scully19 wrote:The change in dynamic i think makes it much more realistic, because now you can have projects and can hold onto young guys for future years without destroying your current year, the way it is actually done by GMs right now.
Also, So-Tex, you've still missed my point. That being there is virtually no difference between having an injured Dirk locked to your roster, as I'll admit could happen in a weekly league, and what we have here. Which is to bench DIrk and play noone instead, or move Mbah-a-Moute from UTIL to PF I'm not complaining about the injuries, I'm merely pointing out that moving to a weekly league doesn't aggravate the situation even if Dirk goes down on a Monday.
In fact I would say it lessens it since in a weekly league you can at least move Dirk to the bench next week, whereas here Dirk rots on your bench indefinitely. In a weekly league Dirk's injury hurts you for a week, but in a daily league it actually hurts daily, or at least every other day. The only option you're advocating is to suck it up, or trade Dirk at 50c to the dollar. Frankly that's a lame option, and I don't doubt you know it, only you're content to suck it up and advocate everyone should do as you instead of considering other ways we can improve the situation.
Flipping injured studs like Dirk is for crappy one-and-done public leagues, not keeper leagues. Plus we should be able to utilise the bench for other purposes than active rotation, which is why I'm advocating a change to weekly lineups. Lets open this up and use it for stashing upside types too.
But realise bringing back an Injured List spot or 2 still won't facilitate stashing young upside types getting DNP's. The only way to do so in a daily league is cumbersome, it would require extending the bench by ie. 4 spots, declaring the new spots inactive for the week, and then checking everyone's roster every day to make sure the guys on the inactive bench spots aren't being played, since yahoo! won't discriminate for us. We could use the smack-talk to declare are inactives, but it's just more crap that can go wrong, more checks, more penalties, more corrections.
I'll admit the extra 15 minutes a week spent screwing around in yahoo!s crappy interface isn't a big deal, just a pet hate of mine. Just had to vent.
If you're happy with everything the way it is that's fine, but it seems to me the purpose of this thread is to suggest changes for the better. For you having a bench not only for backups but for injured players and upside types is having your cake and eating it too, but to me it's as easy and attainable as a change to weekly lineups, or possibly a games limit, and would far better mimic the NBA. And it seems I'm not alone there.
1 thing I forgot to say. If it came down to game limits or weekly lineups, I'd prefer to stick with an option that yahoo! allows. Using 2 different providers would be a bit of extra assing around that I'd prefer to avoid. At the moment that would mean weekly, but Yahoo does seem to update from year to year, so you never know.
After reading through the posts more carefully, I can say I am not in favor of increasing bench spots or adding an IR. That seems ridiculous to me. Part of the game is the risk/reward and being screwed by injuries. To take that out of the game makes no sense to me whatsoever. I could get on board with weekly changes (don't love them, but could deal with it) and do find the idea of weekly game limits interesting to appease people who are complaining about losing matchups due to too many injuries (lame, but whatever).
I would submit that this shouldn't be an issue. As has been stated by several people, an NBA team holds 12-15 players, but only 7-8 are actually in the rotation on a regular basis. As is it stands right now we have a much easier situation to deal with as we can usually play anywhere from 8-12 players (even in the worst injury situation). I am all for trying to make people happy, but I think people have to really ask themselves how much of an issue this really is?? This league is pretty awesome and people seem to be picking at things to "fix" when in the long run it may be best to let things ride (yes, we want it to mimic parts of the NBA, but it is still a fantasy league too). I think everyone agrees the FA process needs to be looked at in the offseason, but as for everything else it seems to be making a mountain out of a mole hill to me.
So subbing in Mbah-a-Moute for Dirk is going to take injuries out of the game
NBA teams can deactivate their injured players and elevate a lesser player into the rotation. They still have 5 guys on the court for the full 48.
Having 3 guys down here is akin to playing 4 on 5. 11/14 x 5 < 4
Or about ten less games a week.
And I say that having been fairly healthy, aside Oden I have had few injuries. But injuries should be affecting the quality of a teams lineup, not the quantity of players getting on the court like we have here.
I think hi-chi makes a few good points here. It seems the focus in discussion lately has been on aspects of the league which really aren't broken, whereas other aspects, like free agency, are being ignored (not on purpose, mind you, but ignored none the less).
Having said that, I do want to make one more comment regarding the weekly lineup argument - if one of the reasons for going to a weekly lineup is so we can "stash" players on the bench, then why not just change the number of starters? Go with a PG, SG, SF, PF, C, and 2 UTLs - seven possible starters per night. This way, managers are forced to choose their best players on a daily basis, and can afford to sit those who are injured or aren't playing much due to "development".
I mean, basically the difference between the way it is now and going with 7 available slots is that I just won't be starting guys like Tiago Splitter half the time, especially when I have other options available. As it is now, the only reason I play him is for the off chance that he gets some run and has a good game. Otherwise, it probably hurts me more playing him on a daily basis. But that's part of the risk/reward hi-chi mentioned - or at least, that's what I think of when I think "risk/reward".
Keeping the daily control of lineups, but going to a smaller starting lineup, would allow for more "quality" games played. And it might even help those of us in the cellar be more competitive, because we would be playing our better players more vs. our scrubs. It's not like we're not playing our top players all the time, we are. But this way, our bench players wouldn't get as much run as they do - thus, they wouldn't hurt us so much in certain cats. And, of course, the same would be true for all teams in the league if we were to go that route - more "quality", less "quantity", without changing to a weekly format. That would work for me.
Markos wrote:But injuries should be affecting the quality of a teams lineup, not the quantity of players getting on the court like we have here
agree 100%. if we're trying to mimic nba in this. we can collectively decide that we aren't, but if we are, il is a must. it allows you to stash injured players and/or projects and still play full lineup which is the whole point of il in real nba. it's not a question of whether we want il or not, it's a question of whether we want to mimic nba in this. as always vote will decide
I'd 2nd the idea of reducing the number of starting spots, as an alternative method of game limiting. Keep the roster at 14 or whatever it is now, and play maybe 8 guys a night (starting 5 plus 3 utl). In week flexibility, plus the ability to carry injuries and youth. The best of both worlds?
Re: daily/weekly changes, I don't think one is necessarily better than the other - they just offer different challenges. I know what my preference is, but if I go into a league that has weekly line ups, then I refocus my strategy to fit that part of the rules just like all the other rules in any league.
I think what is important is to understand what we want to accomplish rather than the means of accomplishing it first. What is our goal? Are we figuring out a way to better mimic the impact of injury on an NBA roster? Are we trying to better mimic an NBA rotation? There seem to be a few items we are and have been discussing that may require several votes of changes rather than just one. And I think those are great things to strive for, but we should decide what needs improving before how to do it.
And to that end, if we are trying to mimic NBA rotation, I would advocate for daily changes even more. On a strictly day-to-day basis, coaches are able to account for injuries and sub in players. I would like to be able to do the same. Obviously in H2H fantasy we have one match-up per week, and with weekly changes, we certainly can sub in players between each match up (as an NBA coach can sub in players between games).
However I would argue that individual stat. categories are more analogous to an NBA game than the weekly match-ups. For example, to lose Dirk (or any star) in a weekly league, you might lose out on winning 2-3 stat categories, obviously hurting your chances for the match up. In a daily league, you can find a sub for him and lessen the impact of his loss in any one of those categories. Is Mbah-a-Moute going to win a match up for you? Probably not. But he might win a category for you (or be a factor in a win in an actual NBA game), and in a daily league, a good GM will have an effective replacement.
Additionally, to limit streaming, I would advocate for a moves-per-week limit rather than just locking the whole roster for a week.
Further, re: the draft, it's pretty obvious why rookies are not as impactful in fantasy leagues as they are in the NBA - we have a much larger talent pool to choose from. To borrow from what LeBron said a few days ago, with only 16 teams, there's obviously more talent per team. That is why there is the option of renouncing draft picks (or trading them) so you don't have to carry rookies if you don't want to. To make picks a more valuable commodity, I agree we would have to change the structure of either rookie contracts or team rosters (to make it cheaper and/or more easy to stash players), or expand - which is something I believe the league had hoped to do eventually.
Good post Barrec, I'll try to answer it as best as I can.
I think in regard to your 2nd paragraph we are after a way to mimic the NBA with regard to both an active rotation (8-10 players?) and also the impact of injuries upon the rotation. I mean, why would we settle for less? In my opinion means an injury hit team should still be putting up an active rotation of 8-10 players, only of a lesser calibre than had they had full health. That's enough of a penalty already, and it's far more realistic considering NBA teams simply elevate other players into the rotation when the injury bug hits them, they don't simply play 3 guys down.
But I take issue with this, regarding the hypothetical injury to Dirk:
In a daily league, you can find a sub for him and lessen the impact of his loss in any one of those categories.
This is false. Perhaps I haven't explained myself well enough above, but I'll try to prove it by considering your coming week's schedule (week 11),
Assume Dirk misses all his 3 of his games.
DAL plays on Tuesday, but you only have 5 other players active that day. DAL plays on Thursday, but you only have 1 other player active that day. DAL plays on Thursday, but you only have 6 other player active that day.
On none of those days do you have so many active players that you can simply take a guy off your bench and sub them in for Dirk. Not once. You simply lose 3 games of Dirk, exactly as you would have had you not realised he was injured and started Dirk in a weekly lineup this Monday.
Admittedly some weeks you will have Dirk playing on days when you have more than 9 active players and be able to bench him for someone else, but I think the average would be about one game a week. The rest of the time you simply don't have enough active players on any given day to cover.
And this repeats itself every week until Dirk returns. You're down about 2 or 3 games every week, 10 a month, until he's back. The only way you can properly cover for Dirk, without an injured list spot anyhow, is if you waive him and grab another PF off waivers. Or trade him for 50c to the dollar. And frankly that's one-and-done public league crap.
Conversely, in a weekly league even if you start an injured DIrk you just suck it up for a week and then sub in your backup PF while Dirk recovers, so you miss 3 or 4 games max, even if he's out for the season. In the meantime you start Ryan Anderson.
If you want to argue for the daily roster format, be my guest, but the claim that daily rosters allow you to cover injuries is not only getting way overstated, in fact I think my point shows the opposite is true with regard to any injury longer than a week.
I like the idea of lessening rosters down to 8. If we are really trying to mimic the NBA AND lessen the impact of injuries (not sure we should, but I will accept the concept for now) this pretty much does it. Again, I don't see the issue of injuries being so big. After reading Marcos' post I don't see the logic in trying to mimic NBA rosters and worrying about games played in a week (daily or weekly roster changes) as there is no real connection there.
In the example given, the owner of Dirk would lose 3 games during the week, but at no time would they not be able to fill out a starting roster due to the injury and it is highly unlikely that an owner will have 6 injuries for a LONG period of time affecting their ability to fillout a roster (only in that situation could I see an argument being made of a rule exemption). Why is this such a big deal? I don't get it? We have FIVE bench spots so that the impact of injuries will be lessened, but the impact should still be significant as it is a major part of the game. It is not like we have no bench spots and all players start every day. Yes, when a player gets hurt you have the possibility of losing quality games, but isn't that part of the game? Shouldn't that be part of the challenge? Isn't that why we have 7 day contracts? I would guess that if we had ten bench spots instead of five it would still be an issue. Why is having injured players constantly such a big deal this league? It is part of the game in fantasy and the NBA. Losing one or two players does not affect your ability to fill out your roster, so why is there a problem? I played the entire season up until Christmas with Mike Miller hurt on my bench + various other injuries and dead weight I inherited and it affected my numbers, but I was able to fill out my roster each day. Did I lose games each week? Yes. But it is part of the game and should be part of the game.