BenjaminH wrote:Oz,
We debated roster-churning last year. If I remember, the teams that used the strategy were moderately successful but ultimately failed. They ended up finishing towards the middle of the league because of negative categories. While HeavyP, who pretty much neglected the league and left his roster unchanged all year, did about the same. But the whole debate is pretty moot. I agree that we should add some more negative categories. Making strategies for negative categories is just as challenging as positive categories. And that will prevent using the roster-churning strategy. So, we're on the same page here.
Hang on didn't you win the whole thing last year? You were one of the main culprits! Don't go saying it didn't play a role because clearly it did. I think 2nd or 3rd place also did their fare share of churning early on as well.
I'm glad you think that a negative catergory would be a benefit.
BenjaminH wrote:I'm not so sure about your flagrant foul suggestion. Sure, it is good to have a little luck involved. But if a category is entirely unpredictable, it kind of takes the skill our of the competition. Why even play Fantasy Basketball? Why not just draw straws? At the same time, it is just one stat category ... so, I'm open to discussing this. If the majority want to add flagrant fouls, I guess that would be alright.
That was just a suggestion, I didn't say it was a must have. It's an interesting stat that is why I added it in my league. I like having a bit of luck involved. Maybe an Assist to TO ratio would be a better option? I had that one last year.
BenjaminH wrote:I sort of feel the same way about 3pt%, but, perhaps, not as strongly. It isn't quite as unpredictable ... Again something we should discuss. What do others think?
It is not that unpredictable it just takes more planning. As I said I don't want to be in another league with just totals, totals and more totals. There is very little skill in that.
BenjaminH wrote:The reason I'm waiting to adjust the roster size is because we have plenty of time before the draft, so there is no reason to do it now. We agree that the roster size needs to be adjusted. But the number of teams will definitely play a role in the teams to roster ratio. For example, if we end up with, say, 14 teams, we may want less than 12 players each. Or, if we end up with, say, 6 teams, we may want more than 12 players each. Simply put, the number of teams will play a role in determining the team/roster ratio. Does that make sense?
14, 15, 16 teams I really think it should be a 12 deep roster. Having 9 last year was far to easy if someone was injured there was always a pretty good player there waiting for them to replace. Having less players to choose from the waiver wire makes the manger look a little deeper into the list. Injuries play a part in the outcome of an NBA team, why shouldn't they play a part in our league?