|
Post by uofmehockey on Jul 8, 2013 23:18:25 GMT -5
This being the draft, it’s a prime opportunity to go over some things with all of the GMs. Therefore,
1. Realignment: When the NHL converts over to their new realignment, we will follow suit. The goal for this league and every other Fantasy league I’ve ever been is to emulate their structure whenever possible. I really don’t expect much disagreement/discussion on this.
2. Free agency: I’ve tried to build consistency where possible in this league. Free agency has historically opened on the third Saturday of August. This year it will be August 17th at 11 AM. Last season we opened on the 18th at 11 AM also.
3. Replying to messages: Somehow we have always seemed to have a couple members who are slow/non-compliant at responding to correspondence. In an effort to make this better, I have unhidden everyone’s e-mail address as an alternative method of contact besides PMing. Regardless, please be courteous to your fellow GMs. We all deserve that.
4. Playoffs: Being our first attempt, I personally think it went fairly well. I know there was discussion about structure (# of LW, RW, C, D). Initially filling a roster may have required a little decision making, but as it went on there wasn’t much to think about. Bottom line here is that I’m open to some changes. So if there are some ideas, throw them out so that they can be polled prior to the season.
5. Waivers: Simply a reminder that waivers are only processed during the season and that during the first two weeks of the season, the final standings from the previous season is used.
6. Prospect Eligibility: Reminder that any player with over 110 career NHL games /55 for netminders is not considered a prospect. They cannot be in your farm unless their NHL also has them in the minors and must be called up immediately when they are called up.
7. Buyouts: There are rules in place that require buyout penalties for any player dropped off your main roster, who has a valid NHL contract and is subsequently signed as a UFA after clearing waivers. In that case, the GM who dropped that player is responsible for half the remaining salary for its duration. Unfortunately, Fantrax does not allow us to apply it anywhere. Therefore whenever it occurs, the dropping GM must track that sum on their Pro-boards roster page. Thus far this has been on an honor system as no one in the league has really been tracking its compliance. Even though it has seldom occurred, to me it seems like a neat rule that should remain in place if possible. The question is do we keep the rule and if so, what is the best way to enforce it? The rules also do not specify anything if a player is not subsequently signed. May seem weird, but I didn’t write the rules. Your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Penguin on Jul 9, 2013 0:23:55 GMT -5
Make add/drops commish only so no one can sneak a drop without it being known
|
|
|
Post by uofmehockey on Jul 9, 2013 5:47:09 GMT -5
Make add/drops commish only so no one can sneak a drop without it being known Monitoring adds and drops have not been an issue. It's merely monitoring the additional salary offline that hasn't been tracked very well.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Jul 9, 2013 6:42:57 GMT -5
7. Unnecessarily complex and inane rule. most GM's don't take the time to post their drops in a way that addresses it. There has been more than once that a GM hasn't posted on this site about a drop at all.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Jul 9, 2013 6:44:32 GMT -5
1. Against following the NHL on this rule entirely. We have a 30 team league, why should one Conference gain an advantage over another when it comes to getting into the Play-offs?
|
|
|
Post by Penguin on Jul 9, 2013 6:49:32 GMT -5
1. Against following the NHL on this rule entirely. We have a 30 team league, why should one Conference gain an advantage over another when it comes to getting into the Play-offs? They don't, there's a cross-over in East 1/2 divisions where #5 in a division can make playoffs if they are better than team 4 in the other division. Top 8 teams will make it still, the playoff format will be different though.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Jul 9, 2013 7:53:38 GMT -5
The top 8 teams from each Conference make it. With 16 in the East and 14 in the West the Western teams have a better chance of making the play-offs.
Wait, they are going with a wildcard format for the final 4 slots? Okay that's crazy. They never went out of there way to explain that when the CBA was released.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2013 9:47:26 GMT -5
I still can't wrap my head around the new NHL playoff format.
For our playoffs, I think we should eliminate specific forward positions and have 4F and 2D. If you have three forwards in the SCF, but they're all LW, you should be able to play all 3.
The stats we use need to be changed, whether it's a minor tweak or a bigger tweak. For starters, FO% has to be removed, as we saw in the SCF - Bickell took 1 faceoff and won it, beating Toews who took a bunch of draws and did better than 50%. It's too random. I love FO% in the regular season, but it doesn't work in the playoffs.
I also think PPP and SHP should be removed for the playoffs.
My proposed scoring system would be:
Goals (worth 2) Assists (worth 2) Plus/Minus PIMS Shots Hits Blocks
W GAA SV%
I remove shutouts and saves. In the regular season, every team is required to at least have a backup goalie, so for most matchups just having a goalie play doesn't automatically win you categories (by giving up 5 goals on 20 shots, you win GAA, SV, SV% if the other team has no goalie). In the playoffs, a matchup where one team has a goalie and the other doesn't is much more frequent. Under the regular scoring, assuming the lone goalie gets at least 1 win but 0 shutouts, they win the goalie categories 4.5 to 0.5. This requires the opposing team to win 7.5 to 2.5 in skater categories - which is too big of a head start/advantage for the team with a goalie.
Thus, 3 goalie categories to 9 skater categories. Shutouts removed because they're least important to fantasy and Saves removed because a goalie who dominates in 4 games loses out to a goalie who struggles through 7 games. Keep wins, rewarding goalies who win 4 games, and the two % categories to keep things even.
In summary, place more emphasis on scoring (goals and assists worth 4 total), keep the grinders/dmen relevant (PIMS, hits, blocks remain), make the mere fact of having a goalie even if he plays 5 minutes less of a difference maker, and overall try to remove as much randomness as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Penguin on Jul 9, 2013 9:59:15 GMT -5
I agree about FO%, face off wins total pretty much solves any issues. Maybe include FO losses are a negative.
Sv% brings same issue as FO%. A backup can have 2sv on 2 shots and have a 100% sv%. That's why having saves is good IMO.
I think playoffs/regular season should always be same format.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2013 10:25:21 GMT -5
Regarding the playoffs I had Craig Anderson and when I went against Tampa Bay in the second round I thought I had it made and that I was guaranteed atleast 4.5 points to .5 in the goalie categories and then my worst mightmare came true and Anderson got pulled during a crappy game and wouldn't you know it Tampa Bay had Lehner and he played around a period or so in one game and stole the show. In the end he did have the better team but Lehner player a small portion of 1 game screwed me out of points for sure.... I think in the regular season I like to see FOW % stay but in the playoffs get rid of it. I agree on the whole tossing the wing specifics and just use Forwards in general with the limit of 4 per day as suggested above.
|
|
|
Post by johnnybower (Det GM) on Jul 9, 2013 10:51:39 GMT -5
I think that any "%" stat should be eliminated. FOW and Saves are ok, just not the % stats...they can be easily skewed by fringe/backup players , as has been pointed out already. Total FOW and Saves without the % should encourage GM's to play the RL starters who are going to get them points in these categories.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2013 11:09:38 GMT -5
Lehner definitely altered the outcome of that series between me and Bursny, which wasn't the most fair - I admit.
Maybe the non-percentage stats are best to avoid the small smaple size beating the large, more deserving sample size.
I'll point out the counter to that is in our ECF, between Winnipeg and myself, he had 3 players in the Bruins/Pens series and I had 5 players in the Hawks/Kings series. Well, the series with my players went 7 games and the series with his players went 4 games.
Instead of randomness coming from backups getting 1 period in goal or wingers taking 1 faceoff, we'd rather have the randomness come from which series go further than others? I don't disagree with that, and it would all be even in our SCF which is nice.
I think I've been persuaded to do Saves over Save %. I still don't think Faceoffs should be a part of it. It's just wayyyyy to easy for centers who suck at faceoffs to win that category. 2 sucky centers beat 1 good center. 1 sucky center goes 7 games beats 1 good center that goes 4 games. I don't think we should reward bad FO% centers or having a lot of centers - and FOW does that. Having FOL would be a 1/1 split almost every time.
|
|
|
Post by johnnybower (Det GM) on Jul 9, 2013 12:21:15 GMT -5
I do agree with Chris that perhaps faceoffs should just be done away with. It's a stat that pretty well pertains to only particular players and makes it easy to skew results, especially H2H.
|
|
|
Post by Sami (CGY) on Jul 9, 2013 13:25:42 GMT -5
I do agree with Chris that perhaps faceoffs should just be done away with. It's a stat that pretty well pertains to only particular players and makes it easy to skew results, especially H2H. This could well be an irrelevant post (especially since it's one I've made in previous discussions) but I'll post it nonetheless. I will generally oppose any change to the stats used in the regular season. We're too far into the pool after all these years to start tweaking something so fundamental. Some of us have been around for a while and have built our teams using models based on a certain set of parameters. If those parameters can simply change at the whims of GMs, what was the point of spending all that time? I'm not saying that the arguments are invalid, just that these conversations were had years ago when creating the pool and we settled on a given set of stats. They may not be perfect in everyone's view (I, for one, lost the argument for limiting the number of goalie stats) but that's what we have. On the other hand, if we're just talking about tweaking the playoffs format, I don't have any opinions. haha
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2013 13:29:10 GMT -5
I do agree with Chris that perhaps faceoffs should just be done away with. It's a stat that pretty well pertains to only particular players and makes it easy to skew results, especially H2H. This could well be an irrelevant post (especially since it's one I've made in previous discussions) but I'll post it nonetheless. I will generally oppose any change to the stats used in the regular season. We're too far into the pool after all these years to start tweaking something so fundamental. Some of us have been around for a while and have built our teams using models based on a certain set of parameters. If those parameters can simply change at the whims of GMs, what was the point of spending all that time? I'm not saying that the arguments are invalid, just that these conversations were had years ago when creating the pool and we settled on a given set of stats. They may not be perfect in everyone's view (I, for one, lost the argument for limiting the number of goalie stats) but that's what we have. On the other hand, if we're just talking about tweaking the playoffs format, I don't have any opinions. haha I'm only referring to playoff stats. I agree that everything regular season should remain how it is as we've built our teams under those rules.
|
|