Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2012
(114)
-
▼
December
(22)
- Enter Match 18 scores
- Fourth Supplemental Draft with Rosters & Subsequen...
- Enter Match 18 lineups
- Enter Match 17 scores
- Enter Match 17 lineups
- Enter Match 16 scores
- Enter Match 16 lineup
- 4th Supplemental Draft with rosters and changes
- Enter Match 15 scores
- Enter Match 15 lineups
- Early & Late Calls all in January
- Enter Match 14 scores
- Enter Match 14 lineups
- Supplemental draft 3
- Enter Match 13 scores
- Enter Match 13 lineups
- Enter Match 12 scores
- Enter Match 12 lineups
- Enter Match 11 scores
- Enter Match 11 lineups
- Enter Match 10 scores
- Enter Match 10 lineups
-
▼
December
(22)
29 comments:
Invaders note there are already 2 announced DNPs this match period-one of these guys has missed 3 games in a row now while the other had a good game his last match and was a "game time decision"....
Invaders 2 guard is Mo Williams Eric in case you didn't see the last post-he's a shooting guard and a point in ESPN but he's a point only in Yahoo which is strange....we decided to use ESPN a year ago when we went to multiple positions as you know
I find the theory that you some how need to be penalized for a DNP interesting.
Quite honestly, I don't understand it.
Whether it's "DNP's are part of the game" or "Deduct points" it doesn't make sense to me.
Shouldn't the goal be to go 6 on 6 and your team out performs the other?
Maybe it's "YES, he got a DNP" now I'm going to win.
It feels to me like, "hope the other teams players get hurt so my team has a better chance to win mentality. Which, in my opinion is very juvenile.
As I've state before. I hate DNP's when I get them and when I go against them. They are deflating either way. If you disagree with that then please speak up as we then just have fundamental differences and this won't be solved.
After getting a clearer explanation of some of the options, I am voting (if in fact this ever comes to a vote) for the Sean/Tom version which Mark has appeared to clarify and provide solutions to any schedule conflicts.
It seems to address the concern of not having represented all 5 positions and also poor team management.
E Team says:
Here we go with more name-calling. Now anybody who disagrees with Dave is, in addition to being weightless, archaic and ignorant, juvenile.
We’re a bunch of cowardly children hoping our opponents will come up lame so that we don’t have to win fair and square like real men.
That’s nice, Dave. Is this how you “simplify and clarify” things for the rest of us?
E Team says:
Mark, on the original rosters I sent out, I listed your Mo as a 1. I checked on ESPN, they list his as a 1. But I went and fished our draft night board out of the trunk of my car, and we penciled the guy in as a 1/2. I guess that means there was agreement on it then, so you're good to go.
And we're locked in a virtual dead heat, my friend, with my KLove and Rondo against your Westbrook and Mo.
You're schneid is on the line.
E Team says:
And Happy Birthday today to my old University of Texas sweetheart Becky Cavazos, whose father, Brigadier General Richard Cavazos was the first Latino four-star general in the US army.
And to my friend Ray Archer, whose dad, Lee, was one of the most decorated of the fabled Tuskegee Airmen. Nancy and I attended an event Lee sponsored at the Waldorf Astoria in New York where we rubbed elbows with Smokin' Joe Frazier and met the first American flyer ever to shoot down an enemy jet fighter (the Nazis had developed one toward the end of WWII).
Just thought I'd throw that out there.
E Team says:
Dave, there have now been nine proposals, ten if you include staying with the current system. Why don't you list them?
Come on Eric. Haven't we essentially eliminated 6 or 7 of those, not including staying with the same system.
Anything that has only garnered 1 vote doesn't need to be presented.
Wouldn't that seem to be a reasonable way of going about it.
Partial scores Eteam 124 w/Love and Rondo ready to play Invaders 121 awaiting Westbrook and Mo Williams who in my New York ESPN fantasy league(that Tom dubbed the doorman and supers league)is currently a 1/2...Tickets have 159 and await their Milsap while B's have 110 w/Rudy Gay and David West left to count...Swat 155+AJeff and that other Gasol Nitecaps 149 and still have Jennings/Zebo and Baby in their arsenal...Wingos have 131 with their man George Hill still ready Germans total 68 and have Durant/Ibaka and George still to come
Invaders just watched Red Tails for the first time on HBO last night with a house guest who's a WWII trivia expert from Kingston,Wa.(the Kitsap peninsula side of the Edmonds ferry)so it's interesting you bring up those Tuskegee airmen now Eric...I think I could possibly list all the proposals but I think I'll let you and Dave have the pleasure of discussing that a bit before I enter in... I will say that I think Dave's probably right that only 3 or 4 proposals have ever had more than one person supporting them..
Invaders now provide a recap of what appear to be the 4 most popular proposals-as you recall we had a tie vote 3/3 for 2 ideas 1) play 7 guys and count them all which I presented and 2)play 6 and get ten percent of your team total when there's a DNP which Eric endorsed... during the vote the Germans proposed 3)6 w/alternate who only gets 50% of his total when there's a DNP which Eric suggested he liked better.Germans then amended that proposal recently to a 10 point penalty for the alternate-since they're very similar I'll call both proposal number 3..Then Swat proposed 4)2nd chance scoring for a DNP(same guy not an alternate) looking backward one match for scoring-I proposed the same thing but with a forward search one game for the score totals which Tom had originally proposed-I then put the 2 ideas together after members voiced concerns over fairness of random scheduling each match period so now I suggest we first look forward to one game in the match period for a DNP score and if there's no game in that match period then I'd look back to the last game in the prior match period for a score-these are the 4 ideas that seem to have the most support
Invaders wish to illustrate how the snd chance proposal I'm endorsing would work this match period-at this point we have 2 DNPers under our present rules Harden and Tyreke-Sacramento and Houston both play tonight if Harden goes in that game he would get the fpts he scored tonight instead of the DNP goose egg and if he doesn't the Germans would get his total from his last game last weekend (he had 39 real points I remember)a total that wasn't used last match period-similarly if Tyreke were to go tonight he's to get those fpts but if he can't then B's would get a zero because Evans hasn't played for 3 games
The inquiring Wingos are interested in finding out what all the deleted and removed postings were about. Li'l Hawthorne feels left out...
To partially answer Hawthorne's inquiry Invaders attempted to list all the proposals in that 12:28 am post last night but having come from a birthday party I was not thinking clearly so I waited until this morning to post again-for example I wrote at one point "search prior match player sores" instead of scores-there were some equally ridiculous typos and grammar issues so I canned it-the other deleted posts were not mine
Final despite Harden DNP Germans still come up with the "W" defeating the Wingos 170-160 P4(Harden-DNP...Gerpge-37...Ibaka-16...Bosh-27...Durant-49...Holiday-41)HW(GHill-29...Cousins-33...Horford-34...Galinari-14...Klay-19)
Ticket says
Since the dicktator’s against second chances in the same match period being counted in lieu of a DNP, Ticket will support his superior parental power over this league’s developments despite Ticket’s own proposal that second chances in the same match period be counted in lieu of a DNP. That’s only because it benefits Ticket in the standings. If Evans counted for Mr. B, Ticket would be attending Andrew Dice Clay at the Riviera instead of watching The Sapper tally 11 in the second half of Spurs game on ESPN.
Milsap 27 @ half time
Curry 42
Josh Smith 32
DeRozan 25
Noah 30
Paul 30
2/2 Milsap +Ticket 176-186 Mr. B
Mr.B(altimore)’s Gay 39
Wade 33
West 37
Griffin 36
Lee 41
Evans DNP…26 2nd game in match period
E Team says:
Oh, hey, perfect. Fantasy manager learns that his James Harden is a game-time decision but knows that the guy is sitting on a 57 from the previous match period, which will count if the guy doesn't play.
Why the hell wouldn't he just leave him in the lineup?
And now the guy who sponsored the idea doesn't even support it.
Good stuff.
Final ETeam beats the Invaders 191-163 E(Rondo-44...Kemba-33...Howard-42...Love-23...Duncan-29...Deng-20)Invaders(LaMarcus-46...Thaddeus-30...Parsons-32...Westbrook-27...MWill-15...Lowry-13)
Final in a very exciting game Nitecaps 217 Swat 214 Caps(Jennings-27...Kobe-51...Melo-53...Zebo-28...Baby-22...Turner-36)Swat(Parker-51...Igy-24...LBJ-42...AJeff-32...Gasol-27...VJao-38)
Final Tickets of Brooklyn defeat the B's of Belvedere 202-186 T(Noah-30...Milsap-43...Josh-32...Derozan-25...Curry-42...Paul-30)B(Tyreke-DNP...Wade-33...Gay-39...DWest-37...Lee-41...Griff-36)Dave is high point man again w/217
Eric that situation w/Harden is exactly why originally Invaders wanted forward scoring only but you and Dave among others were concerned about fairness in scheduling hence I added looking back only if needed but it wasn't needed tonight-but that could only happen once if the player is really hurt and can't play for a few games...and I must comment that Tom is shocking me that he doesn't like his own idea-if that's the case we may have a 4/4 split
And Eric Invaders did go back and look at the rosters you sent and there were 2 errors which I believe I pointed out just prior to the first supplemental if not before-if you remember Tom was complaining about positions of his opponents but they were all correct except for 2 1)Mo was a 1/2 instead of just a point and 2)Marion who was listed 4/5 but was actually a 3/4-all others I think were correct-Williams played enough 2 guard w/the Clippers that he qualifies for this season-next year he probably would only be a point
E Team says:
A 4/4 split? Between what and what?
And here's some more sample sizes for you fellas to try on. Under the 10% Solution, which probably offers the most modest DNP mitigation of all the plans put forward, Mr's B's five-man performance would have given him a win against Ticket tonight.
His reward for having the very dicey Tyreke in his lineup, inadvertently or otherwise, would have been a defeat for Tom, who put six healthy guys on the floor and notched a 202.
Perhaps we should ask Ticket how he would have felt about such an outcome. And how he would have feel if, say, it were later in the season and a playoff spot were on the line.
And please try to refrain from the from-the-hip character assassinations and really think about this.
E Team says:
Oh, and on a night where another team won a match despite a DNP, there something else I forget to mention.
Had Mr. B subbed Ramon Sessions for the ailing Evans, who's played in about two of his team's last six games, he would have won this match.
Ticket says
I was being facetious, so Invaders should not be shocked I went back on my proposal about the DNP's numbers counting if he plays in the same match period.
As for chess, Spasky E-Team makes a check mate move against hind sight stats being used: Evans blow up number in the most recent game played before a DNP for Mr. B's.
Forward to next match period's first appearance by a DNP would be Koeppel-setic, but then what if the DNP's numbers from the next match period also counted for that match period? No? Then what if the that next match period did not include another appearance by the player who suffered a DNP in the previous match. I'm on my fourth rum & coke after selling a 100 rodeo tix in a day so I apologize if my point is foggy. Give Mr. B a win if this settles the issue once and for all about a DNP's numbers counting if he appears in the same match period. I like his better squad. I don't like the outside match period resolution Invaders or Swat suggested.
Post a Comment