| 0 |
Subject: Multiple team strategy: When to mix it up?
Posted by: Species
- Leader [7724916] Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 17:32
I admit I'm fascinated by those who run multiple, identical teams. We see many in the top 100, including (but not limited to) Guru, Rand, Rendle, Randro (the anonymous Gurupie), Coach Bird and others.
The point of the post is - when do you split them up and go in varying directions? Here we are half way through the year, and only now has Guru finally split the 2 remaining identical teams, giving him 3 distinct teams currently, while Rand, Rendle, Randro and others continue to leave them identical.
Certainly by now, especially if you're running five teams like Rendle and Randro, there are different strategies that could be employed by splitting one team of the 5 off. Rand, with 3 teams, I can see sticking to 1 strategy a little longer.
Perhaps it's coincidence that my 2 top teams are within 2 TSNP of one another at the date of this writing....and my current strategy has them re-converging their rosters pretty soon.
Anyway, it'll be fascinating to see when the Rand's and Rendle's finally split the teams and try different strategies. |
| 1 | qwert@school
ID: 5210481911
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 17:36
|
while i'm not so much in the running for the big prize like the teams mentioned, i do not plan on changing my teams ever. i have multiple teams, simply as an investment. 3 division prizes, plus whatever top manager prize i can come up with is a very solid return on my money. i suppose if it came down to getting as hi as i could, i might split and hedge my bets, but at this point, that would just cause more confusion for me.
|
| 2 | Blooki
ID: 4510211419
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 17:39
|
I'm keeping my teams together simply because it takes so much time for me to effectively manage one roster, I don't think I'm ready to juggle multiple rosters. Not yet at least.
|
| 3 | Blooki
ID: 4510211419
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 17:43
|
WWR 104 Coach Bird gets a mention and I get stuck in "and others"? ;)
|
| 4 | wiggs@school
ID: 9113515
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 17:49
|
blooki, unfortunately for me I am in a league with you and I am getting a soar neck from looking up at you all season. While I dont try to kid myself that i know anything about TSN hoops I think I would be doing alright if I made 1 move that paid off. So far I have had shaq on and off my line up 3 times and it never works out, He either gets hurt or suspended. Anyways, my point is I have been following your team here and there and you have been doing things the right way. Congrats on a great season to date.
|
| 5 | Madman
ID: 38119516
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 17:57
|
Differentiating your teams after you played them all identical the whole season is not as easy as it seems. Post 1 said it. It gets very confusing and you can end up ruining all your teams.
|
| 6 | Blooki
ID: 4510211419
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 18:03
|
Thanks wiggs, I've been fortunate to hit a hot streak here in January. I have deep regrets though about November and December. I went tradeless one week in December and vowed to be more conservative. Because of that vow, I missed Marion and Pierce and was stuck holding a gimpy Jermaine O'neal and bleeding Baron Davis. But with those banked trades I've managed to climb about 300 spots in the last month alone. I attribute a lot of it to Donyell Marshall and making the most of the RV I got. It's been a while since I've had more than $2mil TSND in the bank for a period of 3 days or more.
|
| 7 | Rendle
Donor
ID: 14815714
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 18:18
|
Interesting that you bring this topic up, as I have not even thought about splitting up my teams yet. After considering it for the last few seconds, I don't think it'll happen anytime in the near future. It would be great if I could keep them the same and competitive all the way to the final week, which would give me tons of options to go with. I really haven't come to many situations where I was torn between seemingly similar options. I will change one or two early if I am in that situation in the next month. Right now though, it's not so easy filling out a roster with my high FV. When the studs need to go, there usually isn't another one to jump into and downgrading doesn't do that much good. Species, thanks for bringing up the topic and good luck to everyone on the rest of the year.
|
| 8 | Species
Leader
ID: 7724916
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 18:26
|
Good point in post #1 qwert. Obviously I offered the topic with the goal of the teams mentioned being #1 WWR . What you and Blooki (and didn't mean to diss you, dude!) say about it being easier and your goals being to win divisions and stack up prize money makes excellent sense to me.
Madman's point is also well taken. When one has been in the midset of identical teams for so long, I would imagine it can be hard to diverge one or two and keep them all straight. I'm sure Guru can think of a time where he thought he had "Player A" on one team and went to make a trade, only to realize he had "Player B" and the strategy would then be different.
So I definitely see the value in running identical teams to stack up on division titles.....but would still love some discussion about making the run at the overall title.
|
| 9 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 18:27
|
The downside to differentiation is having to track multiple teams with multiple values, rosters, trades remaining, etc. THanks goodness for the Assimilator. And the ability to copy rosters into the Assimilator directly from TSN is turning out to be a real time-saver.
I started with 5 teams. Made the first split decision after about 2 weeks. Two teams went one way, three the other. Turns out the three-some ended up in much better shape, although I can't quite figure out how the gap got to be so wide.
Of the three, I decided to move one into McGrady awhile ago - maybe even late December. I can't quite recall. I think I also took that team into Camby first. I decided it would be my "take a gamble" team. It was the best performer - but not by a wide margin - until the past week, when McGrady started wreaking havoc.
The other two teams were identical until yesterday. I had Bosh on both, and couldn't decide whether to bail or hold. I thought that holding was probably the best choice, but decided to dump Bosh (for Blount) on one. That may not have been the best "watershed" decision to deviate on, but I did it. So the team with Blount is now slightly ahead in points and value. If Bosh rebounds quickly, the other team will probably pull ahead.
All three of those top 25 teams will continue to be run very similarly, I'm sure. But every now and then when I come to a fork in the road, I may take it.
|
| 10 | Deadeyes
ID: 50104029
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 18:36
|
Rendle with such a high roster value have you ever thought of using one of your teams with all BIG money players and keeping them while stacking up trades??? I mean you have a great roster value than anyone... if you were to store all 70 million in the most effective way for a month or so I wonder if you would be able to use those extra trades to push ahead. Probably not but isn't it worth a try with one team, possibly in your worst division and see how it goes?
|
| 11 | Species
Leader
ID: 7724916
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 18:38
|
It can also be simpler than that. When a guy like an Odom has 2 days off, and a TD or Allen type guy has 2 games in 2 days (like Baiter mentions in the trade thread), why not split one of the teams off and burn the extra trades to gain the advantage, while keeping the other 4 the same. Since it's only 1 of the 5 (or 3, or whatever), it's fairly low risk. If that team flies high by taking advantage of that 2-for-zero, then cool. If it crashes and burns, it's only 1 of the 5.
My two teams are now 28 and 29th. But the team in 28th was like in the 60's a couple weeks ago. One thing it did was do a Brand-->B. Miller---> Brand move 10-odd days ago. It wasn't a stellar move, but I have also ended up SAVING trades on that team because I already have Kidd and Daniels, who I probably WILL be buying on my other team.
I guess it's just funny how it can work out. And I know that Rand and especially Rendle are in excellent positions to make a run at #1. What a luxury to be able to form alternative strategies down the stretch when most managers will only have one shot at it.
|
| 12 | Deadeyes
ID: 50104029
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 19:09
|
Actually after looking at your team Rendle. This is how i would play one of them (as if it were my own, pretty weak concept but it sure would be neat)
Points for 42 days.
g cassell 6.77 860
g kidd 9.55 961
g allen 6.66 783
g A.Daniels 1.03 525
f Brand 8.66 1087
f Marshall 4.79 730
f garnett 13.3 1290
f randolph 4.4 805
c B Miller 6.96 934
c Shaq 8.6 904
roster value 70.72 8879
Avg Points/day 211.4047619
trades saved 24
|
| 13 | Rendle
Donor
ID: 14815714
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 19:13
|
Deadeyes, did you trade Lebron and Blount to Daniels and Shaq for me??? I have a treasure map of my own that should lead me to the top. Don't think I will do your hold strategy. There is a point where you have too many trades.
|
| 14 | Deadeyes
ID: 50104029
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 19:13
|
So in 6 weeks after the all star break you average 211 points/day and gain 24 trades by maximizing your roster value for 70 million. Is it worth it? Maybe. And you only deviate your roster by 3 trades with the players you have now.
|
| 15 | Deadeyes
ID: 50104029
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 19:14
|
Yes i did and i traded joe johnson to randolph.
|
| 16 | Species
Leader
ID: 7724916
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 19:22
|
Rendle - just think of all of the opportunities you'd have under Deadeyes' plan to use 2 trades to get one game down the stretch. I can't believe you're not going to use that treasure map with one of your teams!
|
| 17 | Rendle
Donor
ID: 14815714
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 19:25
|
Alright Species, you've talked me into it. I'll do it!
|
| 18 | Deadeyes
ID: 50104029
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 19:27
|
Species.. I mean i would only play that way if i had 4 other teams.
|
| 19 | Pica
Donor
ID: 161141312
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 19:29
|
This is quite an interesting topic. I have 3 teams but never thought of keeping them the same. In fact, I drafted them differently to begin with. There are some common guys of course, like 6 or 7. But I've always run my team as separete entities. And honestly I think this has worked out for me somehow as my luck so far has seemed to concentrate on only one of them.
|
| 20 | Deadeyes
ID: 50104029
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 19:33
|
One more thing... I counted the 42 days from FEB 17th AFTER the all star break.
|
| 21 | Rendle
Donor
ID: 14815714
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 19:37
|
There's no way you could enter April with 24 trades and use them efficiently.
|
| 22 | bd
Donor
ID: 102112811
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 19:37
|
I have multiple teams and run them each differently. It makes for more work and sometimes it's funny that on one team you're rooting for a player while your other teams don't have him and you root for a poor performance.
|
| 23 | Deadeyes
ID: 50104029
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 19:38
|
well when does the season end?
|
| 24 | Deadeyes
ID: 50104029
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 19:41
|
This method is not about using your trades efficiently.. This strategy is about using your FUll Potential of your MONEY without having any left over.
In fact by going into SHAQ and A Daniels TONIGHT it makes it ever more appealing.
|
| 25 | Shelby-villian
ID: 111261121
Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 15:30
|
Not to interrupt this thread, but re: 22, that is the reason why I only have one team. It takes a lot less time (and even with one team, it takes too much time to stay competitive).
One aspect of fantasy sports which is key for me is the way it makes following players much more interesting. That quality is destoryed by having multiple teams.
Personally, I think having multiple teams lessens the integrity of the game. If I have 100 teams, I can pretty much guarantee finishing in the top 3 every year by using diverging strategies in the last month, but what fun is that?
|
| 26 | Blooki
ID: 4510211419
Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 15:37
|
"I can pretty much guarantee finishing in the top 3 every year"
You sure about that? I think your chances would be very much improved, but guaranteed? I dunno about that one.
|
| 27 | Gman15
ID: 590432917
Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 15:47
|
I'm more confused on how someone can "pretty much guarantee" something. It's either a guarantee or it isn't - make up your mind.
|
| 28 | Madman
ID: 6135614
Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 16:07
|
I think if you tried to manage 100 teams your head would be spinning like that girl in the "Exorcist".
And you might be spitting up "green stuff" like here too.
|
| 29 | Shelby-villian
ID: 111261121
Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 16:58
|
Let me elaborate. If I have 100 teams and they are within striking distance (say top 50 with 30 days to go), I can cover pretty much all the different permutations to guarantee a very high finish for at least one, if not more, teams.
The bottom line is that it is not skill to do such a thing. Having 100 teams is a lot different than having 10 teams (or 5 or whatever) but the principle still stands.
If there is enough argument on if this is realistically possible, I might be coerced into doing such a ridiculous thing if there is a suitable financial backer. :)
Anyway what I am saying is that I do not like the multiple team idea and it can and is being used as an advantage/leverage by certain managers.
|
| 30 | Footwedge
ID: 61181116
Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 17:21
|
I can see what you're saying as far as an advantage with different teams. If you started the season putting up many combinations. One is bound to jump you to an early lead. Possibly a Monument-al lead.
Myself I like multiple teams to try different ideas. For me I would hate to screw up 5 teams with one or two bad moves. This way I can mess them up on different days at least.
|
| 31 | Shelby-villian
ID: 111261121
Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 17:33
|
footwedge- I don't mind the multiple teams that are actually different from the get go like yourself.
My concern lies with the multiple identical team that differntiates near the end. There is a distinct manipulation with those teams.
I don't want to sound like I am whining because I am actually OK with the whole thing. It's sort of like the Yankees using their resources allowed within the game to win.
But it is a shame that one team managers like myself are at a disadvantage.
|
| 32 | Rand
Donor
ID: 83231216
Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 23:33
|
This is the first time I've ever had more than one team in any TSN game. But when I did have only one team in the past I certainly never felt at a disadvantage because of it. I actually doubt it'll make much difference to me in the end though. I'm just trying to keep my head above water right now and not drift too far down in the rankings. The only reason I got three teams this year was because I wanted to place a team in the GuruPatrons division, but I also wanted to have a chance at winning a division so I can make my money back. I definitely didn't buy more teams so I can manipulate the system in any way, or to give myself some kind of edge. I'm actually surprised to find myself back on the leaderboard at all this year, I thought I was just lucky last year:)
Since I moved out to the country I lost my high-speed internet connection so I'm stuck surfing on dial-up. I hate it and managing 3 teams has become more of chore than anything else due to the unbearable slow loading time. Unless we get high-speed out here next year, I won't be buying multiple teams again.
It's a shame that dial-up users like myself are at a disadvantage.
So I'll probably just keep my teams the same right to the end, cuz with 3 young active kids and a busy life I can only spend so much time in my study watching the little cursor ball spin around.
Maybe it'll help out some for the endgame if I'm actually within striking distance of the top 10, but I doubt I'm clever enough to use it too any major advantage.
|
| 33 | Species
Leader
ID: 7724916
Sat, Feb 07, 2004, 03:02
|
Shelby - I realize that you aren't necessarily condemning those who use the multiple team strategy, but methinks you protest a little too much giving yourself such a disadvantage. Personally, those with the cajones to run multiple teams the same also run the risk of tanking their entire TSN season. But if it works well and you find yourself in a Rendle or Rand position, all the more power to them, I say.
I don't find it manipulative in the least......I think it is a viable, workable strategy that deserves credit, not being put down. I suppose your analogy to the Yankees using their financial advantage within the rules of the game is somewhat apropos, but it is hyperbolous nonetheless because 5 teams costs what, sixty bucks? It's not quite buying a championship, or the like.
To be blunt, 'investing' multiple teams in cash-paying games is simply smart strategy , and I respectfully disagree that because you are - in a sense - crying poor, that those who use this strategy are somehow getting over on you simply because of a money advantage.
|
| 34 | WonderB
ID: 151022310
Sat, Feb 07, 2004, 12:43
|
i think most managers with the cojones the run multiple identicle teams are very comfortable with the idea. they have the experience, knowledge, and !importantly! the time to get ANY ONE team into - lets say - the top 200 by the allstar break.
then they can try a couple different moves and try to get one team as high as possible.
|
| 35 | Deadeyes
ID: 50104029
Sat, Feb 07, 2004, 13:27
|
Hey rendle. Maybe you should sell one of your teams to me.. 100 bucks.
|
| 36 | Zyah
ID: 56711220
Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 21:11
|
If my problem was a Death Star, this article is a photon toprdeo.
|
| 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:
|