include randomness via multidimensional preference weighting.

Each NRLFFer loads a team for each week into a webform. As well as matching budget, the NRLFFer has 100 confidence points to distribute across that team. Each player (including no-trade options by definition) therefore gets a preference vector. We load up all these vectors, sum them, and churn out a top-level preferred team under budget constraint. Where there are equal splits we have a decision rule: i.e. no trade / cheapest option / highest PPM.

DPPs will make it interesting, but I suspect not intractable.

A touch of coding for the budget optimisation (brute force should work, the space won't be huge), andwe should be able to outsource it easily via Freelancer etc for a few bucks each.

I quite like the idea of collating suggested teams from whoever wants to contribute and sticking these all together for a consensus start team. I think the bulk of the team would fall into place quite easily. Any deadlocks, marginal calls, or 'linked' combos can be put to a vote to finalise. This might be easier/quicker than voting for every position.

We need a discussion pre the first game of the season to cover off any team list surprises or injuries etc. I dont expect we'll have time for a vote if things need a tweak. Perhaps we use an 'executive committee' to make decisions for this part - based on the discussion. They might also be required to make a call on tied votes etc.

A captain vote would be needed every week. Isaaaaaaako!!

I see two workable options with trades without over complicating the process:
- executive committee(?) propose trade options and this goes to a forum vote. Likely less options and quicker to progress to a decision point. More chance of a sensible 'hold the trade' getting through when appropriate
- trade ideas/suggestions are discussed in a trade topic and then listed for a forum vote. Likely more options and better engagement for those interested but slower to progress to options/decision. Hold the trade likely to not occur

If we need a small committee to lead this then we need volunteers/nominations etc.

Erm, what else...

My first suggestion is that we make this team follow the Titans or Raiders if there are team prizes this year. Less fans, more chance of winning

My second is that everyone votes for a budgeted combo for each position, a budgeted four player bench and likewise a budgeted combo of emergencies.

Then, instead of counting votes, my suggestion is that we draw a name out of a hat but in accordance with the votes. So, if there are 8 votes for Jack Bird then Jack Bird's name will go into the hat 8 times, increasing the chance that he gets picked. If the resulting combo is over budget then I guess just put the last name back in and take a new name out until it fits the budget.

Just suggestions so don't boo me. I think the hat process could stop the team from becoming too cookie cutter.

I say do the inital team in budget blocks. Say start with voting for a top 4 high priced must haves. Then go 6 bottom budget cows, then 4 top end ready to jump to gun status, then mids ect.

For trades we could do Monday/Tuesday discussion with the better ones getting upvotes, then wed/thur have a poll with the most upvoted options.

I'm in for this

Shanbon wrote:I say do the inital team in budget blocks. Say start with voting for a top 4 high priced must haves. Then go 6 bottom budget cows, then 4 top end ready to jump to gun status, then mids ect.

For trades we could do Monday/Tuesday discussion with the better ones getting upvotes, then wed/thur have a poll with the most upvoted options.

I like this one simply for the fact it’s somewhat practical. If this happens it needs to be st least somewhat achievable for 26 weeks.

Sounds like a cool idea.

Erm, sorry to post something up then back off it but I've just realised I'm away for the first two weeks of March..... Obviously, not ideal timing to take this on in the build up to round 1 (starting 14 March).

I'll have limited phone access so I'm happy to contribute with votes/chat but would not be able to organise/drive it.

So, is this dead or will someone have a crack?

Sorry!!!

Verbal Kint wrote:Erm, sorry to post something up then back off it but I've just realised I'm away for the first two weeks of March..... Obviously, not ideal timing to take this on in the build up to round 1 (starting 14 March).

I'll have limited phone access so I'm happy to contribute with votes/chat but would not be able to organise/drive it.

So, is this dead or will someone have a crack?

Sorry!!!

If no-one really minds I'd be happy to do it. Would need to figure out how I'd get through that initial iteration process but I'll have a think about it tonight.

No Worries wrote:Regarding trades I think we should set the numbers in advance. eg. go hard and max trade early, taper off a couple, go hard for origin, leave a few for late injuries. Then if we need to change we can but it cuts a lot of noise out week on week.

If there’s a way to run this with a survey tool or polls I just recommend you have “no trade” as one of the options each week.

Have a select group (whoever has time) be the official “selectors”. They don’t however select the move, but do join forces offline to vote who will be the say 20 players to consider for trade IN that week and the 5-6 players on the chopping block.

With 2 moves possible, I would think the no trade is quite a popular pick in any poll, so don’t think I you need any premeditated plan to trade or not. Let it always be voted and allow you to change gears where the team needs it!