Monday, October 30, 2017

Mitigation Trial (commish & scorekeeper offset DNPs by legalization of controlled substances)

21 comments:

E Team said...


E Team:

Here we go. Supposing a Blake Griffin DNP in this match - he went tonight - let me understand what my options would be under the proposed 7 Man Plan.

I have four backups at power:

- Aldridge was my 6, he's obviously out.

- Aaron Gordon went tonight, he's out?

- Olynyk went tonight, he's out?

- Thadd Young is yet to play, he's my only option, right?

- And right now I could choose between Thadd and a second chance on Griffin (who does go again), right? And if Griffin didn't have another match in the period, I would have to take Thadd? And if he DNPs, I'm out of luck, right? Or do I get a second chance on another of my backups, including Thadd, if they have a second game in the period?

Need clarification.

E Team said...


E Team:

Remember, under the 11th Man Plan, I had designated Justin Holiday. So I'd be making a choice right now whether to go on Holiday or wait for Griffin's second chance? Or be forced to take whatever Holiday gives me in another variation.

And under Mark's All-Roster Plan, I'd have a 27 from Gordon and be deciding whether to take that or await Griffin's second chance. Or maybe be forced to take Gordon's number no matter what it was, with no second chance on Griffin?

Hmm. I trust you guys are seeing how much additional administration this entails. Is this Dave's hunger for more action coming into play? And if I stick with the Griffin second chance and he doesn't play, do I still have cause to rail against the evils of the DNP?

Swat said...

So, I am trying to understand the proposed DNP mitigation.

Basically, if we feel that we are going to have a DNP at a certain position we put a 7th player in place to fill that position OR we just put a 7th player in and their score counts for that Match.

And they have to be a 10th round pick or mo

Unknown said...

I'm guessing option one was my suggestion?
If so, If Gordon or Olynyk have another game in this match period they would still be viable options. So no, I don't see anymore administrative issues. I think you are attempting to make this more complicated than it is.

It would be handled as follows

I see Griffin gave me a DNP tonight (Monday) I would like to sub in Gordon who's next game is Tuesday. The end.

If you don't see that he got a DNP or choose not to sub, then current rules apply.

I'm not to sure about the pre named sub before 10th or after as you could conceivably use that to an advantage. Albeit less likely with post 10th rounder.



Unknown said...

To answer Sean...you name a 7th player and in the event you get a DNP you use that players score, regardless of position.

Unknown said...

I also don't think my plan is the 7th man plan, I think Both the "E-plan (sub player after 10th round)" and "M-plan" (sub any player) are Sub 7th plans.

"7 man plan" is to have 7 starters

Mine beyond making the most sense is sub "position for position".

mrkmosier@gmail.com said...

Wow, OK this interesting so I don't think under either plan you should get to pick the higher number if the original guy is a DNP but plays on his 2nd chance. My feeling is if you have the dnp and the designated guy goes that is your number.If there is a day or more like on a Thursday until the designated replacement goes and the dnp has his 2nd chance and plays what then? I'd say the owner has to decide before that if he wants the 2nd chance or the alternate.As for 2nd chance on a 2nd DNP that would obviously still apply.The position for position angle as I said earlier is rendered moot if you consistently put the player you suspect is a game time decision as your 6th guy.

mrkmosier@gmail.com said...

So Eric if LaMarcus is your 6 you wouldn't need a 4 to replace him right? For the test we assume he's a 4 so we can make the comparision But why restrict a player placed in the 6 spot who can be any position?That would be position restriction inconsistent with the wild card nature of the 6th man. hasn't played yet but the EPLan guy Rubio had 32 while the MPlan guy Russell had 33....

mrkmosier@gmail.com said...

I forgot to mention that my Beal that Eric designated hasn't yet played..

Unknown said...

Mark. I don't think under any of these scenarios is anyone suggesting that you would have a chance to choose between two scores.

The position for position angle as I said earlier is rendered moot if you consistently put the player you suspect is a game time decision as your 6th guy.

I don't really see how that applies. What percentage of the time do you know which guy is going to give you a DNP? Sure, there may be a few times when your questioning a players health but for me it typically comes as a complete surprise.

I'm going to give you the down side for both E & M 7th man scenarios. I'm very thin at 3. I see that Harrison Barnes might not go so I list Ben Simmons as my 7th man sub. I'm now hoping the Barnes doesn't go, in fact I put him in with the idea that he doesn't go even though I have a fully healthy back up 3.

This is why only the sub position for position plan is the on "fair" plan.

I'm also on board for just adding a 7th starter.

mrkmosier@gmail.com said...

I agree with everything Dave wrote above especially the unpredictable nature of DNP..Rusell had 43 not 33 in the ETest but the fact the guy picked higher did better I believe would not continue over numerous sample games. I think all bench guys become basically.equal during the season. The draft is based on the prior season the supps on now so if anything the undrafted picks would likely be even with or outperform the original 7-15 guys.

Unknown said...

Mark and I agree...I guess it's settled then.

E Team said...


E Team:

Dave, you and Mark agree and so what is settled? There's about half a dozen proposals on this thread and no one has come remotely close to making a convincing case for the reliability of any of them.

But that's sweet that you guys are feeling a nice sense of togetherness.

Unknown said...

Sarcasm was lost on Eric.

I believe there are 4 proposals on the board

1. Start 7 players
2. Designate a sub drafted in the 10th round or after (regardless of position)
3. Designate a sub (regardless of position)
4. Insert a sub when a DNP occurs. Must be at same position and same match period

mrkmosier@gmail.com said...

I'm under the impression that 7 starters and insert sub when DNP occurs had less support and we were focusing on the after 10th round and any player designated solutions as indicated by the title Tom gave the post...As for togetherness and sarcasm Tom indicated he favored using anyone on the roster Dave appears open to some type of mitigation including the 7th starter.Our other three owners are not committed or silent on this matter while Kontrol has pulled a Jeff Sessions and either can't recall or has recused himself....

Swat said...

So of you have a DNP, it seems reasonable to me that when you realize the DNP you need to call that you are going second chance or you call the 7th player prior to them going that match period.

Swat said...

But they have to be same position as DNP.

mrkmosier@gmail.com said...

It could work that way but I favor stating the 7th option ahead. I think it's important to decide ahead but the advantage of your way Sean obviously is if you can adjust after DNP occurs then you'd always get the position matched up accurately....2nd dnp would be 2nd chance rule

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

So Mark and Sean are you leaning towards option 4?

I find it to be very important that your sub be at the same position and the DNP.

Swat said...

I agree with same sub at same position.