Notifications
Clear all

Injuries and forfeiting h2h weeks

6 Posts
4 Users
0 Reactions
363 Views
 N9
(@jessenguyen)
Posts: 145
Member Customer
Topic starter
 

I have Prince, Harris, Porter, Mirotic, and Leonard.

Leonard I knew was a risk for rest when i drafted him so not as sad for him, but to have a quarter of your team out on a week-to-week basis at the same time blows.

I'm considering just playing my high efficiency guys, getting great %s, and then benching everyone to win TOs and gaurantee a 3-6 week.

Have you done that before? I doubt I can stream enough to win any counting stat categories against the other teams.

 
Posted : 17/12/2018 10:15 am
(@david-j)
Posts: 350
Member Customer
 

As long as you're high in the standings where a couple 3-6 weeks are not going to bury you, then yeah, that might be your best strategy right now, since none of those guys are droppable.

The only other alternative is to trade one or two of your injured guys, but you'd be selling low, and those are all guys who could be impact players in the h2h playoffs. So yeah I'd rather go ahead with the 3-6 plan. Though be prepared for the realistic possibility of 2-7, since percentages are volatile and even high-efficiency players can have a bad week.

 
Posted : 17/12/2018 10:27 am
(@thyrdwyrld)
Posts: 957
Member Customer
 

yup, percentages can be hard to count on- unless you really narrow the players you play.

I usually try to stream to target a specific cat or 2, but if there's like 8-10 game differential, I'll go for the 3 efficiency cats.

 
Posted : 17/12/2018 2:36 pm
(@dbesbris)
Posts: 9458
Member Customer
 

Yep, I've definitely done it. Going 6-12 over 2 weeks makes a huge difference over going 2-16.

 
Posted : 17/12/2018 9:22 pm
 N9
(@jessenguyen)
Posts: 145
Member Customer
Topic starter
 

I benches everyone but Holmes today. Mission accomplished: 6/7 fg, 1/1 ft, 0 turnovers. 3-6 locked in for the week.

 
Posted : 18/12/2018 12:31 am
(@david-j)
Posts: 350
Member Customer
 

Perfect!

 
Posted : 18/12/2018 7:09 am
Share: