Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NBA Dynasty S7 Thread (temp) - Mack North is the Champion(temp)

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • My brain doesn't seem to be functioning well today, but few random thoughts in response to the last few pages.

    1. I'm not sure I fully get the point of having the nom order related to roster spots. Is it to mean that who ever nominates first nominates a guy that will possibly end up being a $200 bid for someone else to eliminate the $200 nomination-bids? Or will it just end up with a bunch of mid-tier guys going at weird values since the $200 owners will be waiting for someone else and people with lots of roster spots need to be more calculating in their bid values? Seems like this change shifts the auction advantage to guys with more roster spots than the current set up of guys with $200 max bids? Considering roster spots isn't related to league standings, I don't see this as progress as much as a shell game move. Plus Realizar will always be first to nominate.

    2. I do think we need to do something about the $200 bid process, as the random Yahoo order has too much power. I don't think $1 nom is really any better, as all it means is that the person nominating can't bid $200, but the next person can (fastest click wins). I would rather keep the $200 nom and have the nomination order go in some variation of the inverted standings. Our league right now is highly competitive, and it can be very hard to move up a tier in the standings. I would propose a tier lotto approach to the nom order, where maybe every 4 teams in the standings are randomized and we use final playoff standing instead of regular season standing (to further differentiate between the rookie lotto). That way, a bad team with $200 has an advantage at the auction over a top team with $200 and it doesn't rely on random Yahoo to make it happen.

    3. Dan's proposal, as always, is interesting, and I am coming around to the idea more. I am open to that and any discussions moving forward to further evolve this league. We've come a long way from the SoftEuro days and survived the Dark Days of Tyrant Joey (jokes!) and Snooch (not so jokes), and don't see this as a finished product.
    Heir, Prince of Cambridge

    If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

    Comment


    • Axel wrote: View Post
      My brain doesn't seem to be functioning well today, but few random thoughts in response to the last few pages.

      1. I'm not sure I fully get the point of having the nom order related to roster spots. Is it to mean that who ever nominates first nominates a guy that will possibly end up being a $200 bid for someone else to eliminate the $200 nomination-bids? Or will it just end up with a bunch of mid-tier guys going at weird values since the $200 owners will be waiting for someone else and people with lots of roster spots need to be more calculating in their bid values? Seems like this change shifts the auction advantage to guys with more roster spots than the current set up of guys with $200 max bids? Considering roster spots isn't related to league standings, I don't see this as progress as much as a shell game move. Plus Realizar will always be first to nominate.
      Wasn't my idea but I think its meant to create a little more difficulty for the max money teams. They will need to decide on whether its worth waiting for their top guy and risk missing out on someone else high on their list. I think it's sort of an equalizer. I think it will cause some guys to go at a higher value and I think it might lead some teams to enter the year with more FAAB. It all depends on the level of risk and how the order plays out.

      Axel wrote: View Post
      2. I do think we need to do something about the $200 bid process, as the random Yahoo order has too much power. I don't think $1 nom is really any better, as all it means is that the person nominating can't bid $200, but the next person can (fastest click wins). I would rather keep the $200 nom and have the nomination order go in some variation of the inverted standings. Our league right now is highly competitive, and it can be very hard to move up a tier in the standings. I would propose a tier lotto approach to the nom order, where maybe every 4 teams in the standings are randomized and we use final playoff standing instead of regular season standing (to further differentiate between the rookie lotto). That way, a bad team with $200 has an advantage at the auction over a top team with $200 and it doesn't rely on random Yahoo to make it happen.
      How about this:
      Nom order is determined based on remaining FAAB from the prior season. You buy your position at the next auction through leftover FAAB from the prior season and tiebreakers are determined by who has fewer transactions from the prior season.


      It creates another level of complexity and intrigue around the FAAB and maybe gives guys who don't value FAAB in season another reason to think twice in blowing it all at the auction. It might also reduce the twitch $200 max bid fad. It settles a problem, adds strategy but doesn't fundamentally change any of the important core mechanisms in place that have worked to date.
      Last edited by Apollo; Thu Sep 5th, 2019, 10:49 AM.

      Comment


      • Apollo wrote: View Post
        How about this:
        Nom order is determined based on remaining FAAB from the prior season. You buy your position at the next auction through leftover FAAB from the prior season and tiebreakers are determined by who has fewer transactions from the prior season.








        It creates another level of complexity and intrigue around the FAAB and maybe gives guys who don't value FAAB in season another reason to think twice in blowing it all at the auction. It might also reduce the twitch $200 max bid fad. It settles a problem, adds strategy but doesn't fundamentally change any of the important core mechanisms in place that have worked to date.


        How it would look for this auction:
        This Season
        Auction Last Season Last Season
        Order Team Waiver Budget Moves
        1 . WJF $200 0
        2 . DanH's Team $166 1
        3 . Cody 73'ers $130 6
        4 . drizz $21 1
        5 . The Coach $10 2
        6 . Joey's MonStars $0 3
        7 . Axel $0 3
        8 . Apollo Creeds $0 6
        9 . koncept $0 8
        10 . 007's Secret Service $0 8
        11 . Mieknstien Imperials $0 11
        12 . Tucas Tucaseseses $0 13
        13 . jbml $0 17
        14 . SKYWALKERS FORCE $0 23
        15 . Mack North Posse $0 27
        16 . REALIZAR $0 43
        It could be automatic like this or each team with FAAB could literally "buy" their position, which may result in the same order... Or not. Strategy.

        This could considerably increase FAAB value in season.
        Last edited by Apollo; Thu Sep 5th, 2019, 10:50 AM.

        Comment


        • Axel wrote: View Post
          My brain doesn't seem to be functioning well today, but few random thoughts in response to the last few pages.

          1. I'm not sure I fully get the point of having the nom order related to roster spots. Is it to mean that who ever nominates first nominates a guy that will possibly end up being a $200 bid for someone else to eliminate the $200 nomination-bids? Or will it just end up with a bunch of mid-tier guys going at weird values since the $200 owners will be waiting for someone else and people with lots of roster spots need to be more calculating in their bid values? Seems like this change shifts the auction advantage to guys with more roster spots than the current set up of guys with $200 max bids? Considering roster spots isn't related to league standings, I don't see this as progress as much as a shell game move. Plus Realizar will always be first to nominate.
          the plan is for the guys waiting with 200 in hand to nominate kd for 200 and stop others has become the way it will work. it isn't fair if axel has 200 and goes first and we say he has to nominate at 1. he can't get kd that way, and if he is allowed to drop 200, no one else can get kd.

          this idea now makes axel(example) weigh through rounds of other decent players, and whether it is worth waiting to maybe get kd at the end. for all intent and purpose the first owner with 200 will still be able to nominate kd for 200 and get him, but there will be a lot more strategy involved, especially for owners with multiple 2-12 open slots.

          i think in the end, this change basically puts our current order upside down, and then tests the patience of the max contract slot owners.
          Last edited by Miekenstien; Thu Sep 5th, 2019, 10:55 AM.

          Comment


          • Apollo wrote: View Post
            Wasn't my idea but I think its meant to create a little more difficulty for the max money teams. They will need to decide on whether its worth waiting for their top guy and risk missing out on someone else high on their list. I think it's sort of an equalizer. I think it will cause some guys to go at a higher value and I think it might lead some teams to enter the year with more FAAB. It all depends on the level of risk and how the order plays out.
            I don't think there is a need to "punish" the $200 bid owners, they deserve to have an advantage for managing their cap sheet that way. In this scenario, I see the guys with more rosters spots getting better value bids, as those $200 owners are waiting for one of their targets and they'll either end up getting their $200 guy due to Yahoo random order (since all $200 guy teams would be equal in roster spots) or they'll miss out entirely on not just $200 guys (of which there are debatably very few each year) but also those tier 2/3 guys that end up going for great value to the early noms. This would be fine if the nom order was in same way related to competitive strength, but it isn't, so the benefit of this change could help a first place team as easily as a last place team.

            Apollo wrote: View Post
            How about this:
            Nom order is determined based on remaining FAAB from the prior season. You buy your position at the next auction through leftover FAAB from the prior season and tiebreakers are determined by who has fewer transactions from the prior season.

            It creates another level of complexity and intrigue around the FAAB and maybe gives guys like Mars who don't value FAAB in season another reason to think twice in blowing it all at the auction. It might also reduce the twitch $200 max bid fad. It settles a problem, adds strategy but doesn't fundamentally change any of the important core mechanisms in place that have worked to date.
            Interesting idea. One concern would be that it would promote the Ceez method of managing, as in, not managing your team while you tank for picks. Fewer transactions gives you an advantage at the auction which rewards being less involved. Not sure I like that unintended consequence.

            I don't think $200 bid is a fad, it's a legit team building strategy which is why we've seen so many teams angle to cap sheets to enter with that $200 bid even when there aren't many clear $200 guys. It's a competitive advantage that comes from strategic roster management and is deserved in my opinion. It simply needs to be better managed, so that random order doesn't allow a championship team with $200 bid to get ahead of a lower team in the same scenario.
            Heir, Prince of Cambridge

            If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

            Comment


            • I'm good for anything that helps the little guy have a chance to play with the big boys. In the NBA it's the draft.. which does help. Every bad team generally gets a chance to bring in a franchise player.. albeit 2-3 years from now (and sometimes more).

              With free agency and the auction it just feels like the teams that are good are going to stay good. They can "drop" a free agent and just spend $200 to get them back.. or replace someone that wasn't good with someone much better. Teams that are really good in the NBA generally don't have cap space to bring in another player that is good, unless that player is willing to chase a ring (or unless the CBA has a cap spike and a team like GSW gets a whale like Durant).

              But I also understand that some teams have been here for 7 years that it takes a long time to become good. So once you're there you don't want it to go back to being bad. Also I'm making it seem like the auction is going to have top 15 players.. that will never happen unless a team forgets to resign his guys (*cough* jbml *cough*).

              Comment


              • Miekenstien wrote: View Post

                the plan is for the guys waiting with 200 in hand to nominate kd for 200 and stop others has become the way it will work. it isn't fair if axel has 200 and goes first and we say he has to nominate at 1. he can't get kd that way, and if he is allowed to drop 200, no one else can get kd.

                this idea now makes axel(example) weigh through rounds of other decent players, and whether it is worth waiting to maybe get kd at the end. for all intent and purpose the first owner with 200 will still be able to nominate kd for 200 and get him, but there will be a lot more strategy involved, especially for owners with multiple 2-12 open slots.

                i think in the end it this change basically puts our current order upside down, and then tests the patience of the max contract slot owners.
                I agree with the identified problem but disagree that the solution should increase the risk to their draft when it's really the nom order that is the problem from a competitive balance perspective.
                Heir, Prince of Cambridge

                If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

                Comment


                • planetmars wrote: View Post
                  I'm good for anything that helps the little guy have a chance to play with the big boys. In the NBA it's the draft.. which does help. Every bad team generally gets a chance to bring in a franchise player.. albeit 2-3 years from now (and sometimes more).

                  With free agency and the auction it just feels like the teams that are good are going to stay good. They can "drop" a free agent and just spend $200 to get them back.. or replace someone that wasn't good with someone much better. Teams that are really good in the NBA generally don't have cap space to bring in another player that is good, unless that player is willing to chase a ring (or unless the CBA has a cap spike and a team like GSW gets a whale like Durant).

                  But I also understand that some teams have been here for 7 years that it takes a long time to become good. So once you're there you don't want it to go back to being bad. Also I'm making it seem like the auction is going to have top 15 players.. that will never happen unless a team forgets to resign his guys (*cough* jbml *cough*).
                  I agree with this. Our league standings are fairly static with injuries or mis-management really being the biggest impacts (* for Apollo since he will immediately post his league standing improvements from year to year)
                  Heir, Prince of Cambridge

                  If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

                  Comment


                  • Apollo wrote: View Post



                    How it would look for this auction:
                    This Season
                    Auction Last Season Last Season
                    Order Team Waiver Budget Moves
                    1 . WJF $200 0
                    2 . DanH's Team $166 1
                    3 . Cody 73'ers $130 6
                    4 . drizz $21 1
                    5 . The Coach $10 2
                    6 . Joey's MonStars $0 3
                    7 . Axel $0 3
                    8 . Apollo Creeds $0 6
                    9 . koncept $0 8
                    10 . 007's Secret Service $0 8
                    11 . Mieknstien Imperials $0 11
                    12 . Tucas Tucaseseses $0 13
                    13 . jbml $0 17
                    14 . SKYWALKERS FORCE $0 23
                    15 . Mack North Posse $0 27
                    16 . REALIZAR $0 43
                    It could be automatic like this or each team with FAAB could literally "buy" their position, which may result in the same order... Or not. Strategy.

                    This could considerably increase FAAB value in season.
                    Since we are throwing ideas out there, we could use the FAAB money post-auction, before waivers and have a blind auction for nomination order for the next season. That way if a team wants to buy their spot, they can and we can simply remove that bid amount from their remaining budget prior to WW.
                    Heir, Prince of Cambridge

                    If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

                    Comment


                    • Axel wrote: View Post

                      I agree with the identified problem but disagree that the solution should increase the risk to their draft when it's really the nom order that is the problem from a competitive balance perspective.
                      i don't think this idea punishes the max dollar guy. it just rearranges when the max guys get nominated. there would still be no reason realizar(example of who would go first) doesn't nominate kd first and fuck with everyone's fingers. he would nominate next again anyway. the 200 owners still have all the monetary leverage, they lose the randomization of lucky yahoo gods.

                      the downside of this idea that i can see, might be too much power into the hands of empty slot owners.

                      Comment


                      • Apollo wrote: View Post



                        How it would look for this auction:
                        This Season
                        Auction Last Season Last Season
                        Order Team Waiver Budget Moves
                        1 . WJF $200 0
                        2 . DanH's Team $166 1
                        3 . Cody 73'ers $130 6
                        4 . drizz $21 1
                        5 . The Coach $10 2
                        6 . Joey's MonStars $0 3
                        7 . Axel $0 3
                        8 . Apollo Creeds $0 6
                        9 . koncept $0 8
                        10 . 007's Secret Service $0 8
                        11 . Mieknstien Imperials $0 11
                        12 . Tucas Tucaseseses $0 13
                        13 . jbml $0 17
                        14 . SKYWALKERS FORCE $0 23
                        15 . Mack North Posse $0 27
                        16 . REALIZAR $0 43
                        It could be automatic like this or each team with FAAB could literally "buy" their position, which may result in the same order... Or not. Strategy.

                        This could considerably increase FAAB value in season.
                        I think this makes the most sense... teams that use up their free agency money one year can't be at the front of the line the next as well. Puts some real value on saving "cap space" during the year.
                        “Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are.”
                        ― John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • Axel wrote: View Post

                          I don't think there is a need to "punish" the $200 bid owners, they deserve to have an advantage for managing their cap sheet that way. In this scenario, I see the guys with more rosters spots getting better value bids, as those $200 owners are waiting for one of their targets and they'll either end up getting their $200 guy due to Yahoo random order (since all $200 guy teams would be equal in roster spots) or they'll miss out entirely on not just $200 guys (of which there are debatably very few each year) but also those tier 2/3 guys that end up going for great value to the early noms. This would be fine if the nom order was in same way related to competitive strength, but it isn't, so the benefit of this change could help a first place team as easily as a last place team.
                          It's Miek's idea, I should have held off talking about it. He might have a good reason.

                          Axel wrote: View Post
                          Interesting idea. One concern would be that it would promote the Ceez method of managing, as in, not managing your team while you tank for picks. Fewer transactions gives you an advantage at the auction which rewards being less involved. Not sure I like that unintended consequence.

                          I don't think $200 bid is a fad, it's a legit team building strategy which is why we've seen so many teams angle to cap sheets to enter with that $200 bid even when there aren't many clear $200 guys. It's a competitive advantage that comes from strategic roster management and is deserved in my opinion. It simply needs to be better managed, so that random order doesn't allow a championship team with $200 bid to get ahead of a lower team in the same scenario.
                          Well remove the transactions from the tiebreakers and break ties another way, such as the difference between wins this season and last season or whatever.

                          Ok, its not a fad but it does create an unforeseen issue in that its a twitch mechanic that not everyone likes. The proposal I'm making reduces the mechanic while rewarding another level of strategic planning.

                          Comment


                          • planetmars wrote: View Post
                            I'm good for anything that helps the little guy have a chance to play with the big boys. In the NBA it's the draft.. which does help. Every bad team generally gets a chance to bring in a franchise player.. albeit 2-3 years from now (and sometimes more).

                            With free agency and the auction it just feels like the teams that are good are going to stay good. They can "drop" a free agent and just spend $200 to get them back.. or replace someone that wasn't good with someone much better. Teams that are really good in the NBA generally don't have cap space to bring in another player that is good, unless that player is willing to chase a ring (or unless the CBA has a cap spike and a team like GSW gets a whale like Durant).

                            But I also understand that some teams have been here for 7 years that it takes a long time to become good. So once you're there you don't want it to go back to being bad. Also I'm making it seem like the auction is going to have top 15 players.. that will never happen unless a team forgets to resign his guys (*cough* jbml *cough*).
                            The auction is a mixed bag. If you hit on your additions, then make good draft picks and trades you'll improve. When I took over this team three seasons ago it had one win. Quick turnarounds are possible for the active manager. It might only take you a season or two to make the playoffs. The rules aren't stacked against the small team.

                            Comment


                            • Axel wrote: View Post

                              Since we are throwing ideas out there, we could use the FAAB money post-auction, before waivers and have a blind auction for nomination order for the next season. That way if a team wants to buy their spot, they can and we can simply remove that bid amount from their remaining budget prior to WW.
                              A similar and equally interesting idea. Would we put them to a vote or is it way too early? Both offer an improvement. Doing it at the end of the season though makes it more difficult because teams are tempted throughout the season. It also give "the little guy" another chance to score assets by way of trading FAAB in the season.

                              Comment


                              • Apollo wrote: View Post

                                A similar and equally interesting idea. Would we put them to a vote or is it way too early? Both offer an improvement. Doing it at the end of the season though makes it more difficult because teams are tempted throughout the season. It also give "the little guy" another chance to score assets by way of trading FAAB in the season.
                                Also doing it in the beginning taps likely everyone's FAAB and reverts the WW to priority ordering (which doesn't change after using priority in this league. It's only been a minor problem so far but it becomes a big problem if no one has FAAB.)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X