|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Oct 22, 2014 23:02:08 GMT -5
re Jets comments to me. I think you misunderstand my objectives. My two points are really simple. 1) No team should be allowed to reserve an active player when he has active positions open. 2) Any team can make any trade they want. As long as they believes it helps them now or in their rebuild. Cap compliant of course. P.S. I support a draft lottery. Rich Colorado i don't think i made any comments in reference to you or at least not ones that i realized. i agree with your point #2 and i almost completely agree with pt #1, however imo there are very rare strategic exceptions. I think it is the rare exceptions and grey areas where a committee or the Commish is going to have to make the judgement calls but do so in a transparent manner. I know that you and UofMe do a lot of PMing to GM's when there are problems but if there isn't full disclosure to 28 other GMs, it can be discouraging to them. I understand not wanting to gang up on GM's but we need to have transparency and accountability by all 30 GMs for this league to work.
|
|
|
Post by Ken (ANA) on Oct 22, 2014 23:35:00 GMT -5
I agree with these points as well. The rare strategic exceptions that the Jets are referring to are trying to win the averaged categories (+/-. FO%, GAA, SV%) when you're already winning them.
I don't mind using myself as an open example. I used this strategy myself just last week. Was I tanking? I don't think so. I was winning GAA and SV% and my opposing team had no goalie starts left by the weekend. If I played my goalie, I would risk losing GAA and SV%. To make sure I won those categories, I benched my goalies.
I was losing the FO% category. Couture is one my best players but he's been god awful at face-offs so far. I had a comfortable lead in the rest of my skater categories so my best chance of winning the FO% category was to bench Couture. I still lost the FO% category but Couture would have made it worse (he only won like 35% of his faceoffs that night). I didn't lose any other skater categories as a result of benching Couture.
I think situations like these were the rare strategic exceptions they're referring to. I benched those players with the intention of trying to be more competitive. But if people disagree, I'll stop doing it.
I agree that we should try to foster a more open environment based around accountability. The more everyone posts on rules violations, every GM will know that this league takes it seriously. I suggest that if you see a roster violation, post it right away. It shouldn't be everyone waiting for the commish or admins to find it. They have real lives to attend to, just like the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Oct 22, 2014 23:55:00 GMT -5
I agree with these points as well. The rare strategic exceptions that the Jets are referring to are trying to win the averaged categories (+/-. FO%, GAA, SV%) when you're already winning them. I don't mind using myself as an open example. I used this strategy myself just last week. Was I tanking? I don't think so. I was winning GAA and SV% and my opposing team had no goalie starts left by the weekend. If I played my goalie, I would risk losing GAA and SV%. To make sure I won those categories, I benched my goalies. I was losing the FO% category. Couture is one my best players but he's been god awful at face-offs so far. I had a comfortable lead in the rest of my skater categories so my best chance of winning the FO% category was to bench Couture. I still lost the FO% category but Couture would have made it worse (he only won like 35% of his faceoffs that night). I didn't lose any other skater categories as a result of benching Couture. I think situations like these were the rare strategic exceptions they're referring to. I benched those players with the intention of trying to be more competitive. But if people disagree, I'll stop doing it. fantastic point. I know I have done the exact same thing, when it comes to beating my opponent, if certain stats are locks and I don't feel like rolling the dice that player x isn't going to shit the bed, I bench a player. this probably sounds dumb but would it benefit us as a league and GM's to state that is our intention when we are doing it? Again, clarity and open communication in a league is always going to be better for the league as a whole rather than guess work and the witch hunt that tends to follow. I admit fully that I have been walking around with my pitchfork the last week screaming "Burn the witch" I agree that we should try to foster a more open environment based around accountability. The more everyone posts on rules violations, every GM will know that this league takes it seriously. I suggest that if you see a roster violation, post it right away. It shouldn't be everyone waiting for the commish or admins to find it. They have real lives to attend to, just like the rest of us. speaking for myself, I have a lot less time to "police" the league and a lot less inclination to do so as my rt gets rather busy and my own health issues get in the way. It truly takes 30 GMs all working towards something for a league to work. if we don't get near 100% buy in, it falls apart.
|
|
|
Post by Ken (ANA) on Oct 23, 2014 0:10:40 GMT -5
Trading your good vets for prospects and picks is "rebuilding" and should be fully allowed. Not having a valid roster is "bad planning"; it happens and should be fixed ASAP. Intentionally not fielding your best roster is "tanking", and should not be allowed. There is room to give people the benefit of the doubt: simple oversights, people get busy, etc, in which case a warning is warranted. A continued pattern, on the other hand, should not be tolerated. Just my quick thoughts. I would like to elaborate later... I think we may also be using the term "tanking" too generally. I actually really like the way PineRider has defined them. To me: Rebuilding is acquiring prospects and picks at the cost of a less competitive but valid roster. Based on the discussion of the board so far, I think everyone agrees this fine. A roster violation is a roster violation. Doesn't matter if you're tanking or not. It should be fixed. Not fielding your best roster with the intention of deflating your teams performance is considered tanking. Best way to prove the "intention" of tanking is to prove that the perpetrating team would have had won more categories that week had they played active players they benched. Or when they have active NHL players in their minors and minor league players on their active rosters.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Oct 23, 2014 0:28:47 GMT -5
1 option we haven't discussed and I am not sure what number to use, but we could put in fantrax a minimum number of games played (year long) that teams have to achieve and if not they lose draft positions. Presumably a team who has problems reaching say 1000 games is going to do so because they are trying to rebuild (tank?) and so if we require teams to at least dress for those 1000 games, that at least gives them a bottom they have to reach before their draft pick position is penalized.
not a fix for this season but for following seasons.
|
|
|
Post by PineRider (SJ) on Oct 23, 2014 0:35:26 GMT -5
I think we're starting to come to a consensus that "rebuilding" does not equal tanking, but "purposeful negative roster manipulation" does.
I won't comment on a GM's motives or rationale, but until someone notifies NYR (or any other offending team) as to what is and is not acceptable, we really can't condemn him. Ignorance of the law may not be a valid excuse in court, but this is fantasy hockey. Give him a warning, make sure it doesn't happen again, and let's move on... ______
There are a few other points that were touched upon though:
1) How to penalize infractions: I would rather eject a repeat offending GM than establish penalties against a team. - Penalties might work in money leagues but this is a free league... GM's come and go - if we penalize the team, the GM will just likely leave and the new incoming GM (who has not committed any wrongdoing) should not have to live with the penalty
2) Draft lottery - while I am not wholly against the idea, it's not worth the trouble imo - we want a competitive league and the teams who finish last need the most help - there are no certainties with draft picks, and prospects have to go through injuries, hype, and/or mismanagement - 1st overall may not live up to their billing (Daigle, Stefan, and Di Pietro come to mind, and NO, Yakupov does not belong on that list yet) - E Johnson got selected before J Staal, Toews, Backstrom, and Kessel... Giroux was picked #22 in that draft - the guys who make a living doing this get it wrong... - is it worth the trouble really? No. - I would rather have an active GM who plays within the rules rather than set up a dis-incentive for finishing last; if someone is a repeat offender for tanking even after a warning, then we don't want that GM in the league
3) Mandatory NHL goalie - there are at least 60 NHL goalies; a Dirty30 team should have at least one - it is not fair in an H2H league to simply give away points to the other team by not having one - it skews the results too much; at least make them earn it - a "bad" goalie on a bad team may not get wins or a SO, but will still make saves and may even surprise with a high save % - an injured NHL goalie is still an NHL goalie - note to all Dirty 30 GM's: goalies are important in this league - side note to all GM's: goalies are unpredictable; live with it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 8:07:28 GMT -5
I think we're starting to come to a consensus that "rebuilding" does not equal tanking, but "purposeful negative roster manipulation" does. Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! THIS was my objective in starting the thread. We need to form a consensus on what tanking is before we can possibly attempt to deal with it. As for the goalies I still have a number of issues: How do we define these 60 NHL goalies? This is essentially a moving target. Many of the goalies in the NHL this month will be gone a month from now, backups will get injured or sent down and AHLers will be called up. Are the guys who got sent down still 'NHL goalies' and at what point are the guys who have been called up considered 'NHL goalies'? Does it say in the rules that having an injured goalie will avoid an 'anti-tanking' penalty? Furthermore, if the purpose of the rule is to avoid lopsided match-ups then it would follow that an injured goalie should not count as an NHL goalie so we have to decide what the goal is here. If it's to avoid lopsided match-ups then we have a massive challenge in how to implement this. If, on the other hand, we're simply putting a rule in place to add a small degree of difficulty to a rebuild then it's slightly easier to implement but still requires careful definition. If we're basing the definition on NHL games played then at what point is a new NHL goalie considered viable? If Boston sends down Svedberg after he starts 5 games and calls up Subban is Svedberg still an NHL goalie and what about Subban? There are many examples I could list here but IF we're to attempt to enforce this rule we must have a clear definition and purpose. Would a GM who acquired a player he thought we be an NHL goalie this year such as Brodeur, Vokun, Bryzgalov, Budaj or even Thomas or Harding, still be in violation of the rule? What about unproven commodities who were seen as having a reasonable shot at the backup gig? Mazanec is a good example of a goalie who got solid NHL action and might see none this year, would he count as an NHL goalie? There are more things to consider but it's obvious that we have a long way to go in our definition of the rule and purpose behind the rule before it can be something worth enforcing.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Oct 23, 2014 8:55:45 GMT -5
I think the argument that not having a starting G skews the stats is erroneous. H2H format is going to lead to skewed stats no matter what. The best team in the league can be beat in any given week by the worst due to injuries, the number of games played that week, etc.
H2H is an imperfect format because the players on our teams are not truly going head to head with the players on the opposing team. There are only 27 weeks/periods so already we are not playing all 30 teams, we are not matched up against only my division. Even if we forced 30 teams to have at least 1 NHL G, that G could have a terrible week, could be benched for that week, or injured or...so many variables.
if you are looking for H2H to be a balanced format, don't. It can't be and trying to suggest there is a requirement for the league to fill all the spots for some imaginary balancing is facetious.
in the NHL, as in this league, there are the good teams and the bad. we all don't get to play the good more than the bad...although I don't know quite how fantrax decides each teams playing schedule we simply have to accept that expecting teams to trade for the luxury of having Josh Harding as their 1 goaltender doesn't make a lot of sense.
or in Columbus's situation where the expectation was surely that Labarbera was going to be in the NHL and for a few days last week he was. It's no different than in Buffalo where Crawford is injured and he has no Goaltender to step in.
my concern is more for the teams who have players who are accumulating points, but bench them.
once more forcing each team to achieve a certain number of games played per season is the easiest way to be sure that a team is conforming to not tanking. Otherwise we are going to be trying to micromanage the league to a point where it is no longer enjoyable and that is the 1st rule in free FHLs. it has to be fun.
|
|
|
Post by Penguin on Oct 23, 2014 10:10:54 GMT -5
Fair point and yet another reason not to jump to conclusions on peoples motives behind roster moves. Rich - Based on your logic, every team in the NHL's Western Conference should be feeling hard done by. It's all part of the game so lets focus on what we can control. I assume everyone will agree that benching active players in an effort to tank is unacceptable but you're suggesting we legislate teams intro competitiveness and that is impossible. Isn't the goal at end of day to be #1 overall so division strength not that important?
|
|
|
Post by Ken (ANA) on Oct 23, 2014 11:32:48 GMT -5
Despite the NHL goalie rule being under the "Tanking section" of the rules, i actually see this as an entirely different issue. I think the NHL goalie rule would fall under a "Roster Violations" and "Tanking Rules" need to address purposeful negative roster manipulation.
I think the tanking rules are more important right now. Might I suggest we table the goalie discussion for now and just focus on what the league defines as tanking and work them into the rules? As far as I can tell, we have a rule about minor players in the active line-up but nothing regarding the bench.
As far as I can tell, we actually don't have anything in the rules that say we're not allowed to bench players if there are active spots open and nothing in the rules that explicitly say we need to dress our best roster.
|
|
|
Post by magicstew on Oct 23, 2014 13:02:29 GMT -5
I think the rules need some tweaking if this is to be addressed fully. Zaph's statement above alluding that GM's having players in the minors when they are accumulating points in the NHL are violating the integrity of the league is indeed a slippery slope because as long as this move is within the prospect eligibility rules, it's not illegal and should not be considered tanking. Perhaps we should look at changing how many games a player needs to play in the NHL before he loses prospect status in our league. Lowering the number from 110 games (for non-goalies and 55 for goalies) will force GM's to put such players in the big leagues sooner. It would also likely force GM's to release some decent prospects back into the pool and allow more GM's to field rosters that comply with the league rules. However, if a GM is keeping such a player in the minors while non-NHL players are on their active rosters or bench, that is wrong. I think a few GM's have inherited really awful teams and have been working to try and get compliant while trying to not get screwed in the process. That being said, I am rebuilding myself and have had to make some deals I would have rather not made to get compliant in terms of both salary and roster. It's tricky but I guess that's what being a GM is all about. But I agree that repeatedly keeping eligible players on the bench when there are open active roster spots is tanking. I agree with Johnny here that maybe we should look at reducing the number of games for prospects, bring it down to the year they hit 70 & 35 games. I think Fantrax does a yearly calculation on games played eligibility. Just a thought. This would also get more players sent back to free agents as there is basically no free agents to claim that can be active players. I also agree that we should do a draft lottery and model it after NHL which makes it simple.
|
|
|
Post by magicstew on Oct 23, 2014 13:20:23 GMT -5
once more forcing each team to achieve a certain number of games played per season is the easiest way to be sure that a team is conforming to not tanking. Otherwise we are going to be trying to micromanage the league to a point where it is no longer enjoyable and that is the 1st rule in free FHLs. it has to be fun. Agree with Zap that the league has to be fun and we don't want to (or have time to) micromanage. I like the option of minimum number of games as well as also having a draft lottery. If you don't meet the minimum then you drop down a number of draft positions ( still be in the lottery) Also we can also look at losing draft positions if you have so many illegal rosters in a season ( move down draft positions) - not sure if fantrax tracks this. We just have to implement some ideas that help to clear up these issues. Its good to see different people discussing.
|
|
|
Post by burnsy8801 on Oct 23, 2014 14:38:36 GMT -5
As you can probably tell by my recent trade activity I am lookig to draft higher up than usual in the summer of 2015 however I still set my lineups every day and ensure that if my NHLers are actually schedule to play that day then the do. I only have 1 NHL goalie and he hasn't played that much due to sucking...however, there are teams in this league who have 2 or more starting goaltenders and don't want to share the fortune. I understand that also. I don't feel that I am "tanking" in a bad way but I am banking on getting a top 5 draft pick and starting to build from that. I don't think I should be punished with a lottery. I set my lineup, check the trade market, follow the rules and I sit and wait. If I had a top competing team why would I care if the guy in 29t or 30th gets his hands on Jack Eichel or Conner McDavid if I have Fluery or Price in net, Malkin as a C, Perry as a W, and on and on. The guy drafting top 3 in 2015 likely will still have a crppy roster anyway. These leagues are meant to have what I call have's and havenots...or the in betweens. Move on.
|
|
|
Post by magicstew on Oct 25, 2014 11:30:03 GMT -5
As you can probably tell by my recent trade activity I am lookig to draft higher up than usual in the summer of 2015 however I still set my lineups every day and ensure that if my NHLers are actually schedule to play that day then the do. I only have 1 NHL goalie and he hasn't played that much due to sucking...however, there are teams in this league who have 2 or more starting goaltenders and don't want to share the fortune. I understand that also. I don't feel that I am "tanking" in a bad way but I am banking on getting a top 5 draft pick and starting to build from that. I don't think I should be punished with a lottery. I set my lineup, check the trade market, follow the rules and I sit and wait. If I had a top competing team why would I care if the guy in 29t or 30th gets his hands on Jack Eichel or Conner McDavid if I have Fluery or Price in net, Malkin as a C, Perry as a W, and on and on. The guy drafting top 3 in 2015 likely will still have a crppy roster anyway. These leagues are meant to have what I call have's and havenots...or the in betweens. Move on. Actually Burnsy that is why we need a draft lottery, teams like yours put in the effort of fielding a team each day, while others deliberately tank to get the #1 pick. This way you legitimately have a chance at the #1 pick from a lottery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 15:04:19 GMT -5
As you can probably tell by my recent trade activity I am lookig to draft higher up than usual in the summer of 2015 however I still set my lineups every day and ensure that if my NHLers are actually schedule to play that day then the do. I only have 1 NHL goalie and he hasn't played that much due to sucking...however, there are teams in this league who have 2 or more starting goaltenders and don't want to share the fortune. I understand that also. I don't feel that I am "tanking" in a bad way but I am banking on getting a top 5 draft pick and starting to build from that. I don't think I should be punished with a lottery. I set my lineup, check the trade market, follow the rules and I sit and wait. If I had a top competing team why would I care if the guy in 29t or 30th gets his hands on Jack Eichel or Conner McDavid if I have Fluery or Price in net, Malkin as a C, Perry as a W, and on and on. The guy drafting top 3 in 2015 likely will still have a crppy roster anyway. These leagues are meant to have what I call have's and havenots...or the in betweens. Move on. Actually Burnsy that is why we need a draft lottery, teams like yours put in the effort of fielding a team each day, while others deliberately tank to get the #1 pick. This way you legitimately have a chance at the #1 pick from a lottery. A team meeting the definition of tanking, as defined in this thread, shouldn't qualify for a shot at #1
|
|