| 0 |
Subject: TSN: How are we doing?
Posted by: Erik B.
- [239592612] Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 11:55
Gang:
We're now far enough into the season where I'd like to get a sense of how we're doing. Specifically, with the pay game, has it been worth your dollar? For what it's worth, I think the number of teams we've had and the level of competition has been great. But I'm biased. :>
Can you give me a sense on how we're doing on the following issues:
1) Game-play -- do you like the rules, the price updates, etc.?
2) Game-performance -- Has the site generally been up? Have stats generally been updated to your satisfaction?
3) Customer Service -- have problems been addressed in a timely manner? To your satisfaction?
4) Community -- do you feel like we have something special here? Do enjoy the way we interact with each other?
Please feel free to share any other thoughts with me on this thread. I'm just trying to get a state-of-the-state.
Yours,
-ESB
GM of TSN Fantasy Games
|
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 107 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 81125109
Mon, Dec 10, 2001, 12:53
|
Guru -
I see your point(s). I think the flat fee is better from the simplicty point and the fairness point. After all, a trade is a trade regarless of whether applied to a cheap or expensive player (the outcome of the trade is what varies).
The point that I was tring to make about detering rotating studs is this that perhaps there would be less stud rotaion to gain a single game advantage because of the $100,000 commission. For example, would we all think harder about Walker ---> Brand (pick any 2 players and substitute names)if it gained 1 game over 7 days and cost $100K? Certainly, the commission would not encourage more trading, therefore woudln't the effect be to deter more trading? If there is less trading, would rosters tend to bunch up?
Under the current system, I'm considering a trade to gain 1+ stud game (45+ TSPN's) and $200K rise in value for th cost of that trade. Under a commisison system, I belive the yield would be the same in points (of course) but only $100K in gains. That's alot less money to be used down the road to purchase studs later in the year.
This is kind of a circular situatuation (in the case of studs). use the commisison based system.... gain less money.... decrease buying power.... end up w/ less studs. However in the case of cheapies, you gain less points on the cross over (25+ TSPNs/game gained?), but are able to negate the $100,000 commission loss sooner, thus having increased buying power for future rounds.
rfs
|
| 108 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Dec 10, 2001, 13:26
|
Ultimately, I think everyone would use the full allotment of trades whether they cost anything or not. A trade will produce more points, and to not trade in order to save money is not a winning strategy.
The pace of trading may be different. Perhaps more trades would be conserved until later in the season, but perhaps not.
So, if you accept this premise that it will be optimal to use all trades, and if the cost of a trade is a flat charge, then all this accomplishes is a gradual leakage of $10m or $20m (or whatever the number works out to be) from all rosters over the course of the year. The marginal cost-benefit of a trade is not changed at all (if you assume that all trades will be made regardless, and all trades are charged a flat $ commission).
Therefore, I don't think this type of change should impact the game's fundamental strategies. It simply allows for more dynamic price action without creating immense widespread wealth.
The more I think about it, the more I like it. Perhaps I need to rethink whether the optimal strategy is still to use all trades, however, before casually assuming it. Clearly, there is a trade price that would invalidate that assumption. (e.g., if trades cost $25 mil apiece, it would not make sense to trade.)
But with increased repricing sensitivity that would otherwise allow roster values to inflate to more than $100 million, it seems like a cumulative trade cost of $20 million would still make trading cost-beneficial. Doesn't it?
|
| 109 | Ender
ID: 52438315
Mon, Dec 10, 2001, 13:32
|
The commission idea is interesting. I wonder what a game with no trade limit, but heavy commission would be like?
|
| 110 | Valkyrie
Leader
ID: 31114953
Mon, Dec 10, 2001, 13:46
|
For what it is worth I am not really liking the type of solutions being suggested. While I really sympathize with T-man's gravity problem and had previously supported anti-gravity or momentum movement I now think too would not work. The problem with both anti-gravity and performance based adjustments is that it only acts to enhance the benefit of those holding the "mandated trains"
(i.e. Tinsley, Gasol, Kirilenko, MacCulloch) to the detriment of those diversifying. Right now if you "missed" a train you are only paying a productivity cost (difference in current production at a low cost vs. a higher priced player but aren't losing the opportunity for additional roster value gain as well) but with anti-gravity or production changes you convert that cost to a permanent cost (or benefit) permitting all managers holding that player both to recognize the full dollar value of the movement immediately and bail out of the guy.
As an accountant I think the solution is some sort of off-book accounting- where player prices are adjusted without affecting roster value for gravity-antigravity or momentum. (i.e the player receives the gravity adjustment but the manager doesn't get the gain/loss). This would not be hard to implement but it does run the risk of "locking" low priced players into a roster (i.e if you held Tinsley at $3M but his gravity movement moved his price to $7M even if you didn't get the $4M appreciation you couldn't very well afford to sell Tinsley (the old Swerve situation)).
One other thought would be to set a maximum ownership percentage (say 50%) where if a player was owned by that percent of the teams at some specified period (perhaps once a month) all those players would be dropped from all rosters and those players would be repriced manually. Similar treatment could be accorded players owned by a minimum number of teams (either 0 or 1%). This would achieve the diversity desired and bring the players more in line with current value w/o unduly rewarding or punishing those currently owning them. Those managers having players dropped would either have to pick them back up at their current prices or replace them. (perhaps a better solution to dropping the players would be to freeze their carrying price but prohibit any trading for that manager holding a sub-market priced player but that I fear would require much more extensive programming vis a vis the drop option). Of course players holding the dropped players would receive bonus or free trades for repalcement purposes. I think this might work as long as we are dealing with a relatively small number of dropped/underpriced players however I can foresee quite an uprising since no one would be really happy about having their bargains purged from their team without a commensurate personnal benefit (increased diversity and competition falling a far second to personnal gratification). On the other hand if you fix the under/over price issue by immediate roster value increases or decreases you effectively end the game for those not holding these players at the time of the change.
One other thought is that maybe you make the adjustment during those periods where a player drops from +50% ownership to sub-50% ownership (like I suspect occurred with Tinsley this week). This would work even better if we were sure all players would eventually drop below 50% but if it were known that this was going to happen and the adjustment were to be reflected in roster value many more managers would be prone just to hold the Tinsley's of the world to get the one time RV adjustment.
In my opinion if an attempt to try to rectify this situation is implemented it should be done in some manner which does not affect the roster value of those holding these players.
Sorry for rambling- and my apologies to to all the free marketers who want the full immediate benefit of their bargain purchases (which in a perfect world is the ideal solution)
The problem with immediate mark to market adjustments is that they are so large and pervasive as to end the game for those who have knowingly diversified, knowing the costs, under the current rules or in the alternative if implemented at the beginning of a game would put far too much emphasis on the first two/three weeks trades and/or the draft.
|
| 111 | Erik B.
ID: 239592612
Mon, Dec 10, 2001, 16:18
|
Thanks for the note on weekly winners. I need to check into this.
-ESB
|
| 112 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Dec 10, 2001, 16:32
|
Valkyrie - in a large sense (as I suspect you already know), you are describing the Swirve Hoops game from the past few years. You could benefit from productivity by locking in players at low prices, but there was no gain when a player was released. And prices were mostly a function of performance.
A lot of the emphasis in that game was on locking in cheap players early and then holding through thick and thin. Using this year's TSN game as a reference, we'd all have Tinsley locked in for the year. If we didn't (and if he didn't get injured and/or Best doesn't wake up), it would be almost suicide not to have him. You could seek to diversify as much as you wanted, but success would require locking in some slots for the duration, especially for players who were initially underpriced vs. their ultimate value.
By the way, I don't think there was anything wrong with that framework. But it isn't really a stock market type game.
So I really don't see what that solves. I also don't understand why it would be better. Just different.
|
| 113 | Tomcraw
ID: 289503117
Mon, Dec 10, 2001, 17:23
|
How about getting rid of the invalid roster?
|
| 114 | Valkyrie
Leader
ID: 31114953
Mon, Dec 10, 2001, 18:25
|
Guru- Actually I was trying to find a way to avoid the lock-in without giving everyone the mark to market benefit which would in my opinion be destructively inflationary. Like everyone else i was just trying to find a way to achieve the free market parity in the manner least destructive to the game. Wish I knew how to do this w/o over emphasizing the draft or the first few weeks trades.
Overall I think it is marginally better to have 3 or 4 locked in "value players" rather than to reach stud rotation by the end of January so I think the dampened value moves are still an improvement.
As a side note I have been doing fairly well in Swerve football (I would be 7th WW if I had a paypal account) w/o locking in a lot of players but the winning strategy there still seems to be to lock in the undervalued players Alas this year's football is probably the last playable Swerve/Echelon game.
|
| 115 | The Bandwagon
ID: 101155281
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 12:51
|
Ahh, nice thread! I can't beleive I over looked this one! Its nice to see most of you including Guru is agreeing with what I said when prices were released at the beginning of the season. read post 45
I posted this before we knew that price changes would be muted. So forget what I said about raising the top tier players prices. Shelby's post 94 goes along with my thinking on player prices. It is very frustrating this year seeing the low tier players prices so high, and add muted price gains on top of that, that equals a smaller player pool.
I have a real simple suggestion, if you want to keep the muted gains, price your players according to Shelby's example in post 94. If you want to adjust price gains for next season, I would suggest you use my idea in post 45 of the link I provided.
I would also like to see you guys base the player prices on TSN points/per ELIGIBLE GAMES. This way we get a discount price for injury prone players such as Terrell Brandon, Chris Webber, Grant Hill, Sam Cassell etc. These guys average alot of points per game, but never play 82 games. Of course there would have to be a cut-off of games missed, say around 15/20 games missed. This way, players with season ending injuries aren't priced at 500K.
Anyway I have played this game 4 years, and this is the most boring year of them all. The low player pool leaves it almost impossible to differ and catch up IMO.
|
| 116 | TaRhEElKiD
ID: 42109719
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 13:00
|
I think Shelby's idea for gravity is scary because players can always have off games. And if he is widely bought even after a poor game does he lose or gain?
I think everything is alright with the prices and everything. All I think is that gravity should maybe be a little less (but still constant for each player) and we should find a small balance between last year in this year (not a middle balance, but close to muted price changes).
Just my thoughts...
THK
|
| 117 | citizenkane.org
ID: 531142514
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 13:12
|
WHEN ARE WE GOING TO SEE CHANGES FROM ERIK B AND BERNIE H?? EX. POST 105??? THANKS!
|
| 118 | Rubalamp
ID: 410262119
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 13:36
|
Shelby's idea is the perfect solution, and while very complicated, I think everyone would understand it, if they even cared to. The biggest problem this year, is people should be scared to sell out of a guy like Tinsley, because when they want him back he should be more expensive. Instead, he is going down with the sell-out. But his average is still more than twice what his output should be for his price tag. There should be some consideration, to alright he only plays two games and possibly more points from a cheaper guard with 4 games...I don't know it just seems ridiculous that people can just shift around in the same price range with a guy that should cost 7-8+ mill...
My two cents
|
| 119 | The Bandwagon
ID: 101155281
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 13:44
|
Here is what I was thinking for player prices next season IF TSN KEEPS THE MUTED GAINS. This goes along with Shelby's example. This is real simple, and it would work! TSN would still avoid the high RV's because the gains would still be muted, more players would be affordable, everyone would be happy.
0-20 TSNP (500K-2.0 mil)
21-30 TSNP (2.0-5.0 mil)
31-40 TSNP (5.0-8.0 mil)
41-60 TSNP (8.0-12 mill)
Notice you get a discount on players in the 0-30 TSNP range. Why? Because most of these players are inconsistent. They get you 35 TSNP one game, 8 the next. The higher in price you go, the less TSN points/per million you get. Why? Because with a higher priced player, you usually get more consistency.
If you buy a 2.0 mill player and get 20 TSNP a game, you are getting 10 TSN points/per million spent. If you buy an 8.0 mill player and get 40 TSPN a game, you are getting 5 TSN points/per million spent.
IMO this leads to more differation in rosters because you are able to take chances on inconsistent 0-20 TSNP/G players. If you want consistency, you pay for it. This is the beauty of the game that I came to love. This season has screwed this design up, you have your 0-20 TSNP/G players priced 2.5-4.0 mill.
|
| 120 | gumby
ID: 559211110
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 14:05
|
Gravity needs to be fixed. The way it is set up, the game is dictating that certain players, even if they are producing to a level that is acceptable to a manager, should not be bought due to the draconian $ hit. The system is leading to a "follow-the -leader" mentality (or perhaps the dreaded lemming mentality).
For instance, I made the decision (in spite of gravity) to go from Kirilenko to Tim Thomas (great schedule, great opportunity to up his production with Allen out and a sense that his game is coming together). Because of gravity, I am expecting to lose $210K over the next week even though I will probably get nice production from him. Why should that be the case?
I think gravity has a place, but not on a daily basis and not to such a severe degree. Why not evaluate on a weekly basis and make the hit $30/week? You might actually promote differentiation and diversity, thereby making an already awesome and interesting game that much better. Thanks.
|
| 121 | Jazz Dreamers
ID: 511057221
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 14:25
|
I haven't had a chance to read all the posts (many of which are great from what I have read), so I apologize in advance if I repeat any idea that has already been thrown around.
What about having player prices correlated to recent performance rather than buys/sells? The basic idea is this -- a certain level of TSNP/gm should correspond to a certain price (e.g. 50 TSNP/gm --> $12 million, $30 TSNP/gm --> $6 million). Here's how I would invision the game working. Suppose you buy Antoine Walker at $9 million to start the season and Boston plays on Monday (opening night), Tuesday, Thursday, Friday. In Monday's game, Walker goes off for 67 TSNP. Say his initial $9 million price corresponds to 40 TSNP/gm production. Because he produced better than his price level's production, his price goes up. Say it goes to $9.05 million. On Tuesday, he scores 41 TSNP. That's about the level of production expected for his price -- so no change in price. On Wednesday, he doesn't have a game scheduled, so no change in price. On Thursday, he scores 33 TSNP. A little below his expected level of production, so he drops to $9.03 million. On Friday he puts a real stinker, 13 TSNP. His price drops back to $8.98 million.
Well, that's the idea at least. What it would do is make players like Tinsley have their prices rise until they reach a point where the price corresponds to their level of performance. Injuries could be treated differently (the price could stay fixed from a DNP due to injury), so people wouldn't be penalized for holding a player through a one game injury (the so-called lemming effect).
Of course, one doesn't have to adopt this plan in full either. The formula used to update prices based on buys/sells and gravity could include a performance part as well based along the concept above. Okay, that's my $0.02.
|
| 122 | Bungers
ID: 339541815
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 15:31
|
Many excellent ideas in this thread. I apologize if I missed anyone who may have submitted this fairly simply idea regarding gravity.
I would only have a player drop due to gravity if he is not widely held AND is not producing to a certain PPG level or PPG level per Million $. Gravity would not take effect unless BOTH criteria were met. This idea allows us to keep a free market pricing scheme and not simply move all the way to a performance based one, and it is not an intial pricing scheme based on productivity as others have developed in previous posts.
Again I apologize if someone has already come up with this, but most of the posts above seem to be complex new systems that completely revamp the whole pricing concept. My suggestion is to keep it simple, but add one thing to keep productive players that aren't widely held from dropping consistently.
|
| 123 | Shelby-villian
ID: 261146232
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 15:56
|
THK-
My system happens during gravity. So only if a
player is relatively unowned, the system kicks
in. Even when it kicks in, its very fair.
Suppose tomorrow, Bonzi Wells (held in
gravity) scores a paltry 5swp. Even with this
score, his season average will be the same
so he will lose very little to gravity.
One offgame does not affect that players
overall price loss much because its very hard
to significantly change a players season
average without a lot of bad games.
Hope you understand.
|
| 124 | citizenkane.org
ID: 531142514
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 17:17
|
despite all the insite and suggestions on ultimate hoops, if the game never change abit i would still thoroughly enjoy it.
|
| 125 | TaRhEElKiD
ID: 42109719
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 17:23
|
Shebly-
So your system only affects gravity for players that are already under gravity? The changes of the players bought and sold are the same?
Your gravity idea sounds good IMO.
THK
|
| 126 | walking small
Donor
ID: 5011392617
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 18:24
|
One thing missing in strategy this year is the diversity that occured last year when new players were constantly joining in. One way to change this and to create more diversity would be to increase the number of weekly trades alloted - say from 4 to 6. Also, if the rooster was enlarged to include a "reserve" player that could be rotated in some fashion, the implications for strategy would increase.
|
| 127 | Erik B.
ID: 281112221
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 18:38
|
ck.org and gang,
my apologies. the holidays came up on us quickly. getting weekly winners posted will be a top priority when i get back in the office on monday. i have not had a chance to read up on my email this week, but i'll be back on this board resolving these issues on monday.
-esb
|
| 128 | TaRhEElKiD
ID: 42109719
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 18:39
|
WS-
This is the first post I have seen you make, so I hate to say this, but I totally disagree with you. 4 trades is a perfect # to make this game challenging, no matter how much we all want those extra 2! :-)
And the 10 player squad is perfect. I want this game to remain pretty much the same...PLEASE No big changes Erik or Bernie, this is a great game!
THK
|
| 129 | Jeddi
ID: 24519209
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 18:44
|
An idea for next years game. Take off all the pricing restraints and let it be a free market so to speak. The more you try and regulate it the more it gets muddled up and takes away from the most fun aspect(trying to get an insanely large roster value and having an all star team by the end of the year).
The rules would be the same for every owner and every player. I don't see how it's unfair if it's totally without "modifications" to the pricing system. So what if people gain a lot of money in creating a roster? It's not the easiest thing to do (unlike what some people believe).
There was always the argument of what to do, gain money, or go for points early on in a new season. With the system the way it is now, there is no argument, you have to get points because money is too hard to come by. If you go for money and foresake points early on, you are in a bad way because the little extra money you make won't help you make up a 1000 point disadvantage.
The muted gains help the more experienced players, who are really good at getting value for their buck. If a new player comes in with a different way to play, he's bound for failure before he even picks a roster because almost every team has to have the same roster and do the same things. Diversity and risk taking is punished to a huge degree.
I hope I am somewhat making my point. The allure of the game was always (at least to me) the stock market aspect. But when TSN tries to tamper with something that was never broken to begin with, to install a sort of TSN/Smallworld socialism, it only hurts the game.
Thanks
|
| 130 | walking small
Donor
ID: 5011392617
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 19:27
|
I agree with you TaRhEElkiD - it is a good game. The main question to me seems to be in how to deal with gravity, anti-gravity - or whatever - and price changes, and then to ad to the challenge of strategy without complicating things. Keep it simple. My question is, if more trades were allowed, would this add to the equation given the fact that diversity in pricing is effected by trading?
|
| 131 | citizenkane.org
ID: 1111392823
Sat, Dec 29, 2001, 00:27
|
thanks erik b!
|
| 132 | Erik B.
ID: 281112221
Sat, Dec 29, 2001, 16:49
|
jeddi -- we've thought about this, and are considering loosening things somewhat for baseball.
ck.org -- thanks for being understanding. we should be on this.
tar -- got it, no major changes. we agree.
-esb
|
| 133 | Im better than Marve
ID: 2410192222
Sat, Dec 29, 2001, 18:38
|
I am more of a baseball buff but I enjoy playing
the Ultimate Hoops. I was wondering if the
fantasy baseball will be similar to lasts years.
Will we have to pay. i don't mind but I am
wondering. I also want to know if it will be
similar to the fantasy basketball.
How many of you basketball players also do
baseball.???
:-) IBTM
|
| 134 | Stuck in the Sixties
Leader
ID: 5211552821
Sat, Dec 29, 2001, 23:06
|
Why would the absence of gravity be a bad thing?
|
| 135 | rage_22@work
ID: 57932917
Wed, Jan 30, 2002, 17:22
|
BUTT, I figure we might have some more input on this, as another month has passed.
|
| 136 | Old Man Greene
ID: 151046119
Wed, Jan 30, 2002, 17:42
|
For my money it's great entertainment..Were else can I have this much agony and fun for a few dollars..Keeps me out of the bar, spending endless hours on my roster..I understand and put up with any server problems or problems with the site, because I've been around computer's all the time and understand things WILL go wrong..The only problem I have is with the pricing of the lesser players..Seems high on several of them..What I like the most is the stock market atmosphere..The buying and selling, rise and fall of the players market value..It adds so much to determing what players you pick..Great game guys
|
| 137 | Drunken Baller
ID: 210553017
Wed, Jan 30, 2002, 17:59
|
Make the 10 man thing free. I need money for my beers!
|
| 138 | rage_22@work
ID: 57932917
Wed, Jan 30, 2002, 18:00
|
Aren't you 15?
|
| 139 | smallwhirled
Donor
ID: 157582113
Wed, Jan 30, 2002, 18:56
|
Rage, I drink the beers for Drunken Baller.
;)
|
| 140 | rage_22
Donor
ID: 490311415
Wed, Jan 30, 2002, 19:06
|
Well in that case, so do I, my friend.
|
| 141 | crossmovement.com
ID: 24050210
Wed, Jan 30, 2002, 20:58
|
Erik B & Bernie H: i hope that y'all implement many of the great suggestions that are in here while maintaining the integrity of the best fantasy sports game there is.
|
| 142 | Memphis Fan
ID: 341015260
Wed, Jan 30, 2002, 23:41
|
I dont know about other people.. But I would kill for a way to DELETE/RENAME teams.
|
| 143 | blade
ID: 290183023
Thu, Jan 31, 2002, 00:33
|
in past years whenever you sold a player you immediately saw how much available cash you had...now it just says you sold that player...i'd like to see that brought back.
|
| 144 | Wompusscats
ID: 13027251
Thu, Jan 31, 2002, 03:41
|
just curious what plans you have in store for playoff basketball. me and my friends really liked the way you did it last, year, survivor style. I think it was a great way to play the playoffs, and it also penalized those teams that didn't pay attention to their rosters. Please do it again this year.
Thanks
|
| 145 | Butt Monkey
ID: 13047411
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 13:07
|
Do you guys think it would be beneficial to have certain players listed as more than one position? For example, some people consider Paul Pierce a guard, some consider him a forward. I know he has appeared in boxscores as both this year. I think that adding the choice to put these "multi-position" type players at either position might add an interesting dimension to the game.
There would of course have to be limits, like a player would have to had played 5 or 10 games at a given position to qualify. This idea is of course not without it's problems/difficulties. This type of positioning is done in Sandbox Fantasy Baseball, but the positions in baseball are more defined. Some teams run 3 guard sets or three forward sets. How would you make the destinction? Or would a player qualify if filling in for an injured player at their position? For example, Lee Nailon for Wesley and S. Walker for Shaq (both examples of Forwards in the TSN game now playing different positions, at least on occassion). Kurt Thomas playing center (at least being classified as the C on the boxscore) when Camby is out is another example.
This change could be a good thing because it would allow for more differentiation between the TSN teams and allow a lot more combinations. With the current price changing formula, it could potentially make it harder to make money (with trades being more spread out over more players). It is not my desire, however, to completely revamp Ultimate or harm it in any way. It's a great game!
Let me know what you guys think?
-BM
|
| 146 | Erik B.
ID: 239592612
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 15:55
|
BM:
Very cool idea. Unfortunately, it becomes a tricky, administrative nightmare -- a nightmare that we're not willing to have right now.
We will most likely have a playoff hoops game, though it's not clear what that game will be exactly.
-ESB
|
| 147 | Butt Monkey
ID: 13047411
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 16:55
|
I was thinking it would be a little tricky. I think Sandbox.com uses some kind of formula that actually takes into account (and keeps track of) what position each player is playing (for baseball anyway). When updating points for any given day, is it possible to include "position played" as part of the boxscore/stats for basketball? I don't know. I'm just asking. It seems like there would be a way to do it, the question is how.
-BM
|
| 148 | Bungers
ID: 5311343110
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 17:58
|
I would think we could avoid the "tricky" by simply drafting any 10 guys (5 in the free game)that we can afford regardless of position. Hoops is known for its strange designation of who started the game or entered the game at which postion. It seems very arbitrary at times in the NBA.
After all, it is price that really determines who you can can on your roster. Calling a guy a guard, forward or center just restricts us unecessarily. What's next, Point Guard vs. Shooting Guard, etc?.
|
| 149 | Erik B.
ID: 239592612
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 18:05
|
Bungers:
We considered it, but we wanted you to try to have to field a "real" team. You could never play in the NBA effectively without a center/power forward...
-ESB
p.s. In other news, I will be gone for the next week on vacation (Barcelona). If you need anything in the next week, please contact Bernie on these boards. Sidenote: I'm very proud of the community that's developed here, and have joined by interactions with you over the last 5-6 months. We're excited to get going with baseball and hope to continue building on what's been built so far.
|
| 150 | Bungers
ID: 38082016
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 22:23
|
Erik, point taken. And that is pretty much what I thought the reason behind the game setup was, to field a "real" team. Makes sense. It is just once you've played the TSN game for a while you realize that playing position doesn't mean much compared to TSN points, trades, and money. :)
I like the way I said "can can" in my post #148. What a dork I am. Waiting for Guru to add some music to this thread too....
|
| 151 | smartone
ID: 29135714
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 23:31
|
please review my idea in msg #2 at the other thread called "an idea for improvement for next year's TSN" (or something like this)
|
| 152 | MyLakers
ID: 345282521
Fri, Feb 08, 2002, 00:18
|
I cant believe I havent seen this thread before. I really like the staggered gravity system from above that is tied to performance as well as buys. It has possibilities to even out the over/under priced players. No offense Guru, but I completely hate the commision idea, that one is near a deal breaker for me. The gains are a little to muted as most have said, I would enjoy seeing Tinsley at 5 or 6 million as well as Gasol. I enjoy this game very much and plan on staying, keep up the good work and thanks to the very intelligent folks who post here, someday I hope to catch up with you.
|
| 153 | jumpball
Sustainer
ID: 33050298
Fri, Feb 08, 2002, 16:10
|
I found this information at the bottom of an injury report listing and it got me to thinking . . .
Note: The NBA Injury File is transmitted three times daily...On Monday through Friday between 12:00-1:00 p.m., 6:00-6:30 p.m. (et) and after all games are final, and on Saturday and Sunday between 10:30-11:00 a.m. (et) and after all games are final.
Thinking about the importance of trading based on injury reports, maybe next season TSN could set up roster freeze deadlines at 2PM on weekdays and NOON on Saturday and Sundays (and also on holidays and any other days when there might be an early game). In theory, that would give us at least an hour to read the injury reports and respond BEFORE the roster deadline (what a concept!).
|
| 154 | Addicted
Sustainer
ID: 610441810
Fri, Feb 08, 2002, 18:56
|
I totally agree.
Move the freeze back to 2 or 3pm.
Or accept mail in roster changes
|
| 155 | Memphis Fan
ID: 341015260
Fri, Feb 08, 2002, 20:45
|
Mail in would get too controversial. Someone could send in emails for teams that
werent theirs. Not to mention more work for TSN.. could get ugly =) hehe.
I like moving the freeze back to 2, but would this impede on their margin of error? Very
good suggestion if they will consider it.
|
| 156 | Chris Eibling
ID: 51054300
Sat, Feb 09, 2002, 11:00
|
PLEASE move the Freeze to 2 PM Eastern Standard Time!
Thanks
|
| 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?)
|