2013 Roster Settings
Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:50 AM
I hate the PG/SG/SF/PF/C requirements that standard ESPN and Yahoo make you play by. Real teams don't have to field lineups with one of each of those, so why should my fantasy team? And besides, these days the lines between positions have been blurred so much, with your hybrid forwards, combo guards, and perimeter shooting bigs that the traditional positions have even less meaning.
What would be the ideal roster settings in your opinion? To me, people should have a lot of flexibility so that they can craft a variety of unique and effective team builds. My league's roster settings are:
One of the teams in my league is all high scoring SGs and SFs with a couple bigs like Dirk/Ryan Anderson/Bargnano. Another team is all PFs and PGs, with no use whatsoever for most SGs and SFs. There are a lot of different ways you can build your team when you don't have to stick to the traditional positions, and it results in owners carving out weird and cool niches.
What custom roster settings do you guys play with? How does it change the way you build your team?
Posted 04 February 2013 - 08:34 AM
It doesn't seem like a significant change, but it does really change how you effectively build a team. To me it really makes having 2 very good Cs or punting C common stats extremely important.
I unfortunately did neither and as a result am in a dogfight just to make playoffs
I don't personally have an issue with the positional requirements per se. My biggest issue is how players positions seem to be assigned. Some guys start the year filling 2 positions (pg/sg or pf/c etc), yet rarely if ever play anything other than one position.
For instance. The pacers started the season with Hill/Green/George and has since evloved to HIll/Stephenson/George. Yet Hill fit both PG/SG from the start, Green SG/SF and George SG/SF. Now its pretty much the same except Stephenson only fits the SG position. Hill though has barely played any SG at all and George rarely anything but SF (although one can easily argue who is what on the wings at any point in time)
I'd love to see either all players start with just 1 position, and then adjust as necessary, or all (or atleast most) players start with 2 positions. Mind you I wouldn't want leagues to take positions away from players as that could completely mangle a team.
Just a pet peeve.
Edited by KeyboardHero, 04 February 2013 - 08:42 AM.
Posted 04 February 2013 - 03:16 PM
I'm getting off topic here, but basically to me having more restrictions is more fun because anything that adds to the strategic part of fantasy makes it better imo. For example, with many Util spots free agent add/drops are really 100% based on who's hot but with restrictive positions it's much more related to who's doing well at the position you need to fill. If you have an open C slot, you aren't going to add a hot SG to sit on the bench on Sat at the end of the week. It makes you get much more creative. Also, it would add a ton of value to a PF/C that could shoot 3's, if you're down 3's at the end of the week and only have a PF/C position open. It also makes guys that you already own harder to drop without reason since their positions matter alot more. We also work with a FAAB of $100 which makes things way more fun as well. I'm definitely open to other ideas though, as I'm always trying to make our main league better, it's >10 yrs old.
Posted 04 February 2013 - 03:26 PM
Edited by indoorkites, 04 February 2013 - 03:27 PM.
Posted 15 February 2013 - 11:59 AM
I'm not a fan of them. I feel like I'm being punished for drafting healthy players, and I don't like seeing players sit on the bench when there are open slots, and I don't like watching a guy go off on my bench. If you draft a well-rounded team, where everyone contributes well, but don't have any superstar megaperformers, you also suffer.
Now, I've learned to adapt my strategy some as a result of all this. You have to play to the rules you sign up for, of course. But I was hoping someone could explain why game limits are a good idea. I can see it theoretically be a good thing so that guys don't stream players non-stop, but I like the move limit as a better mechanism for dealing with that.
Throwing it out there, then: What's the value of game limits? Why are they so predominant?
8-team, 8-cat roto: 2nd place
10-team, 9-cat H2H: 2nd place
12-team, 9-cat roto (draft-only team): 7th place
Posted 15 February 2013 - 12:05 PM
Current record: 6-0
QB: Brian Hoyer
WR: Jarvis Landry, Jordan Matthews, Deandre Hopkins, John Brown, DGB
RB: Frank Gore, Danny Woodhead, David Johnson
TE: Heath Miller
Kicker: Connor Barth
Posted 15 February 2013 - 03:10 PM
i don't think it should be seen as a punishment for drafting healthy players because health isn't something you can control or really prepare for. for example, you could draft westbrook thinking that he's one of the most durable players in the league, but what if he goes down (knock on wood) one of these seasons? how healthy your team is has a lot to do with luck throughout the course of an nba season. i think that, combined with preventing people from streaming players non-stop are the reasons why putting a games limit is more preferred than just setting move limits. that's how i see it anyway, but i'm sure there are other explanations.
You are rewarded for drafting healthy players already, but having no max games limit is too much.
In real basketball, one team may have 12 healthy players and another only 8. The first team has an advantage, but it doesn't mean they get to play 12-on-8 instead of 5-on-5.
Posted 15 February 2013 - 08:45 PM
So you have an 8 man roster, 6 active and 2 bench and there's a 2 move limit per week to prevent streaming. There's a number of reasons why a shallow league leads to a much more interesting league.
1. Most importantly, the waiver wire is chock full of talent.
- In a deep league you're picking up guys like Nick Young, Trevor Ariza, Tony Allen etc., no one that can change the fortunes of your team around. But looking at the waiver wire in my league right now there's names like Steve Nash, Marcin Gortat, Carlos Boozer, O.J. Mayo, Amare Stoudemire.
This just makes the league more exciting with names like this being added and dropped every week and it gives teams at the bottom of the standings real hope of catching up that they wouldn't have in deep leagues.
2. You have to make more difficult decisions fairly regularly.
- When you get a multiple week injury or decide to stash a player you really have to weigh the pro's and con's of holding on to that player and playing 7 against 8 every week until he's back. Especially when there's good players on the waiver wire.
As a result you have some big name injured players being dropped a few times a year and sitting on waivers while everyone debates the best time to pounce on the player as he nears return, this also adds excitement.
In a deep league with 3-5 bench spots and no one good on the waiver wire you would just automatically stash that player and wait weeks for him to come back.
3. The standings change more.
- Most times I've played in a deep league the people in the bottom half of the standings start losing interest half way through the year. Usually because they had a poor draft and see no way of ever catching up.
In a shallow league the teams at the bottom never really feel out of the race because there are difference makers available on waivers. If someone has a poor draft in a shallow league they at least have a chance to overcome it.
Posted 15 February 2013 - 09:13 PM
While it's cool to be able to add guys like Nash or Gortat off the wire, those are not difficult decisions like you say they are. Those are simple decisions, anyone you add will provide big impact. Working the waiver wire for specialists and guys ranked 120+ on the season is difficult, and indicates a greater level of skill. Ultimately that's what makes a deeper league more satisfying to me, it's a higher degree of difficulty.
Shallow leagues are best for those still trying to learn the ropes and develop their fantasy strategy.