Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2017
(103)
-
▼
November
(19)
- Enter match 13 lineup
- All Early Calls and a Late Call
- Enter match 12 scores
- Enter match 12 lineups
- Second Supplemental draft Sunday 1 p.m. (pst)
- Enter match 11 scores
- Enter match 11 lineups
- Enter match 10 scores
- Enter match 10 lineups
- Enter match 9 scores
- Enter match 9 lineups
- Enter match 8 scores
- Enter match 8 lineup
- First Supplemental Draft Sunday 1:00 pst (?)
- Enter match 7 scores
- Enter match 7 lineup
- Enter match 6 scores
- Enter match 6 lineup
- Enter match 5 scores
-
▼
November
(19)
40 comments:
Learning to love the DNP. Curry out with bruised hand, yet still not listed on the injury report.
E Team:
X, I saw that Curry was going to sit, but the news may have come past our deadline. Tough break. We are seeing a bit of an epidemic right now.
E Team is in at 211. No DNPs, but awaiting word on the status of Blake Griffin's knee. Not good news for the E Team if he goes out.
Dang.
E Team:
And Dave, your Curry has another game Wednesday night. You might get him back. Which makes this a good test case. If we had a 7th Man thing, who would you pick, or would you roll the dice on the Second Chance, and how long would you have to make a decision? More importantly, would it feel right to you NOT to have the second chance on Curry?
I meant to comment on my KD situation last match, which provided another interest test of potential DNP solutions. I suspected Durant was going to be out on Friday night, but gambled that he would be go on Saturday. I was wrong, as it turned out, but I think you would agree that owners should have that option, right? So clearly, whatever we do, we need to leave the SCR in place. If we adopt anything new, it will be IN ADDITION to the existing mitigation mechanism.
I think this is important. Should a team owner continue to have the option to stay with a player for a second game within a match period in the event of a DNP in the first, REGARDLESS OF ANY ADDITIONAL MEASURE WE SHOULD ADOPT?
I'm hereby propose that we vote on this bylaw as a first step toward any new rule.
And I vote Yes.
I absolutely agree with keeping the SCP rule in place, always have. I don't agree with listing a 7th man for the reasons I've given. So that would have left me with 2 options; SCP with Curry or sub in D. Smith Jr. (plays Wednesday) I would opt to roll with SCP in this case.
WIth my last DNP, I would have opted to sub (only option, as my dnp player didn't have another game) which would have netted me an additional 22 points. Which is just how is should work. Not really starter production, but some points on the board.
Invaders need to recuse themselves on Warrior DNP info(hint)just as Blazer news may not trickle down the coast or travel nationally(or to Vegas books) as fast as local minds can process it.There is no doubt second chance stays so my vote is yes but if you designate the alternate you can't pick the better of the two outcomes. My proposal in answering Eric is that you would logically have a 24 hour window meaning the next match lock time and no longer to designate the replacement.So usually 4pm next day for most replacements. You would get less time if you have Saturday or Sunday day games and an extra hour for Thursday night 5pm games
Heartless and cold Wingos vote yes on maintaining the current second chance rule.
I think we are in agreement Mark. Of course you don't get to choose between two outcomes. This is just an amendment to the second chance rule that gives you a small window to insert a sub. I'm guessing the majority will opt to take second chance, simply by not paying attention. Once the second chance kicks in you void your option.
E Team:
I'm not clear on Mark's 5 PM deadline for Thursdays. Is there some weird thing I haven't noticed where no game ever starts before 5 PM PST on Thursdays? I would think the sub deadline would be the start time - PST - of the first game played the next day. Right?
It appears we have a quorum in favor of keeping the SCR in place regardless of any additional action we adopt. Nonetheless, It would be good to have the approval of remaining team owners.
Another thing to consider. If we go for an in-match substitution for a DNP at a specific position, as Dave proposes, can I assume that taking a number from a backup who has already played is not permissible? Otherwise, one could theoretically choose between the better of two numbers. And of course, there is the possibility of not having an eligible player to sub once the match period is a day old. Or what if the DNP doesn't happen until the last day of the match period?
This last begs the question: Would it be better to designate a sub prior to the start of the match period? In that case, any player chosen would be guaranteed at least one game. Right?
Ticket says that E Team just proposed what P4 proposed. Name a sub for each starter. Swat could make that law. Cap and Invaders too stuck up against lazy line up with back up line up. Second chance rule should always take precedent over sub.
Hey Mark, three early calls next month. See post.
E Team:
Tom, I was not proposing a sub for each starter. And wasn't that YOUR idea, not P4's? But it's funny you should say that. Incredibly, I got my wife to listen to a brief explanation of our mitigation dilemma, and she proposed a back up at each position. Weird. From the mouths of babes.
Interestingly, while both Mark and I rejected the idea out of hand as too much work for everyone involved, I'm actually starting to think it might deserve to be looked at.
But let's keep taking one step at a time.
Commenting starting backwards on the above posts.... yes thank you Tom I did see the early calls..... sub or second chance should be choice of owner....Tom is right I don't favor entire lineup of designated subs it promotes complacency which Eric is asking about like the P4 idea......I can't imagine someone using a player who already went as a sub in Eric's scenario.... Second chance is adopted by quorum....For Eric yes Thursday is an anomaly in that scheduled games are often limited to two.If there are only 2 games both are shown on TNT beginning at 5 PST.All other nights are usually 4pm or 4:30 for lock time.....Everything Dave said I agree with I only wanted to restate the obvious that you can't cherry pick between second chance and sub..... which is the same principle I applied to any player who already played not allowed to sub for DNP which was Eric's earlier point
Partials Swat and Wingo knotted at 165 Sean has the better chance with AD and Melo available against Jrue...Invaders 120 P4 114 Howard and Lowry vs. Kemba/George and Cousins but Kemba is listed as doubtful tomorrow...ETeam 211 Ticket 88 with Westbrook and MGas a longshot to score 124 too bad Love's big game tonight could not be used for Tom...Nitecaps 151 Curry 2nd chance vs. Monster
E Team:
The more I think about the in-game sub, the more problematic it appears to me.
I think it would be far simpler and provide more consistent mitigation to designate a sub or subs - whatever it is we decide to do - prior to the start of the match period. I'm just about certain that the more we look at it, the more sense it will make not to try and sub during the match. I think that has big holes in it.
I absolutely agree with Mark. Buy designating all of these subs your putting all of the responsibility on the scorekeeper and non on the team owner. Your actually promoting absentee ownership.
I'm sorry Eric, I'm going to read over everything again, but I don't see the problem with an in match sub? This is literally how every other league works.
I kind of know where Mark was going with the game start times, but it should be as simple as stating your sub before their game start time. But if we want to implement some sort of window it doesn't bother me.
Tom- Making SCP take precedent over sub only creates more confusion for scorekeeper.
I don't feel like I'm explaining this well, because there should really be no questions.
Can we do this...Hit me with questions and concerns as it pertains to using a substitution for a DNP ONLY and let me answer them. I feel like there is so much minutia that is is making this far more complicated than it should be. If it is really this complicated for some people than we clearly should not consider it.
One more time with the explanation
Team gets a DNP for their starting PG
Options
1) do nothing and hope for SCP
2) list your sub (PG for PG) that still has a game to play in that match period
Give me your questions
questions already answered
-Could you choose between two outcomes?
NO You couldn't because would have already stated that you were going with a sub (or not). If you post nothing it is assumed you are going with SCP.
-Can you use a player that has already played?
YES You wouldn't get that score. You would get the score from their next game in that match period.
I will look back over the thread and see if there are more questions
Side note to E. Nice job on getting Nancy to listen to this nonsense. If I tried to talk about this to Celeste she would literally just walk away. Her only question is "why can you and Eric never agree on anything?". My answer of course is "because Eric is argumentative and I'm right"..."you both are stupid".
-
Ticket says
When a guy gets hurt, misses a game, then returns to play in the same match, would anyone want a sub’s score instead of a starter’s?
.Basically a coach must gamble between a second chance and another player’s score. Got it Dave. Mark appears to agree with this logic.
If Eric says we provide a sub for each starter, he and Hans and I are a vote away from the lazy way out of DNPs. Guess that makes me argumentative.
Swat or Wingo lazy enough to provide six subs each match to end DNPs?
E Team:
Dave, vetting potential mitigation schemes is only "complicated" to the extent that you want to find one that actually, say, works. We're currently playing under a rule that we adopted a year or two - after a great deal of back and forth - that now is seen as inadequate. You follow what I'm saying? I'm down with a little innovation. We've been fine-tuning this thing for 22 years. I just think we should get stuff right.
E Team:
Here's what I was trying to say about the unreliability of the in-game sub.
Six teams played tonight for the first time in the match period. None of them plays again tomorrow night. By my count, they include 13 guys active in our lineups. With one shot at providing a fantasy number. No SCR relief in sight.
But here's where it really gets problematic with the in-match substitutions. There are only five games tomorrow night, the last in the match period. That's two-thirds of the league not playing. Good luck hoping you have your sub going.
And right on cue, P4 gets a DNP from Kemba tonight. He's got a backup, Jeff Teague, but the Timberwolves don't play tomorrow night, so he is unavailable as an option. Now, as it happens, Teague is out. But even if he weren't, Hans would have been failed by not one but two mitigation schemes.
There are some wrinkles. If Hans had a second backup, he might still have a shot at some relief. He doesn't because he's a lazy bastard who currently pays no penalty for not maintaining a full roster, and hasn't for years. But don't get distracted by that. Go back to the part about six teams playing their first and only game of the match period three days in and the small number of teams playing on the following night. I'm sure Mark will back me up on the math. The point being that the in-match substitution by position not only creates a lot of moving parts in the middle of the match period, IT IS GUARANTEED TO FAIL ON A FAIRLY REGULAR BASIS.
I think it is obvious that if we want better, more reliable DNP mitigation, we must designate whatever subs we decide on prior to the start of each match. Simple, as Dave likes to say.
And yes, the Kemba DNP sucks hard. Not so much because it hurts the "reanimated" P4, I couldn't care less about that. It hurts because it probably means Mark's winning streak won't end. (No offense, Mark.)
E Team:
Wha?
No offense taken I like being 9-3 I'll comment on this later I've got tutoring with a UCLA student by phone and google docs at 8pm....Final Invaders defeat short handed P4 204-182 I(Howard-36 Lokic-21...Giannis-47...Butler-35...Lowry-48...Beal-17 P4(Kemba-DNP...Harden-59...George-33...MTurner-24...DeMarcus-35...Capela-31) Final Swat beats-Wingos 213-201 SW(Kyrie-31...Booker-48...Melo-26...AD-22...Drummond-58...Whiteside-28) HW(Paul-26...Hardaway-22...Otto-30...LBJ-49...Towns-38...Jrue-36) I need to do ETeam win over Ticket and Nitecap-Kontrol game later after Warrior game
I guess the only "problem" I see is that it voids out the SCP doesn't it?
Ftnal ETeam crushes Ticket 211-169 E(Lillard-39...CJ-22...Griff-43...Nurkic-27...Lamarcus-51...AGordon-29) T(ABradley-20...Dragic-14...Westbrook-58...Warren-35...Love-19...MGas-23)
Final the monster devours Nitecaps 197-191 Kontrol(1180/6) Caps(Curry-40...Klay-30...HBarnes-25...Prozingas-32...Embiid-41...Simmons-23) Swat 213 is MHS
Kyrie 31
Booker 47
Melo 26
ADavis 22
Drummond 58
Whiteside 28
213
1-C. Paul 26
2-T. Hardaway 22
3-Otto P. 30
4-LBJ 50
5-KAT 38
U-Jrue 36
202
E Team:
I thought about that, Dave, and I believe the answer is no, it doesn't necessarily nullify the SCR, at least not in all cases.
Let's say your starter and your sub play on the first night of a match period. You get a DNP from your starter, but your sub goes. You don't have to wait for your sub to play a second game; you designated the guy before the match, right? You get his number. But it is automatic. You can't look at your sub number and then choose whether to use it or not. It doesn't matter if your starter comes back. You chose to back him up. And if your starter doesn't DNP until later in the match, you still get your sub number from his first game. In this case, the SCR has gone away as soon as your sub puts up a number, whatever it is.
But wait, you say, what if you get a DNP from your starter and your sub hasn't gone yet? Can you now choose between the SCR and the sub? This may surprise some of you guys, but I say Why not? The idea is to give owners the best shot at mitigation, right? I can see no advantage gained. If the thing that caused the DNP is serious, use the sub. If it's some freak thing and your starter is sure to come back for another game in the match period, use the SCR. If you don't know, roll the dice, brotherman. It's your funeral.
And then there's this: Suppose your starter and your sub play on the first night of a match period and both get a DNP. Your sub is gone, but you still have the SCR. Or do you? Does having designated a sub mean you forfeit the SCR? That's for us to decide. We could leave both in place. Hell, we could allow the SCR on the sub if we want. It's our league. My gut says you lose the sub but still have the SCR. But that's something we have to sort out before adoption.
Keep talking, people. Maybe we'll actually come up with something.
Dave correctly states that second chance dies due to the inability of owners to pay attention to which players on their roster are injured.Eric said he wanted mitigation rather than a bail out which complete shadow lineups without personal responsibility represents.I'm completely against the lazy 12 man lineups being considered. It is not my job nor should it be to tell another owner that player 1 is out so I'm using player 2 at the same position to create numbers. The Teague and Kemba scenario tonight likely wouldn't happen if Hans had a 15 man team and among that number made sure he had 3 real point guards and one other combo guard which is what I try to do when I'm drafting.Point guard is a very deep position which makes this latest example particularly disturbing to me. I'm happy he benched Gobert and what happened tonight shouldn't detract from that positive development.
Sean I have 49 for Lebron otherwise the numbers we have match
Swat sez:
I have been in agreement with the SCP or same player position swap with a player who has not gone in the match from the beginning, voted yes on it weeks ago.
Team gets a DNP for their starting PG
Options
1) do nothing and hope for SCP
2) list your sub (PG for PG) that still has a game to play in that match period
Sounds good Mark.
E Team:
Sean, did you not see what I shared earlier about in-match substitutions? There are going to be REGULAR instances in which the DNP does not occur until late in the match, leaving no possibility to designate a sub on the fly. In other words, the "remedy" is designed to fail on a somewhat consistent basis. What kind of mitigation is that?
And Mark, Tom has somehow managed to persuade you that I'm in favor of the 12-man lineup. I only suggested that it may not be as problematic as we think. My first choice is still a single designated mitigator - any position - named along with the six-man lineup prior to deadline. (I still favor the 11th Man Rule, but that's a discussion for another day.)
As to your point about Hans being saved by a third point guard. Yes, possibly. But only if the guy happened to play for one of the 10 teams who go tomorrow night. Strictly speaking, that's a one in three chance. Not exactly a lock.
I knew Kemba was questionable and Teague was too Monday so I wouldn't have played Kemba precisely because Charlotte didn't play until Wednesday.Just as it's an owner's responsibility to follow injuries it's also their responsibility to be cognizant of the schedule.I lumped Eric into the 12 man thing not only due to anything Tom said but because he was saying that it was likely hard to believe for us he might have changed his mind about the viability of preordaining injury replacements.We had talked about an individual one based on knowing a player was iffy for the coming match.We already have the lazy solution it's second chance owner's need to do nothing and it kicks in autopilot..I truly believe you have to earn the right sub someone by knowing the need for it within a 24 hour window I mentioned. I notice TNT tomorrow doesn't have the only 2 games and is now starting at least some of them at 4:30
Ticket says 12 listed guys could work if owner pitches his sub’s score personally. Otherwise scorekeeper uses SCR. Last thing we need is more work for Mark.
I guess what we've learned is that there is no perfect solution. The SCP was a huge move in the right direction and anything we do now will just be to get us a little bit closer.
If SCP cut the DNP by 50% maybe the "Post your sub" cuts that by 50% again.
Downside
1) Doesn't give DNP a 100% fix
2) Makes owners accountable for their own teams
List 12 players probably eliminates DNP all together
Downside
1) Eliminates SCP (as an owner option)
2) Promotes absentee ownership
3) Creates more work for the scorekeeping department
@Ticket
We can't get teams to post their lineups for every match, now you think they're going to post their subs score???
How many times have you had to go back 3 or 4 matches to find a lineup?
E Team:
Dave, I agree with you that we should put more work on Mark and less on team owners. No way that guys like Hans should be overburdened with fantasy responsibilities.
Thanks for correcting my attempt at making a point.
Is there anything else you agree on or are we at odds on everything?
Feel like a bit of a hung jury at this point...while I think all of the downsides listed (and please add too them) are valid, I think the most important is putting more is putting more responsibility on the team owners and less on the scorekeeping department.
E Team:
Just kidding.
Post a Comment