Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2012
(114)
-
▼
November
(19)
- 2nd Supplemental draft
- Enter Match 9 scores
- Enter Match 9 lineups
- Enter Match 8 scores
- Enter Match 8 lineups
- Enter Match 7 scores
- Enter Match 7 lineups
- Enter Match 6 scores
- Enter Match 6 lineups
- Supplemental Draft
- Enter Match 5 scores
- Enter Match 5 lineups
- Enter Match 4 scores
- Enter Match 4 Lineups
- Enter Match 3 scores
- Enter Match 3 lineups
- Enter Match 2 Scores
- Enter Match 2 lineups
- Enter Match 1 scores
-
▼
November
(19)
21 comments:
P4-Swat...Ticket-Invaders...Wingos-Nitecaps...Mr.B-Eteam
Remind me again how the DNP is good gamesmanship or should at all be a factor in fantasy sports? I'm sure someone can pontificate about it for me, tying it to 1968 hockey or an sci movie....
As we move toward the supplemental, I'd like to reopen the conversation about having a backup or staring 7.
Bel-Biv-Vedere
Exactly!
I would be in favor of a mid-season rule change, as it is never addressed in the off-season and there is never enough time in the preseason.
There have been a number of proposals. I would like to have Mark suggest the one that makes most sense to him.
I realize none of them are with out fault, but the current system is terrible
The 2 most logical proposals Invaders have read are both play 7 proposals either P4's with positional 5 players and 2 not needing positions only one of which is designated the alternate only to be counted in the event of DNP-the other proposal I made is just play 7(5 positions and 2 non-position) in the hope that the extra player dilutes the effect of the goose egg from the DNP-I don't want to search rosters for lowest drafted at same position or get some new player active after lock time-the 2 proposals I mentioned put the responsibility on the team owner either way-The 6 w/alternate idea will eliminate most DNPs while the just play 7 does not but I like it because it gets more players involved and rewards those who've put together deep rosters while alleviating some of those tough 6 man decisions each match
Agreed. Let's put this to a vote and have it enacted for the match following the supp.
To play Smilin' Dave, the already disappointing Wingos stand pat with their losing lineup from Match 3, but they are in talks with Phil Jackson (or Tito), so things may be looking up...
Ticket says
Noah
Milsap
Josh Smith
Curry
Paul
(Breep) "Brow" Davis
That's a sound from an inflating & deflating prize cake for rookie of the year. In the depression, Stymie on the Little Rascals baked a cake with prizes inside like a hot water bottle that grew & shrank. I believe my time was better spent watching this show than giving the likes of Wingo even a reasonable chance of dropping Ticket.
E Team says:
DHow, Monta, Rondo, Pierce, Duncan, Deng
Caps vs. T. Wingos
(1) B. Jennings
(2) Kobe
(3) Carmelo
(4) Z. Randolph
(5) G. Davis
(6) G. Dragic
I will vote for P4's suggestion; Start 6 and list one alternate.
If you hate DNP's hit "like" or just vote.
B's vote for an alternate:
1-Lin
2-Wade
3-Gay
4-Griff
5-Lee
Util-D.West
*Alt-T.Evans
(*for example-so if I have a DNP, apply his stats.)
...so the DNP would have to be a postition that the Alt and/or Util player could fill. So, 1-4 with West and Evans. That is my vote.
And I know this isn't enacted yet.
E Team says:
I wonder if anybody thinks this is worth considering.
Aren't we required to consider a player's durability/dependability when drafting? Mr. B's Dwyane Wade, who abandoned him in Match 3, is a superior stat guy, a player who's been about a fantasy 39 throughout his career. But he also, according to my count, has missed an average of 14 games a season. That's one game in every six. .
Isn't that something you're supposed to think about on draft night? Hey, you want DWade? Go ahead. But understand that there is a risk you take by drafting him. Same with any number of other assorted prima donnas, dipshits and weenie men: Melo, Monta, JoeJohn, KevMart, Camby, Bynum, Kirilenko, etc.
Chris Paul and Deron Williams? Great players. But Paul has missed 10-plus games a year throughout his career. Williams: 12 games a season over the last four years. What about Steph Curry? Ticket's got him in his lineup; this guy could disappear at any time.
Listen, I'm not dead set against some kind of DNP relief - DNP's cost me at least one, possible two titles over the years - but by implementing a system that allows teams to plug in starter-type numbers for a DNP, we're essentially subsidizing guys who roll the dice on high-risk players
and punishing team owners who've done the hard work of finding guys who are dependable as well as high-performing.
Proposition: I don't think we should implement any system that creates the possibility that a team will get MORE points out of an substitute than it would have gotten from the player who DNP'd, which is what you do with the Six-plus-Sub plan.
I've got a proposal. I'll get it out a little later this afternoon.
Newbie Wingos weigh in to the incoherent frenzy about DNPs:
I think any change AFTER THE DRAFT is inherently unfair, as we all drafted according to the same rules, but a rule change will benefit some more than others. Teams should not be rewarded for having a deep lineup if a deep lineup was not a draft criteria. FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS! Minority rights should not be trampled on by the tyranny of the majority. Whatever the group decides is a reasonable solution can be pre-approved for next year. So sayeth the Wingos.
Invaders will play Gortat/Aldridge/T.Young/JoeJohn/Westbrook/Pau...I see the E and Wingos points on this I do think this should've been implemented before the season but I'm staying open-minded I'd like to see what everybody thinks and hear more arguments-but I think you all can see now that my play 7 is a way to bridge the gap between the 2 positions that are being most forcefully made-my proposal doesn't really reward people who didn't draft as well as far as durability issues as Eric suggested-I don't agree w/Wingos position on depth-everybody needs to draft for depth for the long haul-so again the issue is as much DNP's not deciding games as it is owners taking responsibility for the team they drafted and my play 7 just lessens the effect of the DNP w/out giving in on the consequences of taking and playing those players w/durability problems -so there would still be a price to pay for the using of the Curry's Wade's Bynums...etc...I like the idea of using more of your roster
Invaders feel duty bound to inform all that one team owner has submitted a lineup w/a player that is already an announced DNP-I see this as a personal responsibility issue for the team owner in this case as it's not a game-time issue
E Team says:
Mark, don't keep us in suspense. Who had the injured guy in his lineup?
Okay, so back to the DNP. Suppose we agree that nobody should be allowed to actually BENEFIT from a DNP, which could easily happen with a straight substitution and would undermine the value of putting dependable players on your roster.
What we need is DNP relief that gives a team a CHANCE to stay in a match. Here's the question: What would that be? Fifteen points? Ten points?
I propose that, in the event of a DNP, we take the lowest individual score from the remaining five players in the lineup and divide it by half. If your team has performed solidly and your worst remaining guy is at, say, 26, you get 13 points. It doesn't put you back on equal footing with your opponent, but frankly, why should it?
What it does do it give you a fighting chance. If your opponent's worst guy puts up a 20, the gap between his worst guy and yours is only seven points. If you don't suck, you make it up somewhere else in your lineup.
And if your next best guy besides the DNP puts up an 18 and you only salvage nine points, tough shit. You got a DNP and an 18. At what point do you recognize that you DESERVE to lose?
One of the advantages of this approach, apart from not rewarding guys like Wade who play when they feel like it, is that it doesn't add to the commissioner's workload. No seven-man lineup, no designated sub, just a guy whose score has already been tabulated and now gets divided by two (I suppose we would round up in the event of an uneven number).
Having said that, Mark has gone on record as liking the idea of testing a team's depth by using a designated seventh man. Hey, whatever. Remember, your first six guys are theoretically better players than your seventh, but if Mark is willing to do the extra work, fine. What I think is important is the 50% reduction on the substitute score.
As far as the rare but delightful Double DNP? I say you get relief on the first guy, but screw the rest of it. You suck. You lose.
And finally, I think Wingo has a legitimate point about implementing this after the season is underway, but hey, we are only in Match 4. We've only had one DNP. We award a handful of points to Mr. B for Match 3 - which he had no chance of winning, by the way - it won't really change much.
That's my two cents.
And yes, we should plan on doing our first supplemental this coming Sunday. I say we use the Match 4 standings, which will be complete by Thursday, unless all games in Match 5 are in by Sunday. Shall we go 5 PM for the benefit of you football people? Reverse order of standings. Two rounds. Five minute increments. Please confirm.
Happy Veteran's Day, you patriots.
Invaders think that 7 isn't that much extra work but what would be extra work is looking at rosters to find guys who aren't playing-I'm ok w/the idea that those w/DNP's shouldn't benefit from the situation but I think dividing the lowest scorer by half is an artificial way of scoring-it becomes like Kontrol is the 7th man situation-I believe that all points should be earned by a player actually designated as in the lineup by each owner
Invaders answer to Eric's DNP question-the Wingos played same lineup which included the suspended Cousins who threatened Spur announcer Sean Elliott-this is not a game time last second situation and there should be a difference between this type of DNP and the unexpected one if we truly want to be fair about this
E Team says:
Mark, are you talking about designating a seventh guy as insurance, only to be used in the event of a DNP, or going to seven-man lineups?
Eric-I favor 7 man lineups but everyone else who wants to change seemingly favors 6 men w/an alternate in case of DNP
I don't buy the leap in logic that some kind of DNP rule would have changed anybody's drafting. That makes no sense. Everyone in the NBA takes nights off and rolls an ankle-it's a high impact sport. It seems like fantasy sports should be more about compiling stats and less about threatening announcers.
Also, remember when the NBA rolled out the "new" game ball? A few weeks in they realized that the players couldn't handle it or shoot it as well, it slowed scoring and as a result, made the game less fun to watch. So, the NBA made it right. And get this- they didn't wait a year to do it, it happened during the season because it was good for the game.
I still don't see an argument here for keeping DNPs...my team sucks, I just want what's best for the game.
I would be in favor of the 7 man starting lineup. I only jumped on the other is because I thought P4's where in favor of it.
I hear Wingo's argument about implementing rules in season. The problem here is, nothing gets done in the off-season in this league. We can barely get a draft organized before the first game. In-season may be the only time we can get a rule change. I've been trying to get this on the docket for 5 years.
Sorry E, but your argument about drafting fragile players carries little weight as does HW's for drafting for depth.
E Team says:
Dave, my argument about drafting fragile players carries little weight with whom? You? Of course you're going to dismiss it, you've got Carmelo Anthony and Zach Randolph in your lineup. These guys are just as likely to be in jail next week as on the court. You more than anyone would benefit from having a fallback position on DNPs.
Ticket's alternate game idea (on the Match 4 Scores post) essentially gives a team two chances to everyone else's one. Do you get to go again if you put up a 5? And it does not tell us what happens if a guy has only one game in a match period.
And in case you guys haven't figured it out, expanding to a seven-man lineup only slightly reduces the damage done by a DNP, from about 16% of your total to 14%. In order for that principle to work, we'd have to expand to a 10-man lineup.
Dave, you're always ragging on the league and how problematic it is, but maybe other people aren't quite as averse to the DNP as you are. Yeah, it's a pain when it happens, but it does tend to affect all teams equally. Maybe our inaction on the issue is just an indication that people have decided to live with it.
I would still be down with a system that mitigates the affect of the DNP, but I can't get behind the idea that nobody should ever be adversely affected by it at all. Dude. It's a DNP. Your guy didn't show up. I don't hate the idea of having to pay a little bit of a price for that.
Yes E, I am always ragging on the league about change. Your right, maybe it isn't as important to some other people. Or as you said, "maybe our inaction on the issue is just an indication that people have decided to live with it".
Maybe our inaction is just a sign that some people just don't care as much as others. Maybe it's sign that some people are content going through life accepting things that they dislike. I'm not one of them. So, as always I will be the biggest bitch.
Now to address your math. Adding a 7th player does not stand to increase your score by 14.29%. That would only be the case with all numbers being equal. With your 7th number being a variable say anywhere from 0-50 it could easily account for as much as 30% of your score.
You can do the math any number of different ways, but they will come to the same conclusion, an improvement in the potential for a team with a DNP to come out with a W.
I hate getting DNP's and I hate going against DNP's.
Post a Comment