2008-09 Celticsblog fantasy basketball leagues

[wdleehi]

Unfortunately, no, not yet. I invited WDLeehi's brother to the league, but haven't heard back.

We just need one more. If anyone knows anyone looking to get in on a fantasy league, send them my way.

He said he would do it. 

[Kwhit10]

I'm interested to see what kind of shape the team I'll be inheriting is in.

[wdleehi]

I'm interested to see what kind of shape the team I'll be inheriting is in.

Ever get the feeling you could end up with the team that has Marbury, Randolph, Arenas, Ellis, and Childress?

[Kwhit10]

I'm interested to see what kind of shape the team I'll be inheriting is in.

Ever get the feeling you could end up with the team that has Marbury, Randolph, Arenas, Ellis, and Childress?

Is that seriously one of the teams?  wow.....  *crosses fingers* haha

[wdleehi]

I'm interested to see what kind of shape the team I'll be inheriting is in.

Ever get the feeling you could end up with the team that has Marbury, Randolph, Arenas, Ellis, and Childress?

Is that seriously one of the teams?  wow.....  *crosses fingers* haha

No clue.  But you could see it happening.

[The Walker Wiggle]

Glad to see things are moving along. I've got more thoughts:

I don't know why I was originally opposed to not having game limits. For roto-style, game limits are essential (this is probably where I was coming from, since I've mostly played in roto leagues). For head-to-head, I realize that having no game limits helps level the playing field. When my team's best players play only 3 to 4 games one week, and my opponent's players have been scheduled to play 4 to 5, having no game limits will help me stay competitive.

Since I've got limited fantasy experience, I want to manage my expectations if this league does indeed go no game limit, which seems to be the direction we're headed...

One of my concerns is how injuries are handled. If the bench is playing games, having Ellis or Arenas or Ginobli out for a month, means you're playing two, three, four games fewer than your opponent. If you lose a second player to injury, now you're playing four, six, eight games fewer. How does this play out head to head in the experience of the "no game limit" crowd? Can a team with two injuries get enough games played in a week to compete against a healthy opponent? What's the counter strategy?

Still, I am wary about GMs abusing the system, by keeping one or two roster slots free to add/drop free agents on a daily basis to exploit the schedule. To combat this, I'm still considering a cap on roster moves for the season. A topic for debate.

I'd be fine with a cap on roster moves, also on trades, but the former probably won't be necessary in a twenty team all-out keeper league like this one. I strongly doubt anybody will find sufficient F.A. depth to make rotating out their fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth players worthwhile. Thoughts?

As for our H2H categories, I'm fine with either a classic 9-cat, or an 11-cat system. I can't imagine not having steals, blocks, etc. in a league though, and I like including TOs, but that's just me.

Any of the newer owners have thoughts on this? I still prefer 9-cat.

Also (sorry to go on...) I'm wondering what (if any) steps ought to be taken to curtail tanking? Maybe it's a fact of fantasy life? But it was less a concern for me in our points-based league, where owners throwing their season didn't effect anything other than their draft position. In a h2h league, I can imagine it might be a bitter pill to see my competition for first (or second or third...) draw an end of the season match-up against a team with thirteen players on the bench?

[wdleehi]

Glad to see things are moving along. I've got more thoughts:

I don't know why I was originally opposed to not having game limits. For roto-style, game limits are essential (this is probably where I was coming from, since I've mostly played in roto leagues). For head-to-head, I realize that having no game limits helps level the playing field. When my team's best players play only 3 to 4 games one week, and my opponent's players have been scheduled to play 4 to 5, having no game limits will help me stay competitive.

Since I've got limited fantasy experience, I want to manage my expectations if this league does indeed go no game limit, which seems to be the direction we're headed...

One of my concerns is how injuries are handled. If the bench is playing games, having Ellis or Arenas or Ginobli out for a month, means you're playing two, three, four games fewer than your opponent. If you lose a second player to injury, now you're playing four, six, eight games fewer. How does this play out head to head in the experience of the "no game limit" crowd? Can a team with two injuries get enough games played in a week to compete against a healthy opponent? What's the counter strategy?

Still, I am wary about GMs abusing the system, by keeping one or two roster slots free to add/drop free agents on a daily basis to exploit the schedule. To combat this, I'm still considering a cap on roster moves for the season. A topic for debate.

I'd be fine with a cap on roster moves, also on trades, but the former probably won't be necessary in a twenty team all-out keeper league like this one. I strongly doubt anybody will find sufficient F.A. depth to make rotating out their fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth players worthwhile. Thoughts?

As for our H2H categories, I'm fine with either a classic 9-cat, or an 11-cat system. I can't imagine not having steals, blocks, etc. in a league though, and I like including TOs, but that's just me.

Any of the newer owners have thoughts on this? I still prefer 9-cat.

Also (sorry to go on...) I'm wondering what (if any) steps ought to be taken to curtail tanking? Maybe it's a fact of fantasy life? But it was less a concern for me in our points-based league, where owners throwing their season didn't effect anything other than their draft position. In a h2h league, I can imagine it might be a bitter pill to see my competition for first (or second or third...) draw an end of the season match-up against a team with thirteen players on the bench?

There are always injuries.  Depending on the guy, you might just waive him and pick up someone else.

If it is a good player, you just have to ride it out. 

The key is to be in the playoffs, not have the best record.  And over the whole season, very few teams will have no injuries, so it evens out for the most part. 


But if one of your top guys are out in the playoffs, it can kill you just as much as it would kill a real NBA team. 

[The Walker Wiggle]

There are always injuries.  Depending on the guy, you might just waive him and pick up someone else.

I guessed that might be the best strategy, but do you think it will be at all viable in this league, where very few F.A. contributors will be available and your entire roster carries over for '09-'10? (As opposed to a more typical ten-twelve team league with three or four keepers per team.)

I know injuries are unavoidable but in this particular set up, do you think they might be insurmountable? Am I going to have to cut Brendan Haywood and Monta Ellis if I don't want to lose 3-8 for four weeks running? Or do I just throw it in Week 1? Start to prepare for the next season.

The key is to be in the playoffs, not have the best record. And over the whole season, very few teams will have no injuries, so it evens out for the most part.

Are we having playoffs?

[wdleehi]

There are always injuries.  Depending on the guy, you might just waive him and pick up someone else.

I guessed that might be the best strategy, but do you think it will be at all viable in this league, where very few F.A. contributors will be available and your entire roster carries over for '09-'10? (As opposed to a more typical ten-twelve team league with three or four keepers per team.)

I know injuries are unavoidable but in this particular set up, do you think they might be insurmountable? Am I going to have to cut Brendan Haywood and Monta Ellis if I don't want to lose 3-8 for four weeks running? Or do I just throw it in Week 1? Start to prepare for the next season.

The key is to be in the playoffs, not have the best record. And over the whole season, very few teams will have no injuries, so it evens out for the most part.

Are we having playoffs?

Good question.  I find the better h2h leagues have a playoff.  It gives you a chance to win even if you get creamed for a couple of weeks because of injuries.  It keeps more players involved since even if you are far behind the leader, you might still be close to the last playoff spot.

[Lucky17]

Glad to see things are moving along. I've got more thoughts:

Since I've got limited fantasy experience, I want to manage my expectations if this league does indeed go no game limit, which seems to be the direction we're headed...

One of my concerns is how injuries are handled. If the bench is playing games, having Ellis or Arenas or Ginobli out for a month, means you're playing two, three, four games fewer than your opponent. If you lose a second player to injury, now you're playing four, six, eight games fewer. How does this play out head to head in the experience of the "no game limit" crowd? Can a team with two injuries get enough games played in a week to compete against a healthy opponent? What's the counter strategy?

Well, it may not be so pronounced a disadvantage to have one fewer active player in your lineup. You still need to be able to rotate active players into your lineup; at times, the schedule will have most players all playing on the same night, with only two or four teams playing on the odd night (usually, these are TNT-televised games that are highlighted by the league office for maximum exposure). The other consideration: you may not necessarily benefit from having the extra game or two. Your percentages could go down, and your TOs could go up, so it may turn out to be a wash compared to your overall team performance had you benched the guys with the extra game.

I'd be fine with a cap on roster moves, also on trades, but the former probably won't be necessary in a twenty team all-out keeper league like this one. I strongly doubt anybody will find sufficient F.A. depth to make rotating out their fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth players worthwhile. Thoughts?

For such a deep league as ours, it's probably not going to be much of an issue, but I still would like to safeguard against the possibility of someone benefiting from the "rotating FA" strategy (or is that a tactic?).

Any of the newer owners have thoughts on this? I still prefer 9-cat.

If there's an empassioned call for moving to the traditional 9-cat setup, I'll consider making a change, but as of right now, there hasn't been.

Also (sorry to go on...) I'm wondering what (if any) steps ought to be taken to curtail tanking? Maybe it's a fact of fantasy life? But it was less a concern for me in our points-based league, where owners throwing their season didn't effect anything other than their draft position. In a h2h league, I can imagine it might be a bitter pill to see my competition for first (or second or third...) draw an end of the season match-up against a team with thirteen players on the bench?

The lottery policy that mkogav came up with (each of the bottom 5 teams match their lottery chances to NBA lottery teams, and we implement the NBA lottery order for next year) seems like a good start. Are additional steps required? I'll consider those as well. Perhaps mandating a minimum number of active slots must be filled on a daily basis?

[wdleehi]

Just looked.  6 team playoff is set up.  (why not go to 8 and have no byes?  That is still less the half the teams)  

[Lucky17]

We do have playoffs in the H2H league. Right now, 6 teams, during the last 3 weeks of the season (I believe).

I'd consider opening that up to 8 teams, and perhaps (if possible) moving the playoffs up one week.

[wdleehi]

We do have playoffs in the H2H league. Right now, 6 teams, during the last 3 weeks of the season (I believe).

I'd consider opening that up to 8 teams, and perhaps (if possible) moving the playoffs up one week.

You would not have to move the playoffs.  the 1st two seeds just would not get byes. 

[Lucky17]

We do have playoffs in the H2H league. Right now, 6 teams, during the last 3 weeks of the season (I believe).

I'd consider opening that up to 8 teams, and perhaps (if possible) moving the playoffs up one week.

You would not have to move the playoffs.  the 1st two seeds just would not get byes. 

Well, I'd want to help ensure that team's best players would still be playing, and not resting up for the playoffs. I'd also want to have the last week be a full, standard week, not a partial one (or one and a half weeks).

The other consideration: with 20 teams, by moving the playoffs up, we could make sure that each team played each other team only once.

This all might be moot, since I'm not seeing any options to expand playoffs to include 8 teams or move up the starting date. I'll keep looking.

[wdleehi]

We do have playoffs in the H2H league. Right now, 6 teams, during the last 3 weeks of the season (I believe).

I'd consider opening that up to 8 teams, and perhaps (if possible) moving the playoffs up one week.

You would not have to move the playoffs.  the 1st two seeds just would not get byes. 

Well, I'd want to help ensure that team's best players would still be playing, and not resting up for the playoffs. I'd also want to have the last week be a full, standard week, not a partial one (or one and a half weeks).

The other consideration: with 20 teams, by moving the playoffs up, we could make sure that each team played each other team only once.

This all might be moot, since I'm not seeing any options to expand playoffs to include 8 teams or move up the starting date. I'll keep looking.

What I mean is right now, the 1st week of the playoffs, two teams have byes.  They don't play the first week. 


If you add two more teams, it should not cause you to add another week to the playoffs.  Everyone in the playoff would just play the 1st week.