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)
18 comments:
P4-Ticket...Invaders-Wingos...Mr.B-Swat...Nitecaps-Eteam
Biggest game of the season 1st place Nitecaps vs. 2nd place Eteam
2012-2013 PDXFBBL Standings
W L T PCT. GB Last Avg MHS
Nitecaps 7 0 0 1.000 _ W7 200.0 4
E Team 6 1 0 .857 1 W6 193.1 3
Plus Four 4 3 0 .571 3 L2 185.4 0
Swat Team 4 3 0 .571 3 W2 175.1 0
Mr.Belvedere 3 4 0 .429 4 W3 165.9 0
Ticket 2 5 0 .286 5 L4 163.6 0
Invaders 1 6 0 .167 6 L6 169.7 0
Wingos 1 6 0 .167 6 L5 148.3 0
Ticket
Noah
Monroe
Josh Smith-4
DeRozan-3
Curry
Paul
Ticket awaits approval of $900 a month studio in a 6 story brownstone with a view on street with front lawn a quarter mile from Prospect Park.Demolition job income $450 in past nine days. Vegas Biz Trip Tue. 12/4. Lots 2 be thankful 4. Dad feasted on T-day @ Penn Club. Wish you guys well as my squad appears in your rear view mirror.
E Teams says:
After coughing up a 159 in a season-opening loss to the X-Man, the E Team has outscored the undefeated Nitecaps and matched them for win for win for six straight matches.
Let's see about a rematch.
I don't feel very good about old Tim Duncan's potential for minutes against the winless Wizards, not one day after double overtime in Toronto.
DHow, KLove, Monta, Rondo, Pierce, Deng
Invaders will feature Gortat/Aldridge(pending condition of his back so I may change to Pau)Parsons/Westbrook/JoeJohn and Lowry-since I brought up the DNP possibility for Lamarcus what are we doing now about the vote?-I'm taking Sean's and P4 comments as suggesting they didn't vote for either proposal?Sean said he agreed w/me as to being anti-Kontrol but I didn't see any indication he was voting for 7-if Eric wants to re-package his idea to conform w/P4's we could try to vote again
Good point Mark.
Erik are you going to "repackage" your proposal? What we don't need are multiple choices. Pick your candidate and put him on the table.
Pending B. Jennings ankle
Caps go
(1) G. Dragic
(2) Kobe
(3) Carmelo
(4) Z. Randolph
(5) G. Davis
(6) E. Turner
B's:
1-Sessions
2-Wade
3-Gay
4-Griff
5-Lee
6-Asik
Swat, concerned with an day-to-day Al Jeff sprained ankle last night against Sac-to, will go for Match 8 with:
Parker, Iguodala, LeJames, MCGasol, Batum, and Anderson Varejao
I still think that the most equitable would be to take the early call number from the DNP'ed player (as long as it is the first DNP for that player), if the manager is not paying attention and a second DNP results then they get no points, with so many of these being day-to-day injuries or sickness or bout of venereal disease or whatever, it still gives the manager a chance to change out the DNP'ed player for the next round or give then enough time to heal for next round. It takes out of the equation league discretion as to whether or not someone "meant" to have a DNP player in their lineup when a same day DNP occurs. Not in favor of either the 7-man team option, the 6-man with alternate player option, or the 10% option, these three options appear to be wrought with major issues when compared to the early call option.
Invaders thank Sean for clarifying his position on the matter It makes it clear to me that there's a very easy solution-The only way I can see doing anything along the lines of what Sean is suggesting is we keep it at 6 and if a player DNPs his first game but plays the next game as long as it's within the same match period he'd still get credit for the 2nd game points-that way there are still consequences for playing an injured player but if it was truly a game time decision there would be a good chance of getting some points out of that player the next game-most guys play twice each match period but if your DNP doesn't there are no points-it's luck of the draw schedule wise--this satisfies my desire to not have any gimmick stats only points earned in real NBA games-I'm vehemently opposed to any formula where you can sub an extra guy after the lock time for lineups-so here's another idea to consider that's very simple for everyone-it avoids the problems people have cited w/the other proposals-WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK??
E Team says:
Dave, why are you forever holding me responsible for anything that doesn't go your way? I proposed a couple of solutions to your DNP concerns, then the Germans came along with something I thought was better, so I said as much.
We've now got a minimum of four different proposals that have at least one supporter, yet you tell us we don't need multiple choices. What is this, North Korea?
I happen to think that your Seven-Man Lineup is the worst possible solution on the table, and that includes leaving things the way they are. But the bigger problem for you, Dave, is that every other team owner besides Mark seems to agree. That's not my doing, unless you think I have some Svengali-like influence over them, which I'm sure I don't.
And for what it's worth, I ran the P4s' recent DNP-aided loss to the Nitecaps through all of our proposed scenarios and the thing that stuck with me, besides how inconclusive the whole exercise was, was that the Germans, with a modest output from two players that underperformed badly, could easily have won that match, which would have put the record of DNP victims at 2-2 for the year.
There are so many other variables in play, it's really not as if a DNP automatically costs you a match. Think about it. You lose 30 points, you have to outscore the remaining five guys by six points a man. That's hardly an impossibility, as we've seen.
But hey, I'm getting kind of tired of talking about this, and if we're spinning our wheels, maybe it's because most of us would rather get it right than just get it done.
Like I said before, maybe we should come up with a plan that goes into effect for the playoffs, when it really matters. That way we can take our time and come up with a solution that everybody can agree on.
Essentially the only difference between my (Invaders) proposal and Sean's is we look forward to the next game to try to get points from the player who DNP'd rather than backward to an earlier game-I prefer this because looking backward tends to bail out the negligent owner(who likely based his lineup decision on a favorable last game output) I feel it's better to make the owner/manager take the chance that the slightly injured DNPer can perform the next game within the match period-I'm against alternates who only play in event of injury like the German idea-that was why I countered w/the straight 7 man lineup-but maybe the straight 6 with 2 chances for the DNPer is the way to go-I apologize to Dave for throwing yet another plan out there but I see we are deadlocked and I can't help but be attracted to the ultimate simplicity w/this minor modification of Sean's proposal
Eric-forgetting the world wide diplomatic issues at stake w/Dave and yourself for a moment there were 3 votes for Invader 7 man idea so that's 37.5% of the league-the vote was 3/3 w/2 abstentions that proposed new ideas- clearly we're deadlocked so I decided to endorse the minor modification of what Sean suggested to avoid all 7 man ideas(alternate or not)and negate the need for any pct. formulas with stats like you and P4 proposed-The best way to avoid the "tiring" process here I'd say is to come to some solution sooner rather than later(remember I wasn't really in favor of DNP relief in the first place but I now want a resolution so everyone can move on)-I don't think any rule change should only apply to the playoffs
E Team says:
Mark, I appreciate your thoughtful analysis, but I'm not sure I agree with your speedy resolution principle. I'm not a big fan of "let's just throw some shit at the wall and see what happens."
The fact that we're deadlocked suggests to me that, as a group, we're just not seeing a proposal that we like all that much.
Your determination not to replace the DNP with anything but a full starter-type number, thus removing any negative consequence for the team who's guys don't all show up, is clearly a sticking point with several league members.
Once again, I say the goal is mitigation, not forgiveness. I think there's a huge difference.
You want a real stat? Take the lowest individual score from among the guys who actually played on the roster of the DNP victim. Hey, you said you wanted to test teams' depth and that you wouldn't mind a little extra work. There you go. A real, actual stat from a real player.
Post a Comment