Expanding the size of the roster

[Lurker]

Following up on Joe's & ziggy's posts. I agree that expanding the roster spots would be a good idea. However at the same time I would put in a limit on moves that a manager could make during the season.

Darn it...
by: Genghis's PolarBears (joev5638)  Dec 4 7:35am 
...I just left one of my novels explaining why I think we need to expand roster spots - complete with historical statistics, and amusing anecdotes (including Skander screaming about Caron Butler going off for 30 and 20 against him in the playoffs last year), and the board lost it! GRRRR!

Anyway - the short version:

We ought to expand rosters to at least 16 and possibly 20 players. It would encourage trades of the marginal players, all in hopes of finding that "gem in the rough," because in this format, the only real reason to trade a major player is to completely overhaul your team.

The biggest thrill in the league is getting that bench player that everyone laughs at you for keeping to go off for that 30 and 20 that you've been waiting for him to put up. Duncan or Garnett does it, and it's no big deal...Caron Butler does it, and you can hear the scream from miles away. But it's hard to justify keeping that bench player when it's Antonio McDyess and you're in a battle for 3-pointers for the week, and David Wesley is out there on the wire.

9 players of the top 100 are still out there on the wire. That's almost another team by itself. (Granted, it'd be a sucky team, but it'd win a few games.)

I think that's just too much depth to leave out there.

Follow up to Joes earlier post
by: ziggys beagles (ziggythebeagle)  Dec 8 5:29pm 
After some deliberation, I would like to throw my hat into the ring about expanding the rosters to 16 players.
I like the idea, not this year, but starting with the draft next year.
Each team has a maximum of 42 games a week available to play, but typically it is only 28 to 32 or 34 a week. More often than not the winner each week is determined by who plays the most games. If we can increase the number of games played from 29/30 to 36/38 then the extra games played take on less and less significance. Two extra games played out of 38 is 5.2% and 2 out of 29 is 6.9%. With only 12 players per team those extra games mean more, plus those games are being played by better players. If you are playing your #15 and #16 players each once a week, then their contribution isn't as significant.

That then means the best and deepest teams win every week.
If there is going to be a lot of adding and dropping then why not get "most" of that out of the way at the draft. This means you have to be ready to draft 16 players, and not just 12. There will still be some adding and dropping, but that will be with your #15 and #16 player, not player #11 and #12.
You basically have 3 players at each position, plus one additional player.
Increasing the number of eligible positions each night from 6 to 7 would also make having a 16 man roster even more challenging. Presently you play your best players the mjority of your weeks games. Adding 7 more available games a week means that you have to manage the bottom of your roster even more. I like that.

Anyway, I like the idea of expanding rosters to 16, and positions to 7.

If we are going to stock our rosters 16 deep then we should eliminate the constant revolving door for the end of the bench positions. Some of the switching should naturally die down as managers won't face the need to constantly try to gain that "extra game or two" to win accumulation categories. But even then a limit should be imposed brecause adding a position each night will open up situations where managers can't fill all 7 spots.

Also I would change the positions to:
PG
SG
G
SF
PF
F
C

The utility position should be eliminated. The G & F postions would allow for enough flexibility.

[Derek Bodner]

to play devil's advocate:

If there is going to be a lot of adding and dropping then why not get "most" of that out of the way at the draft.

What I don't want it to put more and more emphasis on the draft.  I don't want someone having a bad draft, then losing interest in the league because they have little ability to recover.  I don't want this league, post draft, to simply become rotating lineups in and out.

I don't use the waiver wire myself, but it gives people in a lesser position to make up ground, and I don't think that should be diminished.

I'm also not a fan of changing it to 7 positions

Presently you play your best players the mjority of your weeks games. Adding 7 more available games a week means that you have to manage the bottom of your roster even more

I disagree.

By adding 4 positions on your bench, but only one position to be added, you lower the ratio of guys on your bench to guys playing.  Which means less importance on the end guys on your bench.

Also, by having one more position to be played, you lower the effect of each guy's games.   Now guys can accumulate 1/7th of the total points possible rather than 1/6th.  What does this lead to?  A great performance by someone not expecting it has less of an impact, a poor performance by someone that you played has less of an impact, and it's not as important to make correct decisions.

[ziggy]

This is just a copy of my earlier post, on the league board.

After some deliberation, I would like to throw my hat into the ring about expanding the rosters to 16 players.
I like the idea, not this year, but starting with the draft next year.
Each team has a maximum of 42 games a week available to play, but typically it is only 28 to 32 or 34 a week. More often than not the winner each week is determined by who plays the most games. If we can increase the number of games played from 29/30 to 36/38 then the extra games played take on less and less significance. Two extra games played out of 38 is 5.2% and 2 out of 29 is 6.9%. With only 12 players per team those extra games mean more, plus those games are being played by better players. If you are playing your #15 and #16 players each once a week, then their contribution isn't as significant.

That then means the best and deepest teams win every week.
If there is going to be a lot of adding and dropping then why not get "most" of that out of the way at the draft. This means you have to be ready to draft 16 players, and not just 12. There will still be some adding and dropping, but that will be with your #15 and #16 player, not player #11 and #12.
You basically have 3 players at each position, plus one additional player.
Increasing the number of eligible positions each night from 6 to 7 would also make having a 16 man roster even more challenging. Presently you play your best players the mjority of your weeks games. Adding 7 more available games a week means that you have to manage the bottom of your roster even more. I like that.

Anyway, I like the idea of expanding rosters to 16, and positions to 7.

[Lurker]

Maybe an expansion to 16 roster spots is too many.  After all that would be an additional 48 players.  Most of the movement in the league revolves around the same 20 or so players.  So maybe adding two additional roster spots without adding any playing positions would be a good compromise.  It would reduce the manuevering to get a couple extra games in by rotating the bottom two slots on your roster.  By having the next 24 players already taken it wouldn't help or very marginally help to keep rotating players.

Also I really believe we should limit the number of moves that a manger can make each year.  Since 7 of our categories can be won by pure accumulation of stats it gives those who manage games played versus players an advantage.  If someone is continually playing 5-8 more games a week than their opponents then they have a huge advantage in 7 categories.

[ziggy]

to play devil's advocate:

If there is going to be a lot of adding and dropping then why not get "most" of that out of the way at the draft.

What I don't want it to put more and more emphasis on the draft.  I don't want someone having a bad draft, then losing interest in the league because they have little ability to recover.  I don't want this league, post draft, to simply become rotating lineups in and out.

I don't use the waiver wire myself, but it gives people in a lesser position to make up ground, and I don't think that should be diminished.

I'm also not a fan of changing it to 7 positions

Presently you play your best players the mjority of your weeks games. Adding 7 more available games a week means that you have to manage the bottom of your roster even more

I disagree.

By adding 4 positions on your bench, but only one position to be added, you lower the ratio of guys on your bench to guys playing.  Which means less importance on the end guys on your bench.

Also, by having one more position to be played, you lower the effect of each guy's games.   Now guys can accumulate 1/7th of the total points possible rather than 1/6th.  What does this lead to?  A great performance by someone not expecting it has less of an impact, a poor performance by someone that you played has less of an impact, and it's not as important to make correct decisions.

With regards to expanding from 6 to 7 positions available each night.

There are 24 weeks in a season and each player will play 82 games.  That means on average each player will play 3.42 games per week.  For simplicity sake lets make that 3.5.  Your top 5 players will play 17.5 games per week.  If we have 42 games available (6 positions), no less than 42% of your games are played by your starting 5.  If we expand to 49 games then no more than 35.5% of your games will be played by your starting 5.  That means that up to 64% (30 to 31 games) must be played by the bottom 11 on your roster.
No one will be able to get in all 49 games every week, each team will probably average 44-45.  You still have 17.5 with your starting 5, so that leaves around 26 for the bottom 11.  If you get 3 games per week for players 6-10, then you have 11 games that must be played by your bottom 6 (11-16).  That basically is 2 games each from your bottom 6.

Now if we go with 6 positions, then a max of 42, and a reasonable average of 36.  Your starting 5 will get 17, your next 5 will get 15, and your bottom 6 will play maybe 4 games total amongst the 6 players.  So you play the bottom of your roster less and less.


As far as getting a bad draft and players giving up.  Adding 4 more draft picks won't change that.  They key to the draft is the top 6 or 7, not 13-16.  If you get marginal talent with your last 4 picks, welcome to the crowd because everybody will get marginal picks late.  If you get really marginal talent then too bad for you, because that is part of the game.  Do your homework to get a good draft.

[ziggy]

. But even then a limit should be imposed brecause adding a position each night will open up situations where managers can't fill all 7 spots.

Also I would change the positions to:
PG
SG
G
SF
PF
F
C

The utility position should be eliminated. The G & F postions would allow for enough flexibility.

I disagree with the postions of
PG
SG
G
SF
PF
F
C

I believe we should eliminate G and F and put in both as Util.

My reasons are very simple.  If you use G and F, then those players that are SG/SF can fill up to 4 positions, and Center only players can fill only one.  If you have 7 players available to play on a given night and 2 are centers, well then tough luck you have to sit one.

Util gives the manager the greatest flexibility in making in deciding the makeup of your lineup.  On nights with everybody going, you can choose who you want as your 6-7 player without any restriction.

[Lurker]

. But even then a limit should be imposed brecause adding a position each night will open up situations where managers can't fill all 7 spots.

Also I would change the positions to:
PG
SG
G
SF
PF
F
C

The utility position should be eliminated. The G & F postions would allow for enough flexibility.

I disagree with the postions of
PG
SG
G
SF
PF
F
C

I believe we should eliminate G and F and put in both as Util.

My reasons are very simple.  If you use G and F, then those players that are SG/SF can fill up to 4 positions, and Center only players can fill only one.  If you have 7 players available to play on a given night and 2 are centers, well then tough luck you have to sit one.

Util gives the manager the greatest flexibility in making in deciding the makeup of your lineup.  On nights with everybody going, you can choose who you want as your 6-7 player without any restriction.

However there are very few "center only" players in the league.  Almost all of them are also forward eligible.  The problem with two utility positions is that someone can play 3 point guards or 3 power forwards on the same night.  The G & F position allows for almost as much flexibility...especially with the number of multi-positional players.  Look at the players that are most often used as utility players....they almost all fall into either a "guard" or "forward" category anyway.

[ziggy]

. But even then a limit should be imposed brecause adding a position each night will open up situations where managers can't fill all 7 spots.

Also I would change the positions to:
PG
SG
G
SF
PF
F
C

The utility position should be eliminated. The G & F postions would allow for enough flexibility.

I disagree with the postions of
PG
SG
G
SF
PF
F
C

I believe we should eliminate G and F and put in both as Util.

My reasons are very simple.  If you use G and F, then those players that are SG/SF can fill up to 4 positions, and Center only players can fill only one.  If you have 7 players available to play on a given night and 2 are centers, well then tough luck you have to sit one.

Util gives the manager the greatest flexibility in making in deciding the makeup of your lineup.  On nights with everybody going, you can choose who you want as your 6-7 player without any restriction.

However there are very few "center only" players in the league.  Almost all of them are also forward eligible.  The problem with two utility positions is that someone can play 3 point guards or 3 power forwards on the same night.  The G & F position allows for almost as much flexibility...especially with the number of multi-positional players.  Look at the players that are most often used as utility players....they almost all fall into either a "guard" or "forward" category anyway.

Just looking at the numbers today of the top 25 center eligible players 11 can only play center, and of the top 50, 25 can only play center, and of the top 75, 39 can only play center.  So of all the centers about 50% can only play center.

As far as a team playing 3 PG and 3 PF.  They could only do that if they have one PF that is a F or a PF/C and one PG that is a G.  Even given that why is that a "bad" thing.  Yahoo has determined, for whatever reason, that some players are eligible at 2 or 3 positions.  According to Yahoo they can play all of those positions.  The reality is they become more valuable, not because they produce, but because Yahoo has said they can play mulitple positions.

[Lurker]

Just looking at the numbers today of the top 25 center eligible players 11 can only play center, and of the top 50, 25 can only play center, and of the top 75, 39 can only play center.  So of all the centers about 50% can only play center.

As far as a team playing 3 PG and 3 PF.  They could only do that if they have one PF that is a F or a PF/C and one PG that is a G.  Even given that why is that a "bad" thing.  Yahoo has determined, for whatever reason, that some players are eligible at 2 or 3 positions.  According to Yahoo they can play all of those positions.  The reality is they become more valuable, not because they produce, but because Yahoo has said they can play mulitple positions.

But of those center only players there are only 13 on all the teams in the league and one of those is on the IL.  So in essence there are only 12 players in our entire league that are "center only".  By limiting the positions it makes the manager manage more instead of just plugging in his top players.

Also it makes those players who are multi-positional more valuable and makes the draft more relevant.  Do you take a multi-positional player or a better player who can only play one position?

IMO right now our league doesn't reward a manager for drafting well & choosing (managing) his lineup.  More importance is put on working the "waiver wire" and accumulating games than on managing the players on your roster.

[ziggy]

Just looking at the numbers today of the top 25 center eligible players 11 can only play center, and of the top 50, 25 can only play center, and of the top 75, 39 can only play center.  So of all the centers about 50% can only play center.

As far as a team playing 3 PG and 3 PF.  They could only do that if they have one PF that is a F or a PF/C and one PG that is a G.  Even given that why is that a "bad" thing.  Yahoo has determined, for whatever reason, that some players are eligible at 2 or 3 positions.  According to Yahoo they can play all of those positions.  The reality is they become more valuable, not because they produce, but because Yahoo has said they can play mulitple positions.

But of those center only players there are only 13 on all the teams in the league and one of those is on the IL.  So in essence there are only 12 players in our entire league that are "center only".  By limiting the positions it makes the manager manage more instead of just plugging in his top players.

Also it makes those players who are multi-positional more valuable and makes the draft more relevant.  Do you take a multi-positional player or a better player who can only play one position?

IMO right now our league doesn't reward a manager for drafting well & choosing (managing) his lineup.  More importance is put on working the "waiver wire" and accumulating games than on managing the players on your roster.

Of the top 25 eligible players who can play PF, only 6 can play center.
Of the top 50 eligible players who can play PF, only 19 can play center.
Of the top 75 eligible players who can play PF, only 26 can play center.

Of the top 25 eligible players who can play C, only 11 can play PF.
Of the top 50 eligible players who can play C, only 25 can play PF.
Of the top 75 eligible players who can play C, only 39 can play PF.

So of all the players that can play center, about 1/3 more play only center than both PF and center.  If we have 16 players per team then each team will have about 3 players per position so 6 players that play PF and Center.  Take just the top 50 at both PF and center.  
In the top 50 centers, 25 can also play PF, 25 center only.  Of the top 50 PF, there are 19 that overlap at center, leaving 31 that play SF/PF and PF only.  So the 50 centers and the remaining 31 PF is 81.  Of those 81, 9 are in the top 25 of SF, so they will play SF most of the time.  So that leaves 72 players who will be PF and center which is 6 per team.  Of those 72, 25 are center only.  That means each and every team will have 2 center only players.


I am in agreement with you that I would like to see a greater emphasis placed on the draft and lineup selection, and less on adding and dropping.  That is why I support the idea of expanding the rosters to 16, perhaps even 17 or 18.  I also believe that the way to maximize the role of lineup selection while still maintaining a sembalance of a basketball team is to give each 5 manager the 5 positions plus 2 utility.  This means 3/4 of your decisions are hard and fast by position, and 25% is left up to the managers discretion.

I also support your idea of limiting roster moves within the season.  I think 50 moves is more than enough.  In the last couple of years the teams that did a lot of adding and dropping were near or over 100.  This would limit that by 50%.  With 24 weeks, 50 moves allows 2 per week.  Recognize that this 50 must cover trades and adds and drops because of injury.  With 50 moves the typical team will only be able to use perhaps 36 to 40 for adding and dropping.  For 24 weeks that is slightly more than 3 every 2 weeks, more than a reasonable number.

[Joe Vancil]

My thought is this:

I like the idea of expanded roster spots.  I'm not about to trade Tim Duncan for much of ANYTHING a person offers me, but if you were to ask me to trade the last two guys on my roster for the last two guys on your roster - especially if we've expanded the rosters, I'm going to give it a look.  It allows me to keep the "core" of my team together while supplementing that core with the "right" components.  And when I'm talking about my "core," I'm talking about the players I specifically WANT on my team:  Duncan, Nash, Finley, Lewis, Magloire, Alston, Richardson, Gooden, Okur, and Gerald Wallace.  Welsch, Armstrong, Mourning, and Reggie Miller are bit players for me - folks who may not see the light of day when everyone is healthy - or who might be more than bit-players for some teams.  But is any one of these guys a "key" to a championship team?  No.  Is any one arguably good enough to keep on my roster in favor of missing a game?  Right now, Mourning and Miller might be, but Welsch and Armstrong aren't.  And with Finley back, once Wallace is healthy, Miller might not be.

Also, look at the troubles Randy and Ziggy are having with O'Neal and Artest suspended.  Ziggy had to DROP Artest - who, for many teams, might be a KEEPER at the end of the year.  (After all, Caleb kept Carmelo Anthony this past season, and look what kind of trouble he's been getting into lately.)  Randy is losing games because he's got to keep O'Neal - a definite keeper, who will soon be back - on his roster.

As for positions:  I personally liked the old format:  PG, SG, G, SF, PF, F, C - however, even I must admit the format is somewhat unfair - especially for those who have top quality C's.  During the season we used it, I had to struggle with playing Brad Miller - who was C only at the time - or Yao Ming.  I was able to survive because of the depth of multi-position players on my roster:  Rip Hamilton (SG, SF, G, F), Tim Duncan (PF, C, F), Caron Butler (SF, PF, F), Wally Szczerbiak (SG, SF, G, F), Antawn Jamison (SF, PF, F), Steve Smith (SG, SF, G, F) (while Szczerbiak was out) - and I added that to my group of single-position players:  John Stockton, Steve Nash, Karl Malone, and Eddie Jones.

Skander was arguing the other day - and I reasonably agree with him, although not completely - that PF/C status is the key to success in this league:  Ziggy with Nowitzki, me with Duncan, folks like Brad Miller, Amare Stoudamire, and Rasheed Wallace.  (I believe it's depth at guard, myself, but I agree that PF/C status is BIG.)  In fact, I took Mehmet Okur *BECAUSE* of his PF/C status.

Now - while I *LIKE* the old way, I believe the NEW way is more fair - especially in the case of folks like WayOutWest, with Shaq and Yao.  Do you think Ziggy would trade Nowitzki, or I would trade Duncan, or Caleb would trade Amare for one of these guys?  EVEN IF HE WERE TO SWEETEN IT?  No way.

As for adding games:  NO.  Part of the reason we're expanding rosters is to get every manager closer to 42 games WITHOUT making additional moves of the add/drop variety that I use.  Added games mean we need even MORE roster spots.

As for a 50 move limit, I'd say *YES* provided trades don't count and number of positions don't change.  I see the expanded roster as a method of increasing trade activity.  Also, moves of a player to or from IL should not count (although adding a player to your roster to fill the spot the IL player opened up SHOULD count).  However, if we add games, unless we expand the rosters into the realm of *20*, then I'd say *NO*.

I think the roster size should be 16 for 6 positions, 20 for 7 positions.

Now let me throw out one final thought:  Adding the extra position takes away from one huge part of the strategy of trying to win:  "stealing" categories.  If you want to "steal" assists, you play a point guard at your extra position.  If you want to steal steals, play a guard.  If you want to steal 3's, play a 2-guard.  If you want to steal rebounds, play a big forward.  If you want to steal blocks, you play a center.  The only reason I was able to win last year was by CHOOSING which categories I would win without much effort, which categories I COULDN'T win, even if I tried, and then which categories I felt I SHOULDN'T win, but would gear my team toward trying to win.  To do that, you need a flexible roster, and then you need to gear your pick-ups toward adding to those areas you're trying to win.  This is why I would play Shammond Williams in front of John Stockton on occasion that first season - I needed to get more 3-pointers to win that category, and I WASN'T trying to win steals, and I'd win assists even if I DIDN'T play Stockton.  Last year, the strategy was to win TURNOVERS as often as I could, despite playing my players in as many games as possible.  (Interesting fact:  my team last year WON turnovers more frequently than I won any category other than 3-pointers made.  Despite being an accumulation team, Turnovers were a STRENGTH.  It CAN be done (and the key is Michael Finley, in case you're wondering).)

If you add the extra position, leveraging your team to steal categories - specifically "non-sexy" categories (steals, rebounds, assists, blocks) becomes easier - especially with the expanded roster.  This should *NOT* be an automatic kind of thing - it should require at least a bit of effort.  My efforts to do this have allowed what I considered a mediocre team of mine last year to win, but at a cost:  time keeping tracking the statistics of other teams, and careful attention to the waiver wire as to who would help me in a given week.    For example:  last week against BBF - Jiri Welsch over Nick Van Exel (who BBF picked up).  WHY?  Because I was in a battle for free-throws made:  Welsch 2.3, Van Exel 1.1.  I LOOKED like I was in a battle for assists;  I knew differently.  And in battling for FTM, I ended up with the extra luck of winning FT%.  While ziggy had a run of bad luck in the Finals last year, I think ziggy will be among the first to tell you that I took categories THAT HE HAD PLANNED ON WINNING.  That's the difference in winning and losing in this league.

Every team is vulnerable in some category or other in this league - which is what those power rankings I use come from.  They're also what tells me which team I should try to beat at what - and which categories should be pretty easy.  I know in our first season, Ziggy did much the same thing.  (By the way, if anyone wants the spreadsheet I use, I'll be glad to e-mail it to you.)

The draft should be a MAJOR part - I'd even say a MORE major part - of our team's success, but if you eliminate the choices you make in determining who to play and what to steal, you might has well have an election of who had the best draft to determine the champion.  Historically, I'm a weaker drafter than many, but my teams fare better because I steal categories.  Some say it's simply number of games, and I admit that's a small part of it - but it's a SMALL part of it.

I want to still be an ACTIVE manager in the league - still reviewing, tweaking my team, making moves to win the categories I need.  That's why I enjoy this.  Skander, I believe, is more about the draft - he does his background research and his projections, and who needs what (the reason he took Kenyon Martin - my pick - right before me (and for everyone's information, the players I most wanted were 1) Brad Miller and 2) Rashard Lewis, and when Miller disappeared, I focused on Zack Randolph (thanks a lot, Ziggy) and then Kenyon Martin (thanks a lot, Skander))).   Some folks simply set their line-ups and play.

My goal is for a person to have fun regardless of which way they like to play, and that they can see some semblence of reward regardless of which way they like to play.  The best way to do that, in my opinion, is to expand the rosters so that the people who just like to set their line-ups - the majority of the people in this league - can be more competitive.


                                                          Joe

 

[Joe Vancil]

Ziggy,

There are 24 weeks in a season and each player will play 82 games. That means on average each player will play 3.42 games per week. For simplicity sake lets make that 3.5. Your top 5 players will play 17.5 games per week. If we have 42 games available (6 positions), no less than 42% of your games are played by your starting 5. If we expand to 49 games then no more than 35.5% of your games will be played by your starting 5. That means that up to 64% (30 to 31 games) must be played by the bottom 11 on your roster.
No one will be able to get in all 49 games every week, each team will probably average 44-45. You still have 17.5 with your starting 5, so that leaves around 26 for the bottom 11. If you get 3 games per week for players 6-10, then you have 11 games that must be played by your bottom 6 (11-16). That basically is 2 games each from your bottom 6.

To my mind, this is flawed thinking, in that I don't see my roster as being my "top 5."  The first division of my roster are my "elites" - the guys who are going to play every night in front of any other player.  I've got TWO of those players:  Duncan and Nash.  They represent the foundation of my team, and should cover EVERY category, plus dominate somewhere.  These are my "untouchable" players.

The second divison on my team is what I call my "core."  These are the players who you'd have a tough time prying out of my hands...players I'm not going to trade unless the offer is EXTREMELY SWEET.  For me, that's Rafer Alston, Michael Finley, Gerald Wallace, Rashard Lewis, Jamaal Magliore, Mehmet Okur, Drew Gooden, and Quentin Richardson.  They're players I want bad enough that I won't drop them to pick up a game.  The use of this group is the key to winning my categories.

The third division on my team are the "role players."  They're played as fill-ins, in support of my core.  Right now, that's Welsch and Armstrong.  (Miller and Mourning are IL replacements, who are currently part of my core.  Due to the fact Wallace is out, but isn't going on IL, I'll end up having to drop one to retain Miller. to replace Wallace.)  That's TWO PLAYERS, and while they COULD make up 14 games in a week, more often than not, they're responsible for no more than 5 or 6.

Also, these players are usually role players on their own teams.  If you get 6 points, 1 three pointer, 2 rebounds, 3 assists and a steal from them in a game (along with at least a turnover), then you're probably happy  (that's assuming that they're guards, which, for me, is usually the case, because I believe this is a guard's league).  If you get 4 steals, OR 10 assists OR 4 threes OR 20 points, you're ecstatic - and if you pick good players, you'll have a fair number of moments of ecstacy.

These players simply serve to remove "0" from your scores, and often, there are no guarantees.

What you're going to be adding to is the number of those players.  

The core group still makes up the majority of everything on your team.  If you say they average 3.5 games a week, that's ALL of your games - which we know isn't the case.  The core is the group of players who unfortunately CONFLICT with each other, and therein lies the problem.

The deep bench makes up for the conflicts in your core.  Adding games means that you need a larger core, and therefore depletes the added benefits of the expanded roster.

At least, that's how I see it.


                                                          Joe
 

[ziggy]

Ziggy,

There are 24 weeks in a season and each player will play 82 games. That means on average each player will play 3.42 games per week. For simplicity sake lets make that 3.5. Your top 5 players will play 17.5 games per week. If we have 42 games available (6 positions), no less than 42% of your games are played by your starting 5. If we expand to 49 games then no more than 35.5% of your games will be played by your starting 5. That means that up to 64% (30 to 31 games) must be played by the bottom 11 on your roster.
No one will be able to get in all 49 games every week, each team will probably average 44-45. You still have 17.5 with your starting 5, so that leaves around 26 for the bottom 11. If you get 3 games per week for players 6-10, then you have 11 games that must be played by your bottom 6 (11-16). That basically is 2 games each from your bottom 6.

To my mind, this is flawed thinking, in that I don't see my roster as being my "top 5."  The first division of my roster are my "elites" - the guys who are going to play every night in front of any other player.  I've got TWO of those players:  Duncan and Nash.  They represent the foundation of my team, and should cover EVERY category, plus dominate somewhere.  These are my "untouchable" players.

The second divison on my team is what I call my "core."  These are the players who you'd have a tough time prying out of my hands...players I'm not going to trade unless the offer is EXTREMELY SWEET.  For me, that's Rafer Alston, Michael Finley, Gerald Wallace, Rashard Lewis, Jamaal Magliore, Mehmet Okur, Drew Gooden, and Quentin Richardson.  They're players I want bad enough that I won't drop them to pick up a game.  The use of this group is the key to winning my categories.

The third division on my team are the "role players."  They're played as fill-ins, in support of my core.  Right now, that's Welsch and Armstrong.  (Miller and Mourning are IL replacements, who are currently part of my core.  Due to the fact Wallace is out, but isn't going on IL, I'll end up having to drop one to retain Miller. to replace Wallace.)  That's TWO PLAYERS, and while they COULD make up 14 games in a week, more often than not, they're responsible for no more than 5 or 6.

Also, these players are usually role players on their own teams.  If you get 6 points, 1 three pointer, 2 rebounds, 3 assists and a steal from them in a game (along with at least a turnover), then you're probably happy  (that's assuming that they're guards, which, for me, is usually the case, because I believe this is a guard's league).  If you get 4 steals, OR 10 assists OR 4 threes OR 20 points, you're ecstatic - and if you pick good players, you'll have a fair number of moments of ecstacy.

These players simply serve to remove "0" from your scores, and often, there are no guarantees.

What you're going to be adding to is the number of those players.  

The core group still makes up the majority of everything on your team.  If you say they average 3.5 games a week, that's ALL of your games - which we know isn't the case.  The core is the group of players who unfortunately CONFLICT with each other, and therein lies the problem.

The deep bench makes up for the conflicts in your core.  Adding games means that you need a larger core, and therefore depletes the added benefits of the expanded roster.

At least, that's how I see it.


                                                          Joe

Joe,
I went through your roster for every game this season, and these were the results.  Games played were games you had them playing in your lineup.  Games missed was when they could of played but you chose not to play them.

Name    Games played   Games Missed
Duncan  21-0
Nash  19-0
Lewis  20-0
Magloire  12-0
Finley  5-0
That is your starting 5, and they play every time you can play them so they will average 3.5 games per week.

Alston  19-2
Richardson  16-4
Wallace  11-1
Gooden  15-3
Okur  7-11
That is your next 5, and they play most of the time, but not always.  They will 3 out of every 3.5 games + or -.

You then had 31 other players on your roster, too many to detail out here.  Of those 31 players they played 47 and missed 17.

If we leave positions at 6, and expand rosters to say 16, then you will get no more games from your starting 5, and no more games out of your second 5, and the 4 additional roster spots plus your #11 and #12 players will play the 47 other games.  If we limit moves then "MAYBE" Okur plays a few more games, because you may have benched him specifically to get one category from a add/drop player, which you would choose to not do, so you can save your moves.

If we expand positions to 7, and expand the rosters to however many we choose to expand to then the results will be

no change will happen in your top 5.

Your middle 5 will gain a few games, maybe Richardson will go to 18-2, Gooden 16-2, and Okur to 10-8.

All the remaining games will be played by the bottom of your roster.  That was my point.  If we expand positions by one, then all of those will be filled by the end of your roster.  You can choose to manage that by going for total stats, or manage that by trying to steal categories.  That would be a managers perogative.