In-game Injury Replacements

[Balzac]

I think this is a great idea but am not sure how it could be implemented.

 

Player A leaves because of injury for the rest of the game (this can be tracked) you get his points. If he leaves and then comes back in, then he is not considered injured.

 

Now the part that would be tricky is how to handle the backup. I assume he could be on any team, just needs to be the same position and on your roster.

You could rank your players in order that you want them to be substituted, that would be no problem.

But how do you score them? You can't use their total points, since they are only playing part of a game (fantasy-wise). You would need to look at the time of the injury and give the sub player credit for the stats after that point, but I don't think stats give that level of detail... Anyway, I like the idea.

 

That's exactly what I had in mind. You can look at game logs and tally points pretty easily that way (e.g., just tally them from X minutes, Y seconds in quarter Z). Given how manageable MFFL is, I bet there's a way to simply go into a teams weekly scores and make the applicable changes - I just don't happen to be in an MFFL league this year so I can't check.

[delusions of grandeur]

That's exactly what I had in mind. You can look at game logs and tally points pretty easily that way (e.g., just tally them from X minutes, Y seconds in quarter Z). Given how manageable MFFL is, I bet there's a way to simply go into a teams weekly scores and make the applicable changes - I just don't happen to be in an MFFL league this year so I can't check.

 

That makes no sense. So rather than hurting a team like key injuries can, you might even reward them greatly by taking an arbitrary chunk of time where the substitute could have accumulated the majority (if not all) of their stats...

 

Say player A puts up good numbers but gets injured, but player B hadn't accumulated any stats to that point. Further, say player B is like a Mike Wallace who it might take 3-4 quarters to get open and take it to the house (Well, I'd like to hope MW isn't on your bench anymore, but you get the point)... You'd get 100% of his production, no matter what the % split is.

 

 

These players aren't playing for the same teams, so you just can't combine their scores when the substitute player may in actuality start the whole game, but be your back-up... The game might be based off of the NFL in many aspects, but this is one of the areas where it's clearly different for a reason.

[Balzac]

That makes no sense. So rather than hurting a team like key injuries can, you might even reward them greatly by taking an arbitrary chunk of time where the substitute could have accumulated the majority (if not all) of their stats...

 

there's nothing arbitrary about it - it's the amount of time he would've "played" for your team

 

Say player A puts up good numbers but gets injured, but player B hadn't accumulated any stats to that point. Further, say player B is like a Mike Wallace who it might take 3-4 quarters to get open and take it to the house (Well, I'd like to hope MW isn't on your bench anymore, but you get the point)... You'd get 100% of his production, no matter what the % split is.

 

I don't see the issue here - some players put up their stats in concentrated portions of the game. so what?

 

 

These players aren't playing for the same teams,

 

neither are the other players on my team . . . it's fantasy football. does it upset you that your QB can throw 4 TDs one week, yet none of your WRs score a TD?

 

so you just can't combine their scores when the substitute player may in actuality start the whole game, but be your back-up...

 

says who? your making arguments here that go against the concept of fantasy football in general here.

 

The game might be based off of the NFL in many aspects, but this is one of the areas where it's clearly different for a reason.

 

given the underlying concept of fantasy football in general, I have no idea what that reason might be

[delusions of grandeur]

there's nothing arbitrary about it - it's the amount of time he would've "played" for your team

 

 

 

I don't see the issue here - some players put up their stats in concentrated portions of the game. so what?

 

 

 

 

neither are the other players on my team . . . it's fantasy football. does it upset you that your QB can throw 4 TDs one week, yet none of your WRs score a TD?

 

 

 

says who? your making arguments here that go against the concept of fantasy football in general here.

 

 

 

given the underlying concept of fantasy football in general, I have no idea what that reason might be

 

So you think it's okay that you double up on what could be two concentrated performances? I'm amazed you don't see the hypocrisy in your statements. You're completely missing the point.

 

Yes, my QB can score 4 TDs, while my WRs score none. That is the nature of the game...

 

What goes against the concept of the game is combining 2 players performances in the same given game, when FF is based upon picking the ONE (keyword) player that you think will score the most points at that position on a given week.

 

 

Just like you take the risk that a guy could put up a 0 because of poor performance or benching, you take the same risk with injury... Actually, that's an excellent point: Do you then allow guys whose starter got benched or sat for non-injury reasons to replace them? What about guys who get pulled in week 16 for the FF super bowl? That's not really fair to those owners either, since it's out of their control...

 

Do you get it now? Injuries are the part of the game, just like benchings, under/overperfomances, sleepers, busts... All teams have to deal with it, so get over it.

[Balzac]

So you think it's okay that you double up on what could be two concentrated performances? I'm amazed you don't see the hypocrisy in your statements. You're completely missing the point.

 

This statement leads me to believe that you don't really know what hypocrisy means. Yes - I am clearly missing the point because I don't understand the reasoning behind why you think this is an issue (other than simply saying "you can't do it").

 

Yes, my QB can score 4 TDs, while my WRs score none. That is the nature of the game...What goes against the concept of the game is combining 2 players performances in the same given game, when FF is based upon picking the ONE (keyword) player that you think will score the most points at that position on a given week.

 

I guess this is where we disagree - you seem to be saying that we have to take what we're given from a rules standpoint because that's what fantasy football is giving us. I don't agree - if it makes the game more palatable (to me, obviously not to everyone), why not change the rules? I, for one, would like to have a more "real-life" reflection of what happens when a player gets injured. Imagine if in the NFL teams were forced to play w/o a QB if their starter got injured . . . idiocy. Why can't we changed the rules of fantasy to eliminate this idiocy and make a more accurate reflection in this regard? I'm sorry but telling me "you can't" just doesn't cut it for me.

 

Just like you take the risk that a guy could put up a 0 because of poor performance or benching, you take the same risk with injury... Actually, that's an excellent point: Do you then allow guys whose starter got benched or sat for non-injury reasons to replace them? What about guys who get pulled in week 16 for the FF super bowl? That's not really fair to those owners either, since it's out of their control...

 

Apples and oranges - injuries (unless you're stupidly playing a fragile player) cannot be predicted. Poor performances and benching, however, CAN be predicted based on a given player's recent performance and competition at the position - these are things that we can actively evaluate when making our decisions. Whether a guy will unexpectedly get knocked out of a game 5 minutes in is not something that we can intelligently factor into our analysis, so my view is that it's almost completely random when this happens and teams resultantly get screwed - it's not nearly as random when a guy gets benched because 9 times out of 10, we should've seen it coming. Same goes for players sitting in week 16 or 17 - you knew it was coming, so you should've prepared for it by getting a viable replacement.

 

Do you get it now? Injuries are the part of the game, just like benchings, under/overperfomances, sleepers, busts... All teams have to deal with it, so get over it.

 

Listen man, I don't need you telling me to "get over" anything. As I said above, I don't "get it" (because I don't see the logic in your point) and injuries are not part of the game the same way that benchings, etc. are. If you disagree, yay - good for you. No reason to get snippy and act like I insulted you though.

[jrandall]

injuries (unless you're stupidly playing a fragile player) cannot be predicted.

 

So your system would remove the risk of playing these fragile players? If they stay healthy, you get their points, but if they get injured, you get slightly less points from a more reliable back up?

[Balzac]

So your system would remove the risk of playing these fragile players? If they stay healthy, you get their points, but if they get injured, you get slightly less points from a more reliable back up?

 

Yep, but that's part of the bad I'd be willing to take with the good. After all, these guys have replacements in real life as well.

[delusions of grandeur]

My apologies if you think I'm trying to offend you personally, just making a point; But I'm glad we have an understanding that you're not going to listen to the rational points I've made about why Fantasy Fottball is inherently different from real football, so I won't need to continue any further...

 

But I stand by my opinion that it's a bad idea and sets a horrible precedent for you to get a free pass and potential double-up in stats while someone else might have their QB suddenly sat in the second quarter during the playoffs with no replacement. Go for it if that's how you wanna do things (no sarcasm intended), but when it comes to a game of luck like fantasy football, I think it's apples and apples, and you let them fall as they fall.

[Balzac]

My apologies if you think I'm trying to offend you personally, just making a point; But I'm glad we have an understanding that you're not going to listen to the rational points I've made about why Fantasy Fottball is inherently different from real football, so I won't need to continue any further...

 

But I stand by my opinion that it's a bad idea and sets a horrible precedent for you to get a free pass and potential double-up in stats while someone else might have their QB suddenly sat in the second quarter during the playoffs with no replacement. Go for it if that's how you wanna do things (no sarcasm intended), but when it comes to a game of luck like fantasy football, I think it's apples and apples, and you let them fall as they fall.

 

I've listened to everything you've had to say (the fact that I don't agree with it doesn't mean I'm not listening) and I guess we disagree on 2 counts, (i) you think that FF is inherently different from real football and should stay that way, whereas I'd prefer to make it more realistic; and (ii) you view FF as a game of luck, whereas I view it primarily as a game of skill - the whole point of my idea is to eliminate the luck component to an extent.

 

To each his own.

[jrandall]

A receiver's foot is an inch too far forward, out of bounds, no points. A receiver's head is an inch too low, helmet to helmet contact, concussion, out for game.

 

Why do you think it's fair for the fantasy manager to get insurance against one but no the other?

[Zooty]

If you don't like unfair and flukish then fantasy football isnt for you

 

 

I like the quote

 

The premise of this thread, not so much

[John Crapper]

Good read. Definitly an interesting theory for any future leagues that want to add to and shake up their rule books

[The Mucca]

So my backup could plays on Thursday because my starter gets hurt on Monday not sure how that

makes it more like real football.

[Grits and Shins]

I don't like it at all. Last week I left Steve Johnson on my bench. I made the conscious decision to do so. If one of the WRs I elected to start should get hurt I should NOT be able to benefit from the career day Steve Johnson had after electing to leave him on my bench.

 

Furthermore, I don't see why the owner with the injured player should be rewarded when the owner with the benched player is left out in the cold - in both cases the player was removed from the field of play unexpectedly.

 

Additionally it would allow me to play games with my lineup. If a player is a GTD I could start that player and designate a backup and remove all the uncertainty of making owner decisions.

 

In many of my leagues I carry 1 TE so I would not be able to designate an injury replacement. I certainly don't like the fact that owners that choose to carry 2 TEs can use an extra security blanket.

 

Another wrinkle ... in leagues that use flex positions can you designate a RB to back up a WR or vice-versa?

 

If you want to water down the league and eliminate risk then you should simply use team QB, team RB, team WR, team TE, team PK, team DF ... then you don't have to worry about injuries or benchings.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Grits and Shins

[nhoops]

Close but not quite what I mean (I find team options to be boring) - I just really hate that matchups can be thrown so far off by freakish occurrences like injuries that (for the most part) can't be predicted. If you had an injury prone player, it would then be on you to make sure that you had a viable backup option ready to sub in. Benches become more relevant, which I could dig. I guess it would require expansion of conventional rosters but so be it.

 

 

Our league just does a backup QB. If the starter gets injured in the 1st half and doesn't come back into the game, then you get the points for your backup. Those with more than 2 QB's on their bench, must declare the backup. Newer members have tried to lobby for backups in other positions.

 

In most cases it hasn't made a difference when it does happen though.

 

Like others have said it kind of takes the chance out of FFBall though.

[historymike]

While it sucks to lose a player to injury in FF (as well as in the real game) I think that this is an important element that in a strange way mirrors a real team: if, say, Arian Foster goes down, there is no way Derrick Ward is going to step up and duplicate ADP's stats line. Sure, he gets some touches, but the Texans still take a huge hit, just like a FF owner would the day that (dear sweet Jesus, never let it be so) Arian Foster goes out with a hamstring pull.

 

Strangely, I also like the unpredictability of injuries: if the game was quite predictable, it would be boring. While I have lost a few games over the years to unexpected injuries, I have also enjoyed the unexpected wins like when, for example, I expected to get clobbered by the Brady-Moss owner in Week One of 2008, and instead the dual TD machine went kaput as Brady's knee turned to jelly on that hit by Chiefs safety Bernard Pollard. The game is ultimately more exciting when there are so many variables to influence the outcome.

[BS Miscreant]

But MFL does offer an option for "backup players" in case you're guy is a game-time scratch, which I think is fair for those who can't be near a computer at gametime...

I've heard of that but I don't really like it. Don't start players who are GTDs - seems pretty simple to me. What I'm getting at is the completely unpredictable mid-game injury, which there is no way to predict or plan for.

You're complicating one issue while grossly over-simplifying another. A few weeks back I wasn't gonna be near a computer when official announcements were made about final player game status so I was pretty much forced to sit McFadden because he was a GTD. 196 yds and 4 TDs later I had 45.6 points on my bench. That issue doesn't "seem pretty simple to me" in the context of your argument with this thread.

 

And speaking of the context of this thread...

 

Many of you may not like the idea of this proposed rule/concept but the truth is, and I've said this close to a dozen times around here, if the rule is in place before the season starts and everyone is aware of it and it applies to everyone then it's fair and if a league is ok with it then ok. As for rules making it more "realistic"... I hope your leagues aren't awarding points to players for gaining a yard or catching a pass.

[Balzac]

A receiver's foot is an inch too far forward, out of bounds, no points. A receiver's head is an inch too low, helmet to helmet contact, concussion, out for game.

 

Why do you think it's fair for the fantasy manager to get insurance against one but no the other?

 

Because one deals with a basic rule of football that can't be changed (and shouldn't be) - the other deals with a rule of fantasy football that is inherently arbitrary . . . in my eyes, we can (because we are the ones who control fantasy rules) and should fix that one.

[Balzac]

So my backup could plays on Thursday because my starter gets hurt on Monday not sure how that

makes it more like real football.

 

how's that any different from your other starters playing on different days? that's not like real football either. point is that allowing a backup (regardless of when he plays) is more realistic than not allowing one at all - not looking for perfect cohesion here. just an improvement over what currently exists.

[Balzac]

I don't like it at all. Last week I left Steve Johnson on my bench. I made the conscious decision to do so. If one of the WRs I elected to start should get hurt I should NOT be able to benefit from the career day Steve Johnson had after electing to leave him on my bench.

 

but in 15 out of 16 games, he won't make it off your bench at all. I don't see the uncertainty of when a guy will actually perform as an issue here - more likely than not, the bench WR is going to get a minimal amount of points (which is why he's a bench guy). I just don't like the idea that an owner gets zero points.

 

Furthermore, I don't see why the owner with the injured player should be rewarded when the owner with the benched player is left out in the cold - in both cases the player was removed from the field of play unexpectedly.

 

not sure I agree here - when guys get benched, it's due to their performance (which can be reasonably predicted).

 

Additionally it would allow me to play games with my lineup. If a player is a GTD I could start that player and designate a backup and remove all the uncertainty of making owner decisions.

 

first off, I don't think it would remove ALL of the uncertainty - we're just talking about injuries here. secondly, that wouldn't be a very smart call - you could very well end up with a Jahvid Best scenario where the guy technically plays the full game but barely sees the field.

 

In many of my leagues I carry 1 TE so I would not be able to designate an injury replacement. I certainly don't like the fact that owners that choose to carry 2 TEs can use an extra security blanket.

 

good point, but that's why I would simply expand rosters slightly to allow sufficient space for 1 backup for each starter slot - whether an owner uses them correctly is up to them

 

Another wrinkle ... in leagues that use flex positions can you designate a RB to back up a WR or vice-versa?

 

hmm - hadn't considered that. I guess they could be replaced by any flex eligible player.

 

If you want to water down the league and eliminate risk then you should simply use team QB, team RB, team WR, team TE, team PK, team DF ... then you don't have to worry about injuries or benchings.

 

I just don't like team positions - I find them boring. I WANT to worry about benchings and playing time because, like I said, those are things that can and should be evaluated and predicted on a weekly basis.

 

Nice response though - got me thinking on a couple new wrinkles.

[Balzac]

While it sucks to lose a player to injury in FF (as well as in the real game) I think that this is an important element that in a strange way mirrors a real team: if, say, Arian Foster goes down, there is no way Derrick Ward is going to step up and duplicate ADP's stats line. Sure, he gets some touches, but the Texans still take a huge hit, just like a FF owner would the day that (dear sweet Jesus, never let it be so) Arian Foster goes out with a hamstring pull.

 

But how many guys have a stud RB sitting on their bench to replace their fantasy starter? Taking one of my teams for instance, if I lose Mendenhall or Moreno, I'm left with Danny Woodhead at RB - that's a big dropoff, but it could result in some nice production (same way Ward could in your example). In short, a FF team would still be taking a hit - just not a goosegg.

 

Strangely, I also like the unpredictability of injuries: if the game was quite predictable, it would be boring. While I have lost a few games over the years to unexpected injuries, I have also enjoyed the unexpected wins like when, for example, I expected to get clobbered by the Brady-Moss owner in Week One of 2008, and instead the dual TD machine went kaput as Brady's knee turned to jelly on that hit by Chiefs safety Bernard Pollard. The game is ultimately more exciting when there are so many variables to influence the outcome.

 

Understandable, but I think there would still be some excitement in knowing that your opponent no longer has Brady in his lineup and is instead now relying on someone like Jason Campbell at QB . . .

[Balzac]

You're complicating one issue while grossly over-simplifying another. A few weeks back I wasn't gonna be near a computer when official announcements were made about final player game status so I was pretty much forced to sit McFadden because he was a GTD. 196 yds and 4 TDs later I had 45.6 points on my bench. That issue doesn't "seem pretty simple to me" in the context of your argument with this thread.

 

No - I'm speaking to a rule change that solves one issue (in game injuries) while not really dealing with the other (GTDs). With respect to the latter, my view is always that you choose to not be near a computer when official announcements are made - you can control that. If you're not going to be around, give your password to a fellow league member who will be and ask them to make appropriate changes for you. They're very different issues and people have very different views on them - I don't have a huge issue with leagues that allow backups for GTDs . . . I just don't like that option very much because it can be controlled. That's just my view.

 

And speaking of the context of this thread...

 

Many of you may not like the idea of this proposed rule/concept but the truth is, and I've said this close to a dozen times around here, if the rule is in place before the season starts and everyone is aware of it and it applies to everyone then it's fair and if a league is ok with it then ok. As for rules making it more "realistic"... I hope your leagues aren't awarding points to players for gaining a yard or catching a pass.

 

Not sure how this is relevant at all - I don't recall anyone here asking about changing a rule midseason. On the realism front, complete realism is obviously not attainable (for countless reasons) - that's not the goal here, so pointing out other ways in which fantasy football isn't "real" doesn't add much to the conversation.

[Whiskey Pimp]

It is not more realistic to be able to have a backup unless that backup is on the same team. If Peyton Manning gets knocked out in the first quarter, the Colts have to put in Curtis Painter. In fantasy football you would get to sub Manning with someone like Kitna or Fitzpatrick. How is that realistic?

[Balzac]

It is not more realistic to be able to have a backup unless that backup is on the same team. If Peyton Manning gets knocked out in the first quarter, the Colts have to put in Curtis Painter. In fantasy football you would get to sub Manning with someone like Kitna or Fitzpatrick. How is that realistic?

 

Sure it is. It's not 100% realistic, but it is more realistic than having nobody at all to sub in. It's not realistic to have Rashard Mendenhall and Knowshon Moreno both getting 20 touches in the same backfield either but that's what we've got. We have a team of starters and bench players, so I think we should be able to utilize those bench players if one of our starters is unexpectedly knocked out of the game.

 

That's all I'm looking for here - more realism. As I've said a few times here, complete realism isn't an option in fantasy football.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Balzac

[Grits and Shins]

You mentioned that you would expand rosters to allow for everybody to have adequate backups. That makes your proposal LESS palatable if you ask me. Free agency is a key component to being successful in fantasy football. Watering down the free agency pool is a very bad choice if you ask me.