Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2018
(84)
-
▼
November
(18)
- ENTER MATCH 13 LINEUP
- Enter match 12 scores
- Enter match 12 lineup
- Enter match 11 scores
- Enter match 11 lineup
- Enter match 10 scores
- Supplemental draft at 11 am pst
- Enter match 10 lineup
- Enter match 9 scores
- Enter match 9 lineup
- Enter match 8 scores
- Enter match 8 lineup
- Enter match 7 scores
- Enter match 7 lineup
- Enter match 6 scores
- Enter match 6 lineup
- Supplemental draft Sunday at 11 a.m. p.s.t.
- Enter match 5 scores
-
▼
November
(18)
20 comments:
Invaders stay with Embiid/Griff/Derozan/Harden/Wall and Kanter 5/4/3/2/1 and 6
I forgot the backups to the above lineup Embiid/Sabonis...Griff/Galinari...Derozan/Parker...Harden/Russell...Wall/Williams...Kanter/Hood
Wingos-Swat...Invaders-Ticket...ETeam-P4...Nitecaps-Alt/Delete
Alt Delete will stick with the same lineup.
1 Olidipo (Conley)
2 Heild (Jackson)
3 Kawhai (Fornier)
4 LBJ (Saric)
5 Cauley-Stein (Horford)
6 Klay (Rubio)
Wingos go up against SWAT with:
1-Kemba
2-J. Butler, PHI 76er
3-Giannis
4-Tobias
5-Millsap
U-T. Hardaway, Jr.
Hawrhorne please read my response to your obvious frustration about the new system. It's posted on the scores page for Match 7. Also please tell me which players had the extra 3 points you say I missed I will check those box scores again for you...
Mark, Butler +2, DeAndre +1.
Wingo backups to the extent possible:
1-Fox
2-Monk
3-None (not Nene)
4-Allen
5-DeAndre
U-Ball
Mark,
One final comment from Wingos. I agree that real sports and fantasy sports are different, but I don't think we should create additional differences.
Paul>Collison
Booker>Hayward
Ggeorge>Warren
A Davis>Ibaka
Gobert>Howard
Dragic>Evans
Hawthorne Butler Friday got 13 points 8 rebounds 8 assists and 2 steals total 31 Jordan had 6 points 9 rebounds 1 assist and 1 block total 17 these numbers match what I posted adding up to 220 I get the stats from ESPN box scores where did you get the extra 3 points differing from this breakdown of the derivation of Butler and Jordan totals? There are a lot of different fantasy formats that I enjoy playing this one is points based on 5 categories with 5 position slotted players and a 6th man as a utility. The backups must mirror that format we aren't creating anything new veering away from reality there aren't more differences in this case we're simply replicating the same rules for the 2nd unit as for the first.
E Team:
Drummond C (Nurkic)
LaMarcus PF (Melo)
Beal SG (McGruder)
Lowry PG (WBrook)
Shroder 6 (Valenciunas)
Kuzma SF (Ingram)
With four guys injured, the E Team has to back up Lowry with Westbrook, who almost certainly will not play. I guess that answers the question of whether teams can list reserves who are probably not healthy. By extension, I guess we can legally back up as many or as few positions as we choose, although I'm not sure why anyone would fail to designate a healthy player when possible. I don't see any reason to punish anyone for not being able to field reserves at each position, or even declining to list a reserve by choice.
And yes, I can see how someone would argue for a two-position player to fill multiple backup roles if players are unavailable due to injury. It has some logic, and maybe we can revisit it at some point, but I kind of agree with Mark's argument against the double duty thing. It just doesn't feel very natural to me. And look at it this way: The advantage to having a two-position backup is that you can plug him into more than one spot, just not two at once. You figure out where he's most likely to be needed. It's called managing your team. The XMan always talks about the importance of that. I agree.
This much we know: if you do not list backups - one per position - on the lineup post for a given match, the 2CR is still in effect for all starters.
The submission of backups in my Match 8 lineup represents the fifth team out of eight to do so. That looks like a "Yes" vote to me. Let's see what happens over the next seven matches and then evaluate.
Reminder: I'm sure I'm not the only guy who would've liked to see the Nitecaps take down the Invaders in Match 7 (No offense, Mark). The PBR might have made that happen. A rising fantasy commodity, Julius Randall, who's buried on Dave's bench, gets a chance to make a difference. Good stuff, right?
We wanted a fair, workable, and effective mitigation plan. Let's see if this thing works.
Damien 1 - T. Young 1
D.Mitch 2 - J. Murray 1/2
Tatum 3 - A. Aminu 3/4
Vucevic 4 - Ayton 4/5
KAT - 5 - Ayton 4/5
LaVine - 6 - T. Young 6
So, I am reading back over the last responses on the backup player positions, I can't use the same player to cover two different backup players even though they are multi-position?
That doesn't make any sense.
Wouldn't any of us want are best backup players, who are also multi-position players, to support best quality of league play?
Is there really going to be an instance where multiple starters and backups would conflict in coverage per starters?
And wouldn't the second chance rule take president if such a situation occured where you had multiple players out and a backup was being used at two starting positions, and just so happen to have to be used for one of the two injuries?
The team manager, in that situation is taking the best chance for the team to field it's best players.
If the team managers roster is really in that bad of shape, then he would need to make the best choices for his team, and then SC2 would override.
E Team:
Sean. You asked three questions and I'm not sure if I understand any of them.
You guys. Remember when we talked about how one of the benefits of the platoon backups is that it encourages guys to maintain full rosters and go deep at every position and, yes, place a premium on multi-position guys? That it would encourage participation in supplementals? All that stuff? Remember?
Why would we even have discussed such things if we were going to implement a system that allows teams to backup their starters with as few as three guys, maybe even two? I agree with Mark that doing so feels contrary to something basic about what we do. Multi-position guys are good, but designating a guy to randomly fill in for whoever goes down just seems unnatural to me.
Hey, I have no issue with continuing to talk about this, but for now we go 6-for-6, as per the majority vote indicated by posted lineups for this match. Just like we said we were going to do.
Nitecaps
B. Simmons
CJ McCollum
L. Doncic
N. Mirotic
N. Jokic
Jrue Holiday
As I've stated before, I side with Sean and Chris on using the same player to back up multiple positions. I'lll go back and read Mark's response, but I'm not even sure why this is a question.
Wingos note that we have five teams actually engaged in this debate, and it seems that its 3-2 SWAT, Caps and Wingos vs. Invaders and E. So why don't I&E concede the point?
Mark, you were right about my team stats last match, sorry to make you double check. Wingo, H.
I thought the deadline was 4pm lock to decide for match 8? We never discussed once before the last few days the possibility of any backup being used in the way you three guys are in favor of did we? On draft night did this come up? At any other Portland area confab I'm uninformed about? I would have argued vehemently against any such proposal had I been aware of it last year or over the summer. For the record I was never for this backup plan anyway I proposed playing 7 or 8 instead of 6 with second chances but that was rejected because it didn't lessen the effect of dnps It would've created more scoring to soften the impact of one dnp. If my plan had been adopted I would've been open to increasing the flexibility to make the 7th or 8 guy wild cards like the 6th provided they were posted before lock time or carried over from there. I can't support this idea of making the subs more useful than a starter to be plugged in anywhere needed provided Yahoo claims they are eligible...
Post a Comment