|
|
Post by Heat GM (Bryan) on Jul 18, 2022 17:02:34 GMT -5
Proposing this for next year, so starting 2023-24
Move to a more flexible G/F/C format for positions. Would take away having to deal with position eligibilities every year and be more realistic towards NBA lineups since the goal is to emulate the NBA.
Current Starting Lineup:
PG
SG
SF
PF
C
Util
UTIL
New:
G
G
F
F
C
UTIL
UTIL
|
|
|
|
Post by Dallas Mavs (Kyle) on Jul 18, 2022 17:16:47 GMT -5
I oppose this change. I don't think it solves problems to the extent implied, and while it attempts to mimic NBA lineups I think it oversimplifies things to a detrimental level.
1. This won't solve people having valid issues with positions. The thin line between SG/SF will still exist. Does this proposal suggest we ban position change requests? There are lots of guys that genuinely do play the 2 and the 3 or the 4 and the 5. Are we proposing that they only get one of G/F/C? This proposal needs more detail than it currently has.
2. While this does in theory mimic reality, it also removes real nuance. While lines are blurred between positions, there are still fundamental roles that genuinely differentiate players in the NBA. The role of the PG as a distributor and ballhandler is still in place generally across the league. If you look at PG and SG on aggregate they have clearly differentiated skillsets.
I could ramble for a while but I think I've made my points. In short, the role as proposed is half baked. We at minimum need clarification on how this impacts other rules it is adjacent to. Secondly, this is one step forward half a step back in terms of mimicking the NBA, which I'm not sure is always even the goal of fantasy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Golden State Warriors (Caleb) on Jul 18, 2022 17:35:14 GMT -5
I know Sanj mentioned in the original post but just want to let people know for this would be NEXT season and in order to go through we would a league vote of 23.
I personally love the nuance of building a team with 5 positions but I’m not married to it- so if teams really would prefer that then that’s fine with me.
Feel free to leave thoughts and opinions until next off season where we can assess from there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cleveland Cavaliers (Jon) on Jul 18, 2022 22:02:27 GMT -5
Short and sweet. I’m ok with it. So many of our players have dual positions. Just makes sense to simplify it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Denver Nuggets (Kevin) on Jul 19, 2022 1:06:31 GMT -5
Not really down
I like the idea of building a team with every position. I like our set up of position changes and I think it works
|
|
|
|
Post by New York Knicks (jsood) on Jul 19, 2022 11:01:34 GMT -5
I like that it's tough to build the perfect team around 5 different positions. Forces me to take into account much more when deciding to make trades or different waiver claims. Changing to GG-FF-C isn't that bad but I still prefer the current setup.
Don't need to make the game any easier for the TJs of the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blazers GM (Tyler) on Jul 19, 2022 11:44:55 GMT -5
I prefer the current model that we have in place. Filling out PG-SG-SF-PF-C + UTIL (x2) adds a difficult wrinkle to this league that makes it enjoyable. It wouldn't be the end of the world if we did change it, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Raptors (Perk) on Jul 20, 2022 9:12:56 GMT -5
Great discussion, thanks for the proposal. I like the challenge of finding positional players. Building good depth is hard to do but it's also why you shouldn't have too many players on one team for example (aka it's your fault you took 5 guys one one team and can't fit all played games into today's lineup). Having depth at each position is a goal that you can work towards by watching actual NBA games or following a team to know what positions guys play and how they play together, and from there if you think you need a backup point guard or you notice a forward has been playing minutes at the backup center, you can target the players to fill out your own team.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs (Chris) on Jul 21, 2022 12:21:12 GMT -5
Prefer to keep it the way it is now
|
|
|
|
Post by Dallas Mavs (Kyle) on Oct 20, 2022 10:21:03 GMT -5
Easy solution to solve for intentional or inactive lineup tanking:  Lotto punishment should be a drop to lotto odds 14 shifting all non-cheaters up 1 slot. |
|
|
|
Post by Oklahoma City Thunder (Loren) on Oct 20, 2022 10:23:32 GMT -5
Easy solution to solve for intentional or inactive lineup tanking: Lotto punishment should be a drop to lotto odds 14 shifting all non-cheaters up 1 slot. I think the punishment should be after the lotto just to ensure it’s an actual punishment. You could drop in the lotto odds but you could get lucky still. |
|
