Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

What does the IL+ spot means?


Recommended Posts

The learn more link doesnt give any addional information about IL+ and there's no additional explanation in commish tools. 

Makes sense for keeper or dynasty leagues to utilize for OFSs, but for a league like the one im in, where we would draft a whole new team next season, i don't see the difference in having additional bench spots to deal with GTDs and Os.

Edited by Din_Ris
Link to post
Share on other sites

My league usually has 2 IL spots but this year we used 3 IL. I've always heard and even said myself that O players or Covid players in the case of this year should be IL eligible.

I don't think I will change the format of my league this year but next season I might try to experiment with 2 IL and 1 IL+ spots to see how it goes with players that are O. I don't want to do all 3 spots IL+ because I feel that's a bit too unbalanced.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ItzJaBoiSam said:

My league usually has 2 IL spots but this year we used 3 IL. I've always heard and even said myself that O players or Covid players in the case of this year should be IL eligible.

I don't think I will change the format of my league this year but next season I might try to experiment with 2 IL and 1 IL+ spots to see how it goes with players that are O. I don't want to do all 3 spots IL+ because I feel that's a bit too unbalanced.

Ya I use this in hockey it's awesome 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely implementing this next year. I like the idea of 2 IL and 1 IL+. And agreed, it should include PPD. Why not? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NBA_OG said:

Looks quiet interesting. Sounds like a more powerful IL spot that can stash GTD, OUT, etc. Anyone who has tried it let us know.

Been doing it that way for years and works great. It’s about time yahoo came around. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Commissioners:  how many are you adding?  I think 1 or 2 is good.  And if you pick up a player to replace the one who goes into IL+ does it count towards your FA pick up limit per week?  It shouldn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, summersoff7 said:

Commissioners:  how many are you adding?  I think 1 or 2 is good.  And if you pick up a player to replace the one who goes into IL+ does it count towards your FA pick up limit per week?  It shouldn't.

I don’t really think it’s fair to add an extra IL spot halfway through the season. Teams with injuries earlier in the season got hammered, teams with injuries now will benefit. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, summersoff7 said:

Commissioners:  how many are you adding?  I think 1 or 2 is good.  And if you pick up a player to replace the one who goes into IL+ does it count towards your FA pick up limit per week?  It shouldn't.

2 should suffice IMO. Im usually against making in season changes but teams are getting wrecked with injuries. I wish this option was available earlier. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Eltoro said:

I don’t really think it’s fair to add an extra IL spot halfway through the season. Teams with injuries earlier in the season got hammered, teams with injuries now will benefit. 

The counter-argument to that is the IL+ spot also includes GTD and O eligibility; it's not just another IL spot (which I can see as being more disruptive and exclusively advantageous to teams with injured players).  Therefore, because the vast majority of teams aren't always devoid of tags (usually there's at least one player who is "questionable", which gives them a GTD tag, on most teams), even "healthier" teams can use the IL+ spot, either to stream players or hold.  Owners who have players that are considered "doubtful" and are constantly "O" on game days also benefit; rather than waiting out their injuries (INJ tags are given to players who miss 3 days, even if they don't have timetables or serious injuries).  Since the IL+ spot covers those tags, owners who have mostly healthy teams can at least use the IL+ slot for any minor injury.  Really, the only owners who don't benefit are those who have immaculately healthy players, and I'm struggling to think of any player who has never had or won't ever have the GTD/O/INJ tag this season.

It's also a boon to owners who have actual healthy guys like Drummond or Blake, who are permanently benched until they're traded, yet are stuck with the O tag, meaning they're ineligible for the IL.  The IL+ allows those owners to at least get Drummond/Blake on the sidelines and substitute them for an active player rather than drop them outright. 

And of course, Yahoo's likely doing this for the unprecedented amount of players who are hit with the "health and safety concern" flag.  Sure, I get it sucks for owners who had to deal with injuries early on, and I think Yahoo should've implemented this slot much earlier.  But I think it's a necessary change to make, even halfway through the season, because, as commish in a few leagues, I'd rather deal with a few disgruntled managers who think they're being slighted for having injured players early on (and subsequently losing) and missing the full advantage of this slot, than managers who have basically given up because they're dealing with 5-6 players who have a combination of actual injuries, "health and safety concerns", and a persistent "O" tag.

On 2/17/2021 at 6:06 PM, iowncrazyhair said:

There’s no option for ppd in IL+?

Guess not.  That would've helped immensely, but I'm guessing there's some logistical problems with that on Yahoo's end?  PPD is different from an actual injury tag, despite the end result being the same (the player not playing that night), in that the player does eventually play at some point.  I dunno ... the PPD tag would've been crucial, but I'm guessing Yahoo wanted to fix the problem of players who can't play due to "health" concerns, healthy/consistently questionable players who are snakebitten with the "O" tag, and players who are OFS in dynasty.

On 2/18/2021 at 12:34 AM, summersoff7 said:

Commissioners:  how many are you adding?  I think 1 or 2 is good.  And if you pick up a player to replace the one who goes into IL+ does it count towards your FA pick up limit per week?  It shouldn't.

Full disclosure, in the two leagues I'm commish in, I'm getting the same feedback of "it's not fair" ... but it's from a small minority of managers; I've put it to votes and it seems like most of the league is in favor of implementing it.  I've got (at least) 1 IL in all of my leagues, but in all but one, the commish (either me or another person) is adding the IL+ slot immediately. 

If you pick up a player, why wouldn't it count towards your weekly move?  The IL+ slot is basically an IL slot that just adds GTD/O/OFS eligibility, so you use an add in the exact same way if you want to move an eligible player to the IL/IL+ and replace him with someone from the wire.

20 hours ago, claptondecheeks said:

I got one hope my commish doesn’t activate it. The wire is bare enough as it is bc literally everyone’s IL is full. It would make things less competitive. 

Wait, wouldn't that make it MORE competitive, if you have an even deeper league/thinner FA list?  Shallow leagues are considered less competitive because it's easier to stream from a very deep wire.  If you take more players from the wire, it makes things even more competitive (in both senses of the word, given you're also in competition with other managers to grab scarcer quality players from the wire).

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, MWon said:

The counter-argument to that is the IL+ spot also includes GTD and O eligibility; it's not just another IL spot (which I can see as being more disruptive and exclusively advantageous to teams with injured players).  Therefore, because the vast majority of teams aren't always devoid of tags (usually there's at least one player who is "questionable", which gives them a GTD tag, on most teams), even "healthier" teams can use the IL+ spot, either to stream players or hold.  Owners who have players that are considered "doubtful" and are constantly "O" on game days also benefit; rather than waiting out their injuries (INJ tags are given to players who miss 3 days, even if they don't have timetables or serious injuries).  Since the IL+ spot covers those tags, owners who have mostly healthy teams can at least use the IL+ slot for any minor injury.  Really, the only owners who don't benefit are those who have immaculately healthy players, and I'm struggling to think of any player who has never had or won't ever have the GTD/O/INJ tag this season.

It's also a boon to owners who have actual healthy guys like Drummond or Blake, who are permanently benched until they're traded, yet are stuck with the O tag, meaning they're ineligible for the IL.  The IL+ allows those owners to at least get Drummond/Blake on the sidelines and substitute them for an active player rather than drop them outright. 

And of course, Yahoo's likely doing this for the unprecedented amount of players who are hit with the "health and safety concern" flag.  Sure, I get it sucks for owners who had to deal with injuries early on, and I think Yahoo should've implemented this slot much earlier.  But I think it's a necessary change to make, even halfway through the season, because, as commish in a few leagues, I'd rather deal with a few disgruntled managers who think they're being slighted for having injured players early on (and subsequently losing) and missing the full advantage of this slot, than managers who have basically given up because they're dealing with 5-6 players who have a combination of actual injuries, "health and safety concerns", and a persistent "O" tag.

Guess not.  That would've helped immensely, but I'm guessing there's some logistical problems with that on Yahoo's end?  PPD is different from an actual injury tag, despite the end result being the same (the player not playing that night), in that the player does eventually play at some point.  I dunno ... the PPD tag would've been crucial, but I'm guessing Yahoo wanted to fix the problem of players who can't play due to "health" concerns, healthy/consistently questionable players who are snakebitten with the "O" tag, and players who are OFS in dynasty.

Full disclosure, in the two leagues I'm commish in, I'm getting the same feedback of "it's not fair" ... but it's from a small minority of managers; I've put it to votes and it seems like most of the league is in favor of implementing it.  I've got (at least) 1 IL in all of my leagues, but in all but one, the commish (either me or another person) is adding the IL+ slot immediately. 

If you pick up a player, why wouldn't it count towards your weekly move?  The IL+ slot is basically an IL slot that just adds GTD/O/OFS eligibility, so you use an add in the exact same way if you want to move an eligible player to the IL/IL+ and replace him with someone from the wire.

Wait, wouldn't that make it MORE competitive, if you have an even deeper league/thinner FA list?  Shallow leagues are considered less competitive because it's easier to stream from a very deep wire.  If you take more players from the wire, it makes things even more competitive (in both senses of the word, given you're also in competition with other managers to grab scarcer quality players from the wire).

Once you activated the new IL+ spot for your league how did you manage free agent pick ups? You announced a specific time the IL+ would be active and then it was on those who had eligible spots to add free agents as quickly as  they could? Or did you implement some kind of priority system?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, gymchamp said:

Once you activated the new IL+ spot for your league how did you manage free agent pick ups? You announced a specific time the IL+ would be active and then it was on those who had eligible spots to add free agents as quickly as  they could? Or did you implement some kind of priority system?

Sorry, I'm implementing this Sunday.  And yes, I'm doing the former (announcing the time a few days beforehand, then it's a free for all for the adds).  As the commish, I'll be waiting an undecided amount of time to pass before I make a move for FAs so it's fairer for others though.  Might lose out on some guys I want, but that's the price you pay for being commish.

Edited by MWon
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MWon said:

The counter-argument to that is the IL+ spot also includes GTD and O eligibility; it's not just another IL spot (which I can see as being more disruptive and exclusively advantageous to teams with injured players).  Therefore, because the vast majority of teams aren't always devoid of tags (usually there's at least one player who is "questionable", which gives them a GTD tag, on most teams), even "healthier" teams can use the IL+ spot, either to stream players or hold.  Owners who have players that are considered "doubtful" and are constantly "O" on game days also benefit; rather than waiting out their injuries (INJ tags are given to players who miss 3 days, even if they don't have timetables or serious injuries).  Since the IL+ spot covers those tags, owners who have mostly healthy teams can at least use the IL+ slot for any minor injury.  Really, the only owners who don't benefit are those who have immaculately healthy players, and I'm struggling to think of any player who has never had or won't ever have the GTD/O/INJ tag this season.

It's also a boon to owners who have actual healthy guys like Drummond or Blake, who are permanently benched until they're traded, yet are stuck with the O tag, meaning they're ineligible for the IL.  The IL+ allows those owners to at least get Drummond/Blake on the sidelines and substitute them for an active player rather than drop them outright. 

And of course, Yahoo's likely doing this for the unprecedented amount of players who are hit with the "health and safety concern" flag.  Sure, I get it sucks for owners who had to deal with injuries early on, and I think Yahoo should've implemented this slot much earlier.  But I think it's a necessary change to make, even halfway through the season, because, as commish in a few leagues, I'd rather deal with a few disgruntled managers who think they're being slighted for having injured players early on (and subsequently losing) and missing the full advantage of this slot, than managers who have basically given up because they're dealing with 5-6 players who have a combination of actual injuries, "health and safety concerns", and a persistent "O" tag.

Guess not.  That would've helped immensely, but I'm guessing there's some logistical problems with that on Yahoo's end?  PPD is different from an actual injury tag, despite the end result being the same (the player not playing that night), in that the player does eventually play at some point.  I dunno ... the PPD tag would've been crucial, but I'm guessing Yahoo wanted to fix the problem of players who can't play due to "health" concerns, healthy/consistently questionable players who are snakebitten with the "O" tag, and players who are OFS in dynasty.

Full disclosure, in the two leagues I'm commish in, I'm getting the same feedback of "it's not fair" ... but it's from a small minority of managers; I've put it to votes and it seems like most of the league is in favor of implementing it.  I've got (at least) 1 IL in all of my leagues, but in all but one, the commish (either me or another person) is adding the IL+ slot immediately. 

If you pick up a player, why wouldn't it count towards your weekly move?  The IL+ slot is basically an IL slot that just adds GTD/O/OFS eligibility, so you use an add in the exact same way if you want to move an eligible player to the IL/IL+ and replace him with someone from the wire.

Wait, wouldn't that make it MORE competitive, if you have an even deeper league/thinner FA list?  Shallow leagues are considered less competitive because it's easier to stream from a very deep wire.  If you take more players from the wire, it makes things even more competitive (in both senses of the word, given you're also in competition with other managers to grab scarcer quality players from the wire).


I’m not arguing against the utility of the spot. Obviously it’s super useful.

The issue is this. A team that was super injured at the beginning of the season had to make hard decisions about dropping players or keeping injured players on the roster and taking losses.

By adding an extra IL spot, you relieve currently injured teams of having to make those same decisions. It affects roster quality because you don’t have to drop someone when another team might have been forced to earlier in the season. It affects playoff seeding because currently injured teams get a leg up.

Yes a majority might be in favor of it, but it’s still unfair. If people want to give up because they’re super-injured then that’s on them... this isn’t some new issue that’s just come up. It’s been a problem all season.

Our league voted 80% against it, including a few of those who would have benefited from it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Eltoro said:


I’m not arguing against the utility of the spot. Obviously it’s super useful.

The issue is this. A team that was super injured at the beginning of the season had to make hard decisions about dropping players or keeping injured players on the roster and taking losses.

By adding an extra IL spot, you relieve currently injured teams of having to make those same decisions. It affects roster quality because you don’t have to drop someone when another team might have been forced to earlier in the season. It affects playoff seeding because currently injured teams get a leg up.

Yes a majority might be in favor of it, but it’s still unfair. If people want to give up because they’re super-injured then that’s on them... this isn’t some new issue that’s just come up. It’s been a problem all season.

Our league voted 80% against it, including a few of those who would have benefited from it.

This 100%.

I'm the commish in one of my leagues and I'm probably not going to activate any IL+ for this season because what was said above. A guy in our league (14 team) just dropped Millsap because he already has 3 other INJ players and Lowry who's been gtd for two games and hasn't played. For situations like this and all the other tough choices managers have had to make through the first half of the season I don't think adding IL+ now makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's super fair, and yes, players in my leagues are arguing that exact point, although they're in an incredible minority.  

However, I think you're also arguing from the stance of simply adding another IL spot, which was proposed in a few leagues of mine, and which I argued AGAINST (and unfortunately lost).  We're talking about the IL+ spot, which is similar to the IL spot, but the main difference is that those who were forced to endure difficult decisions (e.g. take losses with a bunch of IL players or drop them outright) at least have some sort of solace in that they can actually use the IL+ spot for GTD/O/OFS players, versus having next to no use for an IL spot for their now healthy players.  Though I've already said this, I'm repeating this point because your argument seems predicated on the IL spot, rather than the IL+ spot.  Sure, it sucks for those who could've used the IL+ slot earlier, but again my point is that at least they can still use it now.

As far as "forced to", I'll repeat your own alluded point ("If people want to give up ..."), which is that nobody forces you to do anything in fantasy.  The "new issue" now is that we actually have the IL+ slot to use, as compared to before. The second "new issue" is that we have players with the "O" designation who are completely healthy (e.g. Blake/Drummond), due to trade, and yet owners are snakebitten because those players aren't eligible for IL - the only other time I can recall this happening is with AD and the Pellies a few years ago.    

And as for what's best for your particular league, it's relative.  Your own league voted 80% against it; that's fine and understandable.  I respect those who refrain from activating the IL+ slot. 3 of my leagues are at 80%, 60%, and 86% FOR it, with a few of them including myself, not benefiting from the added slot and yet who also had INJ players but couldn't then benefit from the IL+ slot (again, such as myself).  But I also think there's a reason why Yahoo offered this slot mid-season rather than just waiting until the season was over to introduce it. As commish, while I want to make things as fair as possible, and while I don't necessarily agree fully with letting the majority decide, I also believe that if there's a great enough majority complaining or strongly supporting adding/not adding the slot, it's telling of what the right course of action is. 

I'm simply pointing out that what you believe is unfair may not be the case for every league.  I do agree this is an incredibly important and divisive issue, since any global change mid-season isn't to be made lightly; it does, as you say, change many things about one's league. But we're on these forums to discuss, listen, and opine, not persuade.  I don't give a damn what you do about your own league, and I hope you feel the same way about mine, as I (or at least those in my league) have made the decision clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MWon said:

I think that's super fair, and yes, players in my leagues are arguing that exact point, although they're in an incredible minority.  

However, I think you're also arguing from the stance of simply adding another IL spot, which was proposed in a few leagues of mine, and which I argued AGAINST (and unfortunately lost).  We're talking about the IL+ spot, which is similar to the IL spot, but the main difference is that those who were forced to endure difficult decisions (e.g. take losses with a bunch of IL players or drop them outright) at least have some sort of solace in that they can actually use the IL+ spot for GTD/O/OFS players, versus having next to no use for an IL spot for their now healthy players.  Though I've already said this, I'm repeating this point because your argument seems predicated on the IL spot, rather than the IL+ spot.  Sure, it sucks for those who could've used the IL+ slot earlier, but again my point is that at least they can still use it now.

As far as "forced to", I'll repeat your own alluded point ("If people want to give up ..."), which is that nobody forces you to do anything in fantasy.  The "new issue" now is that we actually have the IL+ slot to use, as compared to before. The second "new issue" is that we have players with the "O" designation who are completely healthy (e.g. Blake/Drummond), due to trade, and yet owners are snakebitten because those players aren't eligible for IL - the only other time I can recall this happening is with AD and the Pellies a few years ago.    

And as for what's best for your particular league, it's relative.  Your own league voted 80% against it; that's fine and understandable.  I respect those who refrain from activating the IL+ slot. 3 of my leagues are at 80%, 60%, and 86% FOR it, with a few of them including myself, not benefiting from the added slot and yet who also had INJ players but couldn't then benefit from the IL+ slot (again, such as myself).  But I also think there's a reason why Yahoo offered this slot mid-season rather than just waiting until the season was over to introduce it. As commish, while I want to make things as fair as possible, and while I don't necessarily agree fully with letting the majority decide, I also believe that if there's a great enough majority complaining or strongly supporting adding/not adding the slot, it's telling of what the right course of action is. 

I'm simply pointing out that what you believe is unfair may not be the case for every league.  I do agree this is an incredibly important and divisive issue, since any global change mid-season isn't to be made lightly; it does, as you say, change many things about one's league. But we're on these forums to discuss, listen, and opine, not persuade.  I don't give a damn what you do about your own league, and I hope you feel the same way about mine, as I (or at least those in my league) have made the decision clear.


Not sure how it is any solace to a team that was hard hit by injuries early in the season to get a benefit now which everyone will receive. The other teams still gain a relative advantage.

As for the opinion of the majority, obviously only a few teams are hard hit by injuries at any given point in the season. If people are voting in their self-interest, the majority are going to vote for an additional spot. 

Something which does not benefit everyone equally is unfair, plain and simple. Adding an IL+ at the beginning of the season is an excellent idea and 100% fair; adding it halfway is not, in my opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...