| RotoGuru Basketball Forum View the Forum Registry |
| |
| 0 |
Subject: Strategy (really long!) Posted by: Pond Scum - [4601296] Fri, Feb 25, 19:32 My question is, “What are the characteristics of players that are you should seek and keep”? (The answer may be in contrast to the players we chase weak to week.) This is a post about SW strategy. As a business strategy guy, I like these. The latest best one was initiated by Zeuna. There have been several whiney posts lately about the thinning of good b-ball talk, but as a relative newbie, I disagree strongly and will try and weigh on the other side of the fulcrum. If you want the latest on Pack, use the words “aye” or “moron” or “lemming” in your common vocabulary, or like to post in ALL CAP’S or fluorescent colors, please exit now, IMMEDIATELY! Thank you. My credentials are slim in starting this thread, I hope to get further input from real experts (like The Guru, Steve Houpt, Mike D, and KB8ers, etc.) who regularly inform and uplift our insight and knowledge. Having said that, I was introduced to this forum in December as a sub 1000 WWR guy and am currently at ramming speed at about 350. Thank you ALL. What should we look for? Here’s a list of rules of thumb that I hope go beyond the obvious: 1) Don’t just look at schedule density. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, “It’s the points, stupid!” These boards seem to emphasize # of games more than projected points and this is misplaced. Actually, fewer games mean more rest and if it’s a player that puts up the big points, he likes a little rest! Look to the medium term (15-20days) and do the math (or Assimilate). With the often-postponed gratification value of trades, push back from the table more quickly. If you’re on the fence, stay there! At this point, thin schedules with great projected points include Marshall, A. Miller, and Dickerson. 2) At this point in the season, look for players that regularly deliver 30 points per game. Don’t be distracted by the new flavor of the day that is real cheap and averages 20 PPG. That may look like a great buy but he is taking up a critical spot that can deliver the mail on a regular basis. He also chews up trades. I have been guitly of this, chasing the latest sure thing. Keep your standards high! There are many players that deliver for a few games as an understudy until the Main Guy comes back. Don’t get distracted! Avoid big inconsistencies as they will drive you nuts and inevitably be on a low when you need to trade them (Van Exel, Lafrenz, and all cheapie centers come to mind from personal experience). 3) In addition to the reliable 30 PPG protecting the downside, look for upside. Can you believe that this player can occasionally put up 45-55 points on any given night? For my main team, this points me away from Pack. At his best, he may do well, but great? In business, venture capitalists (who make the really big bucks) look for the clear potential of a home run in every investment. You should too. In the best of circumstances, can your purchase really help you leapfrog your competition or is he really just a roll of the dice for money? I like examples like Dickerson or Coleman who seem to qualify. 4) Look for value, not rep. Here, the projected SWP/$ column in the sortables is key. Spread your money to get bang for the buck. For example, while the conventional wisdom seems to favor the 2-headed monster, several top players have decided otherwise. Another example is KG who scores consistently very high (and is the #1 player in the movers and shakers at fwd), but for $ per SWP is really low compared to players of comparable performance. I think a better strategy is to find more balance (I now have Malone instead of KG – who I have had mostly all season – who now gives me $’s to upgrade elsewhere). So there are my thoughts, such as they are, Please share your own, if you’ve gotten this far! And if you’re not in MSG 4, please ignore. GO FOUR! | ||||||
| 1 | Dev ID: 330352918 Fri, Feb 25, 20:36 | Great post PS. Nice break from say aye if... They can be helpful but 30 is enough. | |||||
| 2 | Perm Dude ID: 41552520 Fri, Feb 25, 20:55 |
Good post, PS. In lieu of some of the other "old-timers" chiming in yet I'll you my reaction, OK? I think you are right on target in talking about a lot of the emphasis of the talk on the boards. In the end it IS only the points that matter, and while we use game density as a primary factor in points maximization, sometimes the number of games in a period blind us to the endgame. However (and maybe it's just the position that you are in that makes you overlook it), but even this late in the season many of us are still looking for value increases, and trade accordingly. It makes us use trades less efficiently, I know, particularly when really rolling the dice, but those with low team values aren't able to just pick more high-end players more effeciently--they can't afford 'em! That said, I think you've put the right emphasis on better focus making you a better manager, so that even 10 different Pack threads going on doesn't mean that we have to pick him up (or even read the threads after we make our decision about him). Thanks for turning the lense for us. pd | |||||
| 3 | Mike D ID: 261432412 Fri, Feb 25, 22:11 |
Wow. Great post, Pond Scum. Honored to see my name, and I wish I could add a lot to it. You were just to darn thorough. PD makes the great point of balancing what the masses are doing both on the Guru board and the SW board with that of your left brain...or is it the right brain? Anyway, I knew I wasn't going to pick up Pack anytime soon, if at all, and didn't read any threads having his name in the title. I also have not visited SW's board yet.
I believe as more money has been accumulated, and higher priced players are therefore purchased, people expect miracles......like Zo to score 50+, then they trade him when's averaging in the 30s. EJ to score 50 or so every night, which isn't going to happen. It is important when considering a player's production to compare him to the other possible choices. There simply would be no reason, IMHO, to trade someone like an EJ, if you have the other guards like Kidd (or Payton), Bryant, and possibly Brandon. You can put Dickerson in there or even Hughes if your money isn't high enough. Who would you trade him for? Everyone focuses so much on their held player, that they don't always look at the options. From a business standpoint, Pond Scum, kind of like moaning and groaning over the under-achieving employee, then realizing they really aren't doing that bad a job, and that hiring someone else would be difficult in this market, and then training them would take a long time.....and finally coming back to trying to make your existing employee perform a little bit better. Or hoping it will occur, anyway. Carter v. Malone. I went for Malone. Similar schedules and production, and even similar price. I faced this decision earlier in the season once with Brand v. Mason, and took Brand. I lucked out. Yes, this game does involve some luck, not just strategy. Why did I take Malone? Consistency was the main reason. I was looking for at least a 14 day hold, and I would have trouble dealing with a poor Carter performance. I wouldn't have as much trouble dealing with a poor Malone performance because I know it would never last more than that game. Carter, I can't be so sure. No one wanted him earlier this year. I actually had Malone for 10-14 days earlier in the year and was pleased. I also didn't want price volatility at that spot. Some spots I look for the cash. I just want points at that price. Carter is the vogue pick and will probably make more money. As Guru puts it, that means he can lose a lot more too. I don't need the loss. Don't really need the small gain from Carter either. If he doesn't perform, how long before people bail? I'd rather weather the minute loss Malone faced (remember, holding for 14 days) then the bigger one Carter faced. All this is purely hypothetical strategizing, considering lots of possibilities, most of which won't even occur. But at least I feel comfortable with the moves I make. I just want consistency at this time of the year, and people like Malone, EJ, etc, will hopefully bring it. They have in the past. | |||||
| 4 | Fivalive ID: 29122523 Fri, Feb 25, 23:02 |
Like where this is going-- Pond makes some good points-- I'll hit them in order
1) yes-- projected points mean more than # games-- but we have to remember not everyone reads these boards or thinks that way and to remain competitive we have to also keep in mind what the "typical" SW player is thinking-- and they usually don't have access to projected points-- they see a decent player with a good schedule and jump on the bandwagon 2) Flavor of the day can be lucrative-- keep an eye on them but don't waste all your trades on them. 3) Upside is always key-- if they are just a flash in the pan you have to be ready to deal them away-- if they are true producers you're ahead of the money tran. You're on it here 4) Value not rep-- can't agree more-- but again have to keep in mind the masses. For example-- Iverson-- who gets alot of press for all the points he scores regularly scores less SWP than actual points due to his lack of assists and shooting percentage. On a night he doesn't jack up 40+ shots he's not even a blip on the SWP screen. I stayed away earlier in the season and made out point-wise but lost out on some big $$ gains which I am still trying to get back Again-- good points-- I just think $$ has to be a consideration until later in the season or when your roster value crosses the 100K mark (IMHO) | |||||
| 5 | steve houpt ID: 11017290 Sat, Feb 26, 00:12 |
Perm Dude - great post. I think your #1 statement is the one that gets managers in trade trouble (me to - we all have/do it - especially in the pursuit of cash gains). Short term schedules. You have to do it more often early in the season, because the earlier you get your cash gains the longer you can use it. But even then you need to be selective in what "flavor of the days" you follow. Today, there are only 27-30 games left. Figure out what that 'extra' cash is really worth today compared to SWP's you may sacrifice even short term. It's a little more complicated (I have no 100% pure number) to figure than a trade for a start in baseball, but somewhere in the 2-2.5 SWP/$M/G when ugrading positions. But there are many variables that can make that much higher or lower depending on individual teams/rosters. So every one has to "try and figure" that one out for themselves on. That's why a trade THAT IS GOOD for one manager may not always be the best for another. Enough for now. Need to check some scores. Mike D and Fivealive - great posts too. | |||||
| 6 | Edgar ID: 39033293 Sat, Feb 26, 03:26 |
Some pretty interesting stuff. I learn new ways to think about this game every day. And yes I don't like the aye threads and fluorescent fonts! Still ley to the game is to keep your money on the floor day in day out. So get some big guns with the best projections for around 15-30 days and build your team around it. Sometimes I failed to pick up a stud before his schedule got really dense (like Garnett around X-mass) and it really hurt me. So I can understand why you get Malone instead of Garnett my point is that I have Garnett and I will keep probably for a long time. This gives me something to build on. Also if you really want to be one of the best in this game you sometimes need to make small gambles. Just like in business if you take bigger risks the payoff is larger. Like for example when Odom had three really bad games and everybody sold him. Some of the top WW players picked him up and he started a series of 50-60 SWP games and gained about 2M in one week. Recognizing those possibilities mark the truly good players IMO. Everyone can pick up Webber when his schedule is great those things are obvious and easy to learn for newbies. Those are the basics of this game. But excellence goes a little further...... However don't forget even the best players make mistakes it's the nature of this game. We all had our share of bad luck in this game....(heck I saw KB8-ers picked up Pack on his no. 1 WWide CNN team) | |||||
| 7 | AirSteve ID: 130422919 Sat, Feb 26, 06:11 |
3-time top 100wwr guy here (if I count this year). The rules are pretty tough:
1) You gotta play to win (see schedule density) 2) Take people who don't suck (even if they're playing well Right Now, I tend to avoid Hughes, Hoiberg, MacCulloch, Williams, Jahidi White). Cheap people who don't suck abound (Ceballos, Penny, Odom, McGrady, Mash, Camby... most of the time). 3) Follow this tricky "how to make money without getting stuck with no points" rule - Read recaps of each game. Sell guys that are hurt. Buy guys !After! they successfully complete 1 game without re-injuring them sorry selves (see E. Jones, Pack). Buy the "flavor of the day" when if it's the first half of the season (money earning time) and he's bound for over a million price increase. Save one (min) or two (max) trades for the inevitable Wednesday injury/DNP and Thursday -500K. Caveat: There were 21 better theories out there last year (I was 22nd), and there are 95 better theories out there right now. But there are like 300,000+ worse theories, so this one's a hell of a starting point. | |||||
| 8 | AirSteve ID: 130422919 Sat, Feb 26, 06:16 |
This works pretty well in SWHockey, too (got 8th last year, around 97 so far this year)
(Operating under the "IceSteve" brand name) | |||||
| 9 | Pond Scum ID: 4601296 Sat, Feb 26, 07:04 |
I just got back in to see all the great and thoughtful responses (right after my post, I had to surrender my computer to my daughter who has discovered aol chat with all her friends - shows who wears the pants in this family!). Thanks to all.
I can see that while I was focused on some of the "fundamentals", I largely missed the bit about playing the "game", especially sailing the winds created by the great majority of players who don't pay as much attention to fundamentals. A great example of this was the (to me) startling run up in Wally recently, with all due respect to his recent surge on the court. Then I saw how much touting he got on the Small World boards and it made more sense. A small percent of a large amount of people all doing the same thing can be quite powerful, independent of whether they are doing it for the right reasons. It reminds me of when Ted Kennedy (alledgedly) predicted that the stock market was going to go up the next day and, lo and behold, it did! | |||||
| 10 | Baldwin ID: 54049316 Sat, Feb 26, 10:07 |
I struggled hard over the VC/Malone decision and it came down to this for me. Malone has averaged 40.19 pts to VC's 44.375 for the last thirty days.
Malone had three @20 pt games in that period that may be scewing things fairly or unfairly. Malone has a magnificently conditioned body but I think that even for him age is a slight injury risk and raises a question of just how much fire can be left in that belly. *ducking thrown objects* These things balance Carter's youthful inconsistancy/inexperience. | |||||
| 11 | Iluvditka ID: 460342820 Sat, Feb 26, 13:44 | EXCELLENT POST MY FURRY FRIEND!! YOU'VE COME A LOOONG WAY BUDDY!!! WELL SEE YA LATER!!! | |||||
| 12 | Pistol Pete ID: 24055298 Sat, Feb 26, 14:31 |
P Scum, wow, you really have this stuff nailed. I let your theories sink a little bit, and took a look at some of my own personal theories. We think the same in lot of respects. While you bring to light a great deal of managerial aspects of fantasy hoops, we still need some luck along the way, don't forget about that! But, getting back to team mangement...
I have a weakness for high priced players but I think it is a OK thing to have to an extent. First of all, I have a $91 mil roster value so that helps a little, you can't have expensive players in #'s without some $. I tend to look at players in regards to their durability and past history a great deal and unfortunately the most reliable/durable players also tend to be the more expensive (Kidd, Garnett, Duncan, Malone, Payton, Shaq, and so on...). A lot of times I have to allow a spot or two on my roster for that 25SWP or lower scoring player who may be about $2mil or lower than the "midliners" that I would have, had I "spread the money out". Nothing against your theory, but take the example of Coleman. I see the logic in getting 2 players 30PPG versus the stud and a 20SWP player, but with Coleman there is the "extra baggage " he comes with. I almost feel "safer" having that money on a cheaper player or $ money maker and have more of the durable studs as possible. Just my .02 on who I seek and keep. : ) Once again, great post, you have this stuff nailed. Good Luck! | |||||
| 13 | Pond Scum ID: 4601296 Sat, Feb 26, 15:07 |
Pistol - Thanks for the support and further thoughts. BTW, I think Maravich was one of the greatest college players ever and far too underrated even in light of the acclaim he gets. I assume that's the PP you are named after. If not, he should be!
I quite take your point about baggage and there are a few players who I have become quite leery of, perhaps beyond a reasonable grudge. I have no such baggage with DC although I have heard negative things for quite a while. I have not, however, seen them, for at least that long. I have seen the opposite. In the business world, which I know, really good investors look to the fundamentals and facts. Applying that philosophy to this venue, DC seems like the perfect "investment" giving regular stud results at a discount price with a really good schedule. I'm actually quite greatful for his discount, whatever the underlying reasons. Should he at some point revert to his "former ways", I have already benefitted more than I will ever lose. If I had to redraft my teams from today, DC would be at or close to my first pick. | |||||
| 14 | Pistol Pete ID: 24055298 Sat, Feb 26, 15:36 |
Pond Scum- Right on the money about getting the most out the investment. I hope DC can maintain, he sure has made leaps and bounds. I guess I see his name and can't help but think about how he missed 71 games (ouch!) for my '95-'96 fantasy team. His play as of late sure gets him "out of the doghouse", that's for sure.
Actually, I'm no outside ball shooter. When I played YMCA ball as a kid all I could do was the occasional 10-12 footer, otherwise it was defense and rebounds. Love Maravich though, he is by far the most under mentioned legend of the game. I have been in a few bands since college and got the nickname Pistol Pete from friends. I'm a frontman (a la Johnny Rotten) and the name seemed to fit my onstage persona. =:) ..and now you know the rest of the story. | |||||
| 15 | Ender ID: 50312820 Sat, Feb 26, 17:04 | I know Coleman has been a head case at various times, but I always remember one play he made in college. During the '87 NCAA Championship game, Joe Hillman of IU was taking a baseline jumper when DC from about 4 feet away, jumped up and rather than swatting the shot away, caught it with both hands. I have yet to see a play like it since. Of course it helped that I went to Purdue and was cheering for Syracuse during that game :) | |||||
| 16 | Pistol Pete ID: 360392819 Sat, Feb 26, 17:49 | I must be the only one with unhappy memories about Derrick Coleman. Certainly someone else on these boards played fantasy hoops 4 years ago and knows what I went through with Coleman as my 3d round pick in '95-'96. It wasn't pretty, although he's making up for it now (a little late for that 95-96 team though). | |||||
| 17 | Steve ID: 59151259 Sat, Feb 26, 18:02 | Ender, Theo Ratliff did it the other night, forget who it was, but he just took the ball out of the air with two hands. | |||||
| 18 | Steve ID: 59151259 Sat, Feb 26, 18:02 | Ender, Theo Ratliff did it the other night, forget who it was, but he just took the ball out of the air with two hands. | |||||
| 19 | Ender ID: 50312820 Sat, Feb 26, 19:21 | Cool. I am sure it happens for time to time, but that was the first time I'd seen it. It looked like he jumped 5 ft (exaggerated) off the floor to get it. I wish I could jump that high. | |||||
| 20 | Steve ID: 59151259 Sat, Feb 26, 19:25 | I can, then I wake up to the harsh reality of having no hops!! | |||||
| 21 | Dev ID: 330352918 Sat, Feb 26, 22:16 | BUTT | |||||
| 22 | Baldwin ID: 54049316 Mon, Feb 28, 16:26 |
*Just as an empirical check Sandlot has a top one-hundred athletes list and Coleman had such a bad first month he wasn't even listed for a month and a half. He's at #33 now. I don't think anyone in the top 50 made a more rapid rise.
*He's still rising, the hottest he's been all year. *Hard to believe such a nasty character could find redemption but I really believe Bobby Phils death made him take life seriously for once. Look for him to reach for his nearly unlimited potential. [I've never liked this guy as a person but his talent is indisputable] | |||||
| 23 | Pistol Pete ID: 24055298 Mon, Feb 28, 17:11 | Baldwin- Couldn't have said it any better myself. It would be nice to see Coleman set an example for others to follow. The Hornets and the NBA really need a good storyline like his to help ease the pain and win back the fans. | |||||
| 24 | Baldwin ID: 54049316 Mon, Feb 28, 17:17 |
I was thinking about Pond Scums pt1. An example I thot to test it was Garnett's month where he played every other day with no back-to-back games.
His average over that period was 52.5 compared to his total year average of exactly 50. He had no games over 50 on the back end games. | |||||
| 25 | Rox1 ID: 40038299 Mon, Feb 28, 19:05 |
Super post, Pond Scum. Luv reading threads like yours and the equally good thought out responses. There are a lot of ways to manage and I guess we all use our own theories. But if U read the box scores, use the sortables, the Assimilator, check schedules and read, you can do a decent job. Is DC in his contract year? This is one of the better stretches in his career. I am going to keep riding him until> ? | |||||
| 26 | Pond Scum ID: 4601296 Mon, Feb 28, 19:59 | Hey Baldwin, thanks for bringing some good data into the flow! I think I would have guessed that someone like KG might do better than most on a back to back. His youth and incredible athleticism and size might argue that he would carry relatively more of his team's load on the second night in comparison to other older or less talented players. Thta might be offset if the team as a whole was less prolific without a full tank of gas. It might be interesting to look at a Malone to see if the differentials were even more pronounced (I don't have enough gas in my tank to do this right now!). | |||||
| 27 | llamanunts ID: 4913862 Tue, Feb 29, 01:23 | I remember that Coleman play. I was telling my brother about it the other day. It was truly astonishing. Didn't seem possible. | |||||
| 28 | FRICK ID: 581142917 Tue, Feb 29, 17:31 |
This is way to good of a thread to fall off of the bottom so.
BUTT | |||||
| 29 | AirSteve ID: 130422919 Tue, Feb 29, 17:41 | Here's my theory on back-to-back games: guys that play two games in two days score more points than guys that play one game in two days, so I pick them up. | |||||
| 30 | Pond Scum ID: 54420321 Thu, Nov 16, 14:58 |
As I approach my first year anniversary on the boards, I thought I would celebrate by bringing back this post from last winter. It looked back on success factors for 1999-2000 up to that point through my naive eyes. I find some of the points redundant to some of those being recently discussed and others a useful reminder for me, and hopefully to you. Hey if JAG can do reruns, why not us? Some of my more recent thoughts: In general, I criticize myself so far this year for having too quick a trigger on trades and not paying enough attention to fundamentals. I would like to emphasize this through the following points in case they are useful to some of the newer players. Risks need to be taken, but they should be the exception and they should be well considered (and probably slept on). I find that most of my second guessing comes from trades I make pressed for time when I forget to think enough about the long view. Embarassing example: I started the season with Darius Miles due to his price and preseason performance, and because I was shifting my roster at the last minute and needed to downgrade someone - I forgot that nobody jumping from high school does all that well in their first year including Kobe, da Kid, or anyone else. Players ON your roster aren't as bad as you think. I recently went to some soccer tryouts where my kid was competing. I saw every mistake and missed the bigger picture of how flawed all the kids were at times. I seem to overreact to one off night by a player (I am not alone here, guys!) and feel like I must tinker. More often than not, my recently traded player goes off. This is definitely happening in football, it's eerie. Oh yeah, my kid made the team despite my "expert" assessment. Players NOT on your roster aren't as good as you think. Well, some are, I guess, but more often, I find myself getting caught up in the enthusiasm of a few good games and sell myself that this player has completely changed his spots. On average, players play to their average. I am beginning to think that B Grant may be in this category. I would love to see a list of healthy players whose last five games have significantly underplayed their last year's performance, perhaps that's where real gems can be found. OK, enough for now. Hope some found this post of some small nostalgic value if not of current relevance. Happy anniversary to me! | |||||
| 31 | Texas Flood ID: 5510151614 Thu, Nov 16, 15:38 |
PS, some very good thoughts. I usually consider myslef a very patient owner. something happend to me tue and i just went out of control. the whole thing started with trading marion for grant. i thought i was doing the smart gurupie thing and i could see grant becomming the next karl malone. i was not thinking of his past injures, career averages and actual playing ability. now i sit here with one trade after going marion>grant>marion. sure i made some bucks but if i could have a re-do, like they do in politics i would be very happy:). now if i could only catch you in the SWOrder division i would be even happier. good luck and nice post. oh yeah OT i bought into the grbac hype last week too! going strictly with my gut in football this week! gurupies be damaned;). | |||||
| 32 | CanEHdian Pride ID: 426351415 Mon, Dec 10, 2001, 15:33 |
BUTT ANOTHER OLDIE BUT GOODIE! | |||||
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 0-5. 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: | |||||||