Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 6:36:19 GMT -5
OK, so I'm looking through the teams to see what I'm up against and one thing jumps out at me.....there's only ONE team with a starting goalie left in our playoffs. Anderson is the only remaining starter and with the Pens expected to take that series there may be no starters left in the 3rd round!
I find this playoff format fairly interesting, there's obviously a lot of luck involved but it makes future trade decisions more interesting with the playoff element.
At this point I can only really see one team with a nice looking roster (Tampa Bay) and he's facing off against the only team with a goalie (Carolina).
I'm predicting that if Carolina takes out Tampa, based on Anderson winning all the goalie stats but the Sens lose to the Pens and he doesn't have Anderson next round, this is anyones game. Edmonton has an outside shot with some luck from the NYR.
Imagine if the NHL finals are the Kings vs Boston and we had a final matchup of Scuderi vs Paille.....as embarassing as that would be it could be worse. We could conceivably have a GM get to the finals and have nobody playing....how anti-climactic is that.
Maybe we should look at a system where there is someway to ensure that the teams in the finals have at least two players.
Thoughts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 9:43:12 GMT -5
I was noticing that same thing. I looked at my roster and thought, how am I going to make it with really no depth at all. Goalie stats is what saved my bacon against Ottawa in round 1. With a limit of 1 player for each role ie: RW, LW, F, D, D, G...it makes it tough to fill a roster. Especially when in round 1 all of your players are playing on the same night in a 4 gamer and you can only use 1 of each slot. I am open to suggestions and discussions over the summer. I like this league after completing my first full season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 10:04:09 GMT -5
I think once these playoffs end, there will be some good discussion of how we can improve the playoffs. It is really interesting that only one goalie remains, but as the first round shows, non-goalie teams and beat goalie teams. I did it with Toronto going 5-0 in goalie categories and now I'll have to do it again. I think I have enough firepower to do it though. Toews, Brassard, Conacher, Abdelkader, Clifford, King, McDonagh, Vlasic, Seabrook, Leddy. I know Burnsy is weak with the Sedins and Tavares going out in the first round. Should be a fun matchup!
Chicago and NYR was my prediction for the Cup finals and for fantasy purposes I'm hoping it plays out that way too.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on May 14, 2013 18:21:07 GMT -5
I think one of the biggest issues I have with this current p/o format is the forward distinctions. This is something that should be discussed for next season anyways but Fantrax allows you to assign any line position for any forward. We really need a standard for how to determine what player is eligible for what position.
in the play-offs, I don't think we should be so limiting with positions but so long as we determine better standards for position eligibility, that should be fine.
This format is borrowed from the league I started almost 6 years ago, zfhl and though it is an odd format, it has allowed for a more interesting play-off experience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2013 6:21:43 GMT -5
I think one of the biggest issues I have with this current p/o format is the forward distinctions. This is something that should be discussed for next season anyways but Fantrax allows you to assign any line position for any forward. We really need a standard for how to determine what player is eligible for what position. in the play-offs, I don't think we should be so limiting with positions but so long as we determine better standards for position eligibility, that should be fine. This format is borrowed from the league I started almost 6 years ago, zfhl and though it is an odd format, it has allowed for a more interesting play-off experience. Have you ever encountered a situation where a GM had no players left in the finals? As for the positional requirements, it's probably only an issue in the 1st round but fair enough probably best to just scrap the positional requirements when there are so few players left anyway.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on May 15, 2013 17:54:41 GMT -5
I think one of the biggest issues I have with this current p/o format is the forward distinctions. This is something that should be discussed for next season anyways but Fantrax allows you to assign any line position for any forward. We really need a standard for how to determine what player is eligible for what position. in the play-offs, I don't think we should be so limiting with positions but so long as we determine better standards for position eligibility, that should be fine. This format is borrowed from the league I started almost 6 years ago, zfhl and though it is an odd format, it has allowed for a more interesting play-off experience. Have you ever encountered a situation where a GM had no players left in the finals? As for the positional requirements, it's probably only an issue in the 1st round but fair enough probably best to just scrap the positional requirements when there are so few players left anyway. I actually don't believe so. There have been a couple times where the series was not even remotely close but having been in leagues that do the "set your roster and sprint" play-off points collection, I find it more interesting. In particular the weight of play-off bound players changes via trades.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2013 7:52:28 GMT -5
I'm really starting to question some of our scoring settings and think with a few minore tweaks we can have a much improved product.
Obviously we're a multi-cat league which is generally accepted to mean that we include 'non-offensive' stats, PIM's, Hits, Blocks, etc. I love that part of our league but I just don't get PPP or SHP as being stat cats in a roto league. These cats are extremely unpredictable, especially SHP. So here I am losing my playoff matchup although I'm wining in every offensive category except for PPP. It doesn't seem right to me that a team can push through to the next round just because they got the most Hits, Blocks, PIM's and happened to luck out and get a PPP.
I'd suggest dropping PPP and SHP from the league and taking that luck factor out of the equation. If feels like you'd end up with a better representation of the best teams.
|
|
|
Post by uofmehockey on May 21, 2013 16:28:08 GMT -5
I'm really starting to question some of our scoring settings and think with a few minore tweaks we can have a much improved product. Obviously we're a multi-cat league which is generally accepted to mean that we include 'non-offensive' stats, PIM's, Hits, Blocks, etc. I love that part of our league but I just don't get PPP or SHP as being stat cats in a roto league. These cats are extremely unpredictable, especially SHP. So here I am losing my playoff matchup although I'm wining in every offensive category except for PPP. It doesn't seem right to me that a team can push through to the next round just because they got the most Hits, Blocks, PIM's and happened to luck out and get a PPP. I'd suggest dropping PPP and SHP from the league and taking that luck factor out of the equation. If feels like you'd end up with a better representation of the best teams. Sometimes I hesitate to say anything on these boards in an effort to allow discussions to further themselves. Sometimes that happens and sometimes it doesn't. My take: although I did not come up with the scoring standards in this league, I've come to consider them as decent in that they require GMs to build a balanced team. Hits, blocks and PIM give value to players that have value in the game but often not as much in fantasy hockey. The power play is such a big part of the game that it definitely needs to be represented in the scoring and I find PPP as actually one I really like as opposed to PPG. My least favorite is definitely SHP as there is an insufficient quantity of these for my liking. I wouldn't mind switching that one out, but do not really see an alternative that I like better at this point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2013 17:52:35 GMT -5
I almost responded, and a discussion will certainly happen eventually. I read this as a playoff issue, but I guess it isn't. I'm just waiting until the playoffs are over so I get the whole picture before saying what needs to go and what needs to be added and what needs to be changed.
On this topic, I'm in favor of keeping the specialty scoring (definitely PPP). Although they at times seem random and 1 SHP usually wins the category for you, they are a statistic that adds value to certain players. SHP adds some value to penalty killers, an important part of the game. It gives someone like Toews a category advantage over a guy like Ovechkin, and I believe he should have that advantage in our fantasy league.
Also, to take a skater cat away would either make goalies even more valuable (which would be bad), we'd have to replace it with another category (not sure there is one better?), or take a goalie category away to balance it out.
I'd keep it for the regular season, maybe not for post-season, but I'll save that for later after we see how these playoffs pan out.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on May 21, 2013 19:12:40 GMT -5
We could always merge the PPP and SHP into the 'Special Teams Points' category. That way we don't lose the Short handed specialist players value entirely.
Categories we could add if we went this route: -Shooting Percentage: adds value to snipers/goal scorers.
-Takeaway/Giveaway ratio: another way to give value to roleplayers.
-Time on the Ice: this will weight defensive minded defencemen more valuable though it is a stat that will obviously give more value toteams that have a heavier schedule for that week.
-Shifts: again, gives weight to defencemen who are minute eaters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2013 11:23:53 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong, I love the multi-cat style we've adopted. I just think that these stats need to compliment the scoring stats and not potentially trump them.
I just look at my playoff matchup right now and compare it to a real hockey game, I'm out scoring, out assisting, out shooting, have a better +/- BUT I'm going to lose the series.
This isn't about me whining about losing my series, it just really drove home the point that you can win our league by focusing strictly on 'specialty' cats and that doesn't sit well with me. In a hockey game if you are out scored you lose, if you're outshot you have a good chance of losing and if your +/- is better than the other team you'll probably win yet in our league if someone on the other team took a major penalty, threw 20 hits and blocked 10 shots all they'd have to do is luck into one other cat and they could come out with the win (taking goalies completely out of the equation).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2013 11:52:25 GMT -5
Making goals and assists worth 2 points instead of everything worth 1 is an option, I believe. Makes sense since they are in theory the most important categories.
Just throwing it out there, haven't thought it through.
|
|
|
Post by Sami (CGY) on May 22, 2013 23:27:00 GMT -5
I'm all for tweaking the rules to make the league more competitive where possible. When it comes to things like preference for stat categories though, I think that it's a bit late in the game to be tweaking.
While I generally agree that SHP is too unpredictable to have any meaningful effect (and would, if starting a new league, favour combining PPP and SHP in one category), I fully agree with the previous observation that eliminating a skater category would give goalies even more value than they already have.
The addition of an alternative skater category to restore this balance is nice in theory. My issue with that suggestion is that we have been building our teams for the last three years based on a particular set of stats; makes any kind of long-term planning for the pool redundant if the format could simply change at any point in the future...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2013 7:17:24 GMT -5
I'm all for tweaking the rules to make the league more competitive where possible. When it comes to things like preference for stat categories though, I think that it's a bit late in the game to be tweaking. While I generally agree that SHP is too unpredictable to have any meaningful effect (and would, if starting a new league, favour combining PPP and SHP in one category), I fully agree with the previous observation that eliminating a skater category would give goalies even more value than they already have. The addition of an alternative skater category to restore this balance is nice in theory. My issue with that suggestion is that we have been building our teams for the last three years based on a particular set of stats; makes any kind of long-term planning for the pool redundant if the format could simply change at any point in the future... To be honest, my post was only in relation to playoff settings where we're subject to incredibly small sample sizes and therefore nex to no ability to predict the more random hockey events such as SHP. During the regular season we roster twice as many players and have many guys going at every position almost every night. By the 2nd and 3rd round of the playoffs there will be many teams who are not even icing anything resembling a full roster (already reduced by half) so the impact of 'random' events become absolute difference makers in a series. Lets say a winger wins an 'out of the blue' faceoff and that's the only draw taken by either team in the entire matchup because nobody has a C. The team now automatically wins the FO% cat for taking one draw. Same priciple applies to SHP. In the playoffs I suggest going with a simpler cat structure to account for the tiny sample size issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2013 10:27:37 GMT -5
I'm all for tweaking the rules to make the league more competitive where possible. When it comes to things like preference for stat categories though, I think that it's a bit late in the game to be tweaking. While I generally agree that SHP is too unpredictable to have any meaningful effect (and would, if starting a new league, favour combining PPP and SHP in one category), I fully agree with the previous observation that eliminating a skater category would give goalies even more value than they already have. The addition of an alternative skater category to restore this balance is nice in theory. My issue with that suggestion is that we have been building our teams for the last three years based on a particular set of stats; makes any kind of long-term planning for the pool redundant if the format could simply change at any point in the future... To be honest, my post was only in relation to playoff settings where we're subject to incredibly small sample sizes and therefore nex to no ability to predict the more random hockey events such as SHP. During the regular season we roster twice as many players and have many guys going at every position almost every night. By the 2nd and 3rd round of the playoffs there will be many teams who are not even icing anything resembling a full roster (already reduced by half) so the impact of 'random' events become absolute difference makers in a series. Lets say a winger wins an 'out of the blue' faceoff and that's the only draw taken by either team in the entire matchup because nobody has a C. The team now automatically wins the FO% cat for taking one draw. Same priciple applies to SHP. In the playoffs I suggest going with a simpler cat structure to account for the tiny sample size issue. I agree about the FOW% and SHP....on one hand a team could have a dman or winger take the only faceoff that whole week and win it for 100% win and the opposing team could have 3 or 4 players taking faceoffs with even a 55% FOW and still lose...normally that would get you the win in that category...
|
|