|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 29, 2023 2:16:04 GMT -5
I know this isn't at me specifically, however the substitution rule is the same as it was last year. The thought is that *IF* you intended to play a specific lineup re positions, that lineup should remain intact as much as possible. It needs more thinking. The current rule advantages certain risky choices and penalizes others without any logical reasoning. If someone plays 3 S and doesn’t have a backup, they get screwed, just like someone not having a L or MB or pin backup. Why is not having a L backup met with an immediate loss of a player, as are other errors, but making a decision to play X of another position when not having a backup met with a second chance at having 10 players? Rules are rules. It’s fine. But I think there’s work to do to create rational rules. Just so we are clear, you are suggesting that IF a player of the same position does not exist on the bench, that slot should go unfilled, period. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to have, but it doesn't actually change your circumstance here, right? You DO have a player of the same position on the bench. Also, I'm not saying I agree with your position, but I do understand where you are coming from. I think many of these issues would be eliminated with an expanded bench. |
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Oct 29, 2023 2:23:46 GMT -5
It needs more thinking. The current rule advantages certain risky choices and penalizes others without any logical reasoning. If someone plays 3 S and doesn’t have a backup, they get screwed, just like someone not having a L or MB or pin backup. Why is not having a L backup met with an immediate loss of a player, as are other errors, but making a decision to play X of another position when not having a backup met with a second chance at having 10 players? Rules are rules. It’s fine. But I think there’s work to do to create rational rules. Just so we are clear, you are suggesting that IF a player of the same position does not exist on the bench, that slot should go unfilled, period. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to have, but it doesn't actually change your circumstance here, right? You DO have a player of the same position on the bench. I am not talking about my situation. I am talking about improving the rules to increase rationality and fairness. I slotted Anchante as “any” not as a S. She didn’t play. Either one predetermines the sub of their choice for an “any” or people can’t get a reprieve for not having backups of the same position - either is an improvement to the current rule. Essentially, in the current rules, certain risks/failures get resolved and others don’t, when slotting in players. Why can’t a fair intention be to use Anchante as my first choice and Stafford as my second in that “any” role? If Lefler has a bad matchup and Stafford has a favorable one (which I considered), why am I forced to play Lefler when the risk of rostering Anchante didn’t pan out? Meanwhile, someone else gets to roster a potentially injured player but get to use their top choice alternate? Because they don’t have a backup? Not rational. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 29, 2023 2:38:46 GMT -5
Just so we are clear, you are suggesting that IF a player of the same position does not exist on the bench, that slot should go unfilled, period. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to have, but it doesn't actually change your circumstance here, right? You DO have a player of the same position on the bench. I am not talking about my situation. I am talking about improving the rules to increase rationality and fairness. I slotted Anchante as “any” not as a S. She didn’t play. Either one predetermines the sub of my choice for an “any” or people can’t get a reprieve for not having backups of the same position - either is an improvement to the current rule. Essentially, in the current rules, certain risks/failures get resolved and others don’t, when slotting in players. Why can’t a fair intention be to use Anchante as my first choice and Stafford as my second in that “any” role? If Lefler has a bad matchup and Stafford has a favorable one (which I considered), why am I forced to play Lefler when the risk of rostering Anchante didn’t pan out? Meanwhile, someone else gets to roster a potentially injured player but get to use their top choice alternate? Because they don’t have a backup? Not rational. again, I don't think these are unreasonable positions to take re the bench and substitution rules, but I do have a question for you. What if you actually put Anchante in your actual S position, had setters in your various ANY slots, but didn't have a setter on your bench. If Anchante didn't play, should that spot go unfilled? |
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Oct 29, 2023 2:45:13 GMT -5
I am not talking about my situation. I am talking about improving the rules to increase rationality and fairness. I slotted Anchante as “any” not as a S. She didn’t play. Either one predetermines the sub of my choice for an “any” or people can’t get a reprieve for not having backups of the same position - either is an improvement to the current rule. Essentially, in the current rules, certain risks/failures get resolved and others don’t, when slotting in players. Why can’t a fair intention be to use Anchante as my first choice and Stafford as my second in that “any” role? If Lefler has a bad matchup and Stafford has a favorable one (which I considered), why am I forced to play Lefler when the risk of rostering Anchante didn’t pan out? Meanwhile, someone else gets to roster a potentially injured player but get to use their top choice alternate? Because they don’t have a backup? Not rational. again, I don't think these are unreasonable positions to take re the bench and substitution rules, but I do have a question for you. What if you actually put Anchante in your actual S position, had setters in your various ANY slots, but didn't have a setter on your bench. If Anchante didn't play, should that spot go unfilled? Wasn’t your logic that the intention of playing X of a position be maintained? Why maintained sometimes and not others, when that can be manipulated? I believe a slotted S should be replaced by a S, a slotted “any” should be replaced by first off the list so the player can make decisions based on matchups. |
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Oct 29, 2023 2:51:22 GMT -5
again, I don't think these are unreasonable positions to take re the bench and substitution rules, but I do have a question for you. What if you actually put Anchante in your actual S position, had setters in your various ANY slots, but didn't have a setter on your bench. If Anchante didn't play, should that spot go unfilled? Wasn’t your logic that the intention of playing X of a position be maintained? Why maintained sometimes and not others, when that can be manipulated? I believe a slotted S should be replaced by a S, a slotted “any” should be replaced by first off the list so the player can make decisions based on matchups. To be more direct. If someone plays every single one of their setters, and they don’t have a back up, and their rostered “setter” doesn’t play, they don’t have a back up and lose the spot. If the person is in an “any” position, that person should be replaced by first off the bench. So, to be transparent, my understanding last week was not correct, but since one of my best players has been injured for two weeks in a row, it’s forcing me to think a lot more carefully about what’s fair and rational. |
|
|
|
Post by eazy on Oct 29, 2023 8:38:31 GMT -5
Wasn’t your logic that the intention of playing X of a position be maintained? Why maintained sometimes and not others, when that can be manipulated? I believe a slotted S should be replaced by a S, a slotted “any” should be replaced by first off the list so the player can make decisions based on matchups. To be more direct. If someone plays every single one of their setters, and they don’t have a back up, and their rostered “setter” doesn’t play, they don’t have a back up and lose the spot. If the person is in an “any” position, that person should be replaced by first off the bench. So, to be transparent, my understanding last week was not correct, but since one of my best players has been injured for two weeks in a row, it’s forcing me to think a lot more carefully about what’s fair and rational. I'm going to try to respond to a lot of things, so this is likely to get long-winded. The sub rule for this year is exactly how it was last year. I don't remember if previous years were different, but I do not remember it being any different. The goal of subbing the same position for a player in the 'Any' slot is to create predictable match-ups that help both sides implement a strategy. We can look at your roster for this week as an example.. OH: Skylar Fields, OH, USC
OH: Taylor Alt, OH, Toledo
OH: Michelle Ohwobete, OH UCSB
MB: Leilani Dodson, MB, Northwestern
MB: Lucia Scalamandre, MB, Princeton
S: Sophia Hudepohl, S, Lipscomb
L: Jada Wills, L, Drake
Any player: Yadhira Anchante, S, Marquette
Any player: Kourtney Brown, S, Kennesaw St **FRESHMAN**
Any player: Erin Jones, S/Opp, St. Johns
---
#1 Bench: Torrey Stafford, OH, Pitt **FRESHMAN**
#2 Bench: Emma Hickey, L, Valpo
#3 Bench: Sam Csire, OH, Maryland
#4 Bench: Samantha Wunsch, OPP, Texas St **FRESHMAN**
#5 Bench: Katelyn Lefler, S, Cincinnati
#6 Bench: Lindsey Miller, MB, USCIf Anchante doesn't play, Lefler gets subbed in to keep the 4 setter roster intact. Putting an OH sub instead of a possible S sub fundamentally changes the entire strategy of your line-up. If Hudepohl doesn't play, Lefler gets subbed in. If Hudepohl AND Lefler don't play, then Anchante moves up to your 'Setter' spot and Stafford gets subbed in, as you do not have another setter on the bench. We want rosters to stay as close to the intended make-up as possible, while not punishing players for unpredictable absences. There are only 2 reasons that no one would sub in and a player would be 'punished'. 1) A rostered player does not have any scheduled matches for the week. That is something that the player has full control over. If they had a scheduled match and it gets canceled, a sub would be used. 2) A bench does not have a position available to keep the roster compliant. If you only carry 1 libero and they do not play, that is a risk that you've made going into the week. This is completely avoidable by having a back-up libero on the bench. (If both liberos do not play, that's incredibly bad luck, but not unfair). As I've said before, the whole purpose of the sub is to compensate for the fact that we do not get injury updates like other major league sports do. As you mentioned, you might never have wanted Lefler to play this week. One option that you had available was not to play every other setter, but to leave one of those available to be a sub instead of starting. You made the choice for Lefler to be your only available sub for all 3.5 (The S/Opp is a tough one that I don't know that we have a current solution for) setters. If, collectively, people do not like that impact of the rule, I could see a rule where you could leave a player off of your bench. If you had been allowed (specifically) to leave Lefler off of your bench this week, then Stafford would have subbed in. The only way you get penalized for that is if all 4 of your setters do not play, then you would not have any available on the bench. I'd be in favor of adding that rule for next year, personally. I personally do not feel like the current rule is at all unfair, unless the player is misunderstanding the rules. Like I mentioned, Lefler never had to be the sub if you'd left another setter ahead of her on the bench. That was a line-up decision that you made. It is certainly unfortunate, but I do not see it as unfair. Having said all that, I've always been an advocate for majority rules on voting for rules. So if that's something that people want to change next season, that should happen. |
|
|
|
Post by uofaGRAD on Oct 29, 2023 9:06:02 GMT -5
alright Oregon girlies! Pukis, do what you did against Wazzu, that was great. absolutely love everything you did. Kara, you got overshadowed by Bacon last time out. let’s show everyone who the REAL best blocking middle on Oregon is today and put this one away for good.
|
|
|
|
Post by uofaGRAD on Oct 29, 2023 9:07:42 GMT -5
also, fantasy is actually insane. I played three middles and my libero was out, leaving me with only 7 servers, and I end up with BY FAR my highest ace total of the season… WITH 7 SERVERS!😭
|
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Oct 29, 2023 10:38:16 GMT -5
To be more direct. If someone plays every single one of their setters, and they don’t have a back up, and their rostered “setter” doesn’t play, they don’t have a back up and lose the spot. If the person is in an “any” position, that person should be replaced by first off the bench. So, to be transparent, my understanding last week was not correct, but since one of my best players has been injured for two weeks in a row, it’s forcing me to think a lot more carefully about what’s fair and rational. I'm going to try to respond to a lot of things, so this is likely to get long-winded. The sub rule for this year is exactly how it was last year. I don't remember if previous years were different, but I do not remember it being any different. The goal of subbing the same position for a player in the 'Any' slot is to create predictable match-ups that help both sides implement a strategy. We can look at your roster for this week as an example.. OH: Skylar Fields, OH, USC
OH: Taylor Alt, OH, Toledo
OH: Michelle Ohwobete, OH UCSB
MB: Leilani Dodson, MB, Northwestern
MB: Lucia Scalamandre, MB, Princeton
S: Sophia Hudepohl, S, Lipscomb
L: Jada Wills, L, Drake
Any player: Yadhira Anchante, S, Marquette
Any player: Kourtney Brown, S, Kennesaw St **FRESHMAN**
Any player: Erin Jones, S/Opp, St. Johns
---
#1 Bench: Torrey Stafford, OH, Pitt **FRESHMAN**
#2 Bench: Emma Hickey, L, Valpo
#3 Bench: Sam Csire, OH, Maryland
#4 Bench: Samantha Wunsch, OPP, Texas St **FRESHMAN**
#5 Bench: Katelyn Lefler, S, Cincinnati
#6 Bench: Lindsey Miller, MB, USCIf Anchante doesn't play, Lefler gets subbed in to keep the 4 setter …. Let’s take a roster of: OH, OH, OH MB, MB S L OH, OH, OH Subs: S, S, S MB L That person “intends” to play 6 pins, knowing there is no other pin, and will ultimately play a roster they didn’t intend (which the rule is supposed to prevent) if a pin is injured. If they are afraid a pin is injured, they can play her anyway, knowing their first choice setter plays if the pin is still out. So, in my case, I prefer to play 3.5 S but if Anchante isn’t back, I still have to play Lefler. My only option to have the same chance as the player in the scenario above to get the sub I want is to drop Lefler. Maybe I really like Lefler’s potential for a future week. My options for getting the sub situation I want to work out are limited. To me, this can create incentives for maintaining and/or playing lopsided rosters, and isn’t that rational when it comes to players trying to actually strategize whom to play based on their teams’ schedules. Another example, a player can always keep 2 L and 3 MB on their wide roster, play them all each week, knowing they get to sub in non-L/non-MB subs and order them how they want. We even have a rule this year that allows for all sorts of roster shifts given that a Frosh doesn’t play. My point is that the rule could use some tightening up IMO to increase/reward strategy and decrease the incentive to keep/play a lopsided roster. |
|
|
|
Post by vup on Oct 29, 2023 10:54:22 GMT -5
that’s not how I was explained the rules earlier this season. this is what it says on Page 1: “If an active player did not play in any scheduled match during the current week of competition, the highest ranked player of the same position on the bench will be subbed in first. If an active player did not play in any scheduled match during the current week of competition and there is not a player of the same position on the bench, the next highest ranked player on the bench that keeps your roster in compliance will be subbed in next.” that seems like since you have a setter on your bench, that’s who would be subbed in? if you didn’t, then it would be Stafford, if I’m reading this correctly. I’m not playing you, so I don’t particularly care, I just thought this is how that worked. i think there was a previous season where ANY was replaced by your first ranked sub, regardless of position. But I think you’re correct, and subbing out your top ranked player of the same position is how we’ve been doing it all season long, and that is also how the rules read. hmm.. I looked back at the old league threads and couldn't find a season where "ANY" was replaced by #1 Bench, regardless of position. So maybe it was enforced differently at some point in one of those seasons? Or it could simply be false memory. Lol |
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Oct 29, 2023 11:17:44 GMT -5
also, fantasy is actually insane. I played three middles and my libero was out, leaving me with only 7 servers, and I end up with BY FAR my highest ace total of the season… WITH 7 SERVERS!😭 Whereas I intentionally played my 9 strongest servers (plus my freshman libero) and my ace total is the lowest of the season. |
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 31,060 
|
Post by trojansc on Oct 29, 2023 11:23:06 GMT -5
i think there was a previous season where ANY was replaced by your first ranked sub, regardless of position. But I think you’re correct, and subbing out your top ranked player of the same position is how we’ve been doing it all season long, and that is also how the rules read. hmm.. I looked back at the old league threads and couldn't find a season where "ANY" was replaced by #1 Bench, regardless of position. So maybe it was enforced differently at some point in one of those seasons? Or it could simply be false memory. Lol The COVID season was kind of weird because the 'ANY' did not move into one of the primary spots. The ANY was replaced by the order of the bench, while the active roster was 'same-position'. I remember when we were making the rule I was trying to make sure it wouldn't be manipulated, because unfortunately people game the system in ways that are.. sketchy. But anyway, since then, it's been how the rule is now. And I don't think there have been many complaints. I do get most of Fight On!'s arguments and I take a mixed position. I actually would be in favor of just ranking the bench, or eazy's suggestion, and being able to 'leave' people off your bench if you have that option. I think we could discuss it more, but, when this topic last came up, people actually wanted the rule how it currently is now. They wanted rosters to stay as close to the original intent. I think it's clear that this should be discussed and voted on. But my question to others would be, why can't I make substitutions based on what happens? In this case.. let's say if Taylor Alt was injured I want to sub in Leffler. But if Anchante is injured, I want to sub in Stafford. Based on strategy, there may be reasons that when one player goes down you DON'T want the first off your bench in, or vice versa. If I lose a really good blocking player in my lineup, why can't I have the designated backup for that player another good blocking player (even if for a S/OH). Logistically that'd take a lot of work, but, I could see an argument why someone would feel any system is limiting or unfair. |
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 31,060
|
Post by trojansc on Oct 29, 2023 11:24:39 GMT -5
One thing I did not really care for this season was the freshman rule. I honestly hope it is removed or voted on to get taken out next year. Playing one every other week is already random and I'm not sure what the reasoning is behind that, but, with injuries, roster structure can change to accommodate the freshman. I think rainbowbadger brought up how the only easy solution was to have 2 freshmen of the same position, but, that's messy/not realistic. I was trying to find freshmen liberos/middles because you can afford to take some 'hits' at those positions. But if your freshman unexpectedly doesn't play, your roster could look very different and it's hard to set up a roster accounting for that. Freshman are some of the most inconsistent but I think they are also more vulnerable to illness/injury or just not maintaining for an entire season. I guess the intent of the rule is to make the game more 'challenging', but, I personally find it silly. I don't mind making someone *have* to have a freshman on the roster, but requiring them to be active every other week? I'll pass if voted on again. |
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 31,060
|
Post by trojansc on Oct 29, 2023 11:28:20 GMT -5
also, fantasy is actually insane. I played three middles and my libero was out, leaving me with only 7 servers, and I end up with BY FAR my highest ace total of the season… WITH 7 SERVERS!😭 Whereas I intentionally played my 9 strongest servers (plus my freshman libero) and my ace total is the lowest of the season. I thought I played the best roster to have a chance to beat both of my opponents. I figured with this roster though, I'd be matched up well against ay but possibly not great against vballfan. I'm looking favored to beat vballfan, but lose to ay. Oh fantasy. And of course, not playing Shaffmaster, who has been inconsistent and had a tough week, put up big assists numbers against Purdue. If Shaff somehow keeps up those assists against Wisconsin.... I just don't understand. Fantasy gods are up to some ish this season for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by eazy on Oct 29, 2023 11:28:23 GMT -5
Let’s take a roster of: OH, OH, OH MB, MB S L OH, OH, OH Subs: S, S, S MB L That person “intends” to play 6 pins, knowing there is no other pin, and will ultimately play a roster they didn’t intend (which the rule is supposed to prevent) if a pin is injured. If they are afraid a pin is injured, they can play her anyway, knowing their first choice setter plays if the pin is still out. So, in my case, I prefer to play 3.5 S but if Anchante isn’t back, I still have to play Lefler. My only option to have the same chance as the player in the scenario above to get the sub I want is to drop Lefler. Maybe I really like Lefler’s potential for a future week. My options for getting the sub situation I want to work out are limited. To me, this can create incentives for maintaining and/or playing lopsided rosters, and isn’t that rational when it comes to players trying to actually strategize whom to play based on their teams’ schedules. Another example, a player can always keep 2 L and 3 MB on their wide roster, play them all each week, knowing they get to sub in non-L/non-MB subs and order them how they want. We even have a rule this year that allows for all sorts of roster shifts given that a Frosh doesn’t play. My point is that the rule could use some tightening up IMO to increase/reward strategy and decrease the incentive to keep/play a lopsided roster. So your issue is that there is room to play an potentially injured player and still get 'bench order choices' when there are no players of the same position on the bench, but not when there is a player of the same position on the bench with an unfavorable match-up that week. I totally agree that is a place where we have room for improvement on the rules. I think next season having the ability to leave a player on your roster OFF of your bench (Lefler in this case) would solve that problem. |
|
