|
Post by uofmehockey on Nov 9, 2014 21:34:44 GMT -5
This league was originally designed by its original Comish to be a head-to-head league. But because Fantrax did not originally offer that as an option, it ran for several years as a roto league. Once it became available, this league did switch formats to a head-to-head setting.
Several considerations come into play in the raising of this poll.
1. Many of the original members have moved on from this league. 2. A head-to-head format directly impacts another team's score and standings as you are awarded points by doing better than your weekly opponent. Injuries to an opponent's top players/goaltender plays a major factor in a weekly outcome. In addition, GMs that are either tanking / simply forgetting to set their line up / have key injuries compound the scoring results and standings.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Nov 9, 2014 22:21:53 GMT -5
I like the H2H format. it is not perfect but it was the reason I joined the league. I won't quit if it reverts I just planned for this format.
|
|
|
Post by Penguin on Nov 9, 2014 22:57:12 GMT -5
For me, H2H works best if it's 1 win rather than multi-win. That way winning the matchup means more and no need to complain about what the opposition quality since one game against tanking teams won't skew standings. That way winning a matchup is equal all around. doesn't matter if a good team kills a rebuilding team or a good team beats a middle of pack team by slight margin...wins a win.
In terms of having the 1st place team being the champion, IMO roto works best and provides very little to argue about. best team will be the best. The tanking can be much more easily monitored as well since everyone will be paying attention to the standings rather than their own particular matchup
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2014 7:33:14 GMT -5
I like the H2H format. it is not perfect but it was the reason I joined the league. I won't quit if it reverts I just planned for this format. I'm curious to know how you'd go about planning for this format? Maybe I'm completely exposing my ignorance on the matter here I have heard the theory that a more consistent player is more valuable than a streaky player in a H2H format but I'm hard pressed to believe that a) anyone would make a decision based on this or b) that 'streaky' vs 'consistent' is even quantifiable year over year.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Nov 10, 2014 8:17:57 GMT -5
I like the H2H format. it is not perfect but it was the reason I joined the league. I won't quit if it reverts I just planned for this format. I'm curious to know how you'd go about planning for this format? Maybe I'm completely exposing my ignorance on the matter here I have heard the theory that a more consistent player is more valuable than a streaky player in a H2H format but I'm hard pressed to believe that a) anyone would make a decision based on this or b) that 'streaky' vs 'consistent' is even quantifiable year over year. nothing so complex. This team that I inherited had a shit ton of St. Louis Blues players and in H2H that can sorta suck if 1) the team is on a bad streak. and 2) the team only plays 2 games that week...it is difficult to compete in a weekly H2H format. So I traded Blues players away to improve my diversity of players from a variety of teams.
|
|
|
Post by Ken (ANA) on Nov 10, 2014 11:30:00 GMT -5
I joined this league because it was H2H format as well. H2H format includes a much larger luck based component which I think makes it more fun and exciting. The GM with the best team might not necessarily win so it gives everyone with a decent team a shot at winning. Injuries to top players and goalies are out of our control so its just part of the game and part of the fun (not that I take pleasure in other people getting injured haha). GMs either have to adjust their teams accordingly or it just wasn't meant to be that season. GMs that happen to benefit from another teams injuries are just luckier than others and that's just the nature of the game.
Tanking and inactivity is something we can control. I think putting in rules to deter/punish tanking and inactivity would balance it out. Not saying it's fair and its definitely not perfect, but at least its something. I agree with others that roto is a better representation of a team's strength and tanking/inactivity makes much less impact, but I think we'd be sacrificing part of the fun and excitement.
Similarly to zaphod, I won't quit if it reverts to roto either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2014 12:18:07 GMT -5
I will be transparent and say that I voted Roto - for a number of reasons, mainly that I dislike randomness in fantasy sports more than most people.
Is it just a majority vote results in change? Certain percentage?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2014 14:20:07 GMT -5
I will be transparent and say that I voted Roto - for a number of reasons, mainly that I dislike randomness in fantasy sports more than most people. Agreed! I don't find that H2H lends itself well to a 30 team keeper format where there will always be a number of rebuilding teams. I want to know without a doubt which team was the best in the pool at seasons end, not who lucked out with some blowout matchups against teams who either, aren't paying attention or are in the process of rebuilding. H2H works in a format where every team is going for it (eg. yearly leagues or smaller keepers).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2014 14:27:25 GMT -5
Tanking and inactivity is something we can control. After playing in multiple 30 team keeper leagues for the better part of the past decade I'd say this is much easier said than done. I know you're not saying it's easy but controlling activity levels is not a path any league is well advised to travel down. If I use myself as an example, I might be one of the more active GM's in the league for 85% of the year but when workload and family commitments become overwhelming the first thing to go will be the time I commit to fantasy hockey (and yes, this could mean I wouldn't even have time to log in for weeks at a time). I try never to have this happen but given that this league neither pays my bills, needs a drive to school or shows up on my CV it becomes an obvious target.
|
|
|
Post by Ken (ANA) on Nov 10, 2014 15:27:26 GMT -5
Tanking and inactivity is something we can control. After playing in multiple 30 team keeper leagues for the better part of the past decade I'd say this is much easier said than done. I know you're not saying it's easy but controlling activity levels is not a path any league is well advised to travel down. If I use myself as an example, I might be one of the more active GM's in the league for 85% of the year but when workload and family commitments become overwhelming the first thing to go will be the time I commit to fantasy hockey (and yes, this could mean I wouldn't even have time to log in for weeks at a time). I try never to have this happen but given that this league neither pays my bills, needs a drive to school or shows up on my CV it becomes an obvious target. Sorry, I should clarify. I don't mean (or intend to say) we should control any GM's activity. I completely agree that fantasy hockey should not take priority over real life responsibilities. Everyone has real lives to attend to. I'm just saying that an extreme level of inactivity can be balanced out with some penalties. For example, I'm ok if a team misses a few days here and there. Everyone is busy and I understand that. If a GM is absent for most of the season and just logs on around the draft to pick up their high draft pick as a result of their inactivity, I'm not ok with that. Losing a few draft positions would be an appropriate penalty for that inactivity. I realize its not completely fair but that's the nature of the beast that is H2H. I think H2H in a 30 team keeper is fine but I think this is where our opinions differ again and that's ok. Its what this poll is for. I think H2H more closely reflects the real NHL. On a regular basis, you see teams who go on hot streaks or cold streaks. Strong playoff contenders would play weaker rebuilding teams they should easily defeat, but part of the excitement is that occasionally see the Carolina Hurricanes beat the LA Kings (like last Sunday). This unpredictability is part of the excitement of H2H leagues. Is it possible for the league to have a roto during the regular season and H2H for the playoffs? Is there a potential for best of both worlds here?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2014 20:40:58 GMT -5
I like H2H because it keeps things interesting for more teams for more of the season. That said, I am new, have an utterly crappy team, and it will likely be a few seasons before I am in the group for whom there is still hope with a month to go, so I am going to vote no preference on this one. I don't generally play roto leagues, but I wouldn't mind being part of one, and I would stick around either way.
|
|
|
Post by magicstew on Nov 11, 2014 1:33:55 GMT -5
I like the H2H as you at least analyze your opponents. Maybe we need to have a regular season playoff last 4 weeks between top 16. H2H is like NHL where teams & players get hot and carry teams.
|
|
|
Post by PineRider (SJ) on Nov 12, 2014 15:51:05 GMT -5
While I generally prefer roto, it is much more suited for money leagues where there should be no ambiguity as to rankings.
Dirty30 is a free dynasty (ie multi-year commitment implied) league where the objective is to have fun and have some good hockey banter with 30 like-minded fantasy GM's from all around the world. I do think that it is easier to keep more people engaged with the H2H format.
|
|
|
Post by Ken (ANA) on Nov 19, 2014 10:17:57 GMT -5
Just wanted to bump this as its been a week since the last comment. Should we leave the poll open longer or do we think we've reached a consensus?
|
|
|
Post by uofmehockey on Nov 19, 2014 21:01:49 GMT -5
The poll is set to close December 1st. I had hoped for more input as well as votes, but I believe that it's not a significant issue for those who did not vote yet. Because a change in format is considered a fundamental change, I would expect the votes would need to be more than a simple majority in order to mandate a change. Thus far the votes and conversations are no leaning in that direction, but I'm also not really inclined to pull the plug on the poll early.
|
|