PC Board All-Time Fantasy League Project - Discussion Thread

[MisterHibachi]

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1299878

Am I missing anything in the OP?

[MisterHibachi]

I got a very tough matchup with O_6 but there weren't bad teams in this one either...

I have a question about the matchups. How will we go about the strategy thing? I guess everyone would have to describe their strategy in a period of like 24 hours or something, then the judges will weigh in. But I was thinking about something - we can only guess how our opponent will devise his strategy and will explain how we will counter what we expect. But what if he comes up with a strategy we hadn't thought about: do we have the chance to respond to that in a second post and say how we would counter that, or is it assumed that this is a surprise move we didn't see coming and it's up to the judges to decide whether it would tip the scales in the other team's favor or not?

For instance if a GM says that he will use a certain player in a role we weren't expecting, we should be able to come back with some kind of response, that's what I was thinking.

Yeah, what I imagined it to be would be a back and forth discussion involving the GMs and the judges (bystanders, GMs and non GMs, are also allowed to comment on match ups not involving them). GMs would propose their initial strategy (their game 1 strategy, lets say), then adjustments follow (as they do in usual playoff series) as they see what their opponent is doing. Judges would act as 'analysts', commenting on the matchup and and offering insight and asking question, and after they think all their questions have been answered they would put forth their vote. Judges don't even have to ask questions actually. If they think one matchup is so lopsided that theres no way any strategy would keep one team from winning, they can just vote right out without discussion.

[whitehops]

I got a very tough matchup with O_6 but there weren't bad teams in this one either...

I have a question about the matchups. How will we go about the strategy thing? I guess everyone would have to describe their strategy in a period of like 24 hours or something, then the judges will weigh in. But I was thinking about something - we can only guess how our opponent will devise his strategy and will explain how we will counter what we expect. But what if he comes up with a strategy we hadn't thought about: do we have the chance to respond to that in a second post and say how we would counter that, or is it assumed that this is a surprise move we didn't see coming and it's up to the judges to decide whether it would tip the scales in the other team's favor or not?

For instance if a GM says that he will use a certain player in a role we weren't expecting, we should be able to come back with some kind of response, that's what I was thinking.

ideally we would do a new strategy before every individual game but that would take waaay too long. I know it's not perfect but I'm guessing you write up your strategy for the whole series beforehand and try to anticipate what your opponent's strategy is.

[whitehops]

also do we have a system to break ties?

[MisterHibachi]

also do we have a system to break ties?

Hmm. That's a good question. We could do another vote to break the tie, with each judge just saying the team who would win, without saying the number of wins. Or iunno, I'm not too sure about this.

[ThunderDan9]

I'll be going against my guy the Truth.

And I'm going up against T-Mac, one of my favorite players of all-time.

Spoiler:

It's a playoff series though, so I don't have to worry too much!

[HeartBreakKid]

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1299878

Am I missing anything in the OP?

We need a schedule. What's going to be the first match(es) that we comment on? 1 vs 8 seeds?

[Quotatious]

Hmm. That's a good question. We could do another vote to break the tie, with each judge just saying the team who would win, without saying the number of wins. Or iunno, I'm not too sure about this.

I actually like the idea of judges giving the number of wins for each team, because after the voting, the number of wins for both teams will reflect how close it was, and that's a nice thing to get a clue about your efforts after all...I think the tiebreaker could be just that one of the judges won't participate in that (I'm sure one of them would be willing to step down for a moment), so we would have 7 judges and another tie wouldn't be possible. So you know - all 8 judges decide in the initial voting process, and if there's a tie and they have to vote again, one of them doesn't vote in the second take.

[Laimbeer]

I'm facing Jordan

It was nice being able to pick Mike, but I don't think the team was built up as it could have been. Marques Johnson in the second round? I don't think it's a team to be afraid of.

[Quotatious]

It was nice being able to pick Mike, but I don't think the team was built up as it could have been. Marques Johnson in the second round? I don't think it's a team to be afraid of.

I disagree. I think the team Narigo's built around Mike is very well-suited to MJ's skills. Most importantly, there are three wings on PG, SG and SF.

I think you're underrating Marques. He was pretty good as the first option on the Bucks in the early 80s, and would probably be even better with less pressure on him. Sikma could throw accurate passes to guys like MJ and Scott spreading the floor. He also has four fantastic defensive specialists off the bench - Ben Wallace, Bobby Jones, Cooper and Hinrich. They'd be just fine, IMHO.

[MisterHibachi]

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1299878

Am I missing anything in the OP?

We need a schedule. What's going to be the first match(es) that we comment on? 1 vs 8 seeds?

I was thinking of making either all threads for all match ups at one time or half of them. So either 8 threads at the same time, or match ups 1-8 and 2-7 in each conference, then 3-6 and 4-5. I think the second option is a little better.

[Quotatious]

I was thinking of making either all threads for all match ups at one time or half of them. So either 8 threads at the same time, or match ups 1-8 and 2-7 in each conference, then 3-6 and 4-5. I think the second option is a little better.

I agree. Half of the matchups on one take, the second half on the second take. It'd be too much for the judges to deal with at one take if we went with 8 matchups at the same time.

[MisterHibachi]

Hmm. That's a good question. We could do another vote to break the tie, with each judge just saying the team who would win, without saying the number of wins. Or iunno, I'm not too sure about this.

I actually like the idea of judges giving the number of wins for each team, because after the voting, the number of wins for both teams will reflect how close it was, and that's a nice thing to get a clue about your efforts after all...I think the tiebreaker could be just that one of the judges won't participate in that (I'm sure one of them would be willing to step down for a moment), so we would have 7 judges and another tie wouldn't be possible. So you know - all 8 judges decide in the initial voting process, and if there's a tie and they have to vote again, one of them doesn't vote in the second take.

Oh I'm not saying to get rid of the whole wins system. I proposed that if there's a tie, then each judge would just vote again, this time without wins and we can just call that an overtime win or something.

OR we can put the tie breaker to the remaining GMs (excluding the two in the match up) and they vote on the better team without specifying wins. And whoever wins that vote breaks the tie.

Other ideas?

[batmana]

Yes, obviously talking strategy game-to-game will be too time consuming and the strategy will likely not change that much from game 1 to game 2. I just wanted to clear up whether we would get the chance to respond to something unexpected.

I like the idea in a case of a tie to have other GMs voting, I'm not sure how you would get one judge to not vote and how you decide which one exactly.

[Laimbeer]

I don't think anyone was gonna draft Arenas or Francis. I didn't forget them but I didn't expect them to get drafted and wasn't surprised when they weren't.

Same here, unless you want some locker room excitement.

I've said Daugherty is pretty obviously better than several centers drafted - I'm wondering what the thoughts were on Amare and Michael Ray Richardson. I think we forget Amare was quite stud in past days and Richardson was a really talented all-around guard, an all-star for several years.

[Quotatious]

Oh I'm not saying to get rid of the whole wins system. I proposed that if there's a tie, then each judge would just vote again, this time without wins and we can just call that an overtime win or something.

If there are still 8 judges in that case, a tie would be just as possible as if they had to say how many games it would take. 7 or 9 judges, yeah, but 8 doesn't guarantee that there wouldn't be a tie again.

[MisterHibachi]

Yes, obviously talking strategy game-to-game will be too time consuming and the strategy will likely not change that much from game 1 to game 2. I just wanted to clear up whether we would get the chance to respond to something unexpected.

I like the idea in a case of a tie to have other GMs voting, I'm not sure how you would get one judge to not vote and how you decide which one exactly.

I don't think we'll be going game to game. But we will have the chance to respond to the opponent's strategy of course.

And yeah, I just realized that putting a tie to the judges again would be pointless cuz a tie is just as likely.

[Quotatious]

I've said Daugherty is pretty obviously better than several centers drafted - I'm wondering what the thoughts were on Amare and Michael Ray Richardson. I think we forget Amare was quite stud in past days and Richardson was a really talented all-around guard, an all-star for several years.

I already gave my thoughts on not drafting Daugherty. As far as Amare, he's a bigman and he's horrible defensively, so that's a pretty discouraging combination. I don't think anyone seriously considered having him come off the bench, and as a starter, he's a very clear negative defensively, especially against other all-time greats.

Micheal Ray was a headcase, and he'd also probably have to be your starter, and he wasn't really that great, if you look at his advanced numbers.

[MisterHibachi]

Alright, so any other ideas on tie breakers? I think that's the last remaining issue before I make the threads.

GM vote is a possibility.

[Laimbeer]

Alright, so any other ideas on tie breakers? I think that's the last remaining issue before I make the threads.

GM vote is a possibility.

Conduct a 12 hour poll in the Player Comparison forum?