Fantasy NBA League?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Keepers. Bad idea. If we had known about keepers earlier, some might have played differently (i.e. draft LeBron James or Carmelo Anthony). Up to now I've made roster decisions with this year only in mind. Its changing the rules mid-game.

 

Stats. If anything, we should have less. Points, Rebounds, Assists, Steals, Blocks. Simple as that. Percentages lean towards centers, and I think we agree they aren't better shooters than guards. Turnovers are a loss in possession, and are counted by less points, assists, etc. anyway.

 

One suggestion for next season. Waiver priority should depend on standings.

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

^

agree

 

 

Although I'm not sure if the waiver priority is set automatic or not

[Lightning Flik 0]

^

agree

 

 

Although I'm not sure if the waiver priority is set automatic or not

Waiver priority is set by who takes what position in the draft I believe. I might be able to due something about it during mid-season, but everyone had click "Commish has no right to do so" or something along those lines and such. I assume, I'm not sure.

 

Ok for next season then, it'll be a redraft if people don't agree. However, every season after that, we have keepers. Because I think people still will play for a third season, yes?

 

Those five would work. If everyone doesn't mind that, I'm fine with it.

 

Also would people prefer seven players playing and just two benches (no change in roster size)? Or should we move to seven players playing and three benches?

 

I'm thinking that maybe IL could be lowered from three to two. What say you?

[razazteca 0]

Whatever the stats will be it MUST BE an odd number to prevent ties. I think either fouls or turnovers should be included as there must be some negative stat to balance out players that get into foul trouble. It would be more of a "real" game if fouls or turnovers are counted becauce they can and often are the reasons for teams winning. Hack-the-Shaq/Duncan can win or lose a game in the final seconds of the game when these superstars shoot 50% from the line.

 

The Pros for % are it keeps the shooters in check

The Cons would be some bench warmer making 2 shots and getting 100%

[Lightning Flik 0]

Whatever the stats will be it MUST BE an odd number to prevent ties. I think either fouls or turnovers should be included as there must be some negative stat to balance out players that get into foul trouble. It would be more of a "real" game if fouls or turnovers are counted becauce they can and often are the reasons for teams winning. Hack-the-Shaq/Duncan can win or lose a game in the final seconds of the game when these superstars shoot 50% from the line.

 

The Pros for % are it keeps the shooters in check

The Cons would be some bench warmer making 2 shots and getting 100%

Hm... You know, that is true. We should include turnovers and fouls for the very reasons above.

 

Categories (TBF): PTs, ASTs, STLs, BLKs, REBs, TOs, and Fs.

 

As for precentages, I just realized that it wouldn't matter if you did pick someone who gets 2 for 2 and scores 100%. It's still a collective average and so you'd still have to pick very efficient shooters to get this right. Doesn't mean will go with them but you're still not assured of getting a high percentile because one shoots good, you might have four or five guys who shoot 15%.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I don't like turnovers and fouls. Fouls are entirely dependant upon the quality of a player, and based almost on pure chance, ESPECIALLY when used as a late game strategy tactic. Fantasy basketball should be a game of skill, not luck. Turnovers are rarely a reliable indicator of ball-handling skill, and are more indicative simply on who is given the ball more.

[Guest OctoberBlood]

I don't like turnovers and fouls. Fouls are entirely dependant upon the quality of a player, and based almost on pure chance, ESPECIALLY when used as a late game strategy tactic. Fantasy basketball should be a game of skill, not luck. Turnovers are rarely a reliable indicator of ball-handling skill, and are more indicative simply on who is given the ball more.

It also depends on who is defending you. Say, a person who is being defened by Allen Iverson is gonna turn the ball over more than someone guarded by Glen Robinson. But yeah - Agreed with that 100%. No need for Fouls or Turnovers in a fantasy league.

[Mr. S£im Citrus 0]

... No need for Fouls or Turnovers in a fantasy league.

Uhh... what?

 

What statistics do you use, then? I've been doing this fantasy thing for three years now, and I've never been in, or even seen a league that didn't use FG%, FT% and turnovers.

[razazteca 0]

... No need for Fouls or Turnovers in a fantasy league.

Uhh... what?

 

What statistics do you use, then? I've been doing this fantasy thing for three years now, and I've never been in, or even seen a league that didn't use FG%, FT% and turnovers.

Well it is different and fun............well because I am winning

 

I can see why people do not like fouls as some teams just use certain bench players to make fouls for possession reasons but that is a matter of luck. No FT% makes Shaq and Duncan into gods. No FG% makes AI and Gilbert Arenas into a MVP players.

[Lightning Flik 0]

... No need for Fouls or Turnovers in a fantasy league.

Uhh... what?

 

What statistics do you use, then? I've been doing this fantasy thing for three years now, and I've never been in, or even seen a league that didn't use FG%, FT% and turnovers.

Well it is different and fun............well because I am winning

 

I can see why people do not like fouls as some teams just use certain bench players to make fouls for possession reasons but that is a matter of luck. No FT% makes Shaq and Duncan into gods. No FG% makes AI and Gilbert Arenas into a MVP players.

...thank you for pointing that out Raza. I didn't even take that into consideration.

 

 

I need something to balance out so at least you can have bench players who can still do something, instead of everyone must having the "star" players. With the statistic, a lot of "stars" become UnGodly, but still are stars.

 

FG% and FT% now included for next season. This will not be debated further, as I need something to make the lower players worth while looking at (as long as they shoot good), instead of everyone grabbing the high quality players and if their one or two marque players go down for the count, they be screwed (see pretty much half of the league this season). Since pretty much everything else is getting shot down (including FGmade, FTmade, and 3PTmade), these two will be added. I wasn't about to make it those 5 categories that depended on "star" players. No way in hell.

 

Finalized: FG%, FT%, PTS, ASTS, REBS, BLKS, STLS. Seven categories in total.

 

FEBRUARY 19TH IS TRADE DEALINE!!!

[alfdogg 0]

Whatever the stats will be it MUST BE an odd number to prevent ties.

There would still be ties if you have the same amount of something in one category.

 

For the record, I don't like the idea of keepers either. To me, it would be more interesting if everyone drafted a whole new team. If we insist on having them, I say only one per team, our franchise player so to speak. If we have to have more than one, then I say either every team or no teams should have to do it, because there's no point in one or two teams not keeping anyone, because all the other great players will be gone and you'll probably end up picking the same two guys again anyway.

 

I still think we should count threes in some capacity as well, whether it's makes or percentage or even both.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

need something to balance out so at least you can have bench players who can still do something, instead of everyone must having the "star" players. With the statistic, a lot of "stars" become UnGodly, but still are stars.

 

FG% and FT% now included for next season. This will not be debated further, as I need something to make the lower players worth while looking at (as long as they shoot good), instead of everyone grabbing the high quality players and if their one or two marque players go down for the count, they be screwed (see pretty much half of the league this season). Since pretty much everything else is getting shot down (including FGmade, FTmade, and 3PTmade), these two will be added. I wasn't about to make it those 5 categories that depended on "star" players. No way in hell.

 

Finalized: FG%, FT%, PTS, ASTS, REBS, BLKS, STLS. Seven categories in total.

 

Umm. Isn't the general idea of a fantasy league to have star players? Then you pick up role players when you need help in a particular category. Field Goal % is somewhat misleading because you have guys like AI who miss a lot of shots. Why? Because they're the guys who have to make shots at the end of the shot clock, rather than just letting it expire. Field Goal % is also heavily weighted towards centers, making Shaq and Duncan more valuable. Adding FT % only balances this, but does nothing to correct the imbalance you say causes this change in the first place.

[Sandman9000 0]

Finalized: FG%, FT%, PTS, ASTS, REBS, BLKS, STLS. Seven categories in total.

Uh, what happened to 3's, since we've got that this year? If we're going to potentially expand the number of guards playing, we've got to give them something to aim for.

[Cartman 0]

There is no such thing as a Fantasy league where ALL the teams have a shot at winning.

 

Just throwing that out there.

[Lightning Flik 0]

There is no such thing as a Fantasy league where ALL the teams have a shot at winning.

 

Just throwing that out there.

I'm not looking for teams having a shot winning. I'm looking for a "fair" league. That's about it. Yes, this season wasn't bad, but I still don't like how star players are what everyone needs to aim for. I mean, not too many of the 16 teams have an identifiable role player on the team. And by role player, I mean someone who's basically only there for the one player roster.

 

Ok... I'm taking a look at the categories possible and then I'm putting up a list and why it is there. We'll proceed from there. I fucked up my list to get everything finalized as I had 8 once again (the one I had missed was TOs), and it doesn't help at all (as I was pointed out about centres). So scrap it...

 

And recrafting it now... So yes, this stupid listing is still debateable because I fucked it up. Nice job me, woo... God somedays, I need to smack myself for being so lamebrained.

 

*takes a look inbetween reading about NWO and comes up with a listing for next season*

 

Ok... Here's what I'm thinking

 

01) Field Goals Made - This statistic still favors the centres but not as much so as they still have to put the shots in the net.

 

02) Field Goals Missed - This statistic is a must have less to win it. Why am I including this statistic? So that clutch players, or players who shoot a lot, will have a downside to them. Again, this doesn't affect centres much.

 

03) Free Throw % - It effects centres. That's all this stat is for really.

 

04) 3 Points Made - Three ball shooters who hit get rewarded.

 

05) Points - Makes those stars worth every play they make.

 

06) Assists - For assist friendly stars, like Nash and company.

 

07) Rebounds - For the people who take up the boards like no other.

 

08) Blocks - Of course, you need your blockers to do their jobs.

 

09) Steals - For those crafty thiefs and their thefty ways.

 

10) Turnovers - For the idiots who just give up the ball easily.

 

11) Fouls - This is strategic in most cases and yes a lot of people probably are groaning how the person who has less would get it, but if I remember correctly, the NHL's PIMs are classified as whoever has the most, so more than likely so too would this statistic. So you might wanna pick up that Artest fellow.

 

God, I didn't want to make it simplied speaking, but I just can't go beyond that today. Anyways, debate away till I get something that isn't bitchable (even to myself).

[razazteca 0]

I mean, not too many of the 16 teams have an identifiable role player on the team

I gotz the role playas:

 

Nestovic - Blocks, hell that all he does at this point

Eric Williams - FT

Rafer Alton - 3 pointers and assist

 

I am sorry that I drafted 4 all star caliber players, plus all of my trades "helped" the other person more than me in "star" power.

[Lightning Flik 0]

I mean, not too many of the 16 teams have an identifiable role player on the team

I gotz the role playas:

 

Nestovic - Blocks, hell that all he does at this point

Eric Williams - FT

Rafer Alton - 3 pointers and assist

 

I am sorry that I drafted 4 all star caliber players, plus all of my trades "helped" the other person more than me in "star" power.

Ahem... I wasn't speaking of you Guerrero. I'm sort of speaking of people like myself, who pick up players who give an all around performance, instead of making sacrifices to get a "role player" who would be of use picking up a statistic.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

The problem is, that type of fantasy strategy doesn't come from the stats you use. If you want more role players in the game, you have to do one of two things.......

 

1. Reduce the player pool (some baseball leagues are AL or NL only)

2. Increase the number of teams

 

What good will changing stats do? Why pick up a role player when a star will produce in that category, and several others? Besides, role players don't get as many minutes, and I've learned guys who get minutes are usually worth more. It won't work.

[razazteca 0]

Small leagues has star power up until the 5th round

Large leagues makes you pick Robert Horry as starting forward in the 3rd round

[Lightning Flik 0]

The problem is, that type of fantasy strategy doesn't come from the stats you use. If you want more role players in the game, you have to do one of two things.......

 

1. Reduce the player pool (some baseball leagues are AL or NL only)

2. Increase the number of teams

 

What good will changing stats do? Why pick up a role player when a star will produce in that category, and several others? Besides, role players don't get as many minutes, and I've learned guys who get minutes are usually worth more. It won't work.

*sighs* I'm talking about if you need a slot filled and can't get someone of star calibur Al.

 

Besides, the reason I'm changing the stats for next season is because I've had complaints about the stats for most of the season (until recently). Hence, I'm trying to get a system everyone agrees with.

 

...or are you all (as in every single manager) suddenly in favor of the system we have?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

*sighs* I'm talking about if you need a slot filled and can't get someone of star calibur Al.

 

In that case, what difference does it make which stats they are? Am I missing something?

 

Besides, the reason I'm changing the stats for next season is because I've had complaints about the stats for most of the season (until recently). Hence, I'm trying to get a system everyone agrees with.

 

...or are you all (as in every single manager) suddenly in favor of the system we have?

 

I already listed my preferences. Less catagories, rotisserie format.

[razazteca 0]

If you want to dilute the talent pool just add more players per team. Drop the 3 IL to 1 IL and add 2 bench players.

[Lightning Flik 0]

In that case, what difference does it make which stats they are?  Am I missing something?

 

It makes a difference because I'm trying to make it so everyone doesn't start complaining about it. That's why I'm trying to get the stats all fixed up before we begin for next year. That way, everyone knows what stats we are going to have, and no one begins complaining as we progress through through the season that there should be "such and such" stat.

 

I already listed my preferences.  Less catagories, rotisserie format.

 

And as I stated, I'm not reducing it down to just five categories. That's too little to choose from and you'd be more inclined to pick up the stars only. If a team can't get stars, then they'll believe they are screwed and not compete. I don't want that.

 

Rotisserie format will only happen if the majority want it that way.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

And as I stated, I'm not reducing it down to just five categories. That's too little to choose from and you'd be more inclined to pick up the stars only. If a team can't get stars, then they'll believe they are screwed and not compete. I don't want that.

 

I still don't understand that logic. Stars are valuable no matter what stats you use. A system that brings the value of stars down isn't very good. A player's real value should roughly match their fantasy value.

[razazteca 0]

I guess I am the only one that likes fouls and turnovers? I would also suggest the Offense Rebound and the Assist-to-Turnover stats but I guess that would be too hardcore for everyone here.

[Lightning Flik 0]

And as I stated, I'm not reducing it down to just five categories. That's too little to choose from and you'd be more inclined to pick up the stars only. If a team can't get stars, then they'll believe they are screwed and not compete. I don't want that.

 

I still don't understand that logic. Stars are valuable no matter what stats you use. A system that brings the value of stars down isn't very good. A player's real value should roughly match their fantasy value.

I'm not looking for a system to bring star power down. I'm trying to find a system that bring role player value up.

[razazteca 0]

Only way to do that would be use all possible stats.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

The only good way to do that is to increase the number of starters, in my view. Let each team start eight guys or so.

[Sandman9000 0]

I'm not looking for a system to bring star power down. I'm trying to find a system that bring role player value up.

Minutes on bench would achieve both of those goals.

[Lightning Flik 0]

Only way to do that would be use all possible stats.

The only good way to do that is to increase the number of starters, in my view.  Let each team start eight guys or so.

Hm.... Good point on both parts.

 

I think I'll just look on increasing our stats for this season. Keep those but increase upon them.

 

Eight players is an idea... Although, that would mean that eight players playing, and two benches... But I can go with that.

 

Although it'd be: 3G, 2F, 1C, 2U.