| 0 |
Subject: Suggestions for 2003 TSN game
Posted by: Guru
- [330592710] Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 12:46
Since we have the ear of the folks at TSN, and before baseball is a distant memory...
What changes would you suggest for the TSN game(s) for next season? |
| Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. |
| 27 | slug
Donor
ID: 555102417
Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 10:01
|
Good idea Left Wings, although I would suggest no price changes for Pitchers only for the first 5-10 days of the season. You shouldn't be punished for picking up an opening day pitcher.
|
| 28 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 11:23
|
A price change moratorium for the first 5 days of the season might be a good idea, for pitchers and hitters. This would alleviate the urge to quickly jump on someone who happens to have a hot opening day, and would provide a few days for stats to accumulate. It would also take away some of the idiosyncrasies of light opening schedules.
I've suggested some form of reverse price gravity in the past, and still believe it is needed. It is, however, a tricky one to define. And perhaps there is an easier way to accomplish this.
How about consolidating the Ultimate and Basic trading for the purposes of repricing, and having only one set of prices for both games? This would allow the new teams that are constantly forming in the Basic game to effectively provide persistency in upward movement of fundamentally cheap players. It would also bulk up the total trade figures, which might be good. I think that the limited number of Ultimate managers - particularly as the season wears on - sometimes created big price moves for relatively small activity.
I'd have to think about this a bit more, but it might have merit. And I'm not sure I see any downside.
|
| 29 | smallwhirled
Donor
ID: 17152614
Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 11:29
|
Guru,
Would the trade purchases in the free game present a problem with that idea? I don't know how to figure that out, but I may as well throw it out there.
|
| 30 | Jackie Robinson
Leader
ID: 4942911
Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 11:36
|
I strongly favor a delay in price changes for pitchers at the begining of the season. Or count the number of pre season purchases against 2nd thru 5th day sales.
Openning day starters get killed in price the first week because there are zero buys for a Pedro to offset the rotation into a day two pitcher.
This forces you to sell openning day pitchers or skip their first start or suffer a money loss.
|
| 31 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 256101115
Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 11:48
|
Guru...as always great ideas. I will have to watch the price changes on the free game for a few weeks...the only thing I worry about is that the free game will definitely control/dominate the price changes because of the vast amount of teams, they do have less trades but so many more teams that the ultimate trades would just be a drop in the bucket...but even that might not be too bad as we are all used to judging the lemming trade effect. You would think it would make the games simpler for TSN to manage...one set of player prices...one daily price change. Would make your data easier too.
I think a 5 day moratorium on price changes to open the season is a no brainer...solves the ugly pitcher price changes the first few days and allows hitters to stabalize a little before people go trade crazy. Puts a little more importance on the draft which I think is a good thing. Also virtually does away with day late teams as they no longer would have much advantage. Never did like that a team would have an advantage by actually missing a few days of points to open the season. I guess you could still do day late to jump on the players you think will be hot when price changes do start but would be far from a guaranteed thing at that point.
|
| 32 | Dude
ID: 148401011
Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 12:03
|
This could apply to both baseball & football. I like to play in the same division with my friends, but to qualify for the $50, there must be 10 teams. There's only about 6 or 7 of us, so we can't reach the minimum. We each buy 3 teams, but it wouldn't be too smart to put them in the same division and lose a crack at $150.
What we did in football this year was wait until the day before the first freeze, then we ambushed 3 different defenseless (non-password protected) divisions that had roughy a dozen teams. Judging from the interdivision emails, some weren't too pleased.
We would rather not do this, but it seemed like the only way around it. Perhaps you could have a link for non-password protected divisions for people that have the same dilemma. Maybe a "pick-up division" link.
|
| 33 | Catfish
Sustainer
ID: 515239
Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 12:08
|
I really liked both the 5-day pitcher repricing, because it took away the option to do well by mindless Randroing, and also the muted pricing changes.
Systems support and customer service were a ton better this year.
My only request is this: can the team pages be formatted so they print out on a sheet of 8 1/2 x 11 paper without the players' prices dropping off the right hand side? Suggestion: moving the vertical nav menu to the right of the page will make sure the live area all prints on a page.
|
| 34 | Tree
ID: 599393013
Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 13:25
|
any idea about viewing stats...
let's so you want to look at all the players, and rank them on Points Per Game.
unfortunately, unless you actually do it position-by-position, your first 100 or so guys are pitchers.
i'd like to see, much like there is here on the guru site, an option where you can do "hitters only" or "position players only", etc etc..
did that make ANY sense?
thanks,
Tree
|
| 35 | Bernie H.
ID: 395452711
Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 13:32
|
Hi guys, just wanted to chime in and let you know that yes, we're listening. Thanks for all the good ideas and the occasional kind word. Keep 'em coming.
Bernie, TSN
|
| 36 | Stuck in the Sixties
Leader
ID: 278451021
Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 15:39
|
I'd like to see a change in the way prices work. For example, Ibanez has been losing triple-digits lately despite putting up relatively good numbers. I'm going to hold him anyway but it seems stupid to force managers to dump players for doing well enough that they're bought by a large percentage of teams.
|
| 37 | beastiemiked
ID: 17414316
Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 15:47
|
Ibanez is the 48th ranked OFer the past 15 days, right behind Darren Bragg and Milton Bradley.
|
| 38 | Dude
ID: 148401011
Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 15:52
|
I like the DH and the team-tally sheet that you had a few years ago. Team home runs, RBI's, wins, saves, etc...as referred to in post #18. You're able to see where your club is most effective (or deficient).
|
| 39 | slug
Donor
ID: 555102417
Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 16:54
|
Clarify the DH for me please.
Is this a separate position: You have a list of possible DH's just like you have a list of 1B, 2B, etc. Seems imbalanced since the position will be dominated by AL players.
Or is this a wildcard position: No separate list of DH's; so, you can put any hitter into the DH spot. For example, you could have ARod at SS and Tejada at DH.
|
| 40 | Micheal
ID: 33457215
Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 16:59
|
Having anyone in that DH spot.
|
| 41 | MNG@computercorner
ID: 158441217
Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 17:44
|
If it would be possible I would like to see that stats updated real time.. Also.. I'm in the minority and don't expect the 5-day pitching pricing to change but I liked the 1 day better.. Keep up the good work!
|
| 42 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 17:56
|
slug - the DH slot would be a wildcard hitter's slot.
|
| 43 | albo222
Donor
ID: 541025107
Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 21:24
|
I'd like to see more emphasis placed on the initial draft.
Have the first price change based on #of buys in the draft AND no trades for first 5 days.
|
| 44 | Skidazl
Leader
ID: 5074248
Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 22:26
|
In the free game, I would suggest there being some way to show who has purchased trades. Alot of us play towards No Extra Trades, but there is currently no way to know who HAS bought trades...
Also, they removed 1/3 of the players on a team in the free game, but took away 2/3 of our trades, makes for a pretty uneventful week after trade day. I would recommend either we get 3 or 4 trades a week or 2 pitcher trades Tuesday and 2 hitter trades Thursday.
|
| 45 | 22 Rules
ID: 297191118
Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 07:06
|
First, I agree with Guru that if you apply the rotation theory on your pitchers and "Schilling's" price goes down, so be it.
I am for anything that rewards true value buying from someone who is on to a players performance BEFORE others actually see this performance. People need to be rewarded for being the first to recognize an opportunity and the lemmings should not be rewarded.
Finally, while I understand TSN needs to make some money, I would really like to see how many trades were bought from a person. Standings are basically meaningless without this knowledge.
Steve
|
| 46 | Pistol Pete
ID: 406471514
Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 09:52
|
Yes, please show which managers have purchased trades.
I would also like to see TSN go back to separate pitcher and hitter trade allotments.
|
| 47 | Ref
ID: 28045169
Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 10:18
|
Sorry about posting in the other thread, Guru! Lots going on at work this week and am trying to contribute w/o having the benefit of reading much beforehand. I will paste my post from other thread...
Get rid of 5 day pitching price change. Even 4-day would be better--but it works in reverse IMO of how this game was developed. The more people buying, the more price should go up. I know it inflates rosters, but haven't come up with a better solution.
Credit 3 points for a sacrifice.
Put in a DH or Flex position, like it was 5 yrs ago.
Keep stolen bases where they are. This helps out non-power hitters and makes them more playable. Credit -5 for getting picked off and credit a pitcher for a pickoff if that is possible--I dion't think it is--but that's a big play and they should get more than an out. They should get that hit back--which is likely 5 points (3 for a walk of course).
10 or 15 points for a Hold. This makes middle relievers more playable. Right now no one uses them. They are virtually useless.
Also, I would love to have a price change for ALL preseason price changes. Like the day of the first game have a price change.
|
| 48 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 10:49
|
I'll second Dude's suggestion in post 32. I had a similar problem this year but was able to fill out my division by posting an invitation at Rotoguru. Thanks again to Jedman and Perm Dude. But I do not believe most TSN managers are familiar enough with this site, nor do I believe that inviting a member of the elite group that are gurupies is to the advantage of average people who are looking to qualify for a prize. I also attempted to recruit division mates by posting email invitations in my two other (public) divisions, but nobody bit. Perhaps I was too aggressive.
Re Ref's suggestion in 47 for awarding points for holds, this was brought up by me in post 3 of last year's suggestion box, and also suggested by a few others in the posts that followed. But in #21 of that thread, Steve Houpt posted the following:
4. Holds are not an official MLB stat. There used to be two different 'rules' for determining holds. May still be. It started as a sabermetric stat and has never been endorsed by MLB as 'official'. Do not know if different stat sources are still calculating different ways. There used to be an article on holds in Rob Neyer's archives at ESPN.
And there are lots of quality hitters with no 'fantasy' value either. Will always be some pitchers too.
4a. Holds and blown saves are least of my concern about 'fantasy' baseball. Leave them out IMHO.
WHY. Look at this game. LA-STL
STL pitchers got 7 holds. Look at last three. Score 6-3, start of ninth. Matthews enters game. Get's a K and gives up a walk. Leaves game with 'hold'. Timlin enters. Gets flyout and gives up 2 run homer. Leaves game with a 'hold'. Tabaka enters. Gives up single. Leaves game with a 'hold' - hey score is still only 6-5. Stechschulte enters game and gets last out. Gets the SAVE. But other three 'held' the lead and get holds.
Also, KKB post #24:
2. Keep "Hold" and "Blown Save" out of the game. As Source pointed out, "Hold's" are way too arbitrary. And realistically, do we want to give as much fantasy value to a middle reliever as a closer? Middle relievers are role players and the great ones are few in number. Keep them that way. And "Blown Save" doesn't really effect the game unless it turns into a loss and that usually gets tagged on the guy with the "BS", so a double negative for that seems unreasonable. If so, make it a small penalty like -10 or something.
Those two posts effectively changed my opinion, and everyone else who posted after that last year agreed, including Bernie H.
|
| 49 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 19652912
Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 11:17
|
Well, I'm going to make my yearly suggestion of including stats by pitchers hitting and hitters pitching. If they count the out in the real game (or the HR in the case of Mike Hampton) then they should count it in the fantasy game too.
pd
|
| 50 | The Left Wings
ID: 1668298
Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 11:41
|
Naw.
In real life, the individual player's stats don't count towards final standings, so it's okay to have different rules between the leagues. But in our pool, they do count towards the final standings, so the two leagues gotta have the same set of rules.
|
| 51 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 13:01
|
I've made this suggestion before, and it should apply to all games. And I'll continue to make the suggestion until it's implemented, because the more I reflect on it, the more convinced I am that it would be a MAJOR enhancement.
Allow all trades to be "reversible" until the trade freeze. For example, suppose I swapped from Payton to Ibanez last night, only to discover this morning that Ibanez was injured last night. I should be able to undo that trade, and instead go from (for example) Payton to Garcia - as long as the change is made before today's freeze.
In effect, all trades entered would be "pending" until the next freeze. This would allow managers to enter trades earlier than they might otherwise be inclined to do, since any late-breaking info (injuries, postponements, etc.) could still be addressed. It would therefore alleviate any need to wait until the last minute to make trades. And it would also protect managers from their own stupidity or carelessness, if they happened to inadvertantly sell the wrong player (I've done it!), or leave themselves with insufficient funds, or simply forget to make a trade (done that too!) at the last minute, etc.
I realize that this would require some reprogramming of the trade process, but because it could be applied to all games, and because it would so significantly improve team administration, I think the effort is well worth it. It is certainly more important than adding a wild card DH slot, or hitting stats for pitchers, or even a draft price adjustment.
|
| 52 | beastiemiked
ID: 587492117
Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 13:05
|
Allow invalid rosters to still accumulate points.
|
| 53 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 13:19
|
Disagree with #52 BMD. That would allow us to take 2HM, possibly another stud pitcher, 4 stud OF and a 1b and leave the less productive spots blank.
|
| 54 | James K Polk
ID: 23754811
Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 13:31
|
Not sure that strategy really would work, though. Maybe the stud pitcher part would help you avoid the potential negatives of cheapie pitchers, but it could backfire too, when Millwood, Odalis, etc., are firing big games.
Pretty sure employing that strategy for very long would really cut into your cash gains too.
Maybe I'm wrong.
|
| 55 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 13:33
|
Perhaps, I just don't like the idea of being able to snatch up Sosa's at the beginning of a hot streak by trading Garret Anderson and going without a catcher.
|
| 56 | 22 Rules
ID: 297191118
Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 14:03
|
FWIW, "holds" is not a SABER stat.
|
| 57 | jumpball
Sustainer
ID: 46647610
Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 22:33
|
I like the game like it is.
That doesn't mean that it couldn't be tweaked a little to make it better -- just not sure what the best tweak would be.
5-day pitcher repricing -- I like it. To Ref's point earlier, it's allows more strategy (do you get the guy even though you know his price will drop some?). Maybe even the hitters should use the same formula . . .
4th OF -- it would be better to have this as an extra position player, but difficult to implement from a TSN perspective. I'd actually prefer to add another player to the roster (utility IF).
SNPs -- pitcher points are weighted a little too high this year. I'd suggest going back to -1 SNP for an out for hitters. Another option would be to add points to R and RBIs (maybe 6 each?) to put more value to these important stats. If you did that, reducing a HR to 18 makes sense.
SAC and SF -- hitters used to get 3 points for these; let's bring that back.
HOLD -- I'd love to see this included (maybe +10), but it would have to be supported by the stat service. It brings a lot more pitcher options into play.
BLOWN SAVE -- there are lots of closers in the top 50 pitchers this year. To balance this, a -10 SNP penalty should be assessed for a blown save.
Most importantly, keep the price to play down as low as possible for next year.
|
| 58 | Rogue's Strikers
ID: 4286118
Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 23:45
|
#51, it would also allow us to try different trades out, without having to use a spreadsheet and calculator. (Kind of what we do before the season starts basically.)
#57, I wouldn't mind adding another position spot either, and Utility IF seems reasonable.
I'd have to disagree with you on pitching points. I don't feel they're higher than they should be. In fact, I think someone earler in this thread showed that the dream team roster split their total points almost 50/50 between hitting and pitching, which is desirable.
Also, I think its good that there are some closers in the top 50 pitchers. If the better closers can't even crack the top 50 pitchers, they'll end being as useless are middle relievers are now. This has been an unusually great year for closers. (I remember back in 2000, I was happy to have a 'stud' closer who got me 35 saves and a sparkling 3.25 ERA. Now, there are 10 closers who are better than that previous 'stud' line, with two closing in on 55 saves.) Also, these great closers will all be priced higher next year, based on their TSNP production. (Just like Rivera was this year, we can expect to see Gagne and Smoltz up around 8, maybe even 9 mil.) 2001 was a weak year for top closers, and this year a pretty amazing year. That helps explain why so many are considered 'bargains' this year. (Not to mention that Gagne and Smoltz were two pitchers who's IPO prices didn't reflect their role at all this year.)
|
| 59 | cancermoon
ID: 53248219
Sat, Sep 14, 2002, 01:45
|
Intentional walks should be worth more than a normal walk, as players like Bonds , Helton, etc deserve to earn points for the fact that pitchers are afraid to pitch to them, It is so annoying to own a top class hitter, and have the potential points burned because they wont get pitched to.
|
| 60 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Sat, Sep 14, 2002, 21:37
|
I'll paste a suggetsion I made in the hoops forum regarding gravity:
Complete "What If" mode here, I have not completely thought about the material consequences of this decision:
What if the owners who hold a player who is in gravity simply gained the gravity amount (20K or whatever) in their "Cash Left"?
For example:
I hold Joe Shlobotnik on my roster at a price of $2,000,000. I have $1,000,000 Cash Left. Mr. Shlobotnik is in gravity so he drops $20,000. That's fine his price is now $1,980,000. However, I now have $1,020,000 Cash Left.
This gives the brave soul who holds a gravity player the benefit of his new cheaper price, but he doesn't materially lose the $20K. His RV is unchanged, a Net change of $0.
Thoughts?
|
| 61 | rockfish
ID: 531038288
Sat, Sep 14, 2002, 22:33
|
The game this year has been fine. The pitcher pricing does need some tweeking,perhaps go to instead of five days go to six or even ten with a beginning of season lag. It does seem to be a drag to draft opening season starters only to have them be a handicap.
The one thing this season that does get my goat is why the player pages don't show if the next five games are @ home or away,really is that to hard. Also the pitcher pages could show besides the next start,the teams next five or six games after a start.
|
| 62 | Rogue's Strikers
ID: 51826140
Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 02:22
|
Ender, I like that suggestion, but I too am not sure of the consequences. Could someone conceivably make money this way? 180K a day for all gravity hitters is pretty decent...
|
| 63 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 09:39
|
Is 180K per day on hitters more than normal? If it is more than normal, is it worth the sacrifice in points?
I'll bet on most normal days we have had a single hitter gain 100K+ so I doubt 180K is too much. I also think that having 9 gravity hitters would be murder point-wise. There is a reason most of the guys are in gravity i.e. they are not worth owning. We are simply trying to avoid being penalized for having a couple who do produce.
Plus, the bigger thing is this, your Net RV is not changed at all anyway. You're not really making 20K. Sure it is freeing up 20K per day and that would have some benefit, but it's not like you are actually making money.
|
| 64 | ESB
ID: 22853159
Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 10:01
|
This feedback, as Bernie said, is great.
Since I've come back to TSN, one of my primary goals has been to make the games closer to the image of what our users want them to be.
Here's what we'll do --
1) We'll go another 2-3 weeks with this thread.
2) In November, Bernie and I will review the list, decide what we can and want to implement, and adjust our spring production schedule accordingly.
3) When we have a better idea of what we will and will not do, we'll post a thread here.
-ESB
|
| 65 | dwsarge
ID: 13647158
Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 11:33
|
Disagree with reverse gravity. Value should be based on movement only.
|
| 66 | Ref
ID: 121135289
Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 11:48
|
Disagree Ender with adding cash. That would be like selling the guy. You can't have money in the bank froma guy while he is still on your team. In Hoops there are many times I have a gravity player trying to differ from the rest and it has really helped me at times--though I'm losing cash. That is the chance you have to take and when he continues to do well he defies gravity and starts making cash. I did that awhile this baseball season with Garrett Anderson as well.
The thing with the pitching is that if they are so widely owned, how are they dropping? It's the 5-day model. I had RJ on every team and my hitters did pretty well, yet I dropped on every team in the standings. Why? Everybody had him. 92 of the top 100 teams had him, yet he didn't raise at all price-wise. To me, something is so fundamentally wrong with that. Often times they have even lost money on the day they start. Just seems paridoxical to me that a player can be so widely owned and lose money when everyone is buying him heavily for his start that day.
The 30K is good for gravity. It takes a long time to get the overpriced players down to a price that makes them playable. Maybe if they go on DL, they fall at a faster clip--dunno. I also don't have a problem with reverse gravity. IF everyone has him, it throws some strategy in there--'I gotta get him to make that extra cash' or 'he's too expensive now' or 'everyone else is getting him so I will differ with this other guy'. We all know that a lot of people follow the leader and play off of the price movers. That is so assinine much of the time but we'd see even more of that with reverse gravity. Could be a slippery slope.
|
| 67 | Stuck in the Sixties
Leader
ID: 12451279
Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 12:04
|
In general, I like the muted pitcher trades. However, it seems just as silly to go from Randy to Curt and lose money in the process as it used to when we did the same thing and gained $1 million. There should be no financial penalty for rotating studs. That's always been an important part of the game since most of the time we can't afford more than 1 or 2.
|
| 68 | Ref
ID: 121135289
Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 12:15
|
To add on to my post in 66 and stuck's follow-up on 67...RJ is again at 0 gain today after such a huge day of buys yesterday and Schilling, who starts today, is at -40. Again, how does that use the market system that this Market-based game that TSN is supposed to represent. MUTE the gains by all means but don't reverse them.
|
| 69 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 12:44
|
Ref, the prices do reflect the overall buy/sell trend this way. It may not reflect today's buys/sells, but that's the point. If even after heavy buys yesterday RJ is owned by less people (or the same number) his price should reflect that IMO. I don't care that 1000 people bought him yesterday, if less people own him for this start versus his last start then he should have a lower price this time.
|
| 70 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 14:28
|
Bingo, Ender[69]!
I think the sentiments expressed by Stuck[67] and Ref[68] are just missing the big picture. The only reason a pitcher's price drops on the day of his start is that he is owned by less teams that he was 5 days ago - probably for his last start. That sounds like the perfect reason for a decline in price. If he was sold by more teams than bought him back, then his price should be down.
That isn't at odds with a market-based rationale. It IS market based. And it isn't a penalty for rotation. It simply reflects relative ownership for this start compared with the prior start (5 days ago).
This also suggests a reason for reverse gravity. One reason that Randy has trouble gaining further is that almost everyone has him. They can't buy him again. A market-based rationale would argue that when a player is so heavily owned, he is obviously good value for his price, and could probably support an even higher price. When there is such an imbalance of buyers vs. sellers, the price would rise in a "normal" market. But in this case, it can't because the market has run out of eligble buyers.
Reverse gravity would compensate for running out of potential buyers, and therefore is entirely consistent with a market based system. But another way to address that (mentioned earlier) is to base price changes on consolidated trading activity across both pay and free games, thereby continually introducing a supply of new eligible buyers.
|
| 71 | Tree
ID: 22758146
Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 15:33
|
what has happened to me over in football is exactly why i would like to see SOME sort of price bump for players drafted heavily...
among my early roster was both Quincy Carter and the Dallas defense.
for many reasons, it was pretty clear they were fairly heavily owned for week one. and, for those same reasons, it was pretty clear that they were gonna get dumped before week two - especially since they were both SO awful in week one.
so i traded them, to avoid a huge financial hit at the start of the game. so of course, both of huge games.
i'm not bitter, because it's the nature of the beast, but it's a perfect example of how lemming activity sometimes rules the game, and supercedes actual statistical performance predictions...
Tree
|
| 72 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 16:01
|
Tree - would you have really held those two if you knew they wouldn't suffer a price drop?
|
| 73 | Rogue's Strikers
ID: 51826140
Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 16:39
|
The only concern I have with reverse gravity is that people's price gains would become too much. Basically, so far everyone has said how much they like that making money isn't as easy as it was in years past. Its the middle of September, yet I still need bargains like Huff and Garcia on my team. I just don't want to see people hitting 90 mil by August because of this.
|
| 74 | Tree
ID: 22758146
Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 19:35
|
Guru - seriously, i would have. i believe both QC and the Dallas D are better than they were in week one....which is why i drafted them in the first place - not just because i felt they'd do well against houston, but because they'd do well until about week 4 or 5 (whenever they play the 0-2 rams)
Tree
|
| 75 | Jackie Robinson
Leader
ID: 4942911
Tue, Sep 17, 2002, 12:56
|
Re: Guru post#51
I vote a million times in favor of your proposal to allow you to reverse trades until the freeze.
I can think of no reason not to!!!!!!
|
| 76 | jeff
ID: 37741518
Mon, Sep 23, 2002, 13:04
|
i'm all for the trade reversal also. it seems i burn myself every once in a while.
and i know i'm going a bit roto with this idea but what if there was room made for a second catcher. this would give the catchers position a chance to be a bit more valuable. every catcher gets a day off or platoons every once in a while. i realize that as far as hitter go, the catcher wouldn't produce many points anyway and most people would rather have another dh or outfielder but the point in this case would not to be to generate points but realism. this is just a thought but it might get wheels turning and spur some other idea.
i'd also like to be able to use my players in multiple positions if they've played a reasonable number of games at each positions. player such as pujols could be just as important to our teams as he is to the cardinals.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|