Roster position flexibility

[Deleted]

I'd like to discuss this roster rule (below) to see if anyone else has comments on it:

ROSTER Requirements

-minimum 20, maximum 23 (at all times--if you go over or under you will lose any points accumulated the day(s) your roster is invalid).

--4 centres
--7 to 8 wingers
--6 to 7 defencemen
--2 goaltenders in line up per week, maximum
--0 to 3 bench

Read more: iffhl.proboards.com/thread/3/iffhl-rules#ixzz3KCKQJMHI

I think we should allow for more flexibility in in number of players per position for our dressed players. I'd like to see the following options:
1)4C 8W 6D 2G
2)4C 7W 7D 2G
3)4C 8W 7D 1G
4)4C 9W 6D 1G
5)5C 8W 6D 1G


Currently, Fantrax allows option 1, 2, and 3. I think option 4 and 5 should be allowed for the following reasons:

1) Provides more flexibility with injuries and salary cap constraints.
2) Increases week-to-week competition by allowing strategic alignments of players depending on opponent. (for example, if I know my opponent is weak at goalie and strong at centre, I may elect to dress only one goalie and add an extra C to combat the FOW)


Curious to see what we all think about this. Just thinking ahead for the 2015-16 season.

[Vancouver Canucks]

Sounds reasonable to me

[Tbone (Kelowna)]

Find anything that increases the strategic element of the game is a plus - so am fine with this. Agree this should start for the 2015/16 season, as with most rules changes/amendments - to allow everybody sufficient time to adjust accordingly.

[Golden Seals]

undervalues any w/d eligible player but whatever the masses want, i'm fine with

[Deleted]

I think it's brilliant.

I've never quite understood why there was flexibility with the W, D and G positions, but not the C position. That always seemed a bit strange to me.

While I love this league, the one downside for me is that it sometimes feels like I could leave my roster intact for the whole season, due to the limitations in making roster moves. So something that allows more roster flexibility and strategy would greatly improve the IFFHL experience for me.

[Tbone (Kelowna)]

Actually, looking deeper into it there are quite a few ramifications:

- Devalues C/W - that offers some of this flexibility already (though not a big deal since so many teams already have some C/W)
- Increases C value - that extra C spot could be pretty valuable given the FOW potential of a C, much more so over a W/D

But key one I think is:
- Devalues Backup Goalies - the current system of allowing 1 goalie already devalues them, but creating an extra C spot moves even more in that direction - normally most backups would have low W/GAA/SV% potential which would not be offset by the W/MIN gained. So do we really want to nearly eliminate an entire layer of players (backups) from our league and move towards a 1 goalie system?

One can counter argue a rule proposal the other way - that we should not be able to add an extra skater to replace a Goalie at all - you can choose to start 1 or 2 goalies, but the amount of skaters each team dresses should be the same. This will ensure even footing in Skater starts/stats and more even comparisons - not just because one team had more starts than another. Actually thought the intention was to always dress two goalies on initial league inception (until a team found success in a 1-goalie system)

[Deleted]

Goalies have and will always be overrated in fantasy hockey. I won this league with Bryz + ellis. Arguably the two worst goalies at the league at the time. So there ya go. My two cents on goalies.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using proboards

[Deleted]

I'm not sure how this proposal devalues back up goalies. If your theory is that back up goalies are useless, what value do they have to begin with? And there are plenty of times back up goalies get thrown in to play against loser teams like Buffalo. And if a team is losing in goaltending stats, and has a back up goalie slated to play, well - then there is a decision to make.

I still love the idea of adding roster flexibility and more strategy to the league.

But I get that majority rules

[Dave (PLK)]

We could always add 2 or 3 more goalie stats to make them more relevant....

right now it's 12 categories for players

and only 5 for goalies.

[Deleted]

Great discussion. I'd be fine adding to goaltender category if it came with a move to increase roster flexibility and strategy. cheers, dave.
PS: as per way notice, I'll be offline quite a bit until Dec 12th.

[Deleted]

I like Red Deer's proposal quite a bit.

I would go a step further, if 4C, 8W, 6D, 2G is the default structure, I wouldn't mind seeing + or - 1 for each position as an option. That may get overly complicated, so any additional options, even short of all possible options, are fine with me.

As for goalies, I think the Goalie Min played and Wins categories (and the omission of a goalie loss category) is a fair trade-off for adding a C at the expense of your #2 goalie.

That fact is part of the reason why I was hard on Denton during his Kuemper deal. I feel like I can go 2-2-1 in goalie categories fairly regularly with no regard for the quality of my goalies (I have Quick so this is hypothetical).

Give me Pavelec and Ward and odds are I'll win Min Played and maybe get a shutout in there. They play on average to mediocre teams, so Wins might be pushing it week-to-week, but I think I would come fairly close to breaking even by seasons end.

Any added goalie categories should be more directly related to the quality of the goalie. I don't know what Fantrax has available, but something like "Mins played tied or in the lead," win%, 5v5 sv%.

[Deleted]

Prefer not to mesh in extra goalie stats. maybe in a separate thread? I think that deserves its own discussion thread.

Also, having 3 G doesn't sound good. Starting goalie "hoarding" will be taken to a new degree. Some of the teams here without a starter would be at a huge disadvantage; one that is not easily corrected...trading for starting goalies is almost impossible.

[Tbone (Kelowna)]

I'm all for increased strategic elements and activity, but be careful about automatically aligning increased flexibility with increased strategy. Increased flexibility may make roster management easier and allow you to utilize your full roster more. But who's to say making it easy is necessarily good. Challenge can be a good thing also that fosters increased activity. I like some of the restrictions in our league, such as fixed rosters, LTIR and no waiver pickups mid-season - this forces planning ahead and adjusting on the fly - specifically through trades. Trading is a key strategic element - also part of the challenge and activity equation - not just roster juggling. Having and acquiring waiver free players also plays into the situation to facilitate roster flexibility already. Really don't have a big problem with this specific rule change in concept, just wanted to ensure everybody is aware of some of the potential side effects that may be less obvious. It all falls in the balance equation with positive/negative impacts on a wide variety of factors with any potential rule change - so a matter of reviewing the big picture and whether the net impact to the league as a whole is a plus.

[Deleted]

Dave, can we move this to a vote for 2015-16? or should we discuss the issues more?

[zigzag (Zagreb)]

Fine with me - but I want to see option with 3Cs, maybe even with 5Ds. So, basically what davel wrote: + and - 1 for each position. Thanks!