Yes. There are lots of examples where it can work the other way. The simplest one is team one was two Pistons and everyone else from different teams except the Knicks. Team two has no player from either the Pistons or Knicks. Tonight the only game is the Pistons versus the Knicks. Having two Pistons helps me. But, on average over the full season you should still have a bit of an advantage from having no duplicate teams on your roster.

As long as you have the flexibility to occasionally bring in a new player, and the ability to set your lineups at least every day if not more than once during the evening you should be able to negate most, perhaps all, of the disadvantage. But if you are less involved, you can gain at least a bit of an advantage over similarly less involved GMs if you spread your players across multiple teams. I'm guessing this is at least a goodly part of the reason why fantasy teams with only Pistons last year tended not to do so well.

I'm curious now though to know how often teams don't play the same number of games a week and how big those variances are. That's not all that easy to figure out with the data I have sitting around right now though.

__________________
"But first, are you experienced? Or have you you ever been experienced? Well, I have."
Jimi

I've run into situations...just last week where I had a team play twice versus 4 times is an obvious situation. Sometimes it even grows to 5 games. Typically I only pay that level of attention to schedule when I'm:

• only allowed to make lineup changes weekly based on league rules
• need to develop a winning strategy with supplemental players (open roster spot) based on a short week
• near the end of the season where remaining games impact the rest of the playoffs

I do agree that there are a ton of things that negate advantages: stacked schedules, injuries and performance based on a back to back. (just to name a few).

__________________
"I'm a diamond, you're a cubic zir-con-ia" - Nice and Smooth via The Low

Jeez. Maybe this is why my teams have so much trouble.

__________________

on a rotisserie league this is a total non-issue ;D

I'm imagining Fatoine on a spit and it's... well, it's disturbing.

But yes, I think it only matters in the head to head world.

I had a question that's somehow similar- theoretically, you could place your role players (if you have 2 on one team, one of them a role player) on the FA list, and add another role player so that you avoid that situation- but couldn't it happen that someone always acquires role players and dropps them all the time so that he has about 10-12 players in action on every night???

Absolutely. Its a strategy that I've seen deployed in the past. It can be curbed by setting a limit to the max transactions (I typically set mine to 100) and/or increasing the number of roster spots so that the amount of talent available is negligible. The interesting thing about the free agent/max games strategy is that it is only effective when noone else is competing for resources. The waiver period of the "role players" prevents players from dropping and readding the same players effectively. Outside of this, it just makes it less enjoyable for the masses and ultimately will blow up in your face when you max out your transactions right before the playoffs.

__________________
"I'm a diamond, you're a cubic zir-con-ia" - Nice and Smooth via The Low

yah, also when you drop someone they've got a chance to be picked up by another squad, so that's the risk you take by trying to get guys to play every night.

Been there, done that. Very effective if you have the time to manage it, and perform your GM duties in a heartless manner.

__________________
To all of my friends, comrades and companions at PF.com

Thank you for another great season!

Reading this thread is making me ..........................