Goalie Game Limits?

[Deleted]

The question has been raised adjust goalie game limits.

I advocate to decrease to 100GP. I would like to discourage GMs from hoarding starting goalies. Would like to see some of the weaker clubs w/o a starter be able to make a realistic trade offer for one. Right now, goalie valuations are too high and the weaker clubs would have to gut their team to add a starter.

Some clubs have 2-3 starters, plus using their minor system to stash them. I hate this. Give the weaker clubs a chance.

[Deleted]

Dec 12, 2014 13:56:36 GMT -5 @rdrebels said:

The question has been raised adjust goalie game limits.

I advocate to decrease to 100GP. I would like to discourage GMs from hoarding starting goalies. Would like to see some of the weaker clubs w/o a starter be able to make a realistic trade offer for one. Right now, goalie valuations are too high and the weaker clubs would have to gut their team to add a starter.

Some clubs have 2-3 starters, plus using their minor system to stash them. I hate this. Give the weaker clubs a chance.

Sorry but we drafted the league with the understanding of how valuable a goalie can be. We decided on different path and we should leave with it. Some gm like you decided other wise, so why should the gm like me get punish for it? Not my fault you weren't smart enough to get 2 or 3 starter. So give a break to give the weaker team. The only thing I need to say is give me a break with this idea. The only way a team like yourself will get a starter is by overpaying. I feel 55 games per goalies is just fine. Why should we reduce it to 50 each or 45 each ? Every time I see a post, it seem like you want to reduce the value of goalies, why ? Is it because you feel it shouldn't be part of the game or be limited to 3 stats ? Leave it the way it is I say but maybe someone could convince me other wise but the odds are very slim anyone will make me think other wise.

[Golden Seals]

I'd have to agree with Frank but in a nicer tone. I picked starters round 2 & 3 thinking they'd be valuebale

[Deleted]

Just to note that I brought up this subject, but my suggestion was to consider eliminating the 110 max GP for goalies in combination with adding more flexibility in determining line ups (i.e., allowing 4-5 C's, in addition to 7-8 W's and 6-7 Ds). Right now C is the only position with no flexibility, for reasons unknown.

In the other thread, the primary objection I heard to allowing more flexibility is that it would diminish the value of goalies. But if you also eliminated max GP for goalies, this could act as a counter balance.

As for hoarding goalies...a team without a starting goalie would have the ability to put more emphasis on F and D to win those categories. And a team with 2 starting goalies wouldn't be punished for acquiring 2 starters.

I'd vote for any system that gave us more roster flexibility, as right now it feels like I can just autopilot my same lineup all year long (absent any injuries). So a bit more movement would make it more fun to me. That said, I hear the concerns that any move to add flexibility should not significantly lower the value of goaltenders.

Just thinking out loud here.

If there is no ultimate change to address roster flexibility, then I agree with the other posters and say just leave the goalie max GP as it is...

[Deleted]

Minimum ans maximum weekly limits are totally unnecessary with the goalie categories we use. The wins, minutes played and shut out categories favor more goalie games played. Conversely, goals against and save percentage, lean slightly in favor of fewer goalie games played. The balance between total games played (high or low) was created upon initial league set up.

[Deleted]

I saw Dave commenting on adding a minimum GP per week. That scares me. Absolutely nothing I can do to avoid an NHL coach making day-to-day decisions on who is starting each game; especially with our weekly roster-locks.

[Deleted]

My comment regarding goalie minimums wasn't to be overly onerous, I would be happy with a weekly minimum of 2 Goalie GP. I feel like 1 GP is not enough to warrant winning stats for an entire week when your team G's only played 1/7th of the time.

The weekly roster lock does pose some issues since you can't control what happens after Monday night, but I feel like some easily attainable standard should be imposed to at least weed out 1 start weeks.

For anyone who plays fantasy baseball, I assume your leagues use a minimum pitcher innings count for the same reason. Awarding ERA, WHIP, K/9 to a team with 1 closer appearance would be silly. I see no difference with GAA & SV%.

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2015 19:01:37 GMT -5 @davel said:

My comment regarding goalie minimums wasn't to be overly onerous, I would be happy with a weekly minimum of 2 Goalie GP. I feel like 1 GP is not enough to warrant winning stats for an entire week when your team G's only played 1/7th of the time.

The weekly roster lock does pose some issues since you can't control what happens after Monday night, but I feel like some easily attainable standard should be imposed to at least weed out 1 start weeks.

For anyone who plays fantasy baseball, I assume your leagues use a minimum pitcher innings count for the same reason. Awarding ERA, WHIP, K/9 to a team with 1 closer appearance would be silly. I see no difference with GAA & SV%.

I hear ya but what can we do about this?

Example: A IFFHL club running an NHL starter + a NHL backup. Imagine the Starter plays well one game and then is injured; keeping him out the rest of the week. the Back-up doesn't get to play that week. So that IFFHL club should be penalized and lose all goalie stats? I think there is two sides of that argument for sure.

[Deleted]

I don't discount that this scenario would be unfair, but I think it would occur far less frequently than the other side of the coin, that being a manager getting 1 goalie game from 1 (or 2) healthy backup goalies and taking 2/5 available goalie stats in a matchup.

A team that gets only 1 Goalie GP in a week under the current rules is almost certainly going to lose at least 2 of the 5 goalie stats as is, so awarding the other categories to the opponent for not meeting an easy 2 GP minimum wouldn't be that big of a deal. I'm not sure if Fantrax is capable of keeping Shutouts a tie if the other team also has 0.

It is also part of the strategic risk managers would have to be aware of when deciding on their goalies for a given week. If goalies are given additional importance on a team, and we all seem to be OK with this fact, then a goalie injury by definition is going to be more devastating regardless.

[Deleted]

Good point: the injury scenario is a lot less likely.

There are currently four IFFHL clubs with a goalie combination of a Split + Backup combination. These four teams would be hard-pressed to make a three GP lower limit. And most importantly, all four of these teams are in the lower half of the standings.

I am certainly not in favour of penalizing the poorer teams to keep it cozy for the richer clubs. The hands of the poorer clubs would be forced to trade for a better goalie option.

It should be the richer clubs that have their hands forced to make deals. They can stomach a rule change much easier than the poorer clubs.

[Deleted]

By imposing a minimum above 1, you're handicapping weak teams and increasing the value of starting goalies even more when they're already high. For a team like myself who could run Ramo, Lindback, Berra any given week, I'm happy if I get 1 goalie start. Without at least 1 NHL starter (not including 1a guys), a team would never be able to consistently hit anything more than a 1 game requirement each week.

Ultimately I see no issue with how things are right now. The league started up under 2 seasons ago, there is no reason to make big changes. Every GM started with a clean slate and had the option to draft as many or as few goalies they wanted to. And for the teams that chose few or traded away some after, that was their own doing. Speaking as a lower ranked team with no starting goalie, and a roster I inherited and did not build from scratch, any move to decrease the value of goalies sounds damn good to me. But for the overall sustainability of the league, there is no reason to change anything right now. Teams with extra goalies will eventually have to sell some off with cap or overall roster issues, and lower teams should be drafting guys to develop and maybe making minor trades, or a big one if the pieces fit. Every team here had choices on what they wanted to do and how they wanted to build their roster, let things play out. Leagues are cyclical. Top teams cannot stay there forever and low teams cannot stay on the bottom forever either (unless you're real Edmonton, just kidding but not really).

tl;dr don't change anything, and that's coming from a team without a starting goalie.

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2015 19:52:28 GMT -5 @joshm said:

By imposing a minimum above 1, you're handicapping weak teams and increasing the value of starting goalies even more when they're already high. For a team like myself who could run Ramo, Lindback, Berra any given week, I'm happy if I get 1 goalie start. Without at least 1 NHL starter (not including 1a guys), a team would never be able to consistently hit anything more than a 1 game requirement each week.

Ultimately I see no issue with how things are right now. The league started up under 2 seasons ago, there is no reason to make big changes. Every GM started with a clean slate and had the option to draft as many or as few goalies they wanted to. And for the teams that chose few or traded away some after, that was their own doing. Speaking as a lower ranked team with no starting goalie, and a roster I inherited and did not build from scratch, any move to decrease the value of goalies sounds damn good to me. But for the overall sustainability of the league, there is no reason to change anything right now. Teams with extra goalies will eventually have to sell some off with cap or overall roster issues, and lower teams should be drafting guys to develop and maybe making minor trades, or a big one if the pieces fit. Every team here had choices on what they wanted to do and how they wanted to build their roster, let things play out. Leagues are cyclical. Top teams cannot stay there forever and low teams cannot stay on the bottom forever either (unless you're real Edmonton, just kidding but not really).

tl;dr don't change anything, and that's coming from a team without a starting goalie.

Most of what you said make sense.

I would only comment on what you said in bold above. Goalies can currently be stashed in the minors without penalty. IFFHL clubs don't have to sell them either if they don't want to. I don't agree with this.

Goalies are so unique that removing even one goalie from the active to minors/bench decreases overall league goalie stats*:

    1. One starting goalie accounts for about 6% of all available ST stats

    2. One split goalie accounts for about 4% of all available SP stats

    3. One back-up accounts for about 3% of all available BU stats

*(Percentages taken from overall goalie GP in respective goalie classifications)

As you can see, the impact in significant to goalies being unusable on the bench or in the minor system. No other position in fantasy hockey can do this as C, W and D player pools are much larger.

[Deleted]

Personally, I am ok with hurting a few teams temporarily if it makes the league better overall. We would of course provide ample time to adjust for any rule change, not just one affecting goalies.

Sadly, I have the feeling of every rule being etched in stone starting to appear as a common theme in the various idea threads. Rules need to be well thought out and debated before any changes are made, but they shouldn't be sacrosanct because that's how the league began. Better ideas are sure to come up over time.

[Deleted]

Please correct my perception if it is incorrect.

It seems some people are looking at changing goalie rules to accomodate the teams with poor goaltending. It also strikes me that these teams have poor goaltending through their own asset management, ie not drafting properly in the initial draft, or by choosing to trade away goaltending without have adequate assets to counter balance that move. 

[Bruyns (Barrie)]

Jan 8, 2015 20:59:15 GMT -5 @davel said:

Personally, I am ok with hurting a few teams temporarily if it makes the league better overall. We would of course provide ample time to adjust for any rule change, not just one affecting goalies.

Sadly, I have the feeling of every rule being etched in stone starting to appear as a common theme in the various idea threads. Rules need to be well thought out and debated before any changes are made, but they shouldn't be sacrosanct because that's how the league began. Better ideas are sure to come up over time.

There has actually been tweaks to the rules since day 1. Most were actually met by a lot of resistance with certain GMs feeling that we shouldnt be able to change anything since it affected the initial draft strategy. It was stated when the league started that the rules were subject to change since we knew there could be issues that needed to be addressed.

I can say with confidence that rules can be changed, but there has to be a majority opinion wanting it. The rules aren't likely to be changed if 5 of 24 GMs don't like something, not saying only 5 want goalie limits just throwing out an example.

If a rule change will benefit the league then it is at least worth discussing and that is what we do here and I'm sure there will be a couple polls in the offseason to gauge interest in certain changes. I'd like to think that GMs here feel their opinion matters and it's not just a couple people making all decisions on rule changes for everyone.