The onus is on the team owner to first recognize that they have a dnp and then choose to post a sub or roll with second chance.
It is NOT the responsibility of the scorekeeper to recognize and insert a predetermined sub. It will only benefit good team management and of course, paying attention.
What about possible subs at the same position that have already gone? Like if the guy goes the same night - say, Monday or Friday - the DNP occurs? He's obviously not eligible, right?
I think you always have the option to roll with second chance. If a sub player still has a game to play in that match period, I don't think it should matter if he has already played or not. Obviously you can't take a score from a game that has already been played.
What about possible subs at the same position that have already gone? Like if the guy goes the same night - say, Monday or Friday - the DNP occurs? He's obviously not eligible, right? If I understand this correctly, this falls under the rule that you have to state your sub on the blog, prior to that players tip off. Not sure if I've answered this question or not?
Any player eligible at that position and that has a game remaining in the match period is eligible as a sub.
I think this is like Obama Care we are politically not going to repeal and replace so once we gained 2nd chance rights we aren't going back. The question is how to designate the replacements and what's time frame?It seems to me that it's obvious that no one who's already played one position should get to sub the next night at another. You should have a first game lock window to second game of match period lock window to make a sub for your DNP (or 2nd game to third if the DNP occurs on night 2 of a match period)Once the 3rd game locks in a match period that should be it Thursday can't save you but Wednesday and Saturday can.Wednesday is hump day Thursday is cabin fever driven early weekend in my understanding of our world.If you can't figure out a sub in 48 hours you don't deserve one. An alternative incorporating my 7 man game plan is to designate one or 2 players as alternates ahead of each match with the starting 6 so teams would logically use multi-position players in those spots or at least the same position of those they might suspect are questionable.Did anyone notice that I managed with this last sentence to allude indirectly to the multi-position question? I have much stronger feelings concerning this point. Any changes ESPN adds to each player's position which are based on 10 games clearly manning that spot should accepted as gospel. ESPN should be the arbiter of all position debate. Yahoo adds positions after only 5 games which is much less grounded in reality
Not sure if Mark clarified things or made it more confusing.
I agree 100% on the player designation.
I feel like I'm missing something on why this is confusing or complicated? If someone DNP's you put in the player you would have if the out before the match started. I don't understand the part about a player playing one position one night and another the next night?
I have only one question with regard to ESPN redesignating a player during the season. If a guy starts out as a two-position guy, say SF/PF, and they change him to a SG/SF, do you lose him as a PF? Do they ever do that? That seems a bit unfair, considering you drafted the guy based on his original designations. Now I'm short at a position that I drafted to cover, right?
And Dave, you keep saying how uncomplicated your newest DNP mitigation scheme is, but I think other guys have a right to make sure there are no holes in it. Tell me this, are you looking to further reduce the impact of the DNP or eliminate it entirely? I think this is an important question. There are ways to do both, but whatever we settle on needs to be both workable and fair.
Eric ESPN only adds positions during a season and never takes them away until the following season begins. For example Giannis was 1-2-3-4 by the middle of last year.Now he's just a 3-4 as we start over. Tyreke has in the past been 1-2-3... but neither started a year that way it's rare that ESPN would have more than a double position for any guy when the season begins but it does happen at least a couple of times every season..
And hey, what happens with the double DNP? Talk about complicated.
Here's my idea. Screw trying to cover the position. For every match, you get to designate a guy from your roster who was drafted after the first 10 rounds, including supplementals. Doesn't matter what position he plays. We keep the Second Chance Rule in place. You get to choose. Theoretically, your original starter is the superior player, so even if your scrub puts up a decent number, you might decide your starter will back and does better.
A second guy in your lineup DNP's? Tough shit. Your team is filled with guys who don't show up. Plus, you still have the second chance. Or, we can make it interesting and force guys to make a decision: use the 11th Man on the first DNP with no Second Chance option while preserving the Second Chance for a possible second DNP. Or flip it and activate the Second Chance and preserve the 11th Man for the possible second DNP. But maybe THAT is too complicated.
Here's the added bonus (and where the real managerial acumen comes in). When you draft in the supplementals, you're not just thinking about a guy who might make it into your lineup, you're getting supplemental insurance. It also rewards guys who make solid late-round picks on draft night, keeps guys interested through the season, makes the supplementals more competitive, and punishes lazy bastards who don't stay involved and/or go through the season with only 12 guys on their roster
Minimal dicking around in the middle of a match period (especially if we eliminate the part about how to use the Second Chance Rule). No added work for our hard-working stat guy. No crafty manipulation of new, untested schemes that we failed to anticipate. Just one guy designated prior to the match, without regard to position.
Something to think about. We can fine-tune it. Whatever. I call it the 11th Man Plan.
I get the part about the supplemental being more important and I like this in general but I don't see why you have make higher draft picks unable to sub.I like the idea it's essentially a 7th guy designated and only used if needed but I don't like the idea that he has to be a lower round pick it renders picks we made in round 7-10 less valuable.If you should unfortunately have injuries or for example a limbo situation where Bledsoe(pretend he's a lower pick in this example) is suspended like I have with numerous picks from 10 down and disabled it's unfair a healthy round 8 or 9 guy can't sub. You still have to have acumen to pick in the supplemental but the original draft guys 7 through 10 need to be useable they shouldn't be singled out so call it 7th man rule and I vote yes.
The value of your 7-10 picks is that they are good players who you are likely to use at some point in the season. I'm all for DNP mitigation, but I hate the idea that teams might actually benefit from having a guy DNP. It feels like it punishes teams with durable, dependable players who don't miss games, which should be a factor when we're putting squads together, eg. you might like Chris Paul more than Kemba Walker, but you have to consider Paul's injury history. Isn't that part of what we do?
To Eric's point. I can see a scenario where I would leave an injured guy in to benefit from a better player at a different position. I'm guessing the thought of a player drafted after the 10th round is that he's more likely to be a 20-25 point player.
I think what makes fantasy so wonderful is that it's based on reality. Eric you're confusing durability for the purposes of fantasy with the reality that injuries occur regularly.Yes there are players who are older and more injury prone and maybe shouldn't be drafted but it also should be assumed that injuries are part of the game and are mostly not happening to the same guys repeatedly If we had drafted on time would you have considered Hayward injury prone? He did miss time last year but what happened opening night was an accident.How about Mirotic is he prone to punches from black guys? This idea that the draft is the team we're stuck with isn't relevant anymore once we have the bi-weekly free agent additions. Where guys are drafted in the order is increasingly less important(in reality) as the season progresses. A bench is for use as replacements anytime all year. I never consider my 6th round pick as completely superior than my 8th or 9th guys because those distinctions are more about position scarcity.Teams don't go to the 11th guy over a player in the 8-9 man rotation in real basketball thus it should be that way for us. Under your logic Eric anyone over 28 or with a injury history should never be drafted. Also what about all the rested stars as the season goes on? Those are DNPs based on durability for the whole season.I have to vote no unless the entire bench is available.In drafting we must discriminate because the coach is Thibs who plays the starters too much,heightening possible injuries, instead of Pops who rests them excessively to avoid them? The former gives starters better numbers but less durability while the latter depresses all stats albeit with more durability. That's what all your extra guys are for to play when a guy is injured. I think the draft order is almost irrelevant by the break except for the stars and it's those guys that are DNPers for rest down the stretch..
Mark, now you're arguing that what we do is based on reality. Previously, you held that we're just a bunch of old dorks doing something untethered to actual life (which, granted, is hard to deny).
I think the key word is mitigation. Are we trying to make sure that teams do as well or even better than they would've without the DNP, or just making sure they have a fighting chance when it happens? To me, that's the key question.
I'm not saying that every DNP reflects mismanagement on the part of the team owner, I just can't get right with turning the DNP, whether it results from players who are injury-prone (Chris Paul, Tyreke Evans, most big men), guys who don't seem to play through injuries (ADave, Galinari, Eric Gordon), guys who get suspended for being dickheads (Cousins, Dray), or yes, guys who are likely to get rested on back-to-backs or at the end of the year, suddenly becomes something we don't even have to think about when putting a squad together.
Will LBJ or Melo or Curry be lesser fantasy guys down the stretch? Yeah, probably. I take Dame ahead of LeBron in the second round not because he's certain to put up better numbers. He may not. But there's also a chance he'll still be getting his numbers in February when the Cavs are crushing shitty teams and old Lebron is seeing fewer minutes. Right? I give up something to get something.
That and everything else is what we have to take into account when we assemble a team. And that's part of the challenge of this thing. My fear is that making the DNP a complete non-factor changes what we do in an essential way. I like the idea that the DNP doesn't automatically kill you, but I think it still needs to be something to fear.
Look, we are the people we are because we didn't win every bet we ever made or screw every girl we ever wanted - leaving aside maybe Dave. Life has it's disappointments. If our fantasy (league) is in fact based on reality to some extent - which Mark may or may not be arguing - then so be it. I won't vote for a wonder drug, but I will vote for a safety net.
And here's some full disclosure. I actually like the Second Chance Rule. Suspicious as I was of it initially, I think it was a step forward, and I'm not feeling any desperate urgency to replace it. I also think the 11th Man proposition has some nice elements to it. But remember, neither one completely eliminates the possibility of a DNP as currently implemented or proposed. Each of us has to decide whether that's okay or whether we don't stop until we put a number in every DNP hole.
I get everything Eric is saying I just see no correlation between the LBJ/Lillard option in round 2 to rounds 7-10.My consideration in those high rounds aren't the way I would approach 7-10 which are based for me on establishing position depth for exactly a scenario such as injured starters. I never have approached those rounds based on injury history and have always seen the bench as available for injuries primarily. This segmenting of player value by where they are drafted bothers me.In real basketball an injury opens up playing time for a guy like Markaanen. Once he starts playing why should be more valuable in our system than Bledsoe who I haven't had all year? No matter how much sense the argument makes about no bail out for manager incompetence on DNP, limiting and delineating my bench based on draft order is not acceptable. All back ups are there for the event of an injury. This reminds me of the early days of baseball when they had the bonus baby rule. For those of you unaware of that history I will explain. Teams had to keep players on the major league roster 2 years right out of school who were paid bonuses over a certain amount.Tim NcCarver is a 4 decade player because of this rule.It was absurd to differentiate the value of your bench so the rule was dropped. Later the major league draft was instituted. The point is a bench should be based on merit and player use should be the free choice of the manager from the top to the bottom of the depth chart.We can limit the option on filling DNP holes(I said it too) in some better way than infringing on the manger's right to employ his bench without restrictions. I agree with Eric on a safety net rather than welfare.I just can't imagine there being a limitation of any kind on my bench my 7-10 have always been intended as injury support..
Remember, mitigation is the key word, Mark. Not immunization.
I've got an idea. I picked a Top 6 guy from each franchise, kind of based on likelihood of a DNP, but nothing too scientific. No regard to position. No knowledge of the schedule of games in Match 4.
Let's run a trial. We'll see what each manager will do under four different scenarios:
- the existing Second Chance Rule
- the Seventh Man Rule, with managers choosing on the fly between a replacement at the specific position or the Second Chance
- the proposed 11th Man Plan with the option to choose in-match between your designated 11-and-beyond guy and the Second Chance
- and the 11th Man Plan with the designated guy as an automatic replacement
With seven teams participating in the trial we get a decent sample.
Here are the trial DNPs. We'll suppose they happen in the first game each guy plays for the purposes of this experiment:
Ticket/KLove, P4/EGordon, Caps/Embiid, E Team/Griffin, Swat/ADave, Invaders/Beal, Wingo/Dray.
Every team submits a designated replacement from players taken after Round 10, including those taken in the supplemental, regardless of position, for Match 4. Let's do this.
Remember guys, this is just a trial. In the event of an actual DNP, the Second Chance Rule is still established law, as the ambulance chasers in our midst would say.
29 comments:
My 2 suggestions
1. Start 7 players
2. Owner to insert sub that qualifies at same position in same match period.
Also, position designations acquired during season?
E Team:
So you have a sub ready at each position for every match?
The onus is on the team owner to first recognize that they have a dnp and then choose to post a sub or roll with second chance.
It is NOT the responsibility of the scorekeeper to recognize and insert a predetermined sub. It will only benefit good team management and of course, paying attention.
The sub must still play in that match period.
You could literally see that you have a DNP for a 4pm start and sub a player that starts at 7. The blog time stamp allows for tracking this.
E Team:
What about possible subs at the same position that have already gone? Like if the guy goes the same night - say, Monday or Friday - the DNP occurs? He's obviously not eligible, right?
E Team:
And if both guys have a second chance game, I get to choose? Or take a third guy at the same position?
I think you always have the option to roll with second chance. If a sub player still has a game to play in that match period, I don't think it should matter if he has already played or not. Obviously you can't take a score from a game that has already been played.
What about possible subs at the same position that have already gone? Like if the guy goes the same night - say, Monday or Friday - the DNP occurs? He's obviously not eligible, right? If I understand this correctly, this falls under the rule that you have to state your sub on the blog, prior to that players tip off.
Not sure if I've answered this question or not?
Any player eligible at that position and that has a game remaining in the match period is eligible as a sub.
I think this is like Obama Care we are politically not going to repeal and replace so once we gained 2nd chance rights we aren't going back. The question is how to designate the replacements and what's time frame?It seems to me that it's obvious that no one who's already played one position should get to sub the next night at another. You should have a first game lock window to second game of match period lock window to make a sub for your DNP (or 2nd game to third if the DNP occurs on night 2 of a match period)Once the 3rd game locks in a match period that should be it Thursday can't save you but Wednesday and Saturday can.Wednesday is hump day Thursday is cabin fever driven early weekend in my understanding of our world.If you can't figure out a sub in 48 hours you don't deserve one. An alternative incorporating my 7 man game plan is to designate one or 2 players as alternates ahead of each match with the starting 6 so teams would logically use multi-position players in those spots or at least the same position of those they might suspect are questionable.Did anyone notice that I managed with this last sentence to allude indirectly to the multi-position question? I have much stronger feelings concerning this point. Any changes ESPN adds to each player's position which are based on 10 games clearly manning that spot should accepted as gospel. ESPN should be the arbiter of all position debate. Yahoo adds positions after only 5 games which is much less grounded in reality
Not sure if Mark clarified things or made it more confusing.
I agree 100% on the player designation.
I feel like I'm missing something on why this is confusing or complicated? If someone DNP's you put in the player you would have if the out before the match started. I don't understand the part about a player playing one position one night and another the next night?
E Team:
I have only one question with regard to ESPN redesignating a player during the season. If a guy starts out as a two-position guy, say SF/PF, and they change him to a SG/SF, do you lose him as a PF? Do they ever do that? That seems a bit unfair, considering you drafted the guy based on his original designations. Now I'm short at a position that I drafted to cover, right?
And Dave, you keep saying how uncomplicated your newest DNP mitigation scheme is, but I think other guys have a right to make sure there are no holes in it. Tell me this, are you looking to further reduce the impact of the DNP or eliminate it entirely? I think this is an important question. There are ways to do both, but whatever we settle on needs to be both workable and fair.
Eric ESPN only adds positions during a season and never takes them away until the following season begins. For example Giannis was 1-2-3-4 by the middle of last year.Now he's just a 3-4 as we start over. Tyreke has in the past been 1-2-3... but neither started a year that way it's rare that ESPN would have more than a double position for any guy when the season begins but it does happen at least a couple of times every season..
Yeah, no Eric I wasn't trying to say that it shouldn't be questioned. I was simply questioning myself and my ability explain it.
I'm not sure we can ever eliminate the DNP, I'm just looking to further reduce the impact.
Also confirming Mark's answer that positions never get taken away only added.
I'll assume Ben Simmons won't only be a 4 in a few weeks.
E Team:
And hey, what happens with the double DNP? Talk about complicated.
Here's my idea. Screw trying to cover the position. For every match, you get to designate a guy from your roster who was drafted after the first 10 rounds, including supplementals. Doesn't matter what position he plays. We keep the Second Chance Rule in place. You get to choose. Theoretically, your original starter is the superior player, so even if your scrub puts up a decent number, you might decide your starter will back and does better.
A second guy in your lineup DNP's? Tough shit. Your team is filled with guys who don't show up. Plus, you still have the second chance. Or, we can make it interesting and force guys to make a decision: use the 11th Man on the first DNP with no Second Chance option while preserving the Second Chance for a possible second DNP. Or flip it and activate the Second Chance and preserve the 11th Man for the possible second DNP. But maybe THAT is too complicated.
Here's the added bonus (and where the real managerial acumen comes in). When you draft in the supplementals, you're not just thinking about a guy who might make it into your lineup, you're getting supplemental insurance. It also rewards guys who make solid late-round picks on draft night, keeps guys interested through the season, makes the supplementals more competitive, and punishes lazy bastards who don't stay involved and/or go through the season with only 12 guys on their roster
Minimal dicking around in the middle of a match period (especially if we eliminate the part about how to use the Second Chance Rule). No added work for our hard-working stat guy. No crafty manipulation of new, untested schemes that we failed to anticipate. Just one guy designated prior to the match, without regard to position.
Something to think about. We can fine-tune it. Whatever. I call it the 11th Man Plan.
I'm fine with that
I get the part about the supplemental being more important and I like this in general but I don't see why you have make higher draft picks unable to sub.I like the idea it's essentially a 7th guy designated and only used if needed but I don't like the idea that he has to be a lower round pick it renders picks we made in round 7-10 less valuable.If you should unfortunately have injuries or for example a limbo situation where Bledsoe(pretend he's a lower pick in this example) is suspended like I have with numerous picks from 10 down and disabled it's unfair a healthy round 8 or 9 guy can't sub. You still have to have acumen to pick in the supplemental but the original draft guys 7 through 10 need to be useable they shouldn't be singled out so call it 7th man rule and I vote yes.
E Team:
The value of your 7-10 picks is that they are good players who you are likely to use at some point in the season. I'm all for DNP mitigation, but I hate the idea that teams might actually benefit from having a guy DNP. It feels like it punishes teams with durable, dependable players who don't miss games, which should be a factor when we're putting squads together, eg. you might like Chris Paul more than Kemba Walker, but you have to consider Paul's injury history. Isn't that part of what we do?
To Eric's point. I can see a scenario where I would leave an injured guy in to benefit from a better player at a different position. I'm guessing the thought of a player drafted after the 10th round is that he's more likely to be a 20-25 point player.
I think what makes fantasy so wonderful is that it's based on reality. Eric you're confusing durability for the purposes of fantasy with the reality that injuries occur regularly.Yes there are players who are older and more injury prone and maybe shouldn't be drafted but it also should be assumed that injuries are part of the game and are mostly not happening to the same guys repeatedly If we had drafted on time would you have considered Hayward injury prone? He did miss time last year but what happened opening night was an accident.How about Mirotic is he prone to punches from black guys? This idea that the draft is the team we're stuck with isn't relevant anymore once we have the bi-weekly free agent additions. Where guys are drafted in the order is increasingly less important(in reality) as the season progresses. A bench is for use as replacements anytime all year. I never consider my 6th round pick as completely superior than my 8th or 9th guys because those distinctions are more about position scarcity.Teams don't go to the 11th guy over a player in the 8-9 man rotation in real basketball thus it should be that way for us. Under your logic Eric anyone over 28 or with a injury history should never be drafted. Also what about all the rested stars as the season goes on? Those are DNPs based on durability for the whole season.I have to vote no unless the entire bench is available.In drafting we must discriminate because the coach is Thibs who plays the starters too much,heightening possible injuries, instead of Pops who rests them excessively to avoid them? The former gives starters better numbers but less durability while the latter depresses all stats albeit with more durability. That's what all your extra guys are for to play when a guy is injured. I think the draft order is almost irrelevant by the break except for the stars and it's those guys that are DNPers for rest down the stretch..
E Team:
Mark, now you're arguing that what we do is based on reality. Previously, you held that we're just a bunch of old dorks doing something untethered to actual life (which, granted, is hard to deny).
I think the key word is mitigation. Are we trying to make sure that teams do as well or even better than they would've without the DNP, or just making sure they have a fighting chance when it happens? To me, that's the key question.
I'm not saying that every DNP reflects mismanagement on the part of the team owner, I just can't get right with turning the DNP, whether it results from players who are injury-prone (Chris Paul, Tyreke Evans, most big men), guys who don't seem to play through injuries (ADave, Galinari, Eric Gordon), guys who get suspended for being dickheads (Cousins, Dray), or yes, guys who are likely to get rested on back-to-backs or at the end of the year, suddenly becomes something we don't even have to think about when putting a squad together.
Will LBJ or Melo or Curry be lesser fantasy guys down the stretch? Yeah, probably. I take Dame ahead of LeBron in the second round not because he's certain to put up better numbers. He may not. But there's also a chance he'll still be getting his numbers in February when the Cavs are crushing shitty teams and old Lebron is seeing fewer minutes. Right? I give up something to get something.
That and everything else is what we have to take into account when we assemble a team. And that's part of the challenge of this thing. My fear is that making the DNP a complete non-factor changes what we do in an essential way. I like the idea that the DNP doesn't automatically kill you, but I think it still needs to be something to fear.
Look, we are the people we are because we didn't win every bet we ever made or screw every girl we ever wanted - leaving aside maybe Dave. Life has it's disappointments. If our fantasy (league) is in fact based on reality to some extent - which Mark may or may not be arguing - then so be it. I won't vote for a wonder drug, but I will vote for a safety net.
And here's some full disclosure. I actually like the Second Chance Rule. Suspicious as I was of it initially, I think it was a step forward, and I'm not feeling any desperate urgency to replace it. I also think the 11th Man proposition has some nice elements to it. But remember, neither one completely eliminates the possibility of a DNP as currently implemented or proposed. Each of us has to decide whether that's okay or whether we don't stop until we put a number in every DNP hole.
Heh heh. I said P hole.
I get everything Eric is saying I just see no correlation between the LBJ/Lillard option in round 2 to rounds 7-10.My consideration in those high rounds aren't the way I would approach 7-10 which are based for me on establishing position depth for exactly a scenario such as injured starters. I never have approached those rounds based on injury history and have always seen the bench as available for injuries primarily. This segmenting of player value by where they are drafted bothers me.In real basketball an injury opens up playing time for a guy like Markaanen. Once he starts playing why should be more valuable in our system than Bledsoe who I haven't had all year? No matter how much sense the argument makes about no bail out for manager incompetence on DNP, limiting and delineating my bench based on draft order is not acceptable. All back ups are there for the event of an injury. This reminds me of the early days of baseball when they had the bonus baby rule. For those of you unaware of that history I will explain. Teams had to keep players on the major league roster 2 years right out of school who were paid bonuses over a certain amount.Tim NcCarver is a 4 decade player because of this rule.It was absurd to differentiate the value of your bench so the rule was dropped. Later the major league draft was instituted. The point is a bench should be based on merit and player use should be the free choice of the manager from the top to the bottom of the depth chart.We can limit the option on filling DNP holes(I said it too) in some better way than infringing on the manger's right to employ his bench without restrictions. I agree with Eric on a safety net rather than welfare.I just can't imagine there being a limitation of any kind on my bench my 7-10 have always been intended as injury support..
E Team:
Remember, mitigation is the key word, Mark. Not immunization.
I've got an idea. I picked a Top 6 guy from each franchise, kind of based on likelihood of a DNP, but nothing too scientific. No regard to position. No knowledge of the schedule of games in Match 4.
Let's run a trial. We'll see what each manager will do under four different scenarios:
- the existing Second Chance Rule
- the Seventh Man Rule, with managers choosing on the fly between a replacement at the specific position or the Second Chance
- the proposed 11th Man Plan with the option to choose in-match between your designated 11-and-beyond guy and the Second Chance
- and the 11th Man Plan with the designated guy as an automatic replacement
With seven teams participating in the trial we get a decent sample.
Here are the trial DNPs. We'll suppose they happen in the first game each guy plays for the purposes of this experiment:
Ticket/KLove, P4/EGordon, Caps/Embiid, E Team/Griffin, Swat/ADave, Invaders/Beal, Wingo/Dray.
Every team submits a designated replacement from players taken after Round 10, including those taken in the supplemental, regardless of position, for Match 4.
Let's do this.
E Team:
Remember guys, this is just a trial. In the event of an actual DNP, the Second Chance Rule is still established law, as the ambulance chasers in our midst would say.
E Team:
I'm sorry. I just used a slur against juris doctors. I apologize sincerely.
Ticket out of Love with Milsap, the yellow bellied sap sucker.
Someone simplify this experiment's rule so Ticket can grasp this new immunization for dnp's.
Wow. So to clarify, we are putting a 7th player in our lineup that is a 10th round pick?
Here is the problem, I don't have a list of my players in draft order???
10th round or greater.
E Team:
Sean, check the rosters on the Supp Draft post. They should be in order. And don't forget your supplemental picks.
Thanks!
Post a Comment