|
Post by PineRider (SJ) on Jul 9, 2013 14:01:01 GMT -5
I also agree that we shouldn't arbitrarily change regular season stats because we have built our teams based on certain criteria.
However, I think this FO issue is more of a tweak - we should keep the stat, but make it a little more relevant. FOW is much better than FO%.
A good faceoff man will take more faceoffs and win more faceoffs, and just like the NHL, provides an advantage to the team that has him. One good faceoff man should have a higher FOW than two sucky ones, but may be lower than two mediocre ones (which makes sense) and will certainly beat two wingers wining one faceoff each.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2013 16:32:49 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. Bringing the convo back on buyouts... I think they're good in theory, but the current rule is counter intuitive, not many owners understand it really, and no one is enforcing it. In a 10 team league, it would be much easier. 30 teams where some don't post drops on ProBoards - much tougher. We mimic the NHL, but we do not have compliance buyouts. They don't really make sense for us as having a player post below average stats for a high price tag isn't a killer to our teams like it is the NHL. Grabo, Lecavailler, Briere, etc. would never be bought out in our league. So, I think it makes sense to just be able to release whoever we want and not worry about the cap hit - and consider it a compliance buyout. If midseason a team wants to get rid of someone like Andrew Alberts.... to figure out who owes half or all of his salary and keeping track of it outside of Fantrax... is one big, unnecessary mess.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Jul 9, 2013 20:53:57 GMT -5
I am on board with changes for the play-offs. I brought up the fact that going for forward positions doesn't make a lot of sense. As has been brought up, if a team has 3 left wingers, no centers and no right wingers, why should they not be able to dress those players and get points for them.
as I also pointed out, fantrax allows for all players position eligibilities to be altered by admins. if you want to dress Alexander Ovechkin as a D you are able to make that switch.
so something not brought up that I think we should be addressing is what do we use as a standard for player position eligibility?
I noticed some teams in this league had players eligible for positions that most websites do not list those players on.
some players play in positions that fantrax didn't have them listed as playing. 1 example, not on my team is Vladimir Sobotka, he played all 3 forward positions last year for the blues. He was still only listed as C.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2013 22:41:12 GMT -5
some players play in positions that fantrax didn't have them listed as playing. 1 example, not on my team is Vladimir Sobotka, he played all 3 forward positions last year for the blues. He was still only listed as C. Thanks for pointing that out!! I'd love to gain winger eligibility on Sobotka ;D As for the playoff scoring, those of you involved in the thread started during the playoffs know my stance and I see many seem share my opinion. The randomness of some of the stats can be infuriating when you're losing based on something like FO% or a SHP. I fully support the move to FOW and dropping SHP and PPP. As for goalie stats I'd rather do away with GAA than SV% if we're going to eliminate one of them and replace it with Saves. GAA is a fairly useless stat for evaluating goalies since it is a very poor reflection of the skill level of the goalie and much more influenced by the team in front of him. SV% is THE defining stat for goalie skill and I'd hate to see it go so I'd agree to dropping GAA and SO for goalies and adding in Saves but I do not want to drop SV% I'm all for dropping the buyout rule, too much work for too little gain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2013 22:59:43 GMT -5
New to the league but want to make a comment on buyouts. Though tracking buyouts is hard to manage I think dropping a player with no consequences is an easy out. If you make poor decisions, you should have to pay a price with some sort of cap hit.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Jul 10, 2013 13:45:07 GMT -5
New to the league but want to make a comment on buyouts. Though tracking buyouts is hard to manage I think dropping a player with no consequences is an easy out. If you make poor decisions, you should have to pay a price with some sort of cap hit. its an interesting idea, but what poor decisions are we making? we are not signing these players to their contracts. When players are waived in fantrax, it doesn't explain whether that player was on their D30 active roster or not so it is up to a GM to confirm that a player is being waived in a way that cause cap implications to hold over down the line. Some GM's barely bother to post that they are waiving a player, let alone concern themselves with an honor system that would hurt their team.
|
|
|
Post by Sami (CGY) on Jul 10, 2013 14:13:55 GMT -5
its an interesting idea, but what poor decisions are we making? we are not signing these players to their contracts. I think that is really the point. It wasn't an "inane" rule at the outset - it was put in place as a deterrent to people making bad long-term decisions in the inaugural draft. In that respect, its time has come and gone. The only other justification that I can think of for keeping it is that players who would otherwise be too unattractive for most teams to own could become relevant again at half price. That said, our weaker teams are having a hard enough time meeting the salary floor, which makes it hard to argue that making players cheaper should be a concern for the league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 15:48:05 GMT -5
Referencing owners making trades that may not work out in the long run (possibly trading for Clarkson and he becomes to expensive for his production in three years time). Not a biggie but I hate the fact giving someone an easy out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 16:02:15 GMT -5
Referencing owners making trades that may not work out in the long run (possibly trading for Clarkson and he becomes to expensive for his production in three years time). Not a biggie but I hate the fact giving someone an easy out. As Clarkson's owner, that contract is horrendous. I'm sure there are a few Toronto fans in this league - that on top of the Bozak contract, I'd probably cry. Meanwhile, the world justifiably laughs at my Flyers and their cap. The irony in this is that the NHL, with their real money and real contracts, is allowed to get out of contracts - while the Dirty 30 with our fake contracts, currently aren't allowed to get out of a contract.
|
|
|
Post by uofmehockey on Jul 10, 2013 22:19:41 GMT -5
Points of the original discussion that need to be addressed IMO.
1. Buyouts 2. Playoff Format
1. Question appears to me as does it stay or does it go. I will set up a poll with the following options.
a. Buyout rules will be eliminated from the league rules.
b. Buyout rules will be modified sometime between our draft and start of our free agency. Details are unknown at the moment.
2. First off, this applies only to the playoffs. But based on the tone of the discussions the playoff player roster format will be changed to 4 forwards, 2 defensemen and 1 goaltender. FO% will be eliminated in favor of FW. SHP will be eliminated due to its infrequency and inconsistency. SV% will be eliminated because it skews the numbers the same way FO% does and the small sample size during the playoffs magnifies this event. SO will be eliminated because I would like to minimize the impact of one team having a playoff goaltender and another team not. Please keep in mind that our playoffs are somewhat of a crapshoot. What I mean by this is that much of it boils down to NHL matchups, coaching, a hot goaltender, injuries and the length of a series. There will be no perfect system that pleases everyone. The idea is to keep a level playing field where possible and eliminate the oddity.
In summary, two polls will be set up until July 17th. That is the scheduled day our draft ends. One poll for Buyouts and one for Playoff Format. Playoff format poll will either accept or decline the following changes: Our playoff rosters will be 4F, 2D, 1G. Scoring categories are G, A, +/-, PIM, SOG, PPP, Hit, BLK, FW and also W, GAA and SV. Both of these polls will be open until the draft is concluded. Should a second poll be needed for buyouts, it will be set up after further discussions.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Jul 10, 2013 22:36:03 GMT -5
I love both options and appreciate your hard work on this
|
|
|
Post by Penguin on Jul 10, 2013 23:15:08 GMT -5
LOL I just realized overlooked something extremely important. For some reason I just assumed playoffs = last few weeks of regular season with same format as regular season.
The value of players on good teams are much higher than players on bad team...woops.
|
|
|
Post by magicstew on Jul 10, 2013 23:54:01 GMT -5
LOL I just realized overlooked something extremely important. For some reason I just assumed playoffs = last few weeks of regular season with same format as regular season. The value of players on good teams are much higher than players on bad team...woops. Thats what I thought we were going to do was have the playoffs the last few weeks of the schedule, this way we get a true league champion as we do have an uneven schedule. Top players on top playoff teams become more valuable.
|
|
|
Post by Sami (CGY) on Jul 11, 2013 7:44:09 GMT -5
Thats what I thought we were going to do was have the playoffs the last few weeks of the schedule, this way we get a true league champion as we do have an uneven schedule. Top players on top playoff teams become more valuable. meh, only matters if you care a lot about the playoffs. For me, the real accomplishment is winning the regular season (which also appropriately nets you a higher reward).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 8:30:23 GMT -5
meh, only matters if you care a lot about the playoffs. For me, the real accomplishment is winning the regular season (which also appropriately nets you a higher reward). This x 100. When the playoffs were implemented last offseason, I made sure to get clarification (and advocate) that the regular season champion was the true league champion - and the playoffs were a fun battle for an extra draft pick. I think it is important that every GM is working towards the same goal. The objective of any fantasy league is to "win the league", but if that's the regular season to 15 owners and the playoffs to 15 owners, then the whole point of playing becomes watered down. Edit: not to say that in March, trading for a Blackhawk or Penguin who might win a lot of faceoffs is frowned upon. If you're going to be the 12 seed, go ahead. But if you're making that move in October, then it's defeating the purpose of the league.
|
|