Offseason Discussion/League Improvements
Moderators: UOducksTK1, Zyme, lukeyrid13, Oregon Ownage
- pistolpetejr
- Senior
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:48 pm
- GM: Los Angeles Clippers
Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements
Something I've seen done in the past is going by what bballref says. Example:
So LBJ would be eligible at SG, SF and PF.
It makes it easy and clean to follow a database we all have access to and is well-reputed.
So LBJ would be eligible at SG, SF and PF.
It makes it easy and clean to follow a database we all have access to and is well-reputed.
---
PistolPeteJR
PistolPeteJR
- Oregon Ownage
- All-American
- Posts: 15300
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:40 am
- GM: Dallas Mavericks
- Location: Hampton Roads, Virginia
Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements
The issue with that is that when we built players, we specifically said they can only play x, y or z.pistolpetejr wrote:Something I've seen done in the past is going by what bballref says. Example:
So LBJ would be eligible at SG, SF and PF.
It makes it easy and clean to follow a database we all have access to and is well-reputed.
- pistolpetejr
- Senior
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:48 pm
- GM: Los Angeles Clippers
Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements
I think doing it as a "moving forward" thing makes it unfair for those who have teams that can compete or that will compete soon and only benefits rebuilding teams.Oregon Ownage wrote:The issue with that is that when we built players, we specifically said they can only play x, y or z.pistolpetejr wrote:Something I've seen done in the past is going by what bballref says. Example:
So LBJ would be eligible at SG, SF and PF.
It makes it easy and clean to follow a database we all have access to and is well-reputed.
It would need to be for every player in the league from here on out or whenever you guys choose to have it in effect.
---
PistolPeteJR
PistolPeteJR
-
- Senior
- Posts: 3126
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:32 pm
- GM: Denver Nuggets
Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements
No lie, that would be even worse. I get that you let them play at x, y, z, and that may be the best solution, but tracking it becomes extremely cumbersome. what if bbref changes, is a gm punished because he didnt check the site?
Denver Nuggets DASL GM
- pistolpetejr
- Senior
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:48 pm
- GM: Los Angeles Clippers
Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements
Think it just stays as what it was from draft. And it would be noted in draft notes.Brophdog88 wrote:No lie, that would be even worse. I get that you let them play at x, y, z, and that may be the best solution, but tracking it becomes extremely cumbersome. what if bbref changes, is a gm punished because he didnt check the site?
---
PistolPeteJR
PistolPeteJR
- jibbajabba614
- Senior
- Posts: 2410
- Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 6:32 pm
- GM: Milwaukee Bucks GM
Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements
Personally I'd prefer whoever you start has to play that position. But I'm all for Broph idea. Will make Ownage's job tougher though.
- pudgejeff
- Senior
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:21 am
- GM: Sacramento Kings GM
Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements
Broph's list seems good, and can be pretty easily enforced. Most people look at their own box scores so if Ownage doesn't see one, someone will mention it in the thread per the usual or can just shoot a PM over to Ownage. I don't think it's rampant enough to ruin the league, but when something glaring like the Gasol one pops up it's easy enough to remedy, especially with set rules in place.jibbajabba614 wrote:Personally I'd prefer whoever you start has to play that position. But I'm all for Broph idea. Will make Ownage's job tougher though.
-
- Freshman
- Posts: 1420
- Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 10:19 pm
- GM: Atlanta Hawks
Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements
Can I please play Oden at the Point or the Two for one sim?
- jibbajabba614
- Senior
- Posts: 2410
- Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 6:32 pm
- GM: Milwaukee Bucks GM
Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements
What penalty would you suggest? Maybe cut players to their payroll could be added since competitive teams would benefit the most.pudgejeff wrote:Broph's list seems good, and can be pretty easily enforced. Most people look at their own box scores so if Ownage doesn't see one, someone will mention it in the thread per the usual or can just shoot a PM over to Ownage. I don't think it's rampant enough to ruin the league, but when something glaring like the Gasol one pops up it's easy enough to remedy, especially with set rules in place.jibbajabba614 wrote:Personally I'd prefer whoever you start has to play that position. But I'm all for Broph idea. Will make Ownage's job tougher though.
- Oregon Ownage
- All-American
- Posts: 15300
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:40 am
- GM: Dallas Mavericks
- Location: Hampton Roads, Virginia
Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements
I would love for some more GMs to weigh in with their thoughts on this
- dennocj
- Five Star Recruit
- Posts: 1050
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2015 7:32 pm
- GM: Indiana Pacers
Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements
I say place restrictions on every player or don't place any restrictions at all. Makes no sense only restricting certain players.
- Cellar-door
- Senior
- Posts: 2244
- Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 2:06 pm
- GM: Charlotte Hornets
Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements
I think in the last thread I was in favor of no more than 1 position away from the player's natural (draft) position, with the occasional special restriction on guys who break the game ridiculously (Lebron at 2, Melo at 2).
So listed at the draft as a C..... PF or C eligible
Listed at the draft as a PF..... C/PF/SF eligible
Listed at the draft as a SF.... PF/SF/SG eligible
Listed at the draft as a SG.... PG(backup)/SG/SF eligible.
Listed at the draft as a PG.... PG/SG eligible
So listed at the draft as a C..... PF or C eligible
Listed at the draft as a PF..... C/PF/SF eligible
Listed at the draft as a SF.... PF/SF/SG eligible
Listed at the draft as a SG.... PG(backup)/SG/SF eligible.
Listed at the draft as a PG.... PG/SG eligible
Hornets GM
- Craig
- Senior
- Posts: 2418
- Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:16 pm
- GM: Phoenix Suns GM
Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements
i think it's on the right track but it doesn't solve the bigs playing SFCellar-door wrote:I think in the last thread I was in favor of no more than 1 position away from the player's natural (draft) position, with the occasional special restriction on guys who break the game ridiculously (Lebron at 2, Melo at 2).
So listed at the draft as a C..... PF or C eligible
Listed at the draft as a PF..... C/PF/SF eligible
Listed at the draft as a SF.... PF/SF/SG eligible
Listed at the draft as a SG.... PG(backup)/SG/SF eligible.
Listed at the draft as a PG.... PG/SG eligible
SUNS GM
- dennocj
- Five Star Recruit
- Posts: 1050
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2015 7:32 pm
- GM: Indiana Pacers
Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements
A center playing SF would never work realistically. A SF playing SG happens literally all the time. If we place the 1 position up or down restriction, which I'm all for, then that should be the only restriction. Don't restrict other certain players just because they are good. Melo has been playing the 2 for numerous seasons and now Gasol playing SF, both obvious glaring advantages for them. But one of these actually makes sense while the other is an absolute joke
- pudgejeff
- Senior
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:21 am
- GM: Sacramento Kings GM
Re: Offseason Discussion/League Improvements
I think extra restrictions would only be but in draft notes, not made retroactively, kinda like Bosh not allowed at SFdennocj wrote:A center playing SF would never work realistically. A SF playing SG happens literally all the time. If we place the 1 position up or down restriction, which I'm all for, then that should be the only restriction. Don't restrict other certain players just because they are good. Melo has been playing the 2 for numerous seasons and now Gasol playing SF, both obvious glaring advantages for them. But one of these actually makes sense while the other is an absolute joke