Rosters/Lineups - Roster limits for positions.
This feature would allow commissioners to set the maximum and minimum number of players a team can roster at each position at a given time. For example, teams can have a maximum of 3 QBs on their roster or a team can have a minimum of 1 kicker. Currently there is no way to set the maximum or minimum number of players a team can roster at each position.
Product Support
shared this idea
-
Anonymous
commented
If I were in MaveROCK's league, I'd want as many RBs as I could get. RBs are frequently injured, demoted, or ignored. The NFL probably goes through about a hundred starting and committee RBs per year, and even the elite ones aren't used much some weeks. If I didn't have a good extra RB, then I'd have to try to be the first person to check the waiver wire each week that one of RBs is injured or on a bye or meeting a team with a good run defense.
Putting a limit on the number on your roster favors the person who sits with his computer on his lab ready to pounce on an RB immediately when something goes wrong.
The limit also presents an ugly problem when an injury causes a few games to be missed. If you have 4 RBs, the odds are that one will be on his bye week at the same time that another one has a two-week injury and another one is scheduled to play against the third best run defense in the NFL. You almost have to find another RB to take the place of one of the ones on your roster, but you can't afford to drop any of the three described above. So, what do you do?
If during the draft you picked up a couple of RBs who are part of a committee, then you could limp along until your injuries and bye weeks are solved. If not, then you lose to the person who is sitting with his computer in his lap ready to pounce on whatever RB looks promising for the next week. -
Anonymous
commented
Hey Klondike, there's no good reason for you to talk to these people.
They have already set their minds that they are right.
They are not going to balance their scoring schemes.
They are not going to add a WR/TE position or a second QB position to cause their managers to draft a different mix of players.
What they will do is continue asking for a method to limit the number of RBs on the rosters of their opponents.
You may as well just give up on trying to explain it to them. -
Anonymous
commented
MaveROCK -- Perhaps you should add the chance-of-injury to your analysis. Although QBs do get injured, RBs are much more likely to be injured. So, having one reserve QB should be plenty enough most seasons to handle injury problems and bye week problems.
You are obviously correct that more starting WRs are in the NFL than starting RBs. However, with 3rd-down backs and change-of-pace backs, a surprisingly large number of RBs are available who score more fantasy points than most WRs.
In fact, several teams have a fullback who scores more fantasy points than some starting WRs.
I again suggest that the problem can be solved more simply by changing your league's settings. Add a second QB to each team's starting lineup, or add another receiver position (WR/TE) to each team's starting lineup. You may be surprised at how easily you shift the behavior of your managers. -
Anonymous
commented
MaveROCK -- Do you ever follow "hand-cuff" recommendations? Many Fantasy Football magazines suggest that you draft your star RB's back-up player. An obvious example would be drafting RB Peterson of the Vikings, then drafting RB Gerhart of the Vikings as an insurance policy for when Peterson is unable to play -- which happened during four of Peterson's seven seasons in the NFL.
The hand-cuff strategy is well worn. It has proven to be a really really really good idea with RBs. I don't understand why you would want to eliminate this strategy in your league. -
MaveROCK
commented
Klondike,
You know what happens when you ASSUME, right? You make an *** out of U and ME...so, I wouldn't go around assuming. Everybody is entitled to join or not join a league based on their preferences - why shouldn't somebody on the other side of the spectrum have the right to their own preferences then?
QBs are most valuable in my leagues from a sheer points standpoint, but most teams only roster 2 QBs. Why? Well, because of the starting roster positions: QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, FLEX (W/R/T), TE, K, DEF. Pretty standard. And, based on your "theory" that would mean players would load up on QBs (since they're more valuable), but have a balanced amount of RBs and WRs. In fact, in my leagues, RBs and WRs are valued nearly equally, yet people hoard RBs over WRs...
Unfortunately, what you're not realizing is that it has NOTHING to do with fantasy league "value" and everything to do with real-world scarcity. I cannot control the fact that most teams have ONE primary RB and some teams have TWO serviceable RBs on the roster at any given time, while most teams have TWO primary WRs and THREE or FOUR serviceable WRs on the active roster. Therefore, WRs are nowhere near as scarce as RBs, which means teams don't feel the need to hoard them in case their starting WR gets injured. However, GMs tend to hoard RBs (even back-ups, as mentioned below) in the off chance that their already scarce starting RB gets injured...there's no strategy in that and it doesn't "hurt" the team because that bench position would be filled by a guy who'd probably never enter their starting lineup anyway.
Additionally, limiting the total RB slots to 4 wouldn't "hurt" anybody either...it would simply allow for more readily available options via Waiver Wire and if a team's starting RB gets hurt, they'd have replacement options without having to hoard one for the entire season. Also, nobody said the limits would be static - it would be entirely upto the Commissioner running the league and Yahoo! could even default it to something extreme like 6 or default to NO LIMIT. It wouldn't change anything for majority of Yahoo! leagues unless the Commissioner felt it was necessary.
People are averse to change and I understand that, but simply being a stubborn idiot and saying, "I don't like that!" because you've never used it before is asinine. It's definitely no reason to prevent the OPTION of letting others use a given feature...I can almost guarantee that you'd barely notice it in any league unless the Commissioner was obviously abusing the feature, but at that point it's probably not a league you wanna be part of regardless.
-
MaveROCK
commented
Here's a breakdown of the issue in that same league...
Starting Positions: QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, FLEX (W/R/T), TE, K, DEF
RBs Per Team: 3, 4, 6, 4, 5, 6, 4, 5, 6, 4So, in a 10-team league, there are 47 RBs that are owned - does that seem fair and balanced? On average, each team owns nearly 5 RBs (4.7)! Considering each NFL team starts 1 RB and a small minority will timeshare 2 RBs at most, that means there are roughly 32-40 legitimate fantasy RBs available. However, with 47 RBs being owned in a league that means there's AT LEAST 7-10 back-up RBs being hoarded, which is ridiculous!
In theory, even if the Position Limit at RB in this league was set to 4 it would affect 5 out of 10 teams. Furthermore, this would ensure that there would be at least 8 more RBs available for those teams or the rest of the league via the Waiver Wire and I'm willing to bet they'd be, at best, borderline options...at least there would still be options available, though.
Nobody is saying roster positions should be limited to only the starting positions, but it does help ensure a more robust Free Agent pool to have Roster Limits - even if it's only 5-10 more players at a given position. It forces GMs to actually make tough decisions and be SMART about their roster moves, rather than simply hoard an RB "in case" he becomes relevant...
-
Anonymous
commented
I don't want to join a league & then discover that the Commish is enforcing a roster limit on some position.
And I don't want to be in a league with a Commish who can impose a roster limit on some position at some point in the season.
Well, I guess maybe I'd be okay with it IF the players are allowed to remove the Commish after he imposes a roster limit. -
MaveROCK
commented
Examples of "hoarded" RBs in my 10-team league:
Benny Cunningham (StL - RB)
Roy Helu Jr. (Was - RB)
Bernard Pierce (Bal - RB)
Montee Ball (Den - RB)
Bobby Rainey (TB - RB)
Joique Bell (Det - RB)
Jacquizz Rodgers (Atl - RB)Should ANY of those players be on an active roster? Probably not. However, if somebody's primary starter suffers a career-ending injury, the Waiver Wire is very slim because even the borderline players are being hoarded on rosters already!
-
Anonymous
commented
It sounds as though you set up your league with some positions scoring a lot more points than other positions.
If you had set it up so that each position is valuable, then owners would have a reason to draft a good balance of players/positions. -
MaveROCK
commented
As I stated before, ESPN allows this functionality...it helps to prevent a guy from stockpiling a crucial position and depleting the depth of other teams.
I can see the concerns, but it's upto your Commissioner to ensure it still allows GMs to be strategic. For instance, 4 RBs would be PLENTY for a team (2 starting RBs and no Flex), but many GMs will roster 5 or 6 RBs; thus, limiting other teams RB quality and depleting the Free Agency options. By default, it would work best if the limit was set to 2-3 more than the necessary amount per position (i.e. Starting Positions: QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, TE, K, DEF - Position Limits: 3 QB, 4 RB, 6 WR, 3 TE, 3 K, 3 DEF).
For all the dolts clamoring that this is unnecessary or limits "strategy" in hoarding players (asinine in and of itself), you need to realize that this would be a Commissioner option and it wouldn't limit the roster positions so much that it's impossible to be strategic or even have adequate contingency plans. It would be set (just as regular roster positions are) to help prevent unnecessary hoarding of players at crucial positions and would be upto the Commissioner how tightly or loosely to restrict GMs...
I've been playing fantasy football on Yahoo! since 2003 and I run 3 leagues per season every year as a Commissioner - I never miss a Live Draft and am super competitive throughout the entire season. However, injuries are a major part of this game - if I drafted my roster for balance (sufficient back-ups at each position) and my starting RB was injured (example: LeSean McCoy for much of last season) mid-season, I would have ZERO options on the Waiver Wire because Bryce Brown was being hoarded for 8 weeks (along with numerous borderline/back-up/timeshare RBs)!
Also, for those who say it's a great strategy for trade that's not necessarily true because often times GMs ask WAY too much for their players in trade, which actually makes trading near impossible.
Lastly, some people mentioned that "hoarding position players will hurt the team in question because they'd be weak at other positions" and that is flat out not true. In order to give the ENTIRE LEAGUE a decent-sized bench to ensure they can build a solid roster with adequate back-ups, there are more than enough slots for an Owner to ditch a back-up TE, K, or DEF and simply stock up at RB. How does that hurt him if they never start their back-up TE, K, or DEF and their starter doesn't get hurt? Limits are simply to ensure GMs don't hoard crucial positions - again, at the Commissioner's discretion. If you don't like it, then don't set it for your league - there's no reason to exclude an OPTIONAL setting simply because you'd never use it or don't want to be limited.
-
Anonymous
commented
I don't like the idea. If someone wants to play that way let them. They will be very weak at every other postion.
-
James
commented
Some players have a history of injury problems. For example, RB McFadden.
If I have him on my team, I automatically assume that I need an extra RB on my bench from what I would need if I had RB Jamaal Charles.
Limiting the number of RBs that I can have on my bench means that I need to avoid drafting a really good player such as McFadden. -
Me Knows
commented
I think Victor should receive a "Dumb Idea" medal for posting this suggestion.
If Yahoo would award medals for these suggestions, then it would encourage medal-loving managers to post more dumb ideas & we could all benefit from the entertainment provided. -
James
commented
I agree with what JK wrote below (dated Oct.11).
-
joe wood
commented
I read the comments about hording. There hasn't been any trading so far in my league. Which is really sad. I would've used this option during my draft and then turned it off afterwards. smart players know how to look at stats and use the FA and make trades. For my league half the teams were hoarders. In a league as big as mine , that option was needed for the draft.
-
joe wood
commented
I'm running a 16 team league this option is just what iI'm lookin for both in the draft & during the season. Some of my owners left the draft with no chance of competing. There were 32 startin quarterbacks . I had one team draft 5. 1 drafted 8 running backs And another same for wr's . I have atleast 2 teams with 5 starting kickers and 2 with 5 team defenses.some teams didnt even draft back ups for positions when good players were left especially defensive players.
here is the roster i set up. 1 Qb, 2 rb, 2 wr, 1 te, 2 wrt, 1qwrt, 1 k, 1 def , 6 defensive player and 11 bench.
I'm for good strategy as long as fair play is used, not just loopholes in legality. Maybe someone can explain the strategy used by some of my owners. Give owners the comissioners of capping positions. Good players wont need to over stock pile to strategize.
-
Sappers
commented
I don't like this idea if it was implemented across the whole system. It eliminates certain strategies for managers.
If Yahoo! wanted to allow it to be a Commissioner option at the beginning of the season, that would be okay, because then each manager could choose whether or not to participate in that league.
Please don't restrict everybody, I wouldn't utilize this tool in the league that I am a commissioner of, but if there are people out there who want it, all them to choose it as an option.
-
marcia brady
commented
In addition, for leagues that use IDP's, please allow the commish to set a minimum number of defensive players to be carried as well as a maximum on offense. In my leagues, we start 5 IDPs (two DBs, two LBs, and one DL). We expanded roster size so that teams could add bench IDPs for bye weeks and the like but most teams just hoarde more RBs and/or WRs. It's a real problem. Please allow the commish to set a maximum and minimum for Offensive players and defnsive players on the rosters. Thank you!
-
Anonymous
commented
Dopey idea.
-
Nash
commented
This is a pretty lame request. Some managers draft with the idea of selecting a bunch of "lottery tickets" at RB and WR in hopes that one of them hits. In fact, Matthew Berry's whole draft manifesto is based on this idea. This is a pretty standard strategy.