|
|
Post by Tbone (Kelowna) on Apr 26, 2014 9:46:17 GMT -5
Agreed, somehow changing the stats has become the flavor of the month. In reality, no matter what the change it's probably going to piss somebody off (after all somebody's a leader in each stat who may be negatively impacted - though some may be more vocal than others) My belief has always been that stats are the one thing in a keeper league that should never be changed (so make sure you got it right at the start) Think it's just going to create a mess of controversy that may not be worth it. How about moving on to something else less likely to create a stir.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 13:00:16 GMT -5
I think having the discussions are important. a league should always be looking to improve itself, just so long as everyone understands that change is gradual. if we find a concensus on what is positive change with the least negative impact, we should work to institute it 2 seasons down the road. if we are looking at multiple cat changes, stagger the introductions of them.
anyone who says they aren't wanting to wait that long, doesn't understand what the point of a FHL is or doesn't have the best intentions of the leagues integrity at heart.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 13:53:14 GMT -5
Re: FO%. My thinking about that isn't really about wingers and their ability on draws. It's more about centers that have (ridiculous) C/W eligibility...so you end up with teams that can actually playing 6 or 7 centers in a start 4 C slot. So people are winning the FOW stat by playing more than 4 Cs a night. If we can't "fix" the position, my idea was to add FO%...so that stacking a bunch of centers on wing will only get you the FO% category IF you happen to be stacking players that are 50%+ on the draws.. 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'  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 15:18:43 GMT -5
Re: FO%. My thinking about that isn't really about wingers and their ability on draws. It's more about centers that have (ridiculous) C/W eligibility...so you end up with teams that can actually playing 6 or 7 centers in a start 4 C slot. So people are winning the FOW stat by playing more than 4 Cs a night. If we can't "fix" the position, my idea was to add FO%...so that stacking a bunch of centers on wing will only get you the FO% category IF you happen to be stacking players that are 50%+ on the draws.. 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' I've told everyone at the start of last season that we shouldn't have accepted having dual position and only now the discussion as evolve to this. Since then I have setup my team to advantage myself in those area. So for that reason alone I would rather leave it the way it is. If fantrax as a player like Pavelski as a center or winger then so be it. I will vote no to this rule change since I adapted myself to this area. I dislike the idea of having the face off % but would love to add the take away to the cat. We should never try to reduce the value of the goalies since it's all ready at it's lowest since Eric won the cup without having amazing starter. He figured a flaw to our system so why would we give him a bigger edge by taking out the TOI stats for goalies. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 15:36:03 GMT -5
I have Vermette as a C/W (1005 FOW); it's not like I'm making a suggestion for a competitive advantage.
A league will never evolve if people only think about what is best for their team, as opposed to the league.
And that's fine.
I'm just looking at it from the perspective of what would make the league the best in the long-run, without thinking about my specific team.
The C/W thing, as it currently stands, is ridiculous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 16:32:41 GMT -5
I have Vermette as a C/W (1005 FOW); it's not like I'm making a suggestion for a competitive advantage. A league will never evolve if people only think about what is best for their team, as opposed to the league. And that's fine. I'm just looking at it from the perspective of what would make the league the best in the long-run, without thinking about my specific team. The C/W thing, as it currently stands, is ridiculous. Don't ever point the finger at me and call me selfish. I said from the beginning that we shouldn't have dual position for anyone. I even gave them a option to use but no one wanted to listen to me especially Eric. So now I'm in the wrong cause I made adjustment for such a rule. By the way I ain't saying no cause I'm getting the advantage in this area since I am not getting that advantage. I simply said no cause I've adjusted. If We make a poll and you have the vote for such a change then I'll stand by that decision and not argue the negative side by allowing such a change. By the way you are new, so how do you know where I stand in this conversation from the start ? So next time think before you write anything down that might offend anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Apr 26, 2014 19:13:40 GMT -5
Where did he call you selfish and point the finger at you? He is right that the league will never evolve without people thinking of what's best for the league not best for their team. I didn't think he singled you out since lots of people drafted C/Ws early and enjoy that advantage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 19:48:52 GMT -5
He may not of point the finger at me and call me selfish but he did say something similar right after I posted.
I was simply saying that I adjusted it and not drafted any player cause they had dual position.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 21:11:12 GMT -5
We should never try to reduce the value of the goalies since it's all ready at it's lowest since Eric won the cup without having amazing starter. He figured a flaw to our system so why would we give him a bigger edge by taking out the TOI stats for goalies. 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. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 21:16:21 GMT -5
I've told everyone at the start of last season that we shouldn't have accepted having dual position and only now the discussion as evolve to this. Since then I have setup my team to advantage myself in those area. So for that reason alone I would rather leave it the way it is. Don't ever point the finger at me and call me selfish. So for that reason alone I would rather leave it the way it is. Don't ever point the finger at me and call me selfish. I kinda think you called yourself selfish, mate. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone (Kelowna) on Apr 26, 2014 22:41:52 GMT -5
Goaltenders are EXTREMELY over-priced in this league. Let me get this right.. Goalies are too expensive so we need to find a way to devalue them and screw over the teams that have depth so those who don't can buy them cheaper.. In that case, also find good young ELC prospects damn expensive too, so how about let's drop the waiver GP eligibility from 150 down to 40, that should make them a bit less valuable. Come on, the price of every asset in the league was set from the outset based on the rules layed out for everyone. We then drafted (and even traded for) these assets based on the perceived value at the time. To change this valuation at this point seems absolutely ludicrous to me. All this talk about the need for governance and stability, and yet we are looking at ways that totally counter this. Even some of the new teams say they need some time to gauge the valuation methods of this league before making deals, how will this be possible if we keep changing the stat categories. And we've just finished the first year, think about it for a second. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 0:23:30 GMT -5
nope. I said goaltenders are EXTREMELY over-priced in this league. Any summation you got from that which meant that anything needs to change was your own delusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Golden Seals on Apr 27, 2014 1:35:46 GMT -5
I said goaltenders are EXTREMELY over-priced in this league. The price is set by all gms. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 3:50:04 GMT -5
I said goaltenders are EXTREMELY over-priced in this league. The price is set by all gms. absolutely. I wasn't laying blame anywhere, just stating my opinion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 6:19:22 GMT -5
We should never try to reduce the value of the goalies since it's all ready at it's lowest since Eric won the cup without having amazing starter. He figured a flaw to our system so why would we give him a bigger edge by taking out the TOI stats for goalies. 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. |
|
