|
Post by Ken - Winnipeg on Apr 28, 2017 23:50:54 GMT
Kinda weird. I joined the league before my twins were born. 6-year b-day party tomorrow. I feel old. Maybe that is why you are grumpy? haha, sorry buddy, it was too easy. I agree with you on that Ken, if the DHL started fresh today, I would have never made goalies as important as they are...that we can agree on.. Nah, it's not the kids, but ask me as I approach my 12 year anniversary.
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Montreal on Apr 28, 2017 23:53:05 GMT
I meant the feeling old part, lol...
I have 3 kids and also approaching my 12 year anniversary...I get it, lol
|
|
|
Post by Dave - Calgary on Apr 29, 2017 0:55:06 GMT
I kind of agree and disagree with what has been said here. I'm not a fan of limiting positions on either a major or minor roster. You are effectively punishing those that have gone and done the research in the draft process or have already given up quality assets for the goalies they have. I'm my opinion, the quickest and most effective way to reduce the value of goalies is two fold.
1. Reduce minimum starts to 2 games 2. Eliminate the SV category
Reducing minimum starts would result in teams not having to hang onto goalies just because they are worried about meeting the minimum, thus likely freeing up goalies to the waiver wire and in trade. Getting rid of the SV category will make the position more about the quality of starts and not necessarily the quantity of them.
Do I like both of the suggestions....not necessarily but I'm not opposed to them either. However, I am in a league that has a 2 game minimum right now, and I feel it has almost over devalued the position. Once you have your 2 or 3 goalies, teams just tend to be content to ride them out. There's little to no trade activity to them. I kind of like the struggle to find consistent goaltending, as it very much mirrors the NHL...but that's just personal preference.
In the DHL, when I've needed a goalie, I've seldom had a hard time acquiring them for what I felt was a reasonable price. And the vice versa goes for dealing them. You will always have those GM's that overvalue their own guys whether they are a forward, defense or goalie. And that holds true even if these players are mediocre. If the cost is too high, there's 14 other teams to move onto and your bound to find a deal that works, you just don't always get the player you wanted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2017 1:00:03 GMT
I'll go on record that I am against that combo Dave.
Wouldn't be uncommon for somebody to get two good starts under their belt by Tuesday night. That would result in people just benching their goalies. So lots of people will be cool with GAA and Sv% then punt W's and SHO.
Ultimately, I think we want to force people to play their goalies, not bench them, right?
That being said, I'd be cool with Saves getting the boot when all is said and done.
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Montreal on Apr 29, 2017 1:45:11 GMT
I agree with Peter on the minimum starts. I am in a league with one start. If Monday night, your shitty goalie happens to get lucky and have a shut out, or even one goal against, the manager then bench all goalie starts the rest of the week and generally come on top in the majority of the goalie categories...even if their opponent has a goalie like Carey Price...
Also, just a question...lets say we make it that we can only carry three goalies on our main roster. I have Bobrovsky/Jones/Ward, and I want to call up Saros for a start, am I allowed, since it will give me 4 goalies on my roster for one night?
|
|
|
Post by Dave - Calgary on Apr 29, 2017 4:07:05 GMT
Yeah I totally agree. I'm not in support of reducing minimum games. I like the strategy involved of the 3 game minimum. More of playing devils advocate to illustrate how to reduce goalie value.
|
|
|
Post by Ken - Winnipeg on Apr 29, 2017 9:07:11 GMT
Shutouts or one of the save categories would be the obvious targets, as they're both redundant stats. The benefit of saves in leagues like this historically is that it's sort of been an equalizer stat for teams on the rebuild, and kept them trying each week. Wouldn't want people to check out in week 2 of October because they're just too many categories behind each week. But they're reflected in save% quite a bit. Shutouts are a cool quirky stat, but are reflected in wins, GAA and save% already, and likely end in more ties than almost any other stat. By that measure they're probably the most redundant stat we have. I've always viewed shutouts as similar to rewarding Gordie Howe Hat-tricks. They're awesome but at the end of the day not essential. Both should probably go but shutouts might be the least disruptive to lose. You could make a good argument for a few of the others too. I'm not terribly fussy on which.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2017 12:23:29 GMT
If you guys stop posting novels I'll start reading some of these posts.
As of right now, without reading the 4 dozen posts that exceed 200 words, I'm as for status quo.
Also, which is very relevant to this topic, Quick and Lundqvist are available. Trade talks start with a goalie coming back my way.
|
|
|
Post by Josh - Dallas on Apr 29, 2017 13:32:55 GMT
Im back! Love the talk while i was gone. My take, too many goalie cats, take away shutouts as a shutout rewards you in wins, gaa save % and saves anyway. Add a forward cat. Saves is great as it evens out the cats and stops punting after 3 solid starts.
Drop goalie prospect games played to 40. This puts the third stringers on the waiver wire. Mazanec etc, so there are a few more options.
Draft lotto tonight! (I think)
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Montreal on Apr 29, 2017 13:59:00 GMT
Shutouts or one of the save categories would be the obvious targets, as they're both redundant stats. The benefit of saves in leagues like this historically is that it's sort of been an equalizer stat for teams on the rebuild, and kept them trying each week. Wouldn't want people to check out in week 2 of October because they're just too many categories behind each week. But they're reflected in save% quite a bit. Shutouts are a cool quirky stat, but are reflected in wins, GAA and save% already, and likely end in more ties than almost any other stat. By that measure they're probably the most redundant stat we have. I've always viewed shutouts as similar to rewarding Gordie Howe Hat-tricks. They're awesome but at the end of the day not essential. Both should probably go but shutouts might be the least disruptive to lose. You could make a good argument for a few of the others too. I'm not terribly fussy on which. Ken, I hate to say it, but I agree! We already get rewarded foe a shutout through other cats...remove shutouts. As of now, there are 10 scoring cats to 5 goalie, this would bring it to 10 scoring, 4 goalie...that can work for me.
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Montreal on Apr 29, 2017 14:06:09 GMT
Im back! Love the talk while i was gone. My take, too many goalie cats, take away shutouts as a shutout rewards you in wins, gaa save % and saves anyway. Add a forward cat. Saves is great as it evens out the cats and stops punting after 3 solid starts. Drop goalie prospect games played to 40. This puts the third stringers on the waiver wire. Mazanec etc, so there are a few more options. Draft lotto tonight! (I think) Hide the booze, the boss is back! Josh, are you saying drop prospect goalie GP to 40 games, but keep the age the same? I would prefer doing that over dropping age since some goalies take longer to develop. So...remove shutouts, drop age (which I am hoping that we do gradually)...maybe remove 20 games per season for two seasons? We should put it at 41 to keep consistent to the 164 GP based on games per season, to avoid confusion..
|
|
|
Post by Garrett - St. Louis on Apr 29, 2017 14:37:51 GMT
Ya I have been getting by with crappy goalies trying for Saves and SA, so I def think those help keep it competitive for those who don't have great goaltending. I could live without shutouts, as weekly head to head they are kind of fluky. Not sure that would lower the price of goalies any, but its a start. Maybe revaluate next year and see...
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Montreal on Apr 29, 2017 14:51:52 GMT
Ya I have been getting by with crappy goalies trying for Saves and SA, so I def think those help keep it competitive for those who don't have great goaltending. I could live without shutouts, as weekly head to head they are kind of fluky. Not sure that would lower the price of goalies any, but its a start. Maybe revaluate next year and see... It will lower the price of goalies...even though fluky, the odds are, Carey Price in 3 games a week will get a shutout before Michael Hutchinson 1 game a week.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2017 19:11:17 GMT
I think it's better to get rid of Saves instead of Shutouts. Any dustball goalie can make 40 saves in a loss or start 50+ games, but shutouts is more reflective of the top tier goalies. I think we still need a noticeable spread between a Top 5 goalies and a Top 30 goalie.
Example: Robin Lehner won 23 games (a team stat) and only had 2 shutouts, but was 3rd in the entire league in Saves (1728) Mike Smith: 19 Wins, 3 shutouts, 1663 Saves (6th) Cory Schneider: 20 Wins, 2 shutouts, 1618 saves (8th) Ryan Miller: 18 Wins, 3 shutouts, 1587 Saves (10th)
I'm all for parity between teams and making things more competitive, but rewarding shitty goalies is not the way to go with that.
Keep in mind the new Yahoo ranking algorithm ranks all categories equally. Thats how we end up with Patric Hornqvist (37th), TJ Oshie (39) Anders Lee (45), Brandon Dubinsky (46), Mikko Koivu (50), Boone Jenner (52) come out looking a hell of a lot more valuable than they truly are. These guys did really well in something like hits or +/- and it pulled their ranking WAY up. Out of that list, Koivu was the highest scorer with 58 pts. The lowest was Boone Jenner with 34!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Lou - Buffalo on Apr 30, 2017 1:32:11 GMT
I just perused most of this, but I can say that we definitely cannot limit the NHL roster to just 3 goalies. If there needs to be a limit I would say limit the amount of prospect goalies that can be owned, or age/gp or something along those lines. I mean I tried to pick up a guy named Wouter Peters and he was owned already lol. It's just too deep. I think that's what needs to be addressed. The ability to hoard every prospect goalie including all back ups and guys playing in the Mongolian penal league.
All kidding aside, a lot of big moves have been made for goalies in this league and teams have paid a hefty sum for them, so I think any change to goalie roster counts, stat categories etc, needs to really be considered in terms of how it effects the values of all players and the league scoring/history.
Also to comment on the potential removal of Saves, I get it that you want to reward good goalies, but there's only a handful in the league, they're virtually impossible to trade for and the teams with lesser goalies need the opportunity to try and steal a category by going for more saves because they will almost always lose GAA, SV% and most likely shutouts and wins.
Saves does have it's place imo. I wouldn't want to see any goalie cats removed tbh, but if anything maybe shutouts for reasons stated by others.
All that said, I'm cool with no changes to anything. I've learned to deal with the goalie depth, lol.
|
|
|
Post by Josh - Dallas on Apr 30, 2017 1:36:41 GMT
The goal has always been parity, fast rebuilds and teams.being able to go from last to playoffs in a year or two. With 31 nhl teams, 16 make the playoffs, eliminating saves makes all but a few goalies have no value and the select few would have ridiculous value. IMO guys like lehner, smith, schneider, miller should have value even if its only 1 outta 5 cats. Its like a defender who blocks, or hits. Shutouts is already rewarded in all other goalie cats, removing saves would make 10-12 teams goalie situation worse. I dont see that as rewarding mediocrity, i see it as rewarding a goalie on a bad team who gets pummeled in shots, most likely killing his gaa, wins, and save %. Lehner, schneider, etc were probably there teams most valuable players even with horrid stats, eliminating their value in our league i think creates a bigger problem.
Would shutouts have really changed that many weekly outcomes? Teams who get shutouts are probably winning all goalie stats (except maybe saves 1/2 the time) but what it.does is bring the player to goalie ratio back into a more reasonable perspective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 1:38:29 GMT
i tend to agree with Lou... i dont think the goalie categories are any sort of issue.... its getting a goalie to fight for those categories which is the problem lol
|
|
|
Post by Ken - Winnipeg on Apr 30, 2017 19:42:36 GMT
i tend to agree with Lou... i dont think the goalie categories are any sort of issue.... its getting a goalie to fight for those categories which is the problem lol Yup, mostly, and that's a direct result of the legacy rule of putting 33% of scoring categories into a group that all evidence demonstrates doesn't contribute anywhere near that value to their team. It drives goalie value artificially high in an extreme way, and leads to hoarding and crazy trade demands. It's so heavily weighted, that removing one category is going to have just a minimal impact if it isn't offset with an additional category elsewhere. Removing 2 would still heavily overweight them, but alleviate some of our pressures. The shut out category is rather silly when you consider it's already reflected in all 4 other categories. No league is perfect and I don't mind a few quirks, they just shouldn't have the gravitational force of a black hole.
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Montreal on Apr 30, 2017 20:15:04 GMT
i tend to agree with Lou... i dont think the goalie categories are any sort of issue.... its getting a goalie to fight for those categories which is the problem lol Yup, mostly, and that's a direct result of the legacy rule of putting 33% of scoring categories into a group that all evidence demonstrates doesn't contribute anywhere near that value to their team. It drives goalie value artificially high in an extreme way, and leads to hoarding and crazy trade demands. It's so heavily weighted, that removing one category is going to have just a minimal impact if it isn't offset with an additional category elsewhere. Removing 2 would still heavily overweight them, but alleviate some of our pressures. The shut out category is rather silly when you consider it's already reflected in all 4 other categories. No league is perfect and I don't mind a few quirks, they just shouldn't have the gravitational force of a black hole. Bobrovsky, Andersen, Dubnyk...they could have helped!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 20:33:57 GMT
Chris,
When looking at a new rule wouldnt it be best not to base it on what moves you have made, but rather whats best for the league moving forward? we all work within the league settings... it doesnt mean ya have to like how every setting is set up, eh
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Montreal on Apr 30, 2017 20:40:44 GMT
Sorry, I was just giving my answer to the quote "its getting a goalie to fight for those categories which is the problem"...
All that said, I'll back down now from this topic and move on, lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 23:49:32 GMT
To help with moving forward on this issue, (which obviously is a bit of a sore spot, so thanks to Josh for bringing it up),
It seems, from reviewing the posts, a few things are apparent:
1. Most people are in agreement with dropping the minor league age or games played or both on goalies. I would suggest the commissioners make a separate post, perhaps with a vote on what option people prefer, to move forward on that as there seems to be at least a majority in favour of doing something.
2. The issue of limiting goalie prospects does not seem to have the same traction, although there is some support for it. From my review of this thread, I don't see a very clear consensus on what to do about this at all, which probably means it should stay as status quo until such time as someone raises it again.
3. The suggestion to limit goalies to 3 per roster seems to be a strong majority in opposition to that. I would suggest leaving that as is, again unless it is raised in the future and people have changed their minds.
4. On the suggestion to change/alter the scoring categories, as far as I read there are the following positions:
A] The KENNER - Seriously reduce goalie weight Take away at least one goalie category, or even two. Add at least one forward category.
B] The middle ground - reduce goalie stats, but not in an extreme way Take away one goalie category, and leave the forward cats as is.
C] the LouChris Leave the categories as is.
D] The Drew - Quit writing so much I don't play fantasy hockey to read, and I don't give a shit about this topic, so quick writing fucking novels
I would suggest that the commissioners make a poll to determine where the majority of managers stand. I would further suggest that in order to change, there needs to be a big majority (say, my suggestion, 2/3 in favour of change). I would think that if 2/3 of managers are in favour of either option A or B above, then there could be a further poll for everyone to vote on what change to implement. But if, lets say, 7 people want to leave as is and 8 want option A, in my view that's not enough of a majority to make a major change of this nature.
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Montreal on Apr 30, 2017 23:53:45 GMT
To help with moving forward on this issue, (which obviously is a bit of a sore spot, so thanks to Josh for bringing it up), It seems, from reviewing the posts, a few things are apparent: 1. Most people are in agreement with dropping the minor league age or games played or both on goalies. I would suggest the commissioners make a separate post, perhaps with a vote on what option people prefer, to move forward on that as there seems to be at least a majority in favour of doing something. 2. The issue of limiting goalie prospects does not seem to have the same traction, although there is some support for it. From my review of this thread, I don't see a very clear consensus on what to do about this at all, which probably means it should stay as status quo until such time as someone raises it again. 3. The suggestion to limit goalies to 3 per roster seems to be a strong majority in opposition to that. I would suggest leaving that as is, again unless it is raised in the future and people have changed their minds. 4. On the suggestion to change/alter the scoring categories, as far as I read there are the following positions: A] The KENNER - Seriously reduce goalie weight Take away at least one goalie category, or even two. Add at least one forward category. B] The middle ground - reduce goalie stats, but not in an extreme way Take away one goalie category, and leave the forward cats as is. C] the LouChris Leave the categories as is. D] The Drew - Quit writing so much I don't play fantasy hockey to read, and I don't give a shit about this topic, so quick writing fucking novels I would suggest that the commissioners make a poll to determine where the majority of managers stand. I would further suggest that in order to change, there needs to be a big majority (say, my suggestion, 2/3 in favour of change). I would think that if 2/3 of managers are in favour of either option A or B above, then there could be a further poll for everyone to vote on what change to implement. But if, lets say, 7 people want to leave as is and 8 want option A, in my view that's not enough of a majority to make a major change of this nature. I love "D", lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 0:02:17 GMT
To help with moving forward on this issue, (which obviously is a bit of a sore spot, so thanks to Josh for bringing it up), It seems, from reviewing the posts, a few things are apparent: 1. Most people are in agreement with dropping the minor league age or games played or both on goalies. I would suggest the commissioners make a separate post, perhaps with a vote on what option people prefer, to move forward on that as there seems to be at least a majority in favour of doing something. 2. The issue of limiting goalie prospects does not seem to have the same traction, although there is some support for it. From my review of this thread, I don't see a very clear consensus on what to do about this at all, which probably means it should stay as status quo until such time as someone raises it again. 3. The suggestion to limit goalies to 3 per roster seems to be a strong majority in opposition to that. I would suggest leaving that as is, again unless it is raised in the future and people have changed their minds. 4. On the suggestion to change/alter the scoring categories, as far as I read there are the following positions: A] The KENNER - Seriously reduce goalie weight Take away at least one goalie category, or even two. Add at least one forward category. B] The middle ground - reduce goalie stats, but not in an extreme way Take away one goalie category, and leave the forward cats as is. C] the LouChris Leave the categories as is. D] The Drew - Quit writing so much I don't play fantasy hockey to read, and I don't give a shit about this topic, so quick writing fucking novels I would suggest that the commissioners make a poll to determine where the majority of managers stand. I would further suggest that in order to change, there needs to be a big majority (say, my suggestion, 2/3 in favour of change). I would think that if 2/3 of managers are in favour of either option A or B above, then there could be a further poll for everyone to vote on what change to implement. But if, lets say, 7 people want to leave as is and 8 want option A, in my view that's not enough of a majority to make a major change of this nature. I love "D", lol We know you love the D, Chris, don't worry.
|
|
|
Post by Ken - Winnipeg on May 1, 2017 0:41:07 GMT
We know you love the D, Chris, don't worry. Fuckin post of the year material here
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 0:42:53 GMT
As much as we haven't come to a definitive answer, I definitely think we've made some progress here. Pretty good convo with some enlightening opinions.
Feel like this is what the NHL GM meetings are like!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 0:46:51 GMT
You really teed that one up for Peter, Chris.
|
|
|
Post by Josh - Dallas on May 1, 2017 2:51:56 GMT
Great convo guys, so from here on the admin team will look into all suggestions which have been made, we will discuss it, how it may alter the league and if we have 3 outta 4 admin agree that its worth bringing to a vote, then those suggestions will be posted. A rule change requires 11 of 16 gms to vote in favor of the change, so only those items which we believe A.) Wont hurt the league, B.) Could benefit the league and C.) Actually has enough traction to warrant a vote; will be posted.
All posted suggestions past and present are going to be looked at, so please give us time, cause there is a ton of material to read through. Any changes that pass will take effect for the 2018-19 season unless determined by admin to have a slower implementation.
Thanks again for all the input! Now go work the trade lines, watch some hockey, and have a few ice teas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 21:38:53 GMT
Just caught up on all this and thought I'd offer my opinion. I don't see any major issues with dropping the age or games played for prospects goalies. As for changing the scoring categories, I think that if any major changes were to occur they should have been done before the dispersal draft. I can't speak for Vegas or Philadelphia, but I know that I based my draft strategy off of the current scoring categories. I knew that goalies were valued very highly in this league and for that reason I used my 1st, 2nd, and 5th round picks on goalies. My draft strategy would have been different if I'd known that goalies were going to become less valuable.
This isn't to say that changes shouldn't be made, just my opinion that making major changes to goalie categories (i.e. eliminating 2 categories) would have made more sense to be done (or discussed as possibilities) before the dispersal draft
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 0:45:46 GMT
I just got a massive headache reading all of this....you go away for 2 weeks and you come back and the leagues gone to "goalie hell"
|
|