|
|
Post by Tbone (Kelowna) on Apr 27, 2014 10:19:28 GMT -5
Actually, was just trying to keep your ego in check there Eric, nothing more..
Winning the playoffs does depend on many factors, not just luck. Team management certainly does play a part of it and you should definitely be commended for your efforts in this respect. Particularly your trade deadline moves to boost your scoring, that definitely put you in the race.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 12:18:01 GMT -5
Winning the cup has very little to do with exploiting a flaw in the system. for a 2 week period his team outpaced mine. The goaltending was besides the point. Goaltenders are EXTREMELY over-priced in this league. Frank is correct here. Interesting how many GMs have rationalized my championship win as "luck" or "winning at the right time". My point is not beefing up my own ego here, but just MAYBE I actually had a strategy from Day 1? I find it amusing how no one has sent me a private e-mail asking for advice on how to build a team. I don't totally discount luck and timely winning, but by primarily focusing on these two points is quite short sighted. I wouldn't call it luck, you earned that win. I earned nothing, I fell backwards into a good team that had been mismanaged all season long. I think though it can't be ignored that the final 2 weeks of the season (so long as you got there) favored players on teams that were still needing to win to make the NHL play-offs over superstars on good teams. If Toews isn't injured or if one or two of my vets aren't rested the last couple games of the NHL season, it is a tighter finish. I am certainly not trying to take anything away from your win, I just don't know if I believe that you being lucky enough for Bryz to get traded from Edmonton to Minnesota at the NHL trade deadline (and that was luck, hard to deny that) is the main reason you won. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 15:27:54 GMT -5
Another thing I wondered about is if there would by any traction for allowing managers in the finals to make line up changes for the 2nd week? It was pretty unfortunate to see Toews get hurt, and then be stuck in that line up for the two full weeks. Allowing line up changes for the 2nd week really wouldn't alter very much to the league and strategy (I think?), but might diminish the impact in the future of key injuries determining a title...It would also increase transaction activity for the finalists, which I think is appealing.
And my point on the evolution of a league was intended as a very general point. Pretty much any change will produce some winners and some losers. For me, personally, the key point is what impact a potential change has on the functioning and integrity of the league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 15:29:49 GMT -5
For me, personally, the key point is what impact a potential change has on the functioning and integrity of the league. absolutely the most important factor. What improves the league is most important, personal agenda's aside. Everyone is going to disagree what that improvement might be. but so long as we are discussing those changes critically and with an eye towards the best interests of a competitive league, the league will flourish. if we worry about pettiness, that is how a league stagnates and dies. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 15:33:38 GMT -5
Re: +/-. Yes, it's a team stat. And that's why I hate it. A player gets traded from a good team to a bad team, and all of a sudden, his +/- value completely changes. So basically, we're rewarding a luck factor. We have no control over player's movement in the NHL, and yet, this has a HUGE impact on the +/- stat. So I just dislike that stat. I'm happy to roll with whatever, just throwing stuff out here as its a 'suggestion box'  The bolded part is important. A player being traded in the NHL changes the players value anyways in any number of cats. There is no way around that. If Bryzgalov isn't traded to Minnesota at the NHL trade deadline, the finals are very different. So that "impossible to predict" factor really can't be justification for a change or a non-change, imo. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 16:13:33 GMT -5
Re: +/-. Yes, it's a team stat. And that's why I hate it. A player gets traded from a good team to a bad team, and all of a sudden, his +/- value completely changes. So basically, we're rewarding a luck factor. We have no control over player's movement in the NHL, and yet, this has a HUGE impact on the +/- stat. So I just dislike that stat. I'm happy to roll with whatever, just throwing stuff out here as its a 'suggestion box' The bolded part is important. A player being traded in the NHL changes the players value anyways in any number of cats. There is no way around that. If Bryzgalov isn't traded to Minnesota at the NHL trade deadline, the finals are very different. So that "impossible to predict" factor really can't be justification for a change or a non-change, imo. I appreciate your opinion. What I meant to say is, and perhaps not very well, is that when a player gets traded, I tend to think the +/- is impacted to a much greater extent than other stats. Goal scorers generally score goals. Penalty killers generally spend SH TOI, etc. But moving from a good team to a bad team can make a player go from being one of the best +/- guys to one of the worst, for no other reason than he's changed teams. And that's why i personally don't care for the stat. Example: Jarome Iginla. He's still a goal scorer in Boston, but now he's one of the best +/- guys in the league as opposed to a minus player (as he was in Calgary). I just prefer stats that are correlated with hockey ability, as opposed to being correlated to how good (or bad) the team is; and it's just a personal preference/opinion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2014 9:19:08 GMT -5
Frank is correct here. Interesting how many GMs have rationalized my championship win as "luck" or "winning at the right time". My point is not beefing up my own ego here, but just MAYBE I actually had a strategy from Day 1? I find it amusing how no one has sent me a private e-mail asking for advice on how to build a team. I don't totally discount luck and timely winning, but by primarily focusing on these two points is quite short sighted. I wouldn't call it luck, you earned that win. I earned nothing, I fell backwards into a good team that had been mismanaged all season long. I think though it can't be ignored that the final 2 weeks of the season (so long as you got there) favored players on teams that were still needing to win to make the NHL play-offs over superstars on good teams. If Toews isn't injured or if one or two of my vets aren't rested the last couple games of the NHL season, it is a tighter finish. I am certainly not trying to take anything away from your win, I just don't know if I believe that you being lucky enough for Bryz to get traded from Edmonton to Minnesota at the NHL trade deadline (and that was luck, hard to deny that) is the main reason you won. I agree with you except the last bold sentence. Again, why is me drafting Bryzgalov in the 7th round while he was under contract to Philly attributed to "luck"? Please consider I may have had a strategy in picking Bryz where I did. Just maybe I thought it out beforehand: He would be boughout out and sign cheaply with another team; and become an asset at the trade deadline. It is not that far fetched. Sure, I don't deny it worked out well; but it wasn't blincd luck. There was a strategy behind drafting him. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2014 16:44:24 GMT -5
I wouldn't call it luck, you earned that win. I earned nothing, I fell backwards into a good team that had been mismanaged all season long. I think though it can't be ignored that the final 2 weeks of the season (so long as you got there) favored players on teams that were still needing to win to make the NHL play-offs over superstars on good teams. If Toews isn't injured or if one or two of my vets aren't rested the last couple games of the NHL season, it is a tighter finish. I am certainly not trying to take anything away from your win, I just don't know if I believe that you being lucky enough for Bryz to get traded from Edmonton to Minnesota at the NHL trade deadline (and that was luck, hard to deny that) is the main reason you won. I agree with you except the last bold sentence. Again, why is me drafting Bryzgalov in the 7th round while he was under contract to Philly attributed to "luck"? Please consider I may have had a strategy in picking Bryz where I did. Just maybe I thought it out beforehand: He would be boughout out and sign cheaply with another team; and become an asset at the trade deadline. It is not that far fetched. Sure, I don't deny it worked out well; but it wasn't blincd luck. There was a strategy behind drafting him. yeah, I wasn't referencing the draft. I appreciate that most of you are referencing the draft but my rule of thumb when it comes to any draft, including and especially the entry is that where a player was drafted only matters during the draft. After that, it is just a number. RNH was the #1 pick of the 2011 draft. It means nothing now. Drafting is a skill no doubt about it, but after the draft it isn't a useful stat, imo. I can understand feeling vindicated though if you spent all of this season hearing people deride and degrade your selection of him or even having him involved in trade discussions. Nobody wins a championship at the draft. I think...I think now my point has been beaten into the ground and is under someone else's shoe now. Cheers! |
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on May 2, 2014 11:59:39 GMT -5
I suggest we discuss the merit of having a trade review panel then we put it out to vote.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2014 12:05:02 GMT -5
I suggest we discuss the merit of having a trade review panel then we put it out to vote. I am ok with this. However, I think it s a bit of an overreraction. Like I stated in the chatbox, We are currently opperating on a 1% veto rate of all completed trades. That means 99% of the time GMs are doing a great job. I dont think it will help us at all to go for 100%. |
|
|
|
Post by Golden Seals on May 2, 2014 12:16:20 GMT -5
Here's my thoughts on the trade panel; i don't mind it at all. If nothing else, if a free assessment of players and gm's value of certain assets. If a Trade Panel member says Waiver pick xx is useless, then i know he doesn't value waiver picks etc...
I would like to throw out an idea, not sure if it would work but: if a certain trade received 2 vetoes, that trade goes to a poll. In 24 hours all gms who want to vote on the deal can and then majority rules. This way everyone has a say and no trade panel member is directly responsible for a vetoed deal. This way not every deal gets a poll and everyone that wants a say can have it.
Just a thought
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on May 2, 2014 14:39:45 GMT -5
I think this is a good idea, the issue though is timing. Lets say 2 teams make a trade Monday morning, they are going to want it approved before game time which may not be possible if we have to wait for 2 vetoes and then wait on a poll.
The problem I see with abolishing the panel is we have no recourse if a new GM comes in and gets badly taken advantage of hurting their team and the leagues chance of finding a replacement should they quit.
I dont see any disadvantages of having a panel other than hurting someone's feeling and is that really a reason to get rid of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on May 2, 2014 14:47:49 GMT -5
Matt...see new rules re trades
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on May 2, 2014 14:58:00 GMT -5
Matt...see new rules re trades looks good to me. Only worry would be if someone tried to stop a trade on sunday or monday since they were playing that team and didnt want it to go through for that week. I think we have people with integrity though and no one would abuse the process for their own gain. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2014 21:08:04 GMT -5
I think this is a good idea, the issue though is timing. Lets say 2 teams make a trade Monday morning, they are going to want it approved before game time which may not be possible if we have to wait for 2 vetoes and then wait on a poll. The problem I see with abolishing the panel is we have no recourse if a new GM comes in and gets badly taken advantage of hurting their team and the leagues chance of finding a replacement should they quit. I dont see any disadvantages of having a panel other than hurting someone's feeling and is that really a reason to get rid of it? I have been in leagues that have lasted 8 years without a panel. if a deal is flat out cheating or the value just kills one team, that gets veto'd. It isn't important if 99% of the trades get passed, this latest example of a veto'd trade had no reason to be veto'd. it sets a precident that if any deal is slightly in the favor of one GM over another, it needs to be veto'd as well to maintain "fairness" that is the real problem with the veto because should a GM even mildly get an advantage in a deal in a few months time, or during the seasons when the trade panel aren't hyper aware of deals...how do you justify that to the GM's you told "no" in this deal. you can't treat any veto as "it's no big deal" because it is. it's a huge precident to set. |
|
