Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2015 19:44:12 GMT -5
Before I introduce this idea, I would like to state outright the already known objections that will inevitably come forward from this topic so we don't have to keep pointing them out:
a) We can't change goalie values after the inaugural draft
b) GM's will be punished for drafting/acquiring a lot of goalies
c) It is not my responsibility to prop up the weaker teams
I am not discrediting these objections, I just want to move past them so we can discuss the idea at hand more concretely; without getting bogged down known issues that arise with any sort of rule change.
IDEA: Goaltender Classification Process (GCP)
1) All NHL goaltenders will be classified into one of three classifications:
a. ST - Starter
b. SP - Split
c. BU - Back-up
2) The GCP will take place twice a season: Beginning of Week 10 & 20.
3) Goalies will be classified as followed: a. Starter: goalie has played greater 71% of teams total games b. Split: goalie has played between 31% -70% of the teams total games c. Back-up: goalie has played less than 30% of the teams total games
4) Exemptions to the GCP can be awarded during Week 10 & 20 at the discretion of the IFFHL Commissioner (Dave) & Administrators (Frank and Matt)*.
*Important to note - Exemptions will be made with or without consent of the GM who owns the goalie asset. However, objections to the GCP can be submitted by any IFFHL GM and will be review internally by the Commish/Admins.
5) Exemptions can be made for one of the following reasons: a. Injury b. recent NHL trade c. Retirement d. Goalie has recently returned to CHL, Europe, or KHL (not available for NHL call-up)
6)Example: Using today's NHL stats, let's use a rough estimate of 40GP to make it easy for example sake. This is what it would look like:
Objections could be made as follows (see in orange):
a. Niemi and Stalock adjusted to SP due to Stalock's injury b. Pickard adjusted to BU due to Varly's injury c. Varly adjusted to ST d. Bobber adjusted to ST e. McEhlinney adjusted to BU dues to Bobber's injury
7) On Week 10 & 20, IFFHL GM's will each declare in the GCP thread which of the following Approved Goalie Configurations (AGC) their club will adhere to: a. AGC1: ST-2, SP-0, BU-0 b. AGC2: ST-1, SP-1, BU-1 c. AGC3: ST-1, SP-0, BU-2 d. AGC4: ST-0, SP-3, BU-0 d. AGC5: ST-0, SP-2, BU-2 e. AGC6: ST-0, SP-1, BU-4 f. AGC7: ST-0, SP-0, BU-6
8)Example:
Again using the current IFFHL goalie rosters, we can see three categories:
a. Green - clubs that meet their AGC to the exact. This is permitted. b. Yellow - clubs under their AGC, but do not exceed any AGC threshold. This is permitted. c. Red - clubs that exceed their AGC in at least one goalie class. This is not permitted.
9) IFFHL clubs in AGC violation must correct their roster through trade or the waiver wire. During the off-season and until the first GCP (Week 10), the AGC is not in effect. Penalties will be determined by the Commish/Admins.
Idea: Pros
Pro's a. Goaltending stats are awarded for combining quality goaltending as opposed to sheer quantity alone. b. Promotes competition throughout the league by eliminating "hoarding" NHL goalies in the minor systems.
I am looking for con's to this idea; specifically to the idea itself and not the general philosophy of "changing rules" as stated at the top of the post. I am looking for reason why this idea specifically is not good for the future of our league. Please post your feedback or PM privately if you prefer.
Again, This is just in the idea "phase"; nothing is concrete at all. I just wanted to share this with you all in hopes of getting feedback to see where we all are at.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2015 20:20:00 GMT -5
Interesting idea, alot to process. Have you used this in a league before?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2015 20:36:35 GMT -5
Quick preamble: Regardless of what your opinion is, Eric should be commended for an in-depth analysis on the topic. I appreciate it.
Personally, I am with you in spirit in that I don't like the ease in which goalies can either be hoarded or ignored in this league. It is easy to pile up Wins and Mins Played with little regard for goalie quality and it is also easy to win rate stats with 1 goalie.
The lack of a weekly Goalie GP minimum is particularly annoying when you lose half the goalie stats to 1 opponent goalie start. The 110 Goalie GP maximum also seems arbitrarily low since having 2 55+ GP goalies isn't out of the question (there were 16 in the NHL last year). Your AGC-1 has 2 starters, which by your own definition are 70% GP goalies, meaning each would be 57+ GP, putting the team over the current annual GP limit.
On the other hand, I am a little surprised that you are advocating for more rigidity in how teams are managed since you were advocating for more roster flexibility in the other idea thread. I can't say I'm a fan of having a panel decide on approved exemptions or hearing appeals if someone is ruled to be in violation. I think tweaking the rules can fix the issues with goalies without the need for human intervention twice a season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2015 21:35:17 GMT -5
Sorry but I'm opposed to this. Why make it soo complicated ? I like the way it is and I just don't get this modification. Yes some team may be hoarding goalies but that was their goal and objection. So why take out the carpet under them ? Are they having too much advantage against a gm like Eric who believe that at best 1 decent starter can go a long way. Here's a idea keep your way of thinking but don't start disturbing the value of goalies to benefit yourself. I just see a self motivation in this argument from your side.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Jan 7, 2015 22:44:30 GMT -5
Appreciate the thought and work that went into this.
One con is being forced to trade goalie depth and not getting a return you are happy with and then running into injuries and no longer having the depth to cover.
Another is injuries play such a large part in this classification and it will inevitably lead to controversy when certain goalies get approved as split when they are a starter and other GMs don't get their goalie approved. There are 6 goalies under split I would consider starters and people being forced to waive or trade goalies due to them playing a few extra games could be a problem.
If we don't want teams gaining an advantage from using 2 goalies I'd prefer just lowering the max GP to something like 85 which would make GMs choose which weeks they want to use 2 goalies strategically.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kokanee-Rage on Jan 7, 2015 22:54:45 GMT -5
I do not like this either , it makes no sense when you have team like Zagreb with 1 starter and 3 backups and you have to get rid of a goalie .For most teams if one of your starters gets injured you are screwed. Most owners only have 3 or 4 goalies so it is not as if owners are hoarding goalies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2015 23:20:11 GMT -5
What is wrong with the advantage of multiple goalies. As best that I can ascertain, every team had equal opportunity to select goalies in the inaugural draft 1.5 seasons ago. Teams that did not choose to draft goalies made a conscious decision; as did the teams that traded away their goaltenders, for various reasons. The perceived unfair bias of teams having too many goalies is partly due to initial draft strategy and partially due to other GMs trading their goaltender assets. Goalies are often traded to capitalize on a higher per player value in comparison to the skaters. Because some GMs choose this course of team development to strengthen other facets of their team, they face the dilemma of lacking that key position. It was a choice at the draft. It was a choice to trade.
Often times consequences are a direct result of a chosen sourse of action. The GMs in dire need of goaltending chose the moves and selections that they made that placed them in the situation that they are in. As teams with strong and deep goaltending achieved it in the same manner. They chose the moves and selections that they made that placed them in the situation that they are in. A league build is built on equal opportunity choices. The initial members of the IFFHL chose their team. The initial and subsequent members of the IFFHL chose their course of action in team make up and direction through asset management.
Because a chosen plan did not have the desired benefit some GMs envisioned at the time they enacted their strategies, that does not mean there should be accommodations within the league rules to assist in rectifying their error. It was through conscious choices that this imbalance is in place. By modifying rules we would be shaping the rules to fit the choices of one segment of the league while making irrelevant the choices of others. In true fairness, the only course of action in this matter is no action. Let the environment that the league members made their own choices in remain static, under the same rules and guidelines that they enacted there individual action plans.
On another note... Great write up Rebels. I may not agree with you but I can sure appreciate the time, effort and thought you put into laying out this proposal. Really well done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone (Kelowna) on Jan 7, 2015 23:52:21 GMT -5
Well, think this rule is obviously targeted against numero uno.. and probably no coincidence that one of my normal starters (Elliott) just had a shutout while sitting in the minors last night.
Cons
- Seems like way too much micro-management/complexity
- Not in favor of any rule that requires subjective opinions for classification (that will often lead to controversy and discontent that can threaten the livelihood of the league)
- This league is focused on fun, and this doesn't seem to add much of a fun factor to it, rather subtract from it by
restricting how many of each players at a position you can carry and forcing you to unload goalies you can no longer carry - we specifically allowed stashing of players in the minors to prevent a loss of players to improve this 'ownership' fun part of the league
- Part of the fun in fantasy is finding and targeting young players you think will become more valuable in this league as they progress to the big leagues - this rule severely hampers this if you have to simply trade/give them away due to these constraints
- This runs counter to a free market system where a GM can get as much as the market dictates for a player - by putting
this constraint in, you're forcing teams to trade away assets at a reduced price due to factors that may be beyond their control
Even the Pros provided can be questioned:
- On the belief that stats should be awarded more for quality than quantity, well there are only a handful of top Tier 1
goalies in the league - by skewing the rule toward quality (and is it just a coincidence that Eric has one of the top performing goalies on the market) - you're in fact promoting a 'hoarding' of these top tier goalies where
those without one will never be able to compete against them - the quantity over quality was one mechanism that balances this, so thought it worked fine as it did. So two medium/low goalies beats one strong goalie, what's wrong with that?
It actually makes for a more competitive match-up that otherwise the Top Tier Goalies will win almost every time. Is that what we really want, to widen the gap between the have and have nots? With this rule, those with the top tier goalies will inevitably run with one goalie (and an extra skater to boot), and those with even two goalies or lots of depth will not be able to compete - particularly if the MaxGP is reduced.
- Contrary to Eric's belief on 'Hoarding', having goalie depth (or any player depth in the minors) is a key strategic element that can provide a significant advantage in the Playoffs (for those of you who haven't realized this already) in terms having flexibility with starts and matchups - THAT is the reason I choose to have extra goalies in my minor system, NOT to hoard. Similarly with having waiver free goalies that you may choose to bring up during the season if one gets on a hot streak or faces a better matchup than one of your starters who may be 'cold'. Or if running into injuries as Matt mentioned. This flexibility provides a major strategic element. I chose to draft 3 extra goalies in the waiver draft for this specific reason. And I had 12 players on IR during my playoff run last year, so have learned that you can never have enough depth sitting in the minors.
Really don't see a problem with the current Goalie system - actually think the balancing mechanisms are in place to ensure pretty fair matchups. And don't get the hoarding issue at all. I just happened to get lucky to draft two up and comers in Andersen and Kuempers who became immediate starters. This can happen to any team. Now just think how you would feel if we had this rule and place and you had to trade away two of your veterans or brand new young starters because they progressed to the big leagues too quickly. I actually approached the former Calgary GM (Georgey) about trading him Elliott in the off-season and we were close to a deal before he left. And actually was open to trading Elliott to Calgary's new GM Josh if he was so inclined - but he had a different direction for his team.
|
|
|
|
Post by zigzag (Zagreb) on Jan 8, 2015 3:18:43 GMT -5
Wow... Appreciate a big and great work, Eric!
As you can assume, I am against this idea, but my team is proof that you can change a situation within one year. Yes, I had luck, but I think you always need luck.
When we started a league I drafted Rinne (as a starter), Hedberg (as a backup) and Aittokallio and Talbot (as prospects) - in that order - 1,5 years ago. If you look what combinations of goalies other drafted that was not even average.
Then Devils bought out Hedberg, but I was able to draft McElhinney during supplemental draft. Then Rinne went down for almost whole year and I was left with one backup with low number of starts. Only when Biron refused to go to AHL I got second backup in Talbot. My team was between 18th and 24th spot last season.
Before the start of this season in separated trades I got Dansk and Pickard and I don't think I paid much.
And my team today sits 4th in Ws, 1st in GAA, 1st in SV%, 2nd in SHO.... As I said, maybe I was unlucky last season, lucky this one, but that's the part of our game, isn't it?
I love option that both Talbot and Pickard are waiver free and every week I can choose between one of them. But, guess what? That will last just until end of this season, and then it will be not possible anymore.
I don't think I hoard a goalies. I have one starter, two waiver free backups that I use, and one that is on the block and nobody wants him. I don't think that's hoarding, especially when I remember that it was time last year when both Rinne and McElhinney were injured at the same time.
Also, as Tbone mentioned above, I hate the situation when you are forced to trade, just because you knew whom to draft or just went lucky (as I went). Why, then, for example, not limit a number of Cs in your team? So, it will be allowed to have 10 regular skaters in minors, but you can't have 1 starter or 2 backups in minors.
Great work Eric, I got your idea, but, sorry, I am against it.
Of course, if majority want different, I will compy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Jan 8, 2015 9:26:28 GMT -5
The more I think about goaltending, the more I tend to agree with Eskimos in having a weekly minimum GP-and a weekly maximum, rather than just having a set maximum GP for the season.
3-5 or 3-6...something like that.
If you don't meet minimum-or exceed maximum, then you lose goalie category stats for that week.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2015 10:09:34 GMT -5
Interesting idea, alot to process. Have you used this in a league before?
No I haven't. But yes, it would be nice if I had an example of a league to show how this idea would turned out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2015 10:33:24 GMT -5
Sorry but I'm opposed to this. Why make it soo complicated ? I like the way it is and I just don't get this modification. Yes some team may be hoarding goalies but that was their goal and objection. So why take out the carpet under them ? Are they having too much advantage against a gm like Eric who believe that at best 1 decent starter can go a long way. Here's a idea keep your way of thinking but don't start disturbing the value of goalies to benefit yourself. I just see a self motivation in this argument from your side.
Interesting comment from Frank: "disturbing the value of goalies to benefit yourself." I'll comment on this.
The history of RDR goalie configurations is as follows (chronological order): 1. 1 ST,1 SP - Brygzalov and Luongo 2. 1 SP,1 BU - Harding and Ellis 3.* 2 BU - Bryzgalov and Ellis (*won IFFHL championship) 4. 1 ST - Fleury
As shown, I have tried and tested different goalie configurations. I am currently not a fan of my current configuration (only Fleury) as there is no injury insurance. I like that I am able to add an extra D man with only one G, but it seems weird I cannot add an extra C or W instead of a D (See Roster Flexibility topic).
Adding a back-up to Fluery is a difficult proposal. Only a handful of back ups would help without having a negative impact on GAA and SV%.I cannot justify adding an average back-up while giving up an every day D roster spot.
As noted, I won the championship with two back-ups last year. So, I am having a hard time seeing how I would personally benefit from a rule change. Really, the thread is just an idea I thought of to help alleviate one of the issues of a bottom dwelling team without a future of goalies. It is tough to trade for a goalies without gutting major assets from an already shallow roster. Furthermore; I am currently not in this bottom dwelling position anyway, so I think this shows this rule change is not about RDR personally.
|
|
|
|
Post by Golden Seals on Jan 8, 2015 10:34:25 GMT -5
The more I think about goaltending, the more I tend to agree with Eskimos in having a weekly minimum GP-and a weekly maximum, rather than just having a set maximum GP for the season. 3-5 or 3-6...something like that. If you don't meet minimum-or exceed maximum, then you lose goalie category stats for that week. we set up our rosters weekly, i don't see how a weekly minimum or max could even work. If you role with 1 goalie, yes as Esks said it is annoying to lose goalie stats with 1 start against but then again if that goalie gets lit up it's great. Setting a maximum would also punish teams that have goalies that are hot and are played by their NHL teams. Why should a team be punished for having good goalies. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2015 10:37:21 GMT -5
The more I think about goaltending, the more I tend to agree with Eskimos in having a weekly minimum GP-and a weekly maximum, rather than just having a set maximum GP for the season. 3-5 or 3-6...something like that. If you don't meet minimum-or exceed maximum, then you lose goalie category stats for that week. we set up our rosters weekly, i don't see how a weekly minimum or max could even work. If you role with 1 goalie, yes as Esks said it is annoying to lose goalie stats with 1 start against but then again if that goalie gets lit up it's great. Setting a maximum would also punish teams that have goalies that are hot and are played by their NHL teams. Why should a team be punished for having good goalies.
There is a topic about Goalie game limits already in the suggestion box here where more comments should be added.
|
|
