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)
23 comments:
The Wingos were screwed by the veterans - Capt. Obvious (Wingo's interim manager) was not at work due to govt. holiday and did not see info on Cousins until reading the paper in the barbershop of life, unable to make it home before tip-off to fix. With that said, the Wingos are like Mr. B, our team sucks, so no complaints here - we couldn't beat Smilin' Dave if we had 7 and he had 6...
Tickey (burden the ABA bank robber) says
Pau & Joe J + Invaders 133-116 Ticket (robs self of 53 by benching DeRozn) + Paul, Curry, Brow (the sub with 43 last week).
Regarding DNP, if guy comes back to play in match period his score should count instead of 0.
Interesting Tom. Makes a little sense.
How about weighing in on the proposals on the board instead of further mucking up the topic though.
Invaders still like either 7 man or 6 man with alternate-the former only dilutes the problem while maintaining a penalty when your guy doesn't play the latter eliminates the problem(unless there are 2 or more DNPs)As Eric points out my 7 man solution only reduces the DNP potential a bit but those percentages he cites aren't the whole story-for example if your team has a DNP there's always the possibility of that extra 7th guy for your team scoring substantially more than the opponent's 7th guy possibly making up for the goose egg-that isn't factored into Eric's analysis of playing 7..But I do think like Eric that we should live w/DNPs so let's just increase the lineups to lessen the possible effect
Partial scores-ETeam continues to impress w/210 vs. Mr.B who has 74 w/half his guys yet to play...Invaders are in aty 187 Tom's Tickets have 116 w/3 yet to go as he already stated
more partials-the most exciting match this week so far is P4 213 Swat 181 awaiting his Gashole brother...Nitecaps 169 w/out Zebo Wingos 113 w/Klay Thompson(who I saw in the AT&T store in Oakland today while paying my bill)still to play
Hey Mark, I have me down for
183 + Club Zach
(1) B. Jennings 52
(2) Kobe 41
(3) Carmelo 36
(4) Z. Randolph
(5) G. Davis 20
(6) G. Dragic 34 183
Where did I go wrong?
Dave my bad-Invaders counted both Big Baby and Dragic as 20(bad penmanship made it look like I filled both as 20's on my score sheets) your numbers are correct 183+Zach
Invaders see that Dave buttressed my argument that the 7th man has the potential to help the DNP problem beyond what Eric suggested-I have more tolerance for DNPs than Dave and others do but if that's what most people in the league believe then I'm open to doing something about it-I think my idea bridges the gap between Eric's half the lowest score scenario and the use of an alternate 7th player to completely eliminate the risks of one DNP-Eric's philosophy is essentially"moral hazard" which was used in the debt crisis(i.e business' that don't make it die)Dave and the Germans are akin to Keynes' new deal pump priming to make everyone on equal footing-I guess that makes me a politician trying to cut a deal before we go over the "fiscal cliff"
E Team says:
Mark: In any given match, one team's guy is either worse, equal or better than another's, whether it's the first guy, fourth guy or seventh guy. Having a seven-man lineup only slightly mitigates the effect of a DNP and therefore does not address Dave's complaint.
Designating a substitute isn't really that much of a test of a team's depth, because all of us have a guy or two on the bench that could capably move into the starting lineup.
But more importantly - in my mind - the sub has the potential, if not the likelihood, of providing an even better number than the player who DNPs. (Remember, you could have some mediocrity in your lineup due to injuries or poor drafting, and a better guy on the bench stuck behind other players at his position.) Now you reward the team whose guy couldn't stay on the court.
Guys, I'm not saying that a DNP is always the result of negligence by the team owner, but the team that gets hurt by it is not supposed to be team whose guys all showed up.
And did anybody consider this? Wingo gets a DNP for missing the Cousins suspension, but Mark argues negligence and suggests that no relief is due. Hold on. Who gets to draw that line?
My opponent in a given match might spot an injury report at noon on deadline day, but what if I'm busy, oh, say... working? I argue that it's a straight-up DNP. My opponent says I should have known. What's the cutoff point for reasonable expectation of knowledge. (I would have put that in quotes, like I was referencing some well-know legal precedent, but I invented it just now.) Who sorts that out? That, my friends, sounds like a nest of vipers to me.
DNP mitigation, people. A handful of points derived from some logical source that gives a team an outside chance at surviving a DNP. I think that should be the goal.
Eric-of course it only mitigates it slightly if all players are given equal value but they aren't equal particularly on any given night(I stole that from football's "on any given Sunday" of course)your point concerning not having someone benefit from a DNP is a hard one to evaluate.. obviously they'd benefit from a zero under the German plan for an alternate but how does one determine that the new player does "better" than what would've happened had the DNP played?it's impossible to determine that so I don't see an issue of rewarding a team owner for a DNP particularly w/my 7 man idea retaining the danger of DNPs-On the Wingo point w/Cousins there's a very obvious delineation between "game time decision" and a guy already suspended by Saturday for 2 games-a player who already missed Sunday and was appealing for a one game suspension that had no chance of happening to play Tuesday- Hawthorne had all day Sunday and Monday until 4pm to read this somewhere-no one has to be the one to decide on what type of DNP this is it's very clear but if people want to vote to excuse all DNPs regardless of rationale that's fine I was only pointing out the difference in this case because it occured when we were all debating DNP relief-let's just say the timing was bad for Mr. Wingo
Final-in the highest scoring game of the season the Germans hold on for a 213-207 victory over the Swat team P4(Harden-32..Irving-49..Durant-42..Bosh-38..Ibaka-24..George-28)Swat(MGasol-26..Iggy-31..Lawson-19..Lebron-54..AJeff-47..Parker-30)
Invaders forgot to mention that I agree it really doesn't solve the DNP problem and address Dave's complaint I just made my play 7 proposal as a compromise because I see benefits in using more of each team's roster beyond just mitigating DNPs-as Eric said we've all got somebody capable of starting who doesn't for a variety of reasons...I've always wanted to have this more like a normal rotation which is 7 or 8 guys so there clearly would be no elimination of DNPs in using my 7 player lineup just the chance to utilize more of your roster to have the possibility of the extra guy scoring enough to compensate
E Team says:
Mark, apart from not really addressing the DNP "problem," the seven-man lineup presents another issue for me, although others might dismiss it.
We've played 16 seasons with a six-man lineup. Every statistical standard - what constitutes a high-scoring game, team scoring average, etc. - kind of goes out the window. Reaching 200 points for a match becomes meaningless.
Does that feel weird to anyone besides me? And for a "solution" that doesn't really solve anything?
E Team says:
Hey, wait a minute. How about this?
You get a DNP, you replace it with 10% of the score put up by your remaining five guys. You go strong and put up 180, you get 18 fp's and you're in the match. The DNP doesn't automatically kill you if the rest of your guys pick up the slack.
On the other hand, if your remaining five puts up a 125, you get 13 fp's and, in all probability, lose the match. But why shouldn't you lose the match? You didn't lose because of the DNP. You lose because you suck.
No extra work for anybody. No tectonic shift in scoring parameters. No having to live with losing a match because some shithead playing against you didn't show up but a guy off the bench puts up a 40.
What about that?
Final Nitecaps roll again destroying the Wingos 217-125 Caps(same as reported by Dave add 34 for Zebo)HW(DWill-39..GHill-28..Galinari-17..Horford-29..Cousins-DNP..Klay-12)
Final in a heartbreaker for my Invaders the NY Tickets defeat Oakland 188-187 in the closest match of the new season NYT(Noah-32..Milsap-49..Josh-35..Curry-23..Paul-31..ADavis-18)Invaders(Gortat-18..LaMarcus-30..Thaddeus-24..JoeJohn-38..Westbrook-50..Pau-27)
Final it's Eteam over the Belvederes by a score of 210-188 E(Howard-33..Monta-33..Rondo-44..Pierce-24..Duncan-35..Deng-41)B(Lin-20..Wade-33..Gay-39..Griff-42..Lee-33..DWest-21)Nitecaps have highest match total at 217
Invaders understand the nostalgia for the 6 man lineup that all the 16 year vets may have but the extra man either w/alternate or w/out would be my preference-Eric the use of the 10% reminds me of using Kontrol-it's not about extra work for me I'd just rather see a solution involving the scoring from every NBA player based on what they actually did in real competition-for me the best fantasy experiences(limiting this to sports that is)replicate the season in progress-that's why I kept stats so meticulously as a kid..because I could feel like I was actually part day to day operations of a sports franchise-perhaps us grown up fantasy participants shouldn't care about that anymore but I only want real stats not formulas to pretend someone played who did not
Eric, I don't understand why you continue to push the "extra work" theme, when Mark has been one of the people making the suggestions.
I completely agree with E on the "alternate" sub.
I am in favor of adding a 7th starter.
154 or 162 games?
14, 16 or 18 games?
Evolution of the game.
Do P4's or Ticket have an opinion? What about SB?
P4 stands by its original idea of putting in our regular 1-6 starters and listing a 7th man for DNP only.
Post a Comment