Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2017
(103)
-
▼
December
(21)
- Enter match 22 lineups
- Enter match 21 scores
- Enter match 21 lineups
- Enter Match 20 scores
- Enter match 20 lineups
- Supplemental draft Sunday at 1 pst
- Enter match 19 scores
- New password for.this blog is Elizabeth57.
- Enter match 19 lineup (Cavs early call)
- Enter match 18 scores
- Enter match 18 lineups
- Enter match 17 scores
- Enter match 17 lineups (early calls both Lakers an...
- Enter match16 scores
- Enter match 16 lineups
- Supplemental draft Sunday 1 p.m. (pst)
- Enter match 15 scores
- Enter match 15 lineups
- Enter match 14 scores
- Enter match 14 lineups
- Enter match 13 scores
-
▼
December
(21)
24 comments:
Love,MGas,Horford +Ticket 134
An attempt to get more views...
continued form match 21 lineups
Alright, let's cut out the dictator nonsense. We just come from different perspectives.
I don't disagree that listing the backups would all but eliminate DNP's, in fact, I totally agree with you. But let's face it, that is 2/3 of the way to submitting your full roster and having Mark go down the line until he finds a warm body. Maybe poorly worded or extreme, but I'm sure you can see the connection.
This really comes down to how you want the league to be ran. Is it a daily league or a weekly league? There are significant differences. I think our real difference of opinion is just that. What I'm hearing is that you would prefer a weekly league and I would prefer a daily league. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
If we can agree on that, I think we would find that we aren't even arguing about the same thing and therefore, we could never agree on a DNP solution.
I think Mark may have eluded to this earlier in the discussion and may be able to better describe the differences as I don't play weekly's. Sean may also play in weekly's (not sure).
I would simply describe the differences as
Weekly- Set your lineup on Monday and check back on Sunday to see how you did
Daily- Set your lineup on Monday and check back regularly to see if you need to make any adjustments.
I believe this is the first thing that needs to be resolved. If we can agree on that, then we should have the solution to the DNP.
If it's a weekly league than list your subs
If it's a daily league then allow in match subs
Does anybody know who anybody is playing?
Swat-P4...Nitecaps-Wingos...Ticket-Invaders...ETeam-Kontrol.....I've been really sick the last 2 days flu exacerbating a lung infection no rain down here so bad air quality
Horford+Ticket 201
Nitecaps
1. J. Wall 28
2. K. Thompson 29
3. D. Saric 36
4. B. Simmons 19
5. J. Embiid
6. K. Porzingas 44
TOTAL 156
Wingo
1-CP3 17
2-Jrue 29
3-Otto 42
4-LBJ 46
5-KAT
U-DAJ 38
TOTAL 172
E Team:
Re. the latest DNP discussion. I tried to be methodical about identifying what anti-DNP proposals worked and didn't work for our various members, based on various principles. We didn't get to the end zone, but it did clarify some things. Maybe I should lay the whole thing out again, even if it only helps us eliminate some from the ballot.
Should we first vote on whether we should continue to explore possible new remedies?
And should we get all seven team owners on record before we move on?
Match 21 vs P4
Kyrie
Booker 33
Middleton 31
ADavis 42
Drummond 44
Schroder 30
180 w/Kyrie to go
Kemba 31
Harden 26
Tobias Harris 23
My Turn 21
Cousins 67
E Gordon 17
185
Horford+Ticket 201-182 Invaders+Butler
I would also like to hear some thoughts on whether people view or prefer this as a daily or a weekly league. I think it makes all of the difference and easier to vote on DNP resolution. I guess you can just simply let your vote tell how you feel? Otherwise, I don't think we are voting on the same thing.
E Team:
What, precisely, do we mean by "daily" league? Do we still have two match periods a week? Do we still submit a lineup at the start of each match period?
A weekly league (for Eric a twice weekly league) refers to a league that requires little to no maintenance for team owners.
A daily league gives the option for more or less participation.
Daily and weekly leagues simply refer to the league style, they are as different as H2H and Roto.
Match 21
Swat 221 vs P4 185 Final
Kyrie 41
Booker 33
Middleton 31
ADavis 42
Drummond 44
Schroder 30
221
I am fine with the current bi-weekly H2H schedule.
There is no proposal to change the format. Weekly league is just a fantasy term. It simply means that you set your lineup at the beginning of a match and don't fuck with it.
Final Swat defeats P4 221-185 SW(same as Sean posted above) P4(same as above) Final Wingos wallop the Nitecaps 216-194 HW(same as posted above add 44 for Towns) Caps(same as above add 38 for Embiid) Invaders fall into 1st place tie losing a tough one to Ticket 229-222 T(MGas-36...Horford-28...Love-31...Warren-37...Derozan-33...Westbrook-64) I(Howard-51...Jokic-42...GF-43...Beal-24...Lowry-22...Butler-40) Final Kontrol dominates ETeam 211-184 Kontrol(1267/6) E(KD-37...CJ-26...Nurkic-27...Lamarcus-29...LWill-30...Tyreke-35) Ticket takes MHS in a high scoring match period with 229
My only feeling is I agree the sub at every position will work to end DNPs but I disagree it will make people pay attention it will do the opposite in some cases. Essentially a 10 man lineup and extra wild card making 12 of each 15 man roster potentially used is a weekly solution whereas the in game sub is a daily solution.How is P4 going to have any incentive to pay attention when all he has to do is submit his entire roster once and forever let it ride? If the issue is just DNP then sure make it a potentially passive adventure and just put a blanket lineup out. I wish to instill proactive use of rosters so I favor in game subs.Sean took the wrong inference from my scheduling point. While it indeed impacts second chance my point was more about the potential lack of alternatives that hadn't played on each roster for in game subs each match period. So yes this really is about whether we are a weekly or daily league.Elements of both could be employed effectively but the shadow lineup puts us firmly in the weekly philosophy
Ticket says P4 would actually become more active by completing his roster knowing that an injury to one sub or starter would leave him without a back up since half his lineup lacks a third man at a respective position. I am assuming he does not have any players who fit into more than one position.
Sorry Ticket, but I don't see how P4 filling out his roster suddenly classifies him as more active?
However, participating in this conversation makes you more active. Nice work!
E Team:
I concur. Nice to have the weird but sometimes wise voice of Ticket back in the mix.
And he's right. I think you guys are laboring under two important misconceptions about the Nancy Plan (subs designated at each position prior to match deadline).
The first is that it creates more work for Mark. It doesn't. Yes, there are an additional 40 or so guys listed, but there's still only one or two DNPs per match on average. Mark checks the lineups for that match and plugs in the backup. How is that more work than waiting 24 hours for an in-match substitution or even a choice between a second chance and a sub? It isn't.
And the idea that designating subs at each position prior to match is somehow less work than not doing it? That's absurd on its face. And I'm telling you guys, it's trickier than you think. Try it.
But here's the real blind spot: the notion that you can just ride subs with impunity. Wait. How? You can't do it with your starters, or if you do, you're gonna get beat, as Hans did earlier this season. Why would it work for backups? They get hurt - or suddenly start sucking - just like anybody else. You don't manage them, you lose your DNP protection, simple as that.
And as for not worrying about your starting lineup because you've got backups, that makes no sense. You're starters are better players. That's why they're starters. You don't want your backups going instead.
And if we're really concerned about teams riding a backup after an injury to a starter, we rule that backups remain backups from match to match. That a team owner must repost his lineup on the blog for each match and only gets his sub if he names him as a starter. Know what I mean? The backups don't automatically move into the lineup.
And further, if you really want people paying attention, kill the SCR. You want owners motivated to put well-chosen backups at each position? There it is.
- All subs are position-for-position.
- We use our entire roster like never before - Mark has praised this principle - without creating extra work for the scorekeeper.
- We put bigtime pressure on teams to create and maintain FULL rosters and lineups, both on draft night and through supplementals. (Managing, right?)
- And the DNP - I suspect - will become very, very rare.
Honestly, people. If there is some glaring error in any of this, will somebody please point it out?
E Team:
And not to sound like a broken record or anything, but the in-game sub thing may sound like you get to cleverly flip all kinds of switches, but it's not true.
It will regularly give team owners no option for a backup...
and hence fail to provide any mitigation whatsoever a significant percent of the time.
So Eric this is a new development.This is the first I've heard about the requirement to re-post your backup as a stater next match? So you're saying that as insurance everyone pays attention you'd only be allowed one immediate remedy for a hurt starter and the 2nd match if lineup is unchanged would have a DNP? You put that kind of trap for the apathetic in there and I could support it. No carryover replacements the move to replace dnp is good one match for the same players. I'm troubled about the backup 6th guy and every position which on the one hand does demand some strategy on the best use of who at what position but it enhances the value of multi-position.I do indeed support use of entire roster more and I liked the second chance because it does utilize the unused numbers of your players games that we don't count which are wasted stats.
I enjoyed Hawthorne's longest commentary on the situation(and amicable critique of both sides) and am in agreement with most of it.The issue of tabling until off-season and finding a fix around the time of next draft is sensible.I'd point out that he's wrong about ESPN positions being a problem. Let's use an example he and I have both played. Yahoo is far too lenient on positions only requiring 5 games for eligibility. ESPN updates and adds position additions during the season requiring 10 games for multi-position adds.If you had one of the more liberal position platforms like Yahoo it would render many of this position strategy we've discussed,both at draft night and in the adoption of the dnp mitigation essentially moot. I pride myself on drafting for multi-position including the anticipation of someone you know in preseason will be used somewhere they're not currently eligible.This is even more essential in drafting for baseball.
Post a Comment