Celticsblog fantasy bball keeper league (Draft Thread)

[Edgar]

With the next pick Birdman Got Chris Kaman

There has been a trade

I send My next year First round pick.
(I dont plan to be top 7)

Blake send me this years 6th, 8th and 9th rounder



Good luck.[/b]

There it is. Blake has Edgar's first rounder (among others).

The picks ended up being Chris Wilcox, Kyle Korver, and Earl Boykins, I believe.

Thanks Lucky!....thats what I had thought.  I also know that Blake has my first rounder this year.

ok ok ok
U remember that beter than me lol
Im not that happy tough
oh well I am trading for second rounders
jijiji

I am Totall in, I just want it if posible to try head to head No game limits, that totally kills me last year
as all my fantasy teams this is
guard based

[Roy Hobbs]

Yeah, Edgar, I hate game limits, too.  I prefer a system where the number of roster moves is capped, rather than having a limit placed upon games played.

[yall hate]

In head to head I dont think you need the game limits (game minimums yes, but not limits).  Although with the way it was set up last year I thought the game limits were needed.  It ensured that you had to think for at least 1 minute about who you were putting in rather then just dumping everyone in.  I like that there was a little bit of strategy involved.  But if we switch to head to head I have no problem getting rid of game limits.

[Lucky17]

The only thing about head to head without game limits is that it favors teams who constantly pick up and plug free agents into their lineups on a daily basis. There's simply no way to compete against that strategy.

[Roy Hobbs]

The only thing about head to head without game limits is that it favors teams who constantly pick up and plug free agents into their lineups on a daily basis. There's simply no way to compete against that strategy.

That's why I think you should cap the number of roster moves.  It prevents precisely that strategy, while also encouraging managers to be very active managing their roster on a daily basis, shuffling their players in and out.

Also, if we go to head to head, rosters should be completely frozen for the playoffs.  If a player gets injured, oh well.  I'm a big fan of riding the horses that got you there.

[Lucky17]

The only thing about head to head without game limits is that it favors teams who constantly pick up and plug free agents into their lineups on a daily basis. There's simply no way to compete against that strategy.

That's why I think you should cap the number of roster moves.  It prevents precisely that strategy, while also encouraging managers to be very active managing their roster on a daily basis, shuffling their players in and out.

Also, if we go to head to head, rosters should be completely frozen for the playoffs.  If a player gets injured, oh well.  I'm a big fan of riding the horses that got you there.

I'll see what kinds of options there are for league format through Yahoo!

[ChampKind]

I'm still in for next season.

[Dino Radjas Fadja]

If any spots open up let me know, I'm looking to get into a good keeper league.

[smiggity]

I am still in for next season - even tho my roster is running somewhere between lackluster and uninspired

[bostonfan23]

I had a team last season, and definitely wasn't active enough towards the end.. just got too busy. Honestly, with you guys having a huge waiting list I don't want to mess it up this time.. I wish you the best of luck configuring the league, though.

[Birdman]

Count me back in for next season also. Head to head would be nice with a cap on roster moves.

[Edgar]

head to head totally make people be more active
adn force heavy free agent search
I like that
a LOT

[Roy Hobbs]

Head-to-head also minimizes tanking.  Once you fall 1000 points behind in a points league, you may as well give up.  In head-to-head, you can still get into the playoffs.

Again, though, the concern for me would be about categories.  I didn't draft with things like blocks and steals in mind, because frankly, they just weren't that important under our previous points system.  I'm sure many people are in that same boat. 

[Edgar]

Head-to-head also minimizes tanking.  Once you fall 1000 points behind in a points league, you may as well give up.  In head-to-head, you can still get into the playoffs.

Again, though, the concern for me would be about categories.  I didn't draft with things like blocks and steals in mind, because frankly, they just weren't that important under our previous points system.  I'm sure many people are in that same boat. 

that makes it fair for everyone.Dont u think?

[Roy Hobbs]

Head-to-head also minimizes tanking.  Once you fall 1000 points behind in a points league, you may as well give up.  In head-to-head, you can still get into the playoffs.

Again, though, the concern for me would be about categories.  I didn't draft with things like blocks and steals in mind, because frankly, they just weren't that important under our previous points system.  I'm sure many people are in that same boat. 

that makes it fair for everyone.Dont u think?

Well, not really.  Somebody who lucked into Andre Kirilenko or Gerald Wallace is going to do a lot better in a head-to-head league than he would under our points system.  Some rosters that would have done quite well under the old system will do poorly under the traditional head-to-head system, because scoring was given paramount importance in our old league.

Here were our previous categories, and their importance under the points-based league:

Categories: FGA, FGM, FTA, FTM, PTS, REB, AST, ST, BLK, TO
Stat Modifiers: FGA (-0.5), FGM (1.2), FTA (-0.25), FTM (0.5), PTS (1), REB (1.5), AST (1.75), ST (2.75), BLK (2.5), TO (-1.5)

So, for instance, a FGM was worth a minimum of 2.7 points (1.2FGM + 2PTS - .5FGA), and 3.7 points for a three-pointer.  That means a basket is worth almost twice as much as a rebound (1.5), etc.

I think there are ways to adjust this; we just need to slant our league's head-to-head towards the scoring categories (ie, award for points, FGM, and whatever other scoring categories are available.)  That makes things a little more equitable, I think.