Hmmmm...hard-to-stop multiplayer evil.

[Ben E Lou]

HFP just mentioned in a thread about changing guys' positions before cutting them, which we've all joked about doing, or have done in the past in single player. Is this tactic gonna be a potentially deal-breaking issue in multiplayer??? Consider the following scenarios:

• I've got a QB who is about to become a FA, and I know I can't afford to re-sign him. Why not switch him from QB to RB to WR to S, using up his three position switches, at the end of his final year under contract. He'll never be useful to anyone else then.
• I've got a soon-to-be-unsigned RFA G. I want to make sure no one else could get the benefit if he breaks out in a few years. I do the triple-position-switch right before training camp and voila, he's a 1/5 defensive tackle for the rest of his (very short) career.
• My veteran WR had a breakout season and is holding out for a new contract. Rather than pony up the big bucks, he gets the triple position switch, and ends up a pathetic free agent SS, never to catch another pass in his career.

How the heck do you draw up rules to prevent this sort of thing without voiding legit position switches???

[QuikSand]

When a team pays big money for a free agent player (at the price set by the competitive marketplace) do they really gain from that transaction?

If you remove these quality players from the FA market, you also free up the money they woul have occupied. Seems to me this is at least very close to a zero-sum game, in any kind of legitimate league (if you find one).

[Maple Leafs]

Not sure how you'd avoid this, other than having some league rules to the effect of "no position switches in the final year of a contact".

A bit of a pain, but I don't know of any online leagues that don't need some sort of additional rules.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by SkyDog
How the heck do you draw up rules to prevent this sort of thing without voiding legit position switches???

I think the intent will be pretty obvious in most cases. If someone pulled that stunt with the QB, they should just be booted from the league. If people aren't interested in legitemately competing, they gotta go.

Perhaps league members announcing position switches should be mandatory.

Moved FB Joe Blow to RB
Moved ILB Sky Dog to OLB
Moved DE Dick Tator to NT

Of course, the issue is really who is going to be policing the rosters to make sure everything was reported.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by QuikSand
When a team pays big money for a free agent player (at the price set by the competitive marketplace) do they really gain from that transaction?

If you remove these quality players from the FA market, you also free up the money they woul have occupied. Seems to me this is at least very close to a zero-sum game, in any kind of legitimate league (if you find one).

Well, yes and no. My concern is that, if this were to become an accepted "strategy", that there would be VERY few quality players left in the FA pool each year to fight over.

Let me flesh out the QB example a little more. I drafted QB Lionel Forbes with the 1(32) pick in 2014. Vick was still my starter at that time, but starting to show signs of age, and getting much more injury prone. Forbes got to start 4 games in 2014, and 11 in 2015. Vick retired after 2016. Let's suppose for a minute, though, that Forbes, in his four starts in 2014, really lit things up, and that Vick was a 9th-year guy in the last year of his contract that year, rather than an aging QB. In a multiplayer league, I would lose nothing, and gain a lot, by making him useless to the rest of the league, would I not? In that scenario, I've got a good starting QB in Forbes (and young QB's rarely get injured in this game...) AND no one else in the league gets to use Vick.

Am I missing something?

[HornedFrog Purple]

heh see what I have done?

A rule such as "one position switch per player allowed period, must be in same subset (offensive linemen G, T, C, backfield with FB to TE allowed, receivers SE to FL) defensive linemen (DT, RE, LE, NT) linebackers (outside to inside) and secondary (CB, SS, FS)."

Changing players to a different subset isn't allowed.

QB are not allowed to be changed.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by SkyDog
How the heck do you draw up rules to prevent this sort of thing without voiding legit position switches???

Wouldn't

"No position switches after reg season week 1"

and

"No position switches of holdouts."

Cover most nefarious cases?

[Bonegavel]

might be a pain in the tuckus for the commish, but maybe jim could add a feature where the commish must approve all position switches before they occur?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
Of course, the issue is really who is going to be policing the rosters to make sure everything was reported.

Bingo. In the example I mentioned above, people would wonder what happened to Vick (unless of course he retired after the position switches...) No one wants to go through every single roster and figure out if people are doing this with their rookies though.

[Thomkal]

I would hope that anyone doing that in a league I'm in is immediately kicked out of the league. Stating that before the league begins should deter everyone but those who are fed up with the league anyway.

Like Cthomer though posting and getting commissioner approval before any such position changes seems the right way to go to me.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Samdari
Wouldn't

"No position switches after reg season week 1"

and

"No position switches of holdouts."

Cover most nefarious cases?

Well, two problems:

1. It wouldn't cover the RFA potential breakout scenario. Those guys would be position-switched right before training camp, I would assume.

2. I know of at least one VERY legit reason to do a position switch (even to a "bad" position group) after week 1, because I've had to do it at least twice that I can remember in the <20 serious seasons I've played out. When in "cap hell," and going into the regular season with very little cap money available, injuries can make it so that it is impossible to field a roster without switching the fourth safety to RB, for example, to meet the roster requirements. As I said, I've had to do such a position switch at least twice.

[cuervo72]

I am intrigued by the having to officially announce position changes, this might be a good idea. Just post them in a position changes thread/forum.

I wonder if we could have a rule (for IHOF anyway) where the commish has to make all position changes? Might be hard though because of game planning issues.

As far as policing this goes, I know in FOF4 there was a change.txt file that documented position changes. I don't have FOF2004 licensed at work, but I'd be curious how this works in the new game, first if there is such a file, and second on which system(s) these changes are logged to.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by cuervo72
As far as policing this goes, I know in FOF4 there was a change.txt file that documented position changes.

Are you serious??? I never noticed that, and have uninstalled FOF4 now so I can't check it out. I don't see such a file in FOF2004, and I know I've made several position switches.

[sachmo71]

Maybe Jim could add code so that position changes appear in the transaction log in multiplayer?

In fact, I wouldn't mind that in the regular game...I've always been interested to see if/when the AI changes player positions.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by sachmo71
Maybe Jim could add code so that position changes appear in the transaction log in multiplayer?

In fact, I wouldn't mind that in the regular game...I've always been interested to see if/when the AI changes player positions.

That would be a pretty simple fix. No switches could fly under the radar screen, and a "challenge" system could be set up for position switches. A player would have to show just cause for a safety-to-running-back-type switch in the last year of a contract (cap hell is the only legit reason I can think of for doing this), or be kicked out of the league. Ultimately, if the switches were logged somewhere, that would probably act as enough of a deterrant by itself.

[HornedFrog Purple]

I just know that when we introduce this rule in the constitution I want credit for it like named after me.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
I just know that when we introduce this rule in the constitution I want credit for it like named after me.

I prefer the "If I Can't Have Her, Nobody Can!" rule.

[Bonegavel]

I think people have me on their ignore lists again.

[cuervo72]

Sure am, it resides in the main program folder, not in the universe folder.

Here's the format (extra line between entries deleted):

CHANGE: Heath Lofton FL (SE)
CHANGE: Rod Dodge LG (RG)
CHANGE: Levon England RDT (LDT)
CHANGE: Kennedy Lane RT (LT)
CHANGE: Edgar Bordano RCB (LCB)
CHANGE: O.J. Patton SS (FS)
CHANGE: Skip Prescott SILB (WILB)
CHANGE: Julio Lake FL (SE)
CHANGE: Tracy Ekuban LT (RT)
CHANGE: Drew Bronson LDT (RDT)
CHANGE: Mack McCormick FL (SE)
CHANGE: Joey Mahoney LT (RT)
CHANGE: Andrew Lynch SLB (WLB)
CHANGE: Benjamin Chandler SS (FS)
CHANGE: Clay Glover SILB (WILB)
CHANGE: Al Hartzell FL (SE)
CHANGE: Norbert Thornton RDE (LDE)
CHANGE: Derek Covington WLB (SLB)
CHANGE: Horace Ackerman SS (FS)

I know some of these are from the GroupThink project, but I don't know when or how they occurred, I'm guessing likely the only time I ran part of the sim (off-season), but I'm not certain. Changes appear to be league-wide.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Bonegavel
I think people have me on their ignore lists again.

Not at all. Your suggestion would slow things down. Having them posted in the transition log would allow an after-the-fact check, with serious consequences.


I have sent an e-mail to Jim now.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by cuervo72
Sure am, it resides in the main program folder, not in the universe folder.

Here's the format (extra line between entries deleted):

CHANGE: Heath Lofton FL (SE)
CHANGE: Rod Dodge LG (RG)
CHANGE: Levon England RDT (LDT)
CHANGE: Kennedy Lane RT (LT)
CHANGE: Edgar Bordano RCB (LCB)
CHANGE: O.J. Patton SS (FS)
CHANGE: Skip Prescott SILB (WILB)
CHANGE: Julio Lake FL (SE)
CHANGE: Tracy Ekuban LT (RT)
CHANGE: Drew Bronson LDT (RDT)
CHANGE: Mack McCormick FL (SE)
CHANGE: Joey Mahoney LT (RT)
CHANGE: Andrew Lynch SLB (WLB)
CHANGE: Benjamin Chandler SS (FS)
CHANGE: Clay Glover SILB (WILB)
CHANGE: Al Hartzell FL (SE)
CHANGE: Norbert Thornton RDE (LDE)
CHANGE: Derek Covington WLB (SLB)
CHANGE: Horace Ackerman SS (FS)

I know some of these are from the GroupThink project, but I don't know when or how they occurred, I'm guessing likely the only time I ran part of the sim (off-season), but I'm not certain. Changes appear to be league-wide.

I just checked. The FOF4 uninstall left this file in place. It is actually change.log. Never noticed this sucker before. Unfortunately, there is no such file that I can find in FOF2004.

[Subby]

One feature of OOTP that would be nice here (and could incorporate position switches) is player histories.

Player history would catalogue injuries, awards, championships, milestones, trades, draft position, and position switches all in a player-specific text file that would get written to upon each instance previously mentioned.

[Honolulu Blue]

I'm pretty sure you can do more than three position switches now. I switched a useless scrub from G to T to G to T to G to T and totally eliminated whatever value he had. I'll have to try something like this again to be sure.

Frankly, I think it's a greater punishment to have some other team overpay for a free agent I didn't want than to switch his position around.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Well, two problems:

1. It wouldn't cover the RFA potential breakout scenario. Those guys would be position-switched right before training camp, I would assume.

2. I know of at least one VERY legit reason to do a position switch (even to a "bad" position group) after week 1, because I've had to do it at least twice that I can remember in the <20 serious seasons I've played out. When in "cap hell," and going into the regular season with very little cap money available, injuries can make it so that it is impossible to field a roster without switching the fourth safety to RB, for example, to meet the roster requirements. As I said, I've had to do such a position switch at least twice.

Your 1 above is not an issue, as right before training camp is not after week 1. Am I not understanding your point?

I agree that there are legitimate reasons for position switches after week 1, and this is a serious weakness in my simple rule. I do think that position switches need to be outlawed on any unsigned player still showing up on a team's roster page (including UFA's RFA's etc.). I don't see any legitimate reasons to do that.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Samdari
Your 1 above is not an issue, as right before training camp is not after week 1. Am I not understanding your point?

I wasn't very clear. Here is what I am concerned about with scenario #1, which WOULD be allowed, since this would all happen before week 1:

1. I have an FS who is an RFA in year 3. He has high volatility, and showed a slight increase in ratings from last year. He's a potential breakout, but for whatever reason, I don't want/can't afford to keep him around.
2. He is not under contract, so I can't position-switch him----YET.
3. I sign him to a one-year, no-bonus contract during the second free agency period.
4. Immediately after signing him, I keep changing his position between RB and FL until I get the "he won't accept another change" message. (This will work now that he's under contract.)
5. I cut him, either immediately, or after training camp.

Without some sort of mechanism for logging the position switch, this would either fly under the radar screen, or become a ridiculously adminsitrative nightmare for someone to track what guys were position-switched.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Not at all. Your suggestion would slow things down. Having them posted in the transition log would allow an after-the-fact check, with serious consequences.


I have sent an e-mail to Jim now.

Right, but once it is done, it can't be undone. Sure you could punish the person ex post facto, but because the players can't reject on their own (that would be an interesting piece of code for Jim) the commish would need to act on their behalf to keep it from happening in the first place.

Why give the person the wiggle room for being an ass? This Commish gets an email in the game that gives a reason for the switch and yes/no buttons.

I do agree, however, that it should be part of some log somewhere. I am a big fan of a weekly newspaper-type listing in the game to discuss the happenings (as opposed to the raw logs), but things like this should be easily available for all to see.

The ultimate solution is for the game not to penalize the player for the switch as much as it does or keep track of their abilities so they can be switched back at little to no penalty. You have players coming back into the league after not playing for years (tommy maddox) and they seem fine. You can't tell me that is more dibilitating that continuing to play the game, but at a different position.

I understand why Jim does the "player takes a hit in abilities" but I don't agree with it.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by Bonegavel
Right, but once it is done, it can't be undone. Sure you could punish the person ex post facto, but because the players can't reject on their own (that would be an interesting piece of code for Jim) the commish would need to act on their behalf to keep it from happening in the first place.

Why give the person the wiggle room for being an ass? This Commish gets an email in the game that gives a reason for the switch and yes/no buttons.

Well, bonegavel, while giving the commish veto power over position changes, I do think it would slow things down, and even hamper teams in making legitimate switches. The ones SkyDog mentions, i.e. moving a crappy player on a cap-strapped team during the season in order to fill position minimums need to happen in order for an owner to be able to submit a stage file. Those types of switches simply have to be available to owners. If every switch requires a commish approval in game, I don't see this as possible until after an owner submits the stage file. This seems to create a catch-22 situation. After a bit of thinking, I now think my no-switches after week 1 rule will not work.

You are also discounting the effects of deterence here. If position switches are logged, and the consequences are ex-post-facto, most leagues will pretty quickly be pared to ethical owners, if the consequences are harsh enough. If the penalty is immediate league expulsion for a first offense, you won't see too many people trying so see if they can get away with this. If the owner sees no potential competitive advantage for committing these acts (at least for him as an owner) I see attempts being rare.

[Bonegavel]

Well, all i can say is good luck with the free-for-all postition switch technology. To me, what is easier: policing every position switch anyway through a log file system or getting an email where I can click a button? Either way, you have to police. Seems easier to me to get an email and give it an up or down.

[Bonegavel]

dola,

if you agree that all position switches must be monitored (via a log file) how is this easier? The commish will need to cross check each player and determine without input from the Owner why the switch occured. That would probably entail the commish going to the player card and seeing if he is a stud, or not. If the guy is a stud and is in the last year of his contract, then there if probably monkey business. Or, a rookie being switched.

But, the switch has occured already. You won't be able to go back and see what his numbers were. All you will see are shoddy scores. There is no record of what the player used to look like. Now, the commish has to look at stats of the player. If they are good, is that a foul? I've seen mediocre rated WRs post some good numbers.

If you simply make hard and fast rules (like you can't switch a person in the last year of their contract) you are still denying that Owner that may need a legit switch.

Looks like this will just have to be left alone. Can you really punish an Owner for doing a smart thing that is allowed by the game? In real life, a player would just refuse to be switched, or it would be a natural switch T/G for e.g.

[Franklinnoble]

I just bought FOF2k4, but haven't played it yet. I wonder... is there a way to fine teams in a multiplayer league?

It seems a bit harsh to kick someone out for doing a questionable position-switch on a first offense... maybe charge them a 1st round draft pick, or something?

Either that, or have them voluntarily accept the fine or be banned... I.E. - you pull a stunt like this, and you MUST draft (and sign) a low-grade punter with your first round pick next season or be kicked out of the league. This costs them the pick, and puts a salary cap bite on them for giving a big contract to a worthless player.

[Samdari]

An immediate first offense banning is harsh, Franklin, but I would want any rule needed to prevent this to be that harsh. In fact, since I consider it akin to Giloolying outgoing free agents, I don't even do this in single player. I would want a rule such that noone committed to remaining in a league would consider doing this.

[mckerney]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Bingo. In the example I mentioned above, people would wonder what happened to Vick (unless of course he retired after the position switches...) No one wants to go through every single roster and figure out if people are doing this with their rookies though.

Especially if one were to switch him to WR and back to QB...

[mckerney]

Originally posted by Bonegavel
Looks like this will just have to be left alone. Can you really punish an Owner for doing a smart thing that is allowed by the game? In real life, a player would just refuse to be switched, or it would be a natural switch T/G for e.g.

And they wouldn't lose anything in getting switched back in real life.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by mckerney
Especially if one were to switch him to WR and back to QB...

Ouch. That opens a whole new can of worms. I just tested this. I switched a FL to SS, then RB, than back to WR. He was originally 87/87 as a WR. We went to 13/52 as a SS, 24/37 as a RB, and then 35/35 as a FL again. There is no way to stop this from happening without some sort of switch log, because he is still listed at his original position.

[HornedFrog Purple]

That's right 'Dog.... join the dark side!

Oh wait....

[cuervo72]

I wonder what the contents of the stage file (export) are? In other words, are player attributes (stats) sent in this file, or are the position changes themselves? How is the information that the player underwent a change getting registered in the master game file?

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by mckerney
And they wouldn't lose anything in getting switched back in real life.

Well, I could see them losing a little, but they should retain their potentials and have to work a little extra to get back to where they were. I tend to think Jim doesn't track this because it would be a nightmare to track. Imagine the game tracks a player at every possible position... yikes.

So, the original problem is that an Owner may switch an expensive good/great player to another position to "ruin" him as a player so others won't be able to pick him up. How can this be stopped sans a house rule?

The only option right now is that it just has to be allowed. If player switching is ok for some, it is a slippery slope to start policing these as Hate Switches and trying to get into the mind of the switcher. So, a way has to be found to make sure it is in the Owners best interest to not do this.

Seems that Owners should begin their FA search while the player is still on the team and try trading for the guy to make it worth the Owners time to not HateSwitch.

What I see happening, is that the Owner may shop the player around and, if he doesn't get what he wants, he will pull the trigger.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Bonegavel
The only option right now is that it just has to be allowed. If player switching is ok for some, it is a slippery slope to start policing these as Hate Switches and trying to get into the mind of the switcher. So, a way has to be found to make sure it is in the Owners best interest to not do this.

Seems that Owners should begin their FA search while the player is still on the team and try trading for the guy to make it worth the Owners time to not HateSwitch.

What I see happening, is that the Owner may shop the player around and, if he doesn't get what he wants, he will pull the trigger.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this would result in VERY few free agents being available at all. Who in the world would be willing to trade for someone AFTER the last year of their contract is up? They'd become a FA anyway, and you could get them at cost, rather than at cost PLUS a draft pick or player.

[cuervo72]

Maybe players above a certain rating threshold (or years of experience) can't be switched out of their position group?

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Taken to its logical conclusion, this would result in VERY few free agents being available at all. Who in the world would be willing to trade for someone AFTER the last year of their contract is up? They'd become a FA anyway, and you could get them at cost, rather than at cost PLUS a draft pick or player.

What Bonegavel is saying is that you could proactively trade for the FA BEFORE the HateSwitching occurs. Thus, you get the full talent FA at cost plus draft pick/player rather than diluted talent player at cost.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Wow I feel like I just destroyed multiplayer. Me and my big hands.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Buzzbee
What Bonegavel is saying is that you could proactively trade for the FA BEFORE the HateSwitching occurs. Thus, you get the full talent FA at cost plus draft pick/player rather than diluted talent player at cost.

You're not tracking with me. Logically, the "best" way to do this with a stud player is to use him all year long in the last year of his contract, and then make the switch after your season is over. No one is going to even be ABLE to trade for him at that point. The trading deadline is past.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by cuervo72
Maybe players above a certain rating threshold (or years of experience) can't be switched out of their position group?

I don't think we'll be able to allow a wholesale rule preventing switching because it can be a legitimate way to fill roster requirements.

Perhaps a 3 switch per owner per year rule? Technically an owner could still "ruin" a soon to be free agent, but only one. It would also allow switching to fill roster requirements. It would still allow strategy since you could draft that so-so SS and switch him to OLB to see if he gets a bump. This may not be a perfect answer, but thought I'd toss it out as an alternative.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by SkyDog
You're not tracking with me. Logically, the "best" way to do this with a stud player is to use him all year long in the last year of his contract, and then make the switch after your season is over. No one is going to even be ABLE to trade for him at that point. The trading deadline is past.

I'm tracking with you, just was trying to explain his post. As you said, the trading deadline would kill this "strategy/alternative".

[sachmo71]

I don't think the league commish will have to police every single transaction switch. The log would be there if there was ever any question about what happened to a player.

I believe that in multiplayers, owners will get to know their opponents rosters pretty well, and most everyone will get an idea of who is good in the league and who isn't. If you see a team where all of their RFA's suddenly hit the market with very low ability scores, then you can look at the transaction log and see what happened. Only then would the "why" become really important. If someone feels the need to switch their players until they are unusuable for anyone else, then I think those that are interested in the player will know. The transaction log will just help to back up the other evidence, such as seeing that this crappy player started 16 games for their former team for three years, their salary demands, etc.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Taken to its logical conclusion, this would result in VERY few free agents being available at all. Who in the world would be willing to trade for someone AFTER the last year of their contract is up? They'd become a FA anyway, and you could get them at cost, rather than at cost PLUS a draft pick or player.

Personally, even with this new found knowledge, I will/would never do this to a player. It goes against the whole point of the game, IMHO. I just don't see how you will be able to efficiently police this with any success with FOF2K4's current build (5b). An honor system will only take you so far when you have HFPs out there discovering these little evil treats

Seems like it will be one of those things where you have to be very selective of the Owners you allow into the league so that an honor system will have any chance to survive and work.

Hypothetical: suppose each team switched 1 player position a week. That is 32 situations a week and 544 during the regular season. Yikes.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by Buzzbee
What Bonegavel is saying is that you could proactively trade for the FA BEFORE the HateSwitching occurs. Thus, you get the full talent FA at cost plus draft pick/player rather than diluted talent player at cost.

That is exactly what I meant. Thanks.

I know skydog disagrees, but it would be in that players benefit, IHMO, to try and get whatever he can for the guy knowing that he will lose him anyway. Only a stubborn player wouldn't see that this works out best.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by Buzzbee
I'm tracking with you, just was trying to explain his post. As you said, the trading deadline would kill this "strategy/alternative".

It would evolve into trading him earlier then. To use him all year and kill him and get NOTHING for him wouldn't help you in the long run (i'm guessing). But, trading him before the deadline for a draft pick and/or another player would be more beneficial than a Scorched Player policy.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Bonegavel
Seems like it will be one of those things where you have to be very selective of the Owners you allow into the league so that an honor system will have any chance to survive and work.

I agree, and I would hope that anyone in the league I'm in wouldn't do that. I'm just afraid of leaving it out there for temptation.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by Bonegavel
That is exactly what I meant. Thanks.

I know skydog disagrees, but it would be in that players benefit, IHMO, to try and get whatever he can for the guy knowing that he will lose him anyway. Only a stubborn player wouldn't see that this works out best.

But as SD pointed out you would have to TRADE for the upcoming FA BEFORE week 6. Not very likely to happen. Player A wouldn't want to give up his talented player for 10 or more weeks. Player B wouldn't want to search through 32 rosters to find players in the last year of their contract that Player B is going to want next offseason. NOT LIKELY!