|
Basketball
NBA Schedule
Smallworld Hoops Football
![]() Baseball
Basketball
General
|
|
![]() Feedback This page is devoted to feedback I've received from you. If you have a question to ask or a comment to make, send me an email and if I think it's of general interest, I'll post it here.Click here to move ahead to current feedback letters. Guru: Your sentences weren't all that long. But thanks for noticing! I've played two Echelon games to date. Last summer, I played their "Hit & Run" fantasy baseball game, and did quite well (I pocketed $75 for a 5th place finish. BTW, that game's winner was a Gurupie.) In the fall, I played their Touchdown fantasy football game, and finished OK (52nd, I think), but not "in the money". (Another Gurupie won that one too!) However, each of those games was configured somewhat differently than Full Court, so unfortunately the strategies aren't really comparable. I think they have offered other games that were more similar to Full Court, though, and if any Gurupies have relevant experience to share, please contribute. Thus, having not really screwed this game up yet (and hence, lacking the painful lessons taught by making all of the inevitable mistakes), please consider my thoughts as speculative. But I think the best answer is "both". To the extent you can identify players who are grossly undervalued, grab them early and just hold them forever. By having them at a discounted price, you will more than make up for the inability to use them for "game trading". But to the extent that you have players who are "fairly priced", then I'd think you should actively manage to increase exposure to games. Just remember that you have to hold a player for 4 days once you pick him up, so look ahead at least four days when managing game exposures. - Guru Guru: I have created a Rotoguru Canada league in Full Court (#1161) and invite others to join. Unfortunately we have two hockey fans among our hockey leaders who do not care for basketball so we currently have 12 openings. I also have a query for you. In football and hockey the upper limit for salary is $350,000 dollars for any player. I suspect that there is a limit in basketball but do not know for sure what that might be. Do you have any idea, as this would appear to be useful information in preparing a team. - Dwayne D. (1/28) response from Guru:No, I don't know what the upper bound on an individual salary might be, but it's probably modestly higher than the highest initial salary, which is $2.4 million (for Shaq). We'll have to figure it out as the season progresses. - Guru Guru: I don't think you'll have to worry about too much capital this season. - Guru Guru: Potential flaw #1, same as some other strategies - using last year's stats. Bigger potential flaw, my judgment and a great margin for error. But I do think trying to determine each player playing time and role is a major factor in the drafting process. I'm just trying to put some numbers to it. - Steve H. (1/28) response from Guru:Good luck. From my perspective, it's a lot of work with a high margin of error, especially since when the number of minutes change, it often reflects a change in role and/or performance - meaning that previous stats-per-minute probably don't apply. Combine this with the observation that preseason minutes played attest as much to how out-of-shape a player is as it does to how the regular season will look, and I suspect you've got "a lot of data, but not much information." But, don't let me dissuade you from your task. We retirees have to keep busy, you know... - Guru Guru: by the way, your nba schedule is such a tremendous help. i've changed several selections based on the number of games they will appear in by the first pricing date. perhaps something like this for the baseball season also? - caleb s. (1/28) response from Guru:first, you ought to get that shift key repaired on your computer. second, i agree that the center position is a problem, especially since a number of the reasonably-priced possibilities at center are listed as forwards, like battie, hot rod williams, and greg foster. this is likely to create some extra demand for decent centers, and they may experience more price inflation than similar players at the other positions. so i think your point is well taken. maybe i'll do something similar for baseball, although i think scheduling is less critical in that game (other than for pitchers, of course). one game at a time for now, though. (sorry, caleb - i couldn't resist!) - Guru Guru: In many team's cases, I think the starting situation is still like in limbo. But you might want to check out the team reports at The Sporting News site. They seem to be pretty like up-to-date, and like provide a Positional Analysis for each team. (Sorry, Matt - like, I couldn't resist!) - Guru Guru: SW seems to "charge" owners $200 per SWP scored last year. Players like Gugliotta and Olajuwon missed time last year and are easily underpriced because they did not score many SWP. That's a flaw with the SW pricing system. These are players whose performance last year will almost certainly not be indicative of their performance this year. Your tables expose these players immediately. - Gareth (1/28) response from Guru:The tables also show that SW did adjust the price upward for both Gugliotta and Olajuwon, so they aren't priced at the standard $200 per SWP. Still, the adjustment wasn't a fully proportionate adjustment based on games missed. On the flip side, guys like these have to be considered more vulnerable to downtime again this season. Olajuwon is no spring chicken, and Gugs hasn't yet had to test that ankle. So maybe their "fair" price should be somewhat discounted to reflect higher risk of injury. - Guru Guru: What are your thoughts on this kind of analysis? - B.J. (1/28) response from Guru:This type of analysis can be helpful in identifying players to think about. But it has some very significant limitations. First, you are presuming that the two centers should not cost more than $10 million. If you applied that rationale to all positions, you'd miss opportunities to combine an expensive player at one position with a cheap player at another. There's no reason to expect that all positions should have the same average cost. Second, your approach would tend to "underspend", since each position would probably average a little less than the max. If you combined the excess cash from all three positions, you'd probably have enough loot to upgrade a player somewhere. But all that aside, the biggest flaw is the reliance on last year's stats. I'll admit, I tend to do this as well, since I'm naturally analytical and last year's stats are what we have available. But even in a normal year, basketball players tend to change a good bit from year to year. In particular, it usually takes new players several years to reach their stride - especially with so many players now starting with less than four years of college hoops experience. And this is probably anything but a normal year. With training camps so short, many players will take longer to find their "A" games. And with so many free agents changing teams, many players will be assuming significantly different roles, which makes last year's stats irrelevant at best, and misleading at worst. I have used a spreadsheet optimizer routine that actually assembles the best 10 player roster for $50 million, again based on last season's SWP/G averages. This at least avoids some of the first limitations I mentioned above. But it still has that dangerous reliance on last year's averages. And it produced a roster that has another potential flaw. The resulting roster turned out to be highly "barbelled", with four players costing less than $2 million, and 3 players costing more than $9 million. Even if the stats are correct, and this roster turns out to be the best at producing points for an aggregate cost of $50 million, it still probably isn't the best roster for the game, because the primary objective in the first few weeks is to generate gains in value, even if that results in the opportunity loss of a few SWP/G for the time being. And it is far from obvious that a barbelled roster will be the best at generating price gains. In fact, my intuition tells me that, all other things being equal (and, of course, they're not), a roster of players all priced closer to the average is likely to experience better price appreciation. Finally, if you just look at my posted stats tables, sorted by SWP/G, and scan down the price column, you can pretty easily identify who the bargains are - based on SWP/G. Using an optimizer tends to pick out the most obvious of these players. But this type of optimization analysis is still fun to tinker with - especially when there aren't any games going on. Still, many of the best values this season won't be the ones who are mispriced based on last year's stats; they'll be the ones who are producing more points this year than last. And my stats tables don't indicate who they are. That requires a lot more insight, research, and luck. (Sigh.) - Guru Guru: Excellent question, Eric, and one that is worth emphasizing - because it does have material trading implications for the entire season. First, SW has said that the first repricing will be on Feb. 10th. (Thank you, SW, for specifically mentioning the date this time. Much appreciated!). So, your first assertion is correct. Smallworld has always been very closed-mouthed about the specifics of their pricing model. But after studying price changes for a number of seasons, it is clear to me that in the past, they have never incorporated a team's initial draft buying into the normal repricing formula. (There was an apparent attempt to make this type of adjustment in last season's baseball pricing, but it was specifically mentioned before the season started, and it was fairly obvious when it occurred. However, since then, game rules have not made reference to any provision for adjustments related to the initial draft.) Thus, it is reasonable to expect (though by no means assured) that this game's repricing will use the traditional SW approach, and initial drafting will not directly impact a player's price. In particular, drafting a player will not be treated the same as a normal "buy" transaction. This has several very important implications. First, if a player is so obviously mispriced that he is very heavily drafted, then you may be disappointed with his first price increase. The only trades that will push up John Doe's price are from teams that trade for John Doe after the season starts. (Note that if a team waits until after the start of the season to draft an initial roster, these buys are also evidently ignored in repricing.) In fact, not only will you be disappointed with his first price increase, but his price will be implicitly capped at a relatively low level for the entire season. This was demonstrably the case last year for heavily drafted Hoops players like Brian Williams and Bobby Jackson. In addition, heavily drafted players are more susceptible to negative price swings. Of course, if a player is priced at the minimum, then this is less of a concern. But if John Doe is heavily drafted, then there are plenty of managers poised to sell if John Doe ever fails to live up to expectations. All of this means that it is important to think about which players look like the obvious draft choices, and to temper your price expectations about them accordingly. John Doe may turn out to be a very efficient player from the standpoint of production vs. cost. But he will probably never attain a price level of other less-drafted players with similar production. Finally, let me repeat my opening caveat. Smallworld doesn't publicly mention the details. I'm only relaying my inferences from studying past games. Change is always possible. - Guru Guru: I'm not going to give away all of my secrets, but (name withheld) played quite well in his first game and should start. And there are certainly some cheap players on the Bulls who should generate some points. My last cheapie, (name withheld), may not be a superstar, but he is only 1 million. - Phillip D. (1/27) response from Guru:Sorry, Gurupies, but I censored the player names that Phillip provided. I don't want to turn the feedback column into a "name droppers" column. Find 'em on your own. There are plenty of clues in my tables. - Guru Guru: There has been some criticism of the salary structure for the upcoming Hoops season. I couldn't disagree with the complainers any more than I do. Did these people play football this season? It's no fun when everyone can afford the same players. The exciting part is building your team. The ability to obtain players that other people haven't noticed or can't afford is what will make this season great. How much can you enjoy an Antoine Walker triple-double if you know that everyone else has him on their roster also? It gets you nowhere. Every day I am exploring new strategies for success. There are going to be many factors at play that we haven't seen since baseball ended. We've got players coming off injuries. Are they undervalued? We've got the elite players priced out of most people's range to start the season. We've got a flurry of trading and signing activity to contend with. Who was that guy who put up decent numbers in a backup role, but is now starting? More importantly, who else knows about him? If nobody else knows about him can I make any money off him? Will it be better to use trades on players who have an abundance of games coming up, or should I worry about building up my salary cap first? Can I do both at the same time? This is going to be phenomenal. The best part is that, right about when I realize I'm not going to win Hoops, I can start fresh with baseball. This is great!!! - Gareth (1/26) response from Guru:You're right about the abundance of alternative strategies to explore. The last month or so has definitely been the slow season at RotoGuru World Headquarters. That's certainly about to change - bigtime. - Guru Guru: For the most part, if you sort my stats tables by any statistical category, the rookies sift to the bottom. USA Today has an alphabetical listing of all rookie prospects. Anticipating rookie performance is very difficult. I found an interesting rookie analysis at CBS.Sportsline that you may want to check out. Just click on the link. - Guru Guru: Interesting idea. The same thought was raised prior to last year's baseball game. I don't think it worked very well then, and I don't recommend it now. The biggest reason to delay drafting until just before the first repricing would be to conserve trades, and to be able to draft a roster that was likely to have 10 price gainers. The tradeoff would be the loss of stats for the first 4-5 days. Let's start with the cost, and then think about whether the benefits could make it worthwhile. Assuming you are able to draft a "non-stupid" roster prior to opening day, you should be able to assemble a cast of players capable of producing around 200 SWP per game combined. You can probably also pick a roster that will get between 2-3 games played during that first short week. Let's assume your roster would average 2.5 games played at 200 SWP per game. The opportunity loss of not having a team in place would be 500 SWP. Of course, your draft would probably work out either better or worse than expected - but let's work with the expected return for now. What would it take to make up the missing 500 SWP? It's not an immaterial amount. In fact, it represents about 5% of the entire season. So, you'd need to increase your SWP yield by roughly 5% for the balance of the season to make up the points. Another way of thinking about it is that in the twelve remaining weeks of the season, you need to recoup an average of a little over 40 SWP per week. Since there are about 4 games per week, your roster would need to be improved by 10 SWP per game (in aggregate). Based on some preseason analysis, an extra $5 million will probably get you an extra 10 SWP per game. Whether or not you can sustain that $5 million advantage over the entire season - or whether that $5 will buy a sustained 10 SWP/G benefit over the entire season - is uncertain. But, is it realistic to expect that waiting until Tuesday to draft your team will result in an additional roster value gain of $5 million? Actually, it's possible. You'd also have an extra 5 trades to use later on, since you'd have positioned your roster for the first repricing without burning any trades. On the other hand, if you can do a decent job of drafting, you might be able to have your cake and eat it too. Chances are that 5 of the ten players you'd buy on Tuesday are also players you'd have drafted before the season started - at least if you're doing some homework before the season starts. If so, waiting to draft might be of much less benefit. Perhaps the best approach is to draft the best team you can before opening day, and see how the first 5 days go. If your team is crapping out, then register a second team and take your mulligan. - Guru Guru: The main reason I'm asking is, as I try to consider some different strategies, is that with:
Smallworld is silent on that issue, but in prior games, they never said that the lowest draft price would be the price floor either - and it always was. My guess is that player prices won't drop below $1 million. But bear in mind that I said "my guess". - Guru Guru: And how long is SW planning on running this offer? - Craig M. (1/23) response from Guru:My understanding is that SW has been doing this throughout hockey season as well. My guess is that it will be a permanent feature. I'm sure this helps juice up Smallworld's advertising revenue, and I certainly encourage everyone to take advantage of the opportunity. However, if you clicked enough times every day of the season to get a daily $10,000, it would only amount to about $1 million in total - which isn't very much. Frankly, the impact on the game will be very minor. - Guru Guru: I wanted your thoughts because, overall, I think trading for a new star each week might be costly to trades and not even necessary, because it will be easier to pick the right star correctly than it will be to pick out a needle in a haystack among the "scrubs". - Josh K. (1/23) response from Guru:You raise a good point related to scheduling, and one which I'll definitely comment on more next week. Think for a moment about what has tended to drive early season trading in other SW games. A lot of people look exclusively at Smallworld's rankings of the top 50 players. Since this list ranks players only by total points, players with more games early in the year will tend to rank higher just based on the extra appearances. So owning some better known players on the teams with a lot of early games has a double benefit - you get the points for the extra games, and you probably also benefit from some extra price gains, since these players will appear to be producing better than their ultimate per-game averages would indicate. That said, I'm not sure whether a "long term" approach to the stars really is warranted. Before jumping to any conclusions, I want to wait and see how the relative trade flows look for low vs. high priced players. - Guru Guru: - John K. (1/23) response from Guru: Passed along. - Guru Guru: Caleb points out an interesting consequence of the Smallworld repricing framework, which is that the only thing that can drive a player's price down is for that player to be sold. Thus, if no one drafts a player to begin with, then no one can sell him - without first buying him, that is, which would push his price up. Thus, all of the players who go undrafted essentially start the season at their floor price. (The act of drafting a player has no initial upward price consequence.) This has been a feature of all Smallworld games in recent years, and is unrelated to this Hoops game's high starting prices. What will be different is that so many of the more widely known players will be impacted. The real problem, though, relates to players whose price is initially too high relative to peers with comparable production. If Olowakandi eventually starts playing like a $10 million player (which means his production is comparable to other $10 million players and better than most cheaper players), then he will be bought, and his price will rise. But if he never achieves a point productivity level that warrants a $10 million price tag, he'll be stuck in never-never-land all season. The other way out, of course, is that if all other players with production comparable to Olowakandi get bought and inflate in price to $10 million, then Olowakandi does become marginally attractive, since everyone else's inflation is implicit deflation for Olowakandi's price in real dollars. -Guru Guru:
Name of Group- Rotoguru
It's a fairly simple game...just pick five players for under 18 million
total and win prizes if you do really well. The prizes are unbelievable: Guru, you might like it...it took me five minutes to set up a team, the work is outweighed by the prizes. - Steve L. (1/21) response from Guru:I'm sure some Gurupies will try it out. - Guru Guru: Another point of interest will be the impact on initial buys of expensive all-stars. My guess is that the downward price pressure that exists in the SW setup will be minimized among the elite players, since each manager simply cannot purchase too many all-stars. I actually think that there will be plenty of trading opportunities -- 5 trades per week for 10 slots is pretty steady. However, I think that this requires a somewhat more conservative strategy during the draft. By this I mean that it is more valuable to draft two moderately priced players (or even keep cash around) than one very expensive player and one very cheap player. We know that there likely won't be much price movement (down or up) for awhile among the all-stars (see the previous point); therefore, two moderately / cheaper priced players increases the likelihood of greater price appreciation. In addition, in the event of an injury, you will have greater financial flexibility. Therefore, for the moment, I am leaning toward a strategy that will carry very few expensive players at all unless there is significant reason they are going to be undervalued. In addition, I think it might be advantageous to keep some cash around initially -- so I can trade out of an injured player rapidly and by only using one trade. Basically, EVERYONE will have to have several very cheap players -- and if one of them gets hurt you'll need an escape strategy. In some sense, by carrying extra cash, you are "buying" an extra trade, since the cash may implicitly save you a trade later. Finally, I agree that the psychological impacts of owning a number of lesser-known NBA players are somewhat negative. Most people don't know THAT many NBA players; plus, seeing your guy on ESPN scoring 35 points is a great boost, despite the fact that intellectually you know that everyone else in the world has the same player, too. Overall, I would guess that SW just decided that this way people will be able to eventually own some All-Stars, and that would be enough to attract players. We shall see, I suppose. - Victor D. (1/21) response from Guru:Victor actually sent this to me about a week ago, but at the time I wasn't yet geared up for Hoops analysis. I just stumbled across it during some email maintenance today, and as usual, Victor has some good insights. - Guru Guru: I want to comment on the new SmallWorld salary structure. It is steep and it really threw me for a loop when I saw it, but after a few sleepless nights, I think it is great. There are many good affordable players out there, even though most bench sitters seem to be in the $8 mil range. At first glance this seemed to be almost insane, but I now see that it has merit. This system will reflect an NBA roster more realistically, and I think the game this year will be more challenging. - Philip D. (1/21) response from Guru:While the initial reactions I received were similar to your first thoughts, the most recent feedback I've heard is generally positive. Most Gurupies like a challenge, and this year's salary structure should provide that. In fact, I suspect this salary structure will enhance the value of RotoGuru analysis - and propel more Gurupies to the top of the rankings. At least, that's my plan! - Guru Guru: I did some quick analysis on my best rosters through week #3 that amplifies your thoughts. I start by assuming that the minimum cost roster is $9.06m (Cincy defense, Boniol at kicker, and $0.5m players for all other slots). I then assume that you have $40.94 million to spend in order to gain additional points, and the objective is to find the players that provided the most additional points per $ of additional expense. Defenses were the most productive on that basis by a long shot, but after that, four out the next six weekly "best buys" (Moulds, Keyshawn, Jimmy Smith, Chandler, Curtis Martin, and Mathis) were wide receivers. - Steve H. (1/21) response from Guru:The trick, of course, was picking the right wide receivers in advance. Your analysis has the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. A more "legitimate" analysis would need to consider the risk, or the expected variability of a player's projected performance. It may be that Terrell Davis, Jamal Anderson, or Randall Cunningham would look more attractive on a risk-adjusted basis. On the other hand, if you want to finish high in the rankings, you need to take some risks - so maybe going after WRs and taking a chance on picking the correct ones is still the best approach. Anyway, it worked pretty well for me. I just blew the week #2 defense. - Guru Guru: All the free agent movement likely in the next couple weeks makes it really tough to pick a roster yet, though! I think one key will be to find guys who, due to roster changes, will be seeing a lot more minutes, or ones who will be forced to pick up the slack of a departed star. It also seems like it will be critical to get off to a good start in terms of roster value. I'd expect the (Smallworld) teams who make a lot of money early to really pull away fast. My biggest complaint about the Smallworld games is still the fact that if nobody buys a player, his price never moves. - Jim D. (1/20) response from Guru:I agree with your assessment about the need for a fast start in value gains. The season isn't very long, and there are a lot of points to be gained as you start to pick up more of the big producers. - Guru Guru: If you reduce Full Court to 10 players for 12.5 million, you can compare the cost of players in an (somewhat) equal fashion:
Analysis - If you want to track the efforts of marginal players, play SWS. But if you want to track superstars, then play Full Court Hoops. I would rather follow stars than scrubs.
Rookie analysis - SWS really tries to predict which rookies will be good/great. Look at SWS prices for some of the rookies. Now will the rookies be a Randy Moss or Robert Edwards, or will they be a a Robert Holcombe (St. Louis) or Marcus Nash (Denver)? Meanwhile FCH keeps the prices of all rookies very low. - John C. (1/19) response from Guru:Interesting comparison, John. I'll have more to say about the implications of the SW pricing, but I'm still working on some analysis. Another key difference, though, is that prices in SW change based on net buys/sells, and it's not clear how well the "unknown" players will attract buying interest, especially if they aren't particularly noticeable on the court. Meanwhile, FC adjusts prices based solely on statistical performance, so popularity won't be a factor there. My quick take is that the casual fan may find the FC version more enjoyable, while the SW game is likely to appeal more to the serious NBA analyst. That's a bit paradoxical, since SW has generally tried to keep their games as overly simplified as possible (in order to appeal to the widest audience), while Echelon has shown interest in developing more intellectually interesting game designs. Go figure! - Guru Guru: My whole philosophy in this league was to attempt to maintain a full roster for as long as possible. I see now that is flawed. It is clear that you must have the best defense, as well as two or three consistent offensive performers each week. I would think the best strategy for the Super Bowl is to have both starting QBs, two other premier players, along with the winning defense. I may be inclined to start both TD and Jamal, as it is clear they will be the stars of this show. - Tim W. (1/19) response from Guru:Thanks for the kudos, Tim. I'm rooting for "the kid" as well. Believe it or not, he didn't even play SWF this season. Too much schoolwork, along with playing varsity football. (He's a junior in high school.) But since the playoffs started over the holiday vacation, he figured he'd give it a whirl. I, too, fell into the trap of emphasizing active slots, in my case at the expense of keeping an inferior defense in week #2. Live and learn. As I've said before, the best way to learn how to do something right is to really screw it up a few times first. The 2 starting QBs, plus Terrell and Jamal, plus a defense will run you almost $44 million, leaving an average cost of $1m for the remaining six slots. I assume it's possible, as long as your roster is at least halfway there already. The risk with that strategy is if the receivers rack up the big yards and scores. Even though your QB's would benefit too, you'd probably be at a competitive disadvantage vs. most of your peers, since receivers are generally more affordable. In fact, I've gotten where I am so far without any big name running backs. (Well, I did have Emmitt Smith in week #1, but he turned out to be "big" in name only.) Fortunately, I picked my receivers pretty well. - Guru Guru: The selling price of most players gives them a value in the range of 25-35 points per $million. With $43-44 million available for offense, an average offense should score 1300. Week 1 seems to and should have been easier to select an offense to significantly beat this. I'm sure the overall offense numbers were down in week 2, due to the constraints of adding the top players. I see the offensive numbers rising again somewhat this week, because you had 10 trades to set up a lineup for this week (but probably still with at least one dead slot in it). If you put an offensive roster together that performs at 45 points per $million (50% over average), you'd earn 1900 some points less your defense. That would be an excellent week in my mind. But, I'd be surprised if there is any defense this week in the -150 range, unless some team turns the ball over 5 or 6 times. - Steve H.(1/15) response from Guru:I think that would be an excellent result for any week so far! - Guru Guru: Name Pos Team Price SWP Cunningham, R QB MIN $9.34 350 Marino, D QB MIA $5.87 116 Hoard, L RB MIN $2.80 276 Murrell, A RB ARI $4.36 192 Bates, M RB ARI $1.66 178 Johnson, K WR NYJ $5.83 396 Smith, J WR JAC $5.64 318 McDuffie, OJ WR MIA $4.27 218 Glover, A TE MIN $2.72 98 Richey, W K SFO $1.51 40 DENVER DEF DEN $5.89 -137 Total $49.89 2,045- Steve H. (1/10) response from Guru: Your letter raises an interesting issue, one that I've been chewing on for almost a day now. Question #1 would be "What are the best possible rosters for the first two weeks combined, allowing for 5 trades between weeks?" The more interesting question is "How would one go about determining that (those) roster(s) - with 20/20 hindsight?" It's not so difficult to figure out the best roster for a given week. In fact, a linear optimizer can usually solve the problem, which is how I've developed the best weekly rosters with the $50m constraint (using the "Solver" in Excel). (By the way, I came up with a better roster than yours with no more than 5 players from first week byes - and it's a rather "non-intuitive" roster. Starting with your roster, substitute Terrell Davis (488 SWP) for Adrian Murrell, Greg Clark (36) for Andrew Glover, Ty Detmer (20) for Dan Marino, and Chris Boniol (0) for Wade Richey. Obviously, Detmer and Boniol are needed to save salary, so that Terrell Davis can be afforded. This revised roster produced 2143 SWP, almost 100 SWP better than yours, and only 55 SWP below the best $50 mil roster with no team constraints.) But chaining together two weeks, with five substitutions in between, seems like a daunting programming task, though no less difficult using trial and error. And if the exercise is carried out for three or four weeks, I smell a brain cramp. But I may tinker with this anyway, because I think it may be instructive. Besides, it's a slow month. - Guru Guru: This game may particularly appeal to Major League Market enthusiasts who have been waiting for that game to get back on track. - Donny M. (1/8) response from Guru:I have been a casual player of WSS for two years now, but I've never really developed any enthusiasm for it, for reasons which I've already discussed at some length in previous feedbacks and blurbs. Some Gurupies are much more active, though. In any event, I joined this league, but don't expect me to be an avid participant. Over the last year or so, I've only stopped by this site about once per month, so I've never been particularly competitive. - Guru Guru: Thanks. - Guru Guru: I had lost track of the five years Ryan's been retired. I had purchased some Ryan memorabilia 6 or 7 years ago figuring if he ever retired he'd go into the Hall. In fact, a numbered painting of his 300th victory hangs on the wall across from my computer. - Steve H. (1/7) response from Guru:Let's see. Until this past year, David Wells didn't have seven career shutouts. Danny Darwin has eight, however. Mark Langston, 15. Bret Saberhagen, 12. Charles Nagy, only 6. Andy Pettitte, only 1... Oh, I guess that was supposed to be a rhetorical question. . . . - Guru Response from Steve: And, if you add Roger Clemens (3153) and Randy Johnson's (2329) K's together, they are currently only 232 short of Ryan. - Steve H. (1/7) response from Guru:Sounds like they'll pass Nolan this season. That's big! - Guru Guru: I don't think Ryan was as good a pitcher in any given season as a number of pitchers. The things that make him remarkable are that his no 7 hitters, 5700 strikeouts, and 27 years of competent service were so far ahead of anyone else who has played the game. Seaver should have been on everyone's ballot, too. - Guru Guru: Anyway, I don't agree with his opinion completely, but I'd thought I'd let you know about it regardless. - Alexx D. (1/6) response from Guru:Even if you ignore seven no hitters (which are kind of hard to ignore), and take into account a mediocre winning percentage, it's hard to forget those 5000+ career strikeouts, almost double the second best career total. Seems to me that the only thing more remarkable than not voting for Ryan is ADMITTING IT in public.- Guru Guru: I couldn't agree more. And who is the knucklehead that actually voted for John Candelaria? He should lose his voting privilege immediately. - Joe R. (1/6) response from Guru:What? No Candy man? - Guru Guru: My strategy for the rest of the playoffs is to build a team towards the Super Bowl (and still make points). Rather than replacing my Dallas kicker & tight end this week, I'm going to try to build towards a team that will be playing Super Bowl Sunday, with some options. The one nice thing about no player price changes is that you can build options for the Conference Championships and Super Bowl Sunday with different teams and see what it takes to get there. - Steve H. (1/5) response from Guru:I also think building toward the Super Bowl roster is the way to go. In fact, I've already worked out what I think the optimal rosters would be for any combination of the top 4 seeds, and am using that as a guide to add players. I'll have one dead slot this week - tight end. I had Lonnie Johnson, who cost only $520, and produced zip. (I thought about taking Greg Clark instead - same price - but I opted for Johnson in order to have better team balance. Argh!) Here's an interesting observation - if all four home teams win this weekend, then no fantasy team can be fully productive for week three unless it had at least one bye player in week one (since all eleven draft slots would be eliminated, vs. only ten trades to replace them.) - Guru Guru: I agree. If you ultimately have to waste a slot, kicker or tight end are probably two of the better ones to waste. - Guru Guru:
Answering your questions in your order:
Click here for prior feedback letters, by month: December . . . . . November . . . . . October . . . . . September . . . . . August . . . . . July . . . . . June . . . . . May . . . . . April . . . . . March . . . . . RotoGuru is produced by Dave Hall (a.k.a. the Guru), an avid fantasy sports player. He is neither employed by nor compensated by any of the fantasy sports games discussed within this site, and all opinions expressed are solely his own. Questions or comments are welcome, and should be emailed to Guru<davehall@home.com>. |