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)
19 comments:
P4-Caps...Ticket-Eteam...Invaders Mr.B...Wingos-Swat
2012-2013 PDXFBBL Standings
W L T PCT. GB Last Avg MHS
Nitecaps 5 0 0 1.000 _ W5 203.6 3
Plus Four 4 1 0 .800 1 W3 190.2 0
E Team 4 1 0 .800 1 W4 189.0 2
Swat Team 2 3 0 .400 3 L2 171.0 0
Ticket 2 3 0 .400 3 L2 166.7 0
Invaders 1 4 0 .200 4 L4 170.8 0
Mr.Belvedere 1 4 0 .200 4 W1 158.9 0
Wingos 1 4 0 .200 4 L3 153.0 0
E Team says:
Full standings have been emailed. The version here is abbreviated.
Ryan, what was that email address you wanted me to use again. I seem to have trouble keeping it around.
E Team for Match 6:
DHow, Monta, Rondo, Pierce, Duncan, Deng
E Team says:
An early showdown between the fast-starting Nitecaps, who have yet to lose, and the defending champion P4s, their nearest pursuer.
Delicious.
Ticket says
Paul
Curry
Josh Smith
Milsap
Monroe
Noah
Heard on a classical station that my father plays that puts me to sleep: instrumentals deleted, just the harmonies to "All you need is Love." Paul bearer laughs.
ryanblasquez@hotmail.com
The streaking B's will start:
1-Lin
2-Wade
3-Gay
4-Griff
5-Lee
Util-Asik
'Caps vs. P4'2
(1) B. Jennings
(2) Kobe
(3) Carmelo
(4) Z. Randolph
(5) G. Davis
(6) G. Dragic
Note to P4's and Swats
Vote on DNP
add a 7th starter
or
take 10% of total score and add to final.
Invaders note that the Belvederes have voted for the 7 man team-so the vote is tied 3/3 it's now up to Sean and the Germans-Mr.B vote was seen on supp post
The hapless Wingos go Match 6 with:
1-DWill
2-KMart
3-AK47
4-Whoreford
5-RunDMC
U-Shved
Wingos going off grid until 11/27; have deputized notorious henchman Smilin' Dave Williams to make any roster moves on behalf of the Wingos that become necessary or desirable during this time.
Invaders try to break the 4 game losing streak w/Gortat/Lamarcus/JoeJohn/Westbrook/MoWill and Marc Gasol's older brother
E Team says:
Did everyone see the German email advocating for a seventh man, but only in the event of a DNP, and even then having his output cut in half?
Talk about throwing a wrench in the works. But here's the thing: I think it makes sense.
A) It's a vast improvement on the seven-man lineup, which fails the very first test of possible solutions - IT DOESN'T FIX THE PROBLEM.
B) It doesn't punish full-strength teams by essentially giving opponents with a DNP two chances at a starter-type number, which is what the six-plus-one does.
C) And it grants Mark's wish of testing a team's depth, and reflects an actually statistical output, albeit divided by half.
And here's another thing that occurred to me, and this calls all of our proposed fixes into question: What if someone gets a DNP that truly is a result of owner negligence? Does that team get relief automatically? Now we're bailing out teams that don't deserve the help. When is there a consequence for not managing a team?
Until we answer these questions, I think we need to go back into session. And I think the New German Solution - okay, I admit it sounds a little scary - should get consideration. It might get my vote.
German proposal and Eric's response are interesting....it's the original proposal that was rejected as unworkable because of position swapping to a team's strong points but w/the alternate total cut in half..I tend to think there should be DNP's and owners should suffer consequences my 7 man proposal admittedly doesn't solve the problem just dilutes the net effect a bit while utilizing an extra player-and I'm glad to see Eric's agreement w/me that there are different type of DNPs-My opponent for example this match Ryans' B's continue to put Wade in the lineup for a 3rd straight game knowing he is questionable-frankly I wouldn't have played him the last 2 games since experiencing the first DNP just out of caution-so maybe I'm being even harder than Eric in my position that there should be consequences for fielding at risk players-these guys who are missing games w/the flu lately would seem to be legit no fault DNPs but anyone who's been out w/an injury should be benched until he proves he's healthy-I still favor the straight 7 rather than the gimmick math approach but will gladly acquiesce to whatever the collective will of the group turns out to be so we can put the issue behind us
I too am in favor of the 7 man team.
But I would support anything that would be an improvement over the current system.
True, there are different types of DNP's. Stacy would be the best example of neglect, but sometimes real life gets in the way, of course that would never happen to me. My point is that we can't put anyone in charge of determining what is and isn't legit.
While P4's gimmick does make some sense, what it really does is give Eric something else to stumble over for a while prolonging a decision on this. Why don't we ponder 8 different ideas and discuss the validity of each on the blog for the next 3 months.
E this is a great opportunity to concur your fear of change.
Here's my proposal...we won't write it in stone and if it doesn't work nobody dies.
E Team says:
Dave, Mark: You guys call the Germans' idea a gimmick and accuse me of dragging my feet, but you continue to support a plan that will not significantly improve a team's chances of winning if it gets a DNP, which is what I thought this whole discussion was about.
I don't think anybody is stumbling over anything. If people aren't rushing to the Seven-Man Solution, maybe it's because they don't like it. I think we're seeing a measured, thoughtful response from a bunch of guys who've been at this thing for a long time.
And far from being ridiculed, I think the Germans should be applauded for coming up with the best proposal yet. I don't know why I didn't think of it myself.
Look, the way we do our league, players active in any given match average 30-33 fp's a game. (Team averages tend to range between 180 and 200.) Your designated sub, divided in half, will give you 15 to 17 points. It's a low score, but it keeps you in a match.
You go seven-on-seven, you lose a guy, you lose 30 points, your opponent doesn't. The remaining six guys on both sides go head-to-head, no more or less likely to make up the difference than ever, except by a factor of about two percent.
Do the math. You still have a very high likelihood of losing the match.
Now you tell me, which of the above scenarios better addresses the issue of DNPs costing guys games?
Dave, I don't mind jumping off a cliff, I just want to find the deepest part of the lake first.
Eric-Invaders aren't as worried about whether you favor change or not that's something between you and Dave over the years before I became part of your league-but anything that isn't the actual score a player got in an NBA game is a "gimmick" just as Kontrol was (albeit one that was needed as it facilitated the league schedule w/an odd number of teams)-I just don't like the idea of someone playing "ONLY" if some other guy does not-I still favor only real stats- I'm open minded about any solution since my position is not going to solve DNPs...which to be blunt shouldn't be cured at all in my opinion because as much as half the time I'd bet it's due to taking chances w/players that already have been injured-those of us who play in other fantasy leagues (everyone except Eric and Tom I think) have access through their fantasy sites to player injuries updated regularly...but everyone seems to want to cure the DNP despite this -I like playing more guys each match and regardless of the apparent math presented I'd bet the "on any given night" scenario within a limited parameter like our remaining 35 games should result in about as many games saved for the DNP plagued team owner as the pct. solutions being offered-any luck of a team winning despite a DNP should be because his other guys actually scored enough to compensate for the zero-I think we're too hung up on "eradicating" DNP's which is the idea behind these pct. solutions-they address the idea of getting some points for the goose egg but compromise the sanctity of real NBA stats(Seymour Siwoff of the Elias sports bureau was my idol when I was younger the keeper of the sacred numbers) let's just modify the game we have and retain all real stats for scoring
E Team says:
Mark, I wonder if there's another human being alive who grew up idolizing Seymour Siwoff. I salute you, my friend.
Ah, you admit that the seven-man lineup is not really an effective response to the DNP problem. That means it's little more than a random rule change we would implement during the course of a season, one in which participants came in thinking we'd play with traditional six-man lineups.
How can we do that?
Here's another thought. Maybe we should only enact some sort of DNP mitigation for the playoffs, since that's where they really matter. We know for a fact that at least two of our championships over the years have been decided by DNPs, possibly more.
Just a thought.
Wow, I'm on the road and this whole circus goes haywire.
What is the 15th man thing, I just attempted to read through the last three match stuff, as best as I could get before my my eyes glazed over and I found myself watching the story of David Geffen on PBS (that's two hours I will never get back), and I can't find anything as to why we are adding a 15th player, is this part of the consideration of the 7 player DNP option??? I thought the voting wasn't decided on this issue?
Do we have the supplimental results compiled somewhere?
How many different proposals are on the "docket" for DNP resolution???
I actually like the DNP player getting their score from their "early call" results, since that has screwed with my world in league history. I think this takes away the chance for a team head to put a questionable player in their lineup and get bailed out by thier "ALT" pick or their deeeper 7 man lineup.
Then that team would still be expected to to make a change for the next match period to switch out their DNP if it turns out to be a long term injury, but don't get penalized for the Cousins dumbass play or a classic repeat of the World Peas/SJax/Jermaine Malice in the Palace.
Not a fan of the 10% idea as I agree with Mark that this goes back to the Kontrol element that I am gald to see not rearing it's ugly head this year.
E Team says:
Sean, good to see you back among the living, although I'm not sure if your thoughts on the DNP issue are going to help us at all.
We took 14 on draft night and each team needed to add one at the first supplemental, just like last year. Go to the Supplemental Draft post to see what players were taken. I don't know what our position is on whether you've passed the deadline to grab somebody. I say go ahead.
Sorry about your Ducks. They kind of kicked that whole thing away. (Or didn't kick when they should have.)
Post a Comment