MAIN FORUM

Comments

  • Markness

    DraftKings Team

    Hey Guys,

    I figured we should be proactive on this topic…

    We have decided to limit position eligibility to players’ primary position only. In the NBA, a player’s “primary” position is sometimes debatable, and often changes throughout the season, but we will be proactive in assigning the most accurate positions possible. With the generic Guard (G) and Forward (F) roster slots, along with the Utility (U) slot, there should still be plenty of flexibility to build optimal rosters. Since everyone has the same player pool to work with, any limitations resulting from position eligibility will be the same for everyone.

    We think this change improves the user-experience significantly without sacrificing opportunity for strategy. Last season the majority of players were eligible at two positions which essentially made roster requirements non-existent. Furthermore, the dual-eligibility added an unnecessary amount of clutter and confusion. Building an initial roster wasn’t too confusing, but while editing/adjusting rosters, it became quite a task to fully understand exactly which positions were potential options to complete a roster.
    For example, if you want to remove your Center, and the player in your PF slot is also eligible at Center, you might not realize that you can replace your old Center with either a PF or C. You’d have to remove the PF, then add him at C.
    The downside of this confusion caused by dual-eligibility grows exponentially when factoring in late-swap, especially for users playing multiple lineups.

    We think this change will help all users save time manipulating rosters which can be crucial leading up to game time. It should also increase action from newer users and more casual users which is great for everyone.

    As always, feedback is welcome.

    -Mark

  • Markness

    DraftKings Team

    rotokev and smizz, you guys would prefer 8 util spots? Honest question.

  • britdevine

    • 2014 StarStreet MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    Not a fan, more flexibility is always better.

    The old format was by far the best DFS NBA product out there. No need to implement Draftstreet thinking when it’s not needed.

    Hopefully it’s changed for Wednesdays games.

  • jecarl2

    The only issue I see is that this forces you to take a true Center-some nights the C options aren’t that great

  • Galante118

    • Blogger of the Month

    I actually don’t hate this…

  • jecarl2

    Now if we can just get the DvP rankings removed we will be good to go. They mean nothing when you have SF/SG listed for a players position-it actually requires more work to research. Which position is ranked 32nd in the league, the SF or the SG?

  • blackcloud420

    @jecarl2 said...

    Now if we can just get the DvP rankings removed we will be good to go. They mean nothing when you have SF/SG listed for a players position-it actually requires more work to research. Which position is ranked 32nd in the league, the SF or the SG?

    Those need to go in general.

  • neogamer

    • x2

      2013 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    • 2015 FanDuel NBA Playboy Mansion Finalist

    When playing two different sites (fanduel/dkings) DKings rosters could be completely different. This was a great thing. I found my self able to go crazy and roster a bunch of PF’s or centers or stack guards that I liked. This being said, I have always found Fanduel to be too restrictive and DK a little to loose. I don’t see this as a major deal but will take away some unique lineups you could construct in the past.

  • fishcakeking

    FCK

    @alsmizzle said...

    more options in lineup bulding > less options in lineup building

    Agreed

    FCK

  • fishcakeking

    FCK

    @Markness said...

    rotokev and smizz, you guys would prefer 8 util spots? Honest question.

    I likes it the way it was, maybe you could have limited the positions of a player to actual position . Possibly too many players were multi position eligible that shouldn’t have been.

    Fck

  • TeeJayOrTJ

    • 197

      RG Overall Ranking

    • x5

      2015 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    • x4

      2018 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    I don’t think I like this either. I enjoy the complexities of finding the optimal solution to the puzzle of knowing who to play where. Also the intricacies of setting your lineup for optimal potential late swaps makes for a much more skilled game

  • rebkell

    When can we expect to see the new players and their designated positions and salaries, it would be helpful to study the new players a bit and update our data sheets.

    Edit: I guess I should look before I speak, they are already there.

  • drolson22

    2014 DFBBC Runner-up

    I don’t mind it, I think it’s better for the overall growth of the game. Much cleaner product when only one position attached to each player and less confusing for the average recreational player.

  • noddy

    This is terrible. I might as well play on FD now. Sigh :(

  • emac

    @fishcakeking said...

    I likes it the way it was, maybe you could have limited the positions of a player to actual position . Possibly too many players were multi position eligible that shouldn’t have been.

    Fck

    Fck, I agree completely. Anything lessening roster overlap is/was a good thing. That is what was particularly frustrating on the short slate nights (and late slates) on FD the last couple years (especially at SG).

    Additionally, I liked that often my “main” cash game rosters between DK and FD would typically have 50-60% overlap, which lessened the hit of a dud performance or injury from a key player on my main lineups.

    Differences are a good thing and the multi-position eligibility is a differentiator for DK when compared to the majority of other DFS sites.

  • skeeter1114

    • Blogger of the Month

    @Markness said...

    rotokev and smizz, you guys would prefer 8 util spots? Honest question.

    Why not have all utility spots? This isn’t like baseball (Pitcher) or football (Quarterback) where one position necessarily scores more than another. Outside of SG and SF not named LeBron or Durant, the positions were pretty close to equal. Even in an 8 utility spot lineup, you’re still going to have to find values and may end up playing an equal amount of guards/forwards. I just don’t see the harm in giving choice and why we can’t move past positional requirements. More variety makes it more fun for all users, and even the new ones will learn to adapt shortly. I mean, do we really want to be restricted at the SG position every night again?

  • windchimesrrude

    2013 PFBC Qualifer

    • 2013 StarStreet MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    I applaud this, less overwhelming for new players and still plent of flexibility. 1 more util spot would be ideal.

  • ericruh

    • 2015 FAWBC Finalist

    Poor decision. In other words we are dumbing down the game so we can make more money. PERIOD.

  • kaetorade

    • 2013 DraftStreet DSBBC Finalist

    @ericruh said...

    Poor decision. In other words we are dumbing down the game so we can make more money. PERIOD.

    I hate to get o/t, but that ship has sailed. I mean, lineups are available everywhere…including from dfs sites themselves.

  • jimfred82

    • Blogger of the Month

    I didn’t see this thread earlier (hence me starting another thread, whoops), but I“m not a huge fan. I like playing on a site that has stiff positions (FD) and has open positions (DK last year). At least FF still has generic “G,” “F,” and “C” to help out!

  • FatalError

    DraftKings Rep

    @jimfred82 said...

    I didn’t see this thread earlier (hence me starting another thread, whoops), but I“m not a huge fan. I like playing on a site that has stiff positions (FD) and has open positions (DK last year). At least FF still has generic “G,” “F,” and “C” to help out!

    3 of the 8 positions are still flex positions.

  • jimfred82

    • Blogger of the Month

    @FatalError said...

    3 of the 8 positions are still flex positions.

    initially that post bothered me a bit as it’s something that is apparent to anyone with vision, but i see that you are pointing out that there is still more flexibility than FD, which is true.

  • sethayates

    @jimfred82 said...

    initially that post bothered me a bit as it’s something that is apparent to anyone with vision, but i see that you are pointing out that there is still more flexibility than FD, which is true.

    I think he’s trying to make the point that you can still play 3 of any position you want (except center). Last year you could potentially play 4. This change isn’t as drastic as it originally seemed.

    Example:

    PG——>PG
    SG——>SG
    SF——->SF
    PF——->PF
    C ———>C
    G———>PG
    F———->PF
    Flex——>PG

    That is a lineup using 3 PGs. Last year I ran something similar quite often except I would normally have a PG in the SG slot. The crux of this change is basically that we all have to pick at least one center and one shooting guard which are the two weakest positions normally.

  • X Unread Thread
  • X Thread with New Replies*
  • *Jumps to your first unread reply

Subforum Index

RotoGrinders.com is the home of the daily fantasy sports community. Our content, rankings, member blogs, promotions and forum discussion all cater to the players that like to create a new fantasy team every day of the week.

If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, crisis counseling and referral services can be accessed by calling 1-800-GAMBLER (1-800-426-2537) (IL). Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER (NJ/WV/PA/MI), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (CO), 1-800-BETS OFF (IA), 1-888-532-3500 (VA) or call/text TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN).