Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 23 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 333

Thread: Lounge

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    23,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    The biggest problem I had was that Ebbs said you needed to play your starter at least 24 minutes in that 1 position. The concern (a fair one) was that someone might start a guy for 1 minute at SF then "hide" him for 23 minutes as backup SG but that rule was only clarified AFTER the draft started.

    Wasn't thrilled given that I drafted Melo and wanted to play a good chuck of his minutes as PF even though he was my starting SF (pretty sure Melo has probably played 50% of his minutes at PF and 50% SF in most of these games).

    I suggest a guy has to play 28 minutes but he needs to play a certain % of his minutes at the position he starts in. Ie he needs to play 28 minutes and but a minimum of 18 mins at the position he starts in.
    Well in the case of Melo you could do that because he's not a 60-79 player. This rule only affects your first 60-79 starter, so for everyone else you can go nuts and start them however you want.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    21,849
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    To address your first point, I thought long and hard about that but didn't know how to craft a rule. I didn't even think about a total elapsed time, I think that's a great idea. I'll try to add that in the rules.

    To your second point, I also thought about that, I'll look that over and make sure there are no outliers that could be effected.
    yeah, you just know that people will use 80's guys as much as they can for the 70's guys and maybe not use the best prime just to make the rules work. If you are ok with that, then its no big deal, but don't be surprised when it happens
    Quote Originally Posted by Shammyguy3 View Post
    I like that idea, but someone like Shaq played more than 5% of his prime years in the 90s, but most of his career games were in the 00s
    I think shaq is a decent example of someone I would like to be a 2000's guy just because he is a name that I think most people on this forum can remember watching or hearing about. However you can if needed easily get an all time great player from his orlando days. Again if this is something you guys want then so be it.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    23,527
    Quote Originally Posted by dhopisthename View Post
    yeah, you just know that people will use 80's guys as much as they can for the 70's guys and maybe not use the best prime just to make the rules work. If you are ok with that, then its no big deal, but don't be surprised when it happens

    I think shaq is a decent example of someone I would like to be a 2000's guy just because he is a name that I think most people on this forum can remember watching or hearing about. However you can if needed easily get an all time great player from his orlando days. Again if this is something you guys want then so be it.
    What if I just create a list of which era players can be used for? Would that make it easier and eliminate any arguments?

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    54,459
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Well in the case of Melo you could do that because he's not a 60-79 player. This rule only affects your first 60-79 starter, so for everyone else you can go nuts and start them however you want.
    What abiut a guy like Unseld? Can you still split his minutes as long as he plays 24 total or do I need to play him at his starting position for 24 mins. Cuz if I want to play him 26 mins, not exactly practical to play him 24 at pf and 2 at c

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    21,849
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    What if I just create a list of which era players can be used for? Would that make it easier and eliminate any arguments?
    this is probably a good idea. it would just make it so everyone knew exactly where a player qualifies for and there isn't any confusion. if you decide to it, I wouldn't mind helping out.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    23,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    What abiut a guy like Unseld? Can you still split his minutes as long as he plays 24 total or do I need to play him at his starting position for 24 mins. Cuz if I want to play him 26 mins, not exactly practical to play him 24 at pf and 2 at c
    But playing him 13 minutes at PF then 13 minutes at C just doesn't really seem like the spirit of having to start an older player does it? The intent is they have to play significant minutes. I think there's enough good older guys that you'd want to start and play whoever you draft for 24 minutes straight. I looked through those clubhouses and I didn't see a single player outside an older one that didn't play at least 24 minutes at a single position.

    How does everyone else feel about this? If I'm being unreasonably strict I'll gladly defer.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    35,223
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    But playing him 13 minutes at PF then 13 minutes at C just doesn't really seem like the spirit of having to start an older player does it? The intent is they have to play significant minutes. I think there's enough good older guys that you'd want to start and play whoever you draft for 24 minutes straight. I looked through those clubhouses and I didn't see a single player outside an older one that didn't play at least 24 minutes at a single position.

    How does everyone else feel about this? If I'm being unreasonably strict I'll gladly defer.
    I don't think there needs to be a position restriction. Minutes restriction I'm fine with



  8. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    23,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    What abiut a guy like Unseld? Can you still split his minutes as long as he plays 24 total or do I need to play him at his starting position for 24 mins. Cuz if I want to play him 26 mins, not exactly practical to play him 24 at pf and 2 at c
    Quote Originally Posted by Shammyguy3 View Post
    I don't think there needs to be a position restriction. Minutes restriction I'm fine with
    Alright, how does this sound for the rule?

    "You must start one player from the 60-79 era and they must play at least 30 minutes total in the game and must start 20 minutes at their position"

    Is that fair or still too much?

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    35,223
    That still has a position restriction lol



  10. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    23,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Shammyguy3 View Post
    That still has a position restriction lol
    It does, but you have to understand (as this problem came up last game) if there is no position restriction someone would get around having to start an older player by playing them:

    PG: Starter
    SG: Starter
    SF: Current Starter | 60's player 8 minutes
    PF: 60's player 10 minutes | current backup
    C: Current Starter | 60's player 6 minutes

    Now you've played the 60's player the required amount of minutes except it looks like you are having a current player playing the majority of the time at every position. The intent of the rule is to force you to have the 60's-70's player be a key component of your starting lineup. You have to incorporate an older guy.

    Eliminating the position restriction means people will try to "hide" their older guy to get the benefit of defacto starting an additional current guy.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    54,459
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Alright, how does this sound for the rule?

    "You must start one player from the 60-79 era and they must play at least 30 minutes total in the game and must start 20 minutes at their position"

    Is that fair or still too much?
    I'll take that. But maybe closer to like 28 mins minimum and 16 minutes at 1 position they start in. Just because a lot of older players probably should be sliding down anyway because of their height.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    23,527
    I think I'm going to go with a preset era designation for every player on a google.docs list that I will post in the rules thread. Just makes it easier and there will be less arguments about it from people trying to game the system.

    The other rule I'm contemplating is instead of allowing only 2 from an era, allowing up to 3 from an era but you cannot start more than 2 current players. So you could have 3 00's and beyond guys.

    What do people think of that?

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    35,223
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I think I'm going to go with a preset era designation for every player on a google.docs list that I will post in the rules thread. Just makes it easier and there will be less arguments about it from people trying to game the system.

    The other rule I'm contemplating is instead of allowing only 2 from an era, allowing up to 3 from an era but you cannot start more than 2 current players. So you could have 3 00's and beyond guys.

    What do people think of that?
    Love the idea of having a designated era for every player.

    Do not like the idea of having 3 00s and beyond guys.


    At this point, we should be able to have a rule that says: "Cannot start more than 1 active player, and cannot have more than 2 00s guys beyond."



  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    21,849
    yeah if the goal is to have diversity and to force teams to play oldies then I think two 2000's guys is enough. in fact I think something like you have to have a 60's to 79 guy and you can't start more then 2 2000's guys would be enough. In other words if you want to have a team full of 60's and 70s guys that is fine cause your team would probably be terrible.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    179
    I'm not sure if this is finalized but peak years is definitely the best way to determine era. I mean that peak is the player you are selling to voters. Makes no sense to me to base a players era on games you're not even using.

Page 2 of 23 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •