Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2016
(81)
-
▼
December
(19)
- Enter match 18 scores
- Enter match 18 lineup
- Enter match 17 scores
- Enter match 17 lineup
- Supplemental draft for Xmas?
- Enter match 16 Scores
- Enter match 16 lineups (Pacers early call)
- Enter match 15 scores
- Enter match 15 lineup
- Schedule for 8 teams
- Enter match 14 scores
- Enter match 14 lineups
- Enter match 13 scores
- Enter match 13 lineups
- Supplement your roster and present your roster
- Enter match 12 scores
- Enter match 12 lineups
- Enter match 11 scores
- Enter match 11 lineups
-
▼
December
(19)
5 comments:
Wingos need to pay attention, not start injured players:
1-LaVine
2-Booker
3-Butler
4-Porzingis
5-KAT
U-Embiid
Match 18
Lowry 57
Bradley DNP
LeBron 48
Carmelo 43
Gobert 34
Irving DNP
Vs Kontrol
I had 2 DNPs due to having single game match periods in this Match.
If the point of having a second chance for DNPS is to avoid DNPs, can we agree to vote for next year that if a DNP occurs while the player affected only has one game per the match period, then the player's score from the previous matches last game (like an early call) would count for that players score in the current match.
It doesn't make sense to me that the Second Chance for DNPs should only count for players that have multiple games per match period but doesn't count for players with only a single game in a match period.
In my case a single game miss for Bradley with a gastrointestinal issue (come on, it is the cold and flu season) and Lue sitting Irving for a "rest day" due to a cramp in his hamstring.
Neither of these players were started with a previous aliment going into the match period, so I don't see the reason why a team should be penalized just because of the player only having one game to count in a match period.
BTY, I had a 180.
E Team:
Sean, the fates can indeed be cruel, but I'm guessing your proposal is going to be a non-starter. The Second Chance Rule, which you know I opposed for a minute, has provided an imperfect but not entirely ineffective firewall against the dreaded DNP, as we knew it would. I must say, with some humility, I've actually come to like it.
What you're proposing presents some administrative challenges that I'm not sure anyone wants to take on. I don't necessarily think the rule is beyond reproach. We could review it at some point. But I'm not sure that what you are suggesting is the ideal repair. We could take it up, but guys are going to have to agree as to when and how. I personally don't feel any particular enthusiasm for the project right now and remember, we are at mid-season. There was another issue earlier that got dismissed for the very same reason, and we were only five matches into the year.
Just my dos centavos.
That's fine, like I said for next year is good, new rules in this league are always something that are going to need to be fine tuned as we have issues come up like a single game match period for a player. I don't see any "administrative challenge" as it would be something dealt with on a case by case bases, but have a solution in place, like counting the players last game of the previous matches period, as the second chance. The solution is only a suggestion to what I see as a glaring issue with the second chance DNP rule.
Post a Comment