I put two columns in of my own data, x and y, and made two rules:

1. MIN value for "x" of [insert number]
2. Min value for "y" of [insert number]

In the crunch, it returned many results that fell below the min values that I'd set for the lineup as a whole. I don't think the zero bug you mentioned would be in play here.

"It will show the dropped player as whatever you calculate by. So there is no way to set it to drop the actual score from cruncher (since its unknown)"

On live crunches, sure, but for rewind, it should be able to remember what I've set it to and have that stick, whether you do that server side or in a cookie. In other words, I want my rewind default to always drop the lowest actual score in the display and calculation of actual score.

As it stands now, I can do 1 crunch in rewind, change the display to "Drop Player with Lowest Actual Score" and then do a second crunch and the second one will not remember the display setting I just chose for the first crunch.

I can illustrate in a video if this isn't making sense.

Looks great! Nice touch on the darker shading for the dropped player.

Looks like rewind is near real-time now - sweet!! Advertise that!

"You will need to remove one of the team stacks, as those stacks would require 9 skaters, and Fanduel lineups only have 8."

I want the goalie to be the 4th player in the 4-man stack. Basically, I want to look at 4-3-2 stacking approach with the goalie as part of the 4. How do I do that?

Does this update apply retroactively to lineup rewind for last year's contests?

Thank you. Looking at the Lineup Rewind from 11-10-16, I have the following set:

Max players from any 1 team - 3

Along with the following:




You can see that the best possible team (in the background) meets these criteria, yet when I tried to create any lineups, I got the error that said none could be created. Are my rules constructed incorrectly?

How do you not test before deploying to live servers? Load balance? Stress test with tens of thousands of simultaneous users? I could write scripts to simulate usage in my sleep.

This is basic, basic stuff.

Thanks for the speedy response! And, you're right, that would do it. Now that I know this answer, my reaction is that that's a lot of permutations to have to do manually. Not sure what would be involved to make this a setting that did it automatically.

Great! Thank you.

Dave - thanks for this. Love the ability to save crunches.

One potentially unintended consequence - the crunch seems to update with whatever the most recently uploaded projections are, and NOT the projections at the time of the crunch. I will often do crunches using different sets of projections, and I'd like for those crunches to reflect the player pool and values I used when I did the crunch, and not update to my most recent estimates.

Does that make sense?

Thanks Dave - you were right. I had a game stack set. I almost never use them, so didn't think that this could be the problem.

bump

I've started doing this manually in spreadsheet and it's not only fun and addicting, but helpful to figure out if my strategies are working. Possible to do?

" allows you to randomize projections in between lineup generation"

I think this needs more clarity. I import my own projections. Let's say that my projection for Otto Porter last night was 31.67 points. If I select 10% randomness, will it project Porter within a 20% band around 31.67 (10% up, 10% down), a 10% band around 31.67 (5% up, 5% down), or something entirely different?

bump

I'll second this, but know how hard it is to do. Lots of scraping, unless FanDuel has opened this up through their API.

Dave, stackoverflow to the rescue?

Speaking of the t-shirt contest - can you make it so that once I click the little X in the blue announcement box that it doesn't keep showing up every time?

As someone who asked for this often, thank you. I'm relatively sure that you're the only site that offers this and it's a massive competitive advantage.

"This is so much easier said than done and is why you haven't seen it implemented just yet. The problem is the lineups are created independently, not as a group"

Thanks Dave, I understand and sympathize. I have the "luxury of the uninvolved" in my feature requests :)

You wrote that the lineups were generated independently, but I wonder if that's totally true. There's already a default and configurable setting called Unique Players that makes me think that the lineups must be "aware" of one another on a group level, at least to some degree. This just takes that logic a step further and asks the code to check previous lineups and do a count and a calculation on player usage so far.

Simple example: (let's pretend we're constructing 10, 3-player roster)

I like the following players at their respective positions and % exposures:

1. King Felix - 50%
2. Clayton Kershaw - 30%
3. Andrew Cashner - 20%
4. Miggy Cabrera - 40%
5. Goldy - 40%
6. Ortiz - 20%
7. Vogt - 70%
8. Norris - 20%
9. McCann - 10%

The lineups would run like this (using a 1 unique player setting)

1. Felix, Miggy, Vogt
2. Felix, Miggy, Norris
3. Felix, Miggy, McCann
4. Felix, [Can't use Miggy because there needs to be unique player, switch to next 1B], Goldy, Vogt
5. Felix, Goldy, Norris
6. [Felix's 50% allocation is used up, switch to:] Kershaw, Miggy, Vogt
7. Kershaw, [No more Miggy, his 40% is done], Goldy, Vogt
Kershaw Goldy, [Norris 20% is up, use:] McCann. Oops, McCann's 10% is used up. Any other combos left to use? [DEAD LINEUP]
8. Kershaw, Ortiz, Vogt
9. Cashner, Goldy, Vogt
10. Cashner, Ortiz, Vogt

And, the percentages work out perfectly.

Am I missing something? I think this is there :)

Roger that - thanks!

This is a great update and shows that you really listen to your customers, so thank you for that!



One quick question, I've asked before about being able to limit exposure to a player by assigning a "do not exceed" (DNE) % to that player. The ability to limit exposure to players on a team is great because it makes it easier to mitigate exposure to team, but doesn't really solve exposure to a single player.

Is this something you think you'd add in the future?

"Still, I would LOVE to see more features in the lineup-generator. At the top of my own wish list is the ability to "like" multiple players that will be preferred by the lineup generator."

This is a recurring theme and I suspect the Cruncher guys are listening. RotoGrinders has a way to click a heart and say that you "Like" a player. It's just unclear to me how that affects the algo. My suggestion on several other boards is to allow for the user to specify an "exposure %", both at the global level and for individual players. I may like 6 cheap point guards tonight. If I can't limit my exposure to say, 30 % per player, then all of the lineups generated will default to the two with the highest projected value number, never incorporating the other 4.

Allowing for an exposure field would solve this problem. I'd keep the default experience the way it is now, to not be confusing to folks, but adding this will definitely improve the way lineups are constructed.

In a perfect world, there would be two ways to affect this:

1. A global "exposure" setting in "Advanced" that would allow me to specify, for example, that no player should be in any more than 20% of my lineups.

2. An exposure setting next to the player's name that would allow me to override whatever I set for the global number.

Right now, "Lock" is an exposure setting of 100%, so this is already being done in a very binary way. I suspect that this is computationally a little heavier a lift and probably represents a different approach to lineup construction than Cruncher currently uses.

Doing it allows you to then start to see how many lineups are possible for that range. FantasyCruncher projections already limit the universe of guys to crunch, and I'm willing to bet there are far fewer permutations between 235-250 than you think. Tonight's best lineup was $234.90, BTW.

Once the major sights allow API access to easily upload lineups (and I guarantee it's coming), I think a lot of people might try and grab a handful of lineups in this range.

This, combined with my other suggestion of allowing me to limit my exposure to a guy would further limit the number of unique linueps. Unclear if this helps or hurts the goal of the "perfect lineup."

"especially when I see several of the FC guys posting really high scores"

Just out of curiosity, where are you seeing them post big numbers? I don't see any stuff on the site that shows their performance, so just wondering.

I think part of the challenge may be in the way the lineups are generated by the Cruncher. Anecdotally, it looks like it searches for the first PG that meets value and then builds around that. For example, if you set the program to 1 unique player and asked for 100 lineups, DRose would have been in every single lineup. Even if you asked for 2 unique players, DRose was still in almost every lineup.