| 0 |
Subject: Gravity Idea?
Posted by: JerryLewis
- JERK [1610101121] Tue, Dec 02, 2003, 10:59
I picked up Marc Jackson a few weeks ago and have lost $320,000 on him. He has played pretty well for me.
Why should a manager who differentiates and picks up a guy like Marc Jackson be penalized $320k? He had a good schedule and was a legitimate CHEAPIE. Does TSN want everybody to have the SAME ROSTER? With the small number of players playing this game, I think this GRAVITY situation has to be looked at to promote differentiation and make the game fairer for those who need to catch up.
My idea is to have GRAVITY only on a day that a player is NOT PLAYING. This will promote people picking up players like Marc Jackson who have dense schedules but are in gravity. The gravity will pretty much be suspended during the period of the dense schedule. During periods where players aren't playing alot GRAVITY will lower their price. |
| Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. |
| 93 | CJ
Donor
ID: 499271021
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 00:28
|
BOTTOMLINE
Booth, Calvin SEA 11/12 1.31M .87M -30,000 -440,000 19.7
I have lost -440k just becasue I want someone that has averaged 20.7 over the last 5 games and cost less than 1 Mil. C'mon!
|
| 94 | T-Mac
ID: 289232719
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 00:32
|
LOL buying someone who is in gravity is always a risk. Thats the risk u guys took, live with it. If u take the risk aspect of it out its just not as fun. If u knew exactly who would lose money, when and everything it just wouldn't be as fun.
|
| 95 | CJ
Donor
ID: 499271021
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 00:37
|
64 Booth, Calvin 114 118 -4 2.17 12/3 NY
65 Richardson, Jason 109 102 7 2.07 12/3 DEN
Now Booth drops 30K each day and Richardsen (Owned less than Booth) drops 20K.
Wait ther is more.....
70 McGrady, Tracy 102 103 -1 1.94 12/2 NO
He goes up 70K the other day and he is owned less than Booth. It is a gravity pull from the amoutn a player swings in a given day. For example Booth only get a few buys a day so it keepshim in gravity, while T-mac is still below in % of teams that have him but he moves from gravity because a higher % that day bought him?
This is more and more nuts the more I look at it.
|
| 96 | CJ
Donor
ID: 499271021
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 00:38
|
94 T-Mac
The problem is he is owned by more teams than T-Mac so why is Booth droppig while T-mac goes up 70K on 12/1?
It is mroe of an issue about what the real rules are? Does TSN post the gravity formula so we can see what the hell is going on.
|
| 97 | KnicksFan
Donor
ID: 30815418
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 00:52
|
T-Mac went up because there were a significant number of buys.
|
| 98 | CJ
Donor
ID: 499271021
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 01:18
|
But he is owned less % than Booth and Booth is in Gravity still. How is that a fair system.
So the way it works is if all of the Booth buyers buy on one day then he woudl rise. Next day no one buys or sells Booth so then he drops 30K because he is in gravity?
So if no one buys T-mac tomorrow or sells he will be considered in Gravity and fall 30K?
That I would understand!
|
| 99 | JerryLewis
JERK
ID: 1610101121
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 05:58
|
This game is SERIOUSLY, SERIOUSLY flawed if you can't pick up a guy like Calvin Booth without losing $440,000. That is an absolute joke.
Especially, at the center position where people usually have the cheapie of their choice.
If they don't fix this, I am not playing HOOPS next year. Like I said at the beginning of this thread, if you don't have the EXACT same roster as everybody else in this game you lose your ass in ROSTER VALUE.
How is that any fun?
|
| 100 | Mulva
ID: 5111020
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 06:10
|
I'm with you JL"J". Time to start a petition!!
|
| 101 | threespleens
Sustainer
ID: 795541
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 06:25
|
"Lets just have 5000 guys with the same roster. Real Fun."
hmmm... last time i checked there weren't 5000 guys tied for first... there is plenty of differentiation
|
| 102 | Mulva
ID: 5111020
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 06:36
|
It's alright for you , you've got three spleens to choose from!!
|
| 103 | JerryLewis
JERK
ID: 1610101121
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 14:06
|
Look at a guy like MATT HARPRING.
Is he going to come out of gravity? He has a absolutely great schedule and gets 27.5 TSNP for 5.18 million. 5.3 pnts/million
He is a decent choice. But who is gonna take a 30k/day hit for the next 3 weeks?
|
| 104 | JerryLewis
JERK
ID: 1610101121
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 14:09
|
As of yesterday, 26 people in this game own MATT HARPRING. If 2% is the gravity threshold he is gonna have to be owned by over 100 teams before he comes out of gravity.
|
| 105 | CJ @ Work
ID: 35104577
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 14:30
|
JL
Not true! Booth is owned by ....
65 Booth, Calvin 114 114 0 2.17 12/3 NY
So what is the actual % I need to look at before picking a player up?
|
| 106 | JerryLewis
JERK
ID: 1610101121
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 14:36
|
It must be over 3%. Marc Jackson came out of gravity yesterday and he was owned by 187 teams.
187 divided by 5249 teams equals 3.5%
|
| 107 | CJ @ Work
ID: 35104577
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 14:52
|
Is there an area in the rules that state any of this or do we always have to ask Guru about TSN's game? LOL?
|
| 108 | CJ @ Work
ID: 35104577
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 14:54
|
Player Price Market
Why do players' salaries change?
The Sporting News Player Price Market is a unique feature whereby players' salaries go up and down based on YOUR trade activity, much like the stock market. The more times a player is bought, the more his price goes up. The more times he is sold, the more his price drops. In order to take advantage of the moving market and increase your wealth, you'll have to anticipate the demand for specific players and buy them before their prices skyrocket. Be aware of players who aren't playing well (or at all); their prices are due to plummet.
|
| 109 | JerryLewis
JERK
ID: 1610101121
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 14:56
|
Yea, I guess HARPRING isn't "playing well" or "playing at all". That's why he's in gravity. Frickin joke.
|
| 110 | CJ @ Work
ID: 35104577
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 15:44
|
Well what we are experiencing is this:
you'll have to anticipate the demand for specific players
Problem is nothign in the rules gives any indication to gravity equation. SO you are blinded when you pick up a player in Gravity. Bottom Line is Too Bad. Don't pick up a player until he is out of gravity.
|
| 111 | Deadeyes
ID: 198319
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 15:56
|
Dear Mr. Lewis,
You have a very huge intellect, superior to most. If only my brain could fathom what you are saying then i would pick up jackson too. WE could lose money together.
Your best peer,
Deadeyes
|
| 112 | JerryLewis
JERK
ID: 1610101121
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 16:12
|
Deadeyes you're one of the biggest morons on the boards.
Congratulations on attaining that high honor.
Curious as to your WWR? You must be way up there considering the way you talk.
|
| 113 | F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 16:16
|
I dont play Fantasy Hoops, but I played Baseball several seasons with the gravity concept. So I understand the issues being debated here.
Gravity is theoretically a good concept. It is designed to lower prices of unwanted players, until they become desirable and thus get into play. Sort of like a negative auction, where the price is lowered and lowered til someone says "I'll take it". Unfortunately it has several negative side effects in this game.
(1) Gravity PENALIZES DIFFERENTIATION. Thus, it keeps players from doing what it was designed to do, which is to make rosters as diverse as possible. (2) Gravity is NOT A MARKET CONCEPT. It lowers prices when no one is selling. Although this is a market game, gravity is artificially added. (3) Gravity forces players to consider what everyone else is doing BEFORE BUYING AN UNNOTICED PLAYER. If the group doesnt buy, then you are penalized for being the first to alone recognize great value. That seems wrong. (4) Gravity rarely gets unused players back into play. Typically, the only very good players who fall into gravity spins are those with massive overpricing. By the time they become a bargain (if they ever do), the game is far enough along that roster inflation has owners looking for Production rather than Value: bargains become relatively unimportant as the year goes along.
I would offer a few suggestions that might help achieve the goals of gravity while lessening the side effects.
(1) Similar to Guru's suggestion, I would use a pts/game/$ modifier on application of gravity. (2)But I would apply it as a modifier, not an absolute. That is to say, when a player reaches a BARGAIN VALUE point-producing position in relation to the rest of the league, gravity stops. I would perhaps make it Top 20% in Value (pts/game/$) get exempted from gravity, or somesuch - someone else can fiddle with the best threshold number. (3) A player that hits the Top 20% in Value could be given extra appreciation for buys, which rewards the first owners to buy him. Extra Appreciation stops once his value drops below the top quintile. (4) Gravity then gets applied (again) when the value is less than Top 20%, when there is limited (or no) ownership of the player, and when relatively no one is buying him.
Thus, if I see and grab a bargain, as long as they produce in the top tier relative to their price, I can sit tight and rake in points, and maybe make a few bucks for recognizing value. This would also keep players looking for that bargain player. And isnt that what this game is wanting to encourage?
|
| 114 | Deadeyes
ID: 198319
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 16:21
|
Dear Mr. Lewis,
If you read between the lines you would have noticed that I am a moron compared to you. As i said before you are one of the greatest intellect of our generation. I agree that gravity may be a downer for you but for people who are like me it makes the game easier. All i have to do is do what everyone else does. Thank you for your time.
Your Bestest Peer,
Deadeyes
|
| 115 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 49132614
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 16:29
|
How about the opportunity to short-sell? Everyone of gets to pick 3 players that they thing will go down. If they go down 40K, the short-sellers gain 40K. This would force obviously over-valued players to decline. If net ownership is near zero, they don't increase or decrease in price. If 3% owns and 1% shorts, then the price increases comparably to a player than 2% owns.
The question is whether you should also incorporate pts for your shorts. Something like Expected(Pts/G)-Actual(Pts/G)= pts received. That way if you short a hot performer, you get womped. You'd have to do something about injuries and suspensions, however, to set Expected=0.
|
| 116 | JerryLewis
JERK
ID: 1610101121
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 16:29
|
Anybody know what DEADEYES WWR is?
|
| 117 | Deadeyes
ID: 198319
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 16:33
|
Dear Mr Lewis,
Dont worry about me and my WWR. In the end I will be ahead of you. As i said before your intellect is much to advance for this game and is a hinderance... This game was made for simple minded folk, like me. Please don't be rough around the edges Mr. Lewis. Your words send shivers down my spine and blood to my head.
Sincerely,
Your best peer.
|
| 118 | BlooDevl
ID: 4810391210
Wed, Dec 03, 2003, 21:30
|
My little bit to add: (to what was an interesting thread and turned into message board flame war)
From my relatively close watching the gravity threshold seems to be 181 owners or about 3.5%
I agree that the gravity system as it exsists is flawed. The main thing that would help would be lowering the threshold to 1.5% or so. You'd have a better chance to find diamonds in the rough.
After studying the price changes for people in gravity, I also think this is suspicious:
1. Players with as many as 5-6 buys on a given day STILL go down 30k
2. In the range of 6-9 buys the player still goes down 20k
3. Above 10 buys and the player goes up 10k
(These numbers are approximate but pretty acurate)
Why is there no chance for a player in gravity to go down only 10k or to have no change in price??? This doesn't make sense to me.
|
| 119 | Jumpin Jezebels
ID: 1610338
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 12:30
|
Hey, instead of concentrating on the negative side, Gravity, why not focus on changing things on the top side? For instance having an anti-gravity factor that causes guys to go up if they are the heaviest owned. This would drive guys like Randolph, Baker, Wade, etc. up until they are properly priced, and eventually you would have to drop him because other guys would be a better value. I like the idea of the "Market" setting the final price, and you have to have guys like Randolph starting low at the beginning of the season or you could never make any money. The problem now is that if you drop player's prices based on the lowest owners (assuming that they must be overpriced), then you should also increae the price of the heaviest owned (assuming they are underpriced). This would be a factor on top of the buys/sells for the day, forcing Randolph to go up $200k per day ($30k above the $170k limit, if that is the upside limit).
|
| 120 | Blooki
ID: 4510211419
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 12:41
|
Bad idea Jumpin Jezebels. Classic case of the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. If a player is so heavily owned, then the has already gained a great deal in price and most probably is producing well. To add an additional bonus to heavily owned players would just cause an unnecessary larger rift between those who own him and those who do not while the majority population who owns him stays even with one another. Anti-gravity would only increase the lemming mentality and decrease any hopes for differentiation. As it is now, it's usually tough to compete without going with the masses, but in some rare opportunities you can overcome the price gains and above average production of a heavily owned player by using the trade elsewhere for a better non-mainstream opportunity.
|
| 121 | Jumpin Jezebels
Sustainer
ID: 1610338
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 13:04
|
I agree that you don't want the rich to get richer, but you win the game with points and not with your FV. So you have to trade based on schedule for a period of time during the season to get in more than the regular 82 games at each position if you want to compete. This forces some people in-and-out of certain players (Randolph is a great example of this) but because Randolph's value is nowhere near where it should be some people held him through the 1-in-7 period correct? Right now still 6% of the owners have Arroyo on their roster. They are not thinking points because obviously he is not getting any points right now at all, they know that there is not many good options at that price right now for him to trade into. I actually think this will move people away from the lemming mentality.
Let's say Randolph is increasing quickly in price (remember I am talking about a $30k anti-gravity factor, so it isn't that large and would still take awhile to happen) and within a month or two he is now in the $6-$7M range. Wouldn't many mangers then think about moving him to AK-47, Gasol, or K-Mart if their schedules were better? You would be way less likely to hold onto a player through a 1-6 stretch.
Wouldn't this also start to differentiate the teams more? I see everyone complain about this every year, by the end of the season everyone owns the same players because their rosters are $100M and they all just have KG, Kidd, Shaq, T-Mac, etc. What if those guys went up to $15-$20M because of their ownership? Then everyone could still not afford to have all of the studs on their teams. Wouldn't this force people to continue to look for gravity bound people who are better TSNP/G/$M values?
|
| 122 | Blooki
ID: 4510211419
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 13:21
|
So you're "forcing" people to trade out of players by giving them free TSND so that they'll be enticed to trade out?!?
Um, right...
By your logic, we should arbitrarily reprice players are regular intervals. Why not just make Zach Randolph $8mil today?
If I knew Zach Randolph would go up 30K a day, I would be LESS inclined to sell him and more inclined to keep him until about February (after drafting him in October) simply because that's how long it will take for him to reach his fair market value.
Schedule will always be a strong factor in this game. Cheapies should usually be held during semi-weak schedules by the simple logic of putting the bulk of your money in use for the maximum amount of games. Underpriced players will always exist and there is simply no way to reprice them artificially during the season without giving undue advantage to those who happen to be holding them during artificial repricing.
|
| 123 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 13:46
|
BlooDevl[118] - this occurs because 10 trades seems to be about the threshold which causes a lightly owned player to escape gravity for the day. If a player is lightly owned, a few buys has no upward price impact. About 6 buys causes an upward move of $10K, but this is still overlaid on the -$30K gravity impact, so the net change is -$20K. But when a player gets 10 buys, then gravity turns off, and the buy impact of $10K has no gravity offset.
As to anti-gravity, I have suggested this for a number of years. It would help to get chronically undervalued players, like Randolph, up to a fairer value. Of course, this would also serve to inflate most team rosters values as well, so you have to pick your poison: do you want to avoid overall inflation, or do you want to promote more roster differentiation? Under the current game framework, you can't have it both ways. And frankly, it may be that the current poison is more palatable than the anti-gravity posion.
By the way, someone above commented that gravity is not a market concept. Actually, it is, in an indirect way. Ditto for anti-gravity.
The key for market pricing is to have a wide-open supply of potential buyers and potential sellers at all times. In the TSN system, this fails in 2 scenarios:
1. When a player is unowned, there are no potential sellers. Gravity effectively stands in as a market-based mechanism to push down prices until they reach a level where buyers are interested.
2. When a player is highly owned, there are no potential buyers. In the basic game, this is not a problem, because new teams are being created throughout the season, allowing for continued buying. But in the Ultimate game, there are very few new teams formed after the beginning of the season, and once a player is on most teams, there are few potential buyers left. Anti-gravity would theoretically provide a market push for those players until they reached a level at which the price was more comparable to alternative options.
As the game stands now, there is still plenty of market information that is not factored into the price equation. Active decisions to buy and sell are included. Active decisions to "not buy" are only indirectly considered in the gravity component. Active decisions to "not sell" are pretty much ignored. Anti-gravity would attempt to capture and react to some of this information.
Someone above mentioned the possibility of short selling. This would solve much of the gravity issue by opening up the universe of potential sellers, since you would no longer need to own a player before you could decide to sell him.
Unfortunately, this fails the "keep it simple" principle. This would greatly complicate the game structure.
I've always had an interest in developing a similar game that allowed both long and short teams. The Market Madness contest is a limited offering of such a game. A TSN-style game like this would be much more interesting, but would also be quite complex, and probably not mass marketable.
|
| 124 | JerryLewis
JERK
ID: 1610101121
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 14:12
|
A pretty good example of what is currently WRONG with this game is the SHAWN MARION, STEPHON MARBURY situation.
They are almost identical producers historically, their prices are almost identical, and they have the exact same schedule.
Problem is that MARBURY is the people's choice, while MARION is the choice of those who want to get hammered by GRAVITY.
|
| 125 | Deadeyes
ID: 198319
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 14:15
|
Dear Mr Lewis,
that's because marion historically gets more points but he's been injured and not as effective this year. Hence his price must drop for him to be attractive. What's so hard about understanding that.
Your Peer,
Deadeyes
|
| 126 | JerryLewis
JERK
ID: 1610101121
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 14:17
|
He's injured?
Then how did he play 43 MINUTES in Phoenix's last game and 35 MINUTES in the game before that?
|
| 127 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 14:31
|
Drop the continual contentious attitude, guys, or you'll both go the way of PGunn. Besides, no one will ever take you seriously if you can't grow up. Take it to the TSN forum, if you must.
Maybe Marion is less desirable because he's a forward, where there could be more attractive buy options (like Randolph). It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with his recent injury.
Yet, he was just injured, and some might be staying away for fears of a recurrence. Happened recently with Jermaine, as I recall.
Marion is a good example of the issue I tried to raise in [46]. Is he overpriced? If he isn't owned heading into this type of schedule, then it would seem that he might be overpriced, at least relative to the other options available. I can't think of many other viable explanations. I certainly don't think Marion unowned is because he is unnoticed.
|
| 128 | JerryLewis
JERK
ID: 1610101121
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 14:32
|
And DEADEYES response is also a good example of what is wrong.
An experienced player like myself knows that MARION averaged over 41 TSNP last year. Now if I wanted to DIFFERENTIATE from the masses because a guy like DEADEYES doesn't know how good of a TSNP producer MARION is to gain an advantage, I immediately start losing 30k per day.
In effect, I am penalized because I know more than a moron like DEADEYES.
|
| 129 | JerryLewis
JERK
ID: 1610101121
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 14:35
|
Sorry about the term "moron" Guru. But the guy has been badgering me for the last 2 days.
|
| 130 | Deadeyes
ID: 198319
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 14:38
|
The thing is:
Marion averages a measly 32.5 points per game at 8.53 million. I dont think anyone in their right mind would want to pick him up. Hence his price drops. Also you can get marbury for less who produces more. Now do you get it?
|
| 131 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 14:46
|
Marion may have averaged over 40 last year, but he only has two games better than that this year (43 and 43.5), and the most recent of those was a full month ago.
|
| 132 | CJ @ Work
ID: 35104577
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 15:24
|
115 biliruben
Oh I disagree! Maybe yearts from now, but I feel one step at a time please. Just get these players to level out sooner and players that produce stop getting pounded with gravity.
|
| 133 | CJ @ Work
ID: 35104577
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 15:27
|
118 BlooDevl
You said "The main thing that would help would be lowering the threshold to 1.5% or so. You'd have a better chance to find diamonds in the rough."
I totally agree and feel that FIRST establish this!
|
| 134 | CJ @ Work
ID: 35104577
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 15:43
|
124 JerryLewis
You missed this one....One is playing the G Spot and one is playing the F spot.
Okay now The Forward spot has many better options like TD, Zach, Bosh, Foster, Baker, ect.....where the Guard spot Marbury fits in better versus what is available.
Basically the forward spot is providing more points per $ than tha guard so Marion has to be the odd Forward out?
|
| 135 | Tree
Donor
ID: 599393013
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 15:54
|
after following this thread for a bit now, seems to me that if you don't like gravity or having to play the lemming game, then don't play TSN.
it was one of the more major contributing factors to me leaving TSN, and switching to Yahoo. i couldn't manage a team like *I* wanted to, and to remain competitive, i had to be a follower more often than a leader, and that took decisions out of my hand....
|
| 136 | Deadeyes
ID: 198319
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 16:15
|
Does yahoo have a similar kind of game?
|
| 137 | Jumpin Jezebels
Sustainer
ID: 1610338
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 16:26
|
Blooki on ->122
What I am suggesting is an anti-gravity, which is effected upwards the same as gravity is affected downwards. You would probably not be inclined to keep Randolph because if his delta was -40 because his schedule was bad, he would drop in price. Just the same as Guru is talking about when you are in gravity, and have a delta of 10 or more, then that would eliminate the gravity for that day and you would go up $10k.
I guess people are confused by the way I said it. Anti-gravity doesn't guarantee a player will go up $30k each day, just like gravity doesn't guarantee a player will go down each day. All you need is a delta of 10 or more buy or sells to send that player in the other direction. That is when the market would start answering the question of when the player has exceeded their value, or is well below their value.
|
| 138 | F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Sat, Dec 06, 2003, 20:16
|
GURU ...You said: "By the way, someone above commented that gravity is not a market concept. Actually, it is, in an indirect way." - that was me you referred to ...and you continued:
" When a player is unowned, there are no potential sellers. Gravity effectively stands in as a market-based mechanism to push down prices until they reach a level where buyers are interested."
That is a legit observation - it is equivalent to getting the price lower til it is market-valued and people start buying. BUT - what is anti-market is that gravity does not stop when a few observant people start buying - even though there is NO selling. And furthermore, gravity is anti-market in that it DISCOURAGES people from ever buying that gravity-bound player. When the price becomes a good value, the market (ie, the buying public) sees that certain dollar losses will ensue if they opt to buy, so they are essentially FORCED NOT TO BUY. That aspect is NOT a market-induced factor, but rather artificial. No one is selling, and people WANT TO buy but are prevented from doing so, for artificial reasons.
Further, doesn't the presence of gravity encourage artificial bogus trades? That is to say, it would seem to reward the player who would create "fake" teams/trades as a means to pick up an overlooked value player without having to suffer the pains of artificial (gravity) losses.
That is why it would make sense to have gravity go away, even if a player is unowned, once that player reaches a certain "value" in relation to the rest of the league. That would allow gravity to work its benefit to reprice the undesirable. And then at that point, when they have become one of most valuable players (in price/pts), they are in play for the owner looking for someone different.
|
| 139 | joe suspect
Sustainer
ID: 521072313
Sat, Dec 06, 2003, 20:51
|
F Gump, approximately how many "fake" teams do you think it would take to stop gravity? If the threshold is 150 teams, and the desired player is owned by 130, who in their right mind is going to pay to buy 20 teams just to pick up a marginally owned player?
And, if you are talking about the free game, then the amount of teams needed would be outrageous. If someone wants to create hundreds of teams to avoid gravity every time they want a player that no one else does, then so be it.
|
| 140 | KnicksFan
Donor
ID: 30815418
Sun, Dec 07, 2003, 03:47
|
If someone has enough teams to bring a guy out of gravity on their own, then that only gives them an advantage over everyone else for one day. Once the player is out of gravity, other managers who want the player will buy him as well. So really, a manager making "artificial bogus trades" is just taking one for the team.
|
| 141 | CJ @ Work
ID: 35104577
Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 10:27
|
No one from TSN has posted in here yet?
|
| 142 | CJ @ Work
ID: 35104577
Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 10:45
|
I would like to add that Baker is another example of what we call Follow the Masses. Not really a gravity issues, but damn 300K in 3 days!
Anyways...what is up with the "I" next to his name still. Is someoen at TSN have a team that does not have Baker and wants everyone to sell? Why does it always take so long ot remove these "I". Then they do not even have them in place when they are actually not playign because if the "I".
|
| 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?)
|