Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2014 16:30:52 GMT -5
Dave, can we move this to a vote for 2015-16? or should we discuss the issues more?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2014 19:10:26 GMT -5
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.
Sorry but no way in hell should we ever let a gm replace a goalie spot with either a F or D. Why hurt the the value of goalies even more ? I could see the following option; 3 C 9W 6 D or 5 C 8 W 5 D but the goalies should always stay at two or even at one meaning you would be putting out 17 dress player. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 10:45:15 GMT -5
Hi Frank. According to Eric's post, Fantrax already allows a 1G option (4C 8W 7D 1G). But there is only flexibility for D (6 or 7) or W (7 or 8)...but no flexibility at C (always 4). It just seems weird that EVERY position has flexibility, except C.
If the concern with Eric's proposal is weakening the value of goalies, could we consider this change in combination with getting rid of the max 110 GP for goalies? That would make for more flexibility at every position.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 13:52:44 GMT -5
no we need to keep 110GP max. prevents hoarding of starting goalies. Keep in mind, some clubs here don't have a starting goalie. That bug me. Not a fan of hoarding goalies.
I would vote for decreasing the GP limit to 100 GP, but I think that should be a different thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Dec 12, 2014 14:37:47 GMT -5
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 actually Eric, you didn't win because of your goalies... you were 8-3-1 with your player stats 3-2-0 with goalies you still would have won without your goalie stats... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 14:39:10 GMT -5
The primary argument I hear against adding more roster flexibility is that it devalues goalies. So to me, it makes sense to tweak this proposal (roster flexibility) to address the goalie valuation issue. If the issues must be dealt with separately, then I'd probably jump ship and just vote to keep things as they are. A significant devaluation of goalies, to me, doesn't seem to be the best way to address parity in this league.
I also don't see the big deal with goalie hoarding, given the 12-5 split in categories. Especially if you give teams without a starting goalie the ability to dress an extra skater (any position) in week...
Very interesting discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 20:07:28 GMT -5
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 actually Eric, you didn't win because of your goalies... you were 8-3-1 with your player stats 3-2-0 with goalies you still would have won without your goalie stats...
True. I still think goalie hoarding is wrong and we should discourage it.
|
|
