|
Post by Dave (Chi) on Apr 16, 2014 13:35:21 GMT -5
@ken - keep voicing your opinion. You have a wealth of fantasy knowledge and are expressing your views in a very respectful manner. I don't think anyone will dislike you for putting forth your view...that's the point of this discussion.
@ian - I have a suggestion. Perhaps a path forward would be to agree to only address a few issues right now, and to assemble a little committee to examine things over the summer (that could be presented to the league to be addressed next summer and beyond). In the short-term, we could focus on one major pressing issue (contraction), as well as "cycling".
I think it would be useful if a small group was put together to more closely examine bigger issues (like dropping +/-, or adding a category, or going to multiple match ups per week, or reducing eligibility for minor league status of goalies]. Perhaps only pick one or two things per year, and then move on.
I'd be more than happy to live with +/- for another year, while a small group of knowledgable GMs here put together a solid argument for keeping it, and a solid argument for a specific category to replace it with, and then having a more informative voting session on these topics.
|
|
|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Apr 16, 2014 14:17:59 GMT -5
It almost seems like guys are fearful of playing teams more than once in the regular season?? not at all i would have no problem with playing teams more than once but the season isn't long enough to do that with every team given the number of teams we have Glad to hear it. If we can make a schedule for 18 teams to play each other once, we can surely make it so we all play twice.
|
|
|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Apr 16, 2014 14:22:09 GMT -5
Frankly, I don't want to see anyone lose a playoff game that way. Why should anyone? because it is part of the game, we have all won playoff games that way and we have all lost playoff games that way because that is the way virtually every league in existence handles things it isn't a matter of wanting, it is a matter of accepting that sometimes it is going to happen and sometimes you will get the bear and sometimes the bear will get you If there's one thing I've made known since day 1 is that this league is to be different than other leagues, so what may fly elsewhere may not work here. We have cats a lot of leagues don't have... We have prospect rules other leagues don't have. Besides any of the aforementioned, and perhaps you see this and others don't, but the adding of two matchups in one scoring period does not erase the element that you speak of. There very well may still be ties. But there would at least be the possibility of a 3rd matchup - best out of 3 to break the tie. Many are stating that the issue of tying is not a big deal, etc. Well, if it's not, prove me wrong with this. It is not as if it would be a drastic change. There is very minimal risk involved.
|
|
|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Apr 16, 2014 14:45:57 GMT -5
@ken - keep voicing your opinion. You have a wealth of fantasy knowledge and are expressing your views in a very respectful manner. I don't think anyone will dislike you for putting forth your view...that's the point of this discussion. @ian - I have a suggestion. Perhaps a path forward would be to agree to only address a few issues right now, and to assemble a little committee to examine things over the summer (that could be presented to the league to be addressed next summer and beyond). In the short-term, we could focus on one major pressing issue (contraction), as well as "cycling".
I think it would be useful if a small group was put together to more closely examine bigger issues (like dropping +/-, or adding a category, or going to multiple match ups per week, or reducing eligibility for minor league status of goalies]. Perhaps only pick one or two things per year, and then move on.
I'd be more than happy to live with +/- for another year, while a small group of knowledgable GMs here put together a solid argument for keeping it, and a solid argument for a specific category to replace it with, and then having a more informative voting session on these topics.
Well, we actually have some structure. We just need to recalibrate, not necessarily reinvent. There are mod tasks: tbim.proboards.com/thread/64/modsThere are some vacancies due to turnover that need back filled. Some of you came in and we lost these mods. I don't give new GMs these tasks as they have enough to digest. I'd be more than happy to get these positions filled. As far as a board or inner-circle goes, it really happens organically as there are certain GMs who show that desire and skill set. Ultimately, how our process has always worked is that if enough GMs come forward with a matter or if the matter in and of itself proves to be too big to ignore, we discuss, poll and vote. So the process is actually there. We just need to let it run it's course.
|
|
|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Apr 16, 2014 14:49:17 GMT -5
No disrespect to anyone, but I would like us to stay focused on a topic, see it through and move on. We're having too many side conversations. If we're going to spin our tires , I'd rather it be on the actual topic. We're only commuting 3 days to discuss, poll and vote on each issue. Today is day 2 for replacing +/- and what should have also been adding a 13th cat - has now morphed into odd # In an attempt to accommodate . At any rate, this is all coming to a head.
Still haven't received enough opinions outside of hits/blks, meaning there have been other suggestions but not enough to agree on having another option to poll. Unless that changes tonight, we'll be going with hits + balks to replace +/-
|
|
|
Post by Dave (Chi) on Apr 16, 2014 16:06:42 GMT -5
Ok. I'm cool with (hits+blocks) to replace +/-; I don't think we need a 13th category anyways.
I'll try my best to keep all future discussion limited to the specific topic du jour...
|
|
|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Apr 16, 2014 16:38:31 GMT -5
Ok. I'm cool with (hits+blocks) to replace +/-; I don't think we need a 13th category anyways. I'll try my best to keep all future discussion limited to the specific topic du jour... That's cool. More than a few of us is guilty with going off, myself included. But I really want to put these things to sleep, renew the league and get on with the more fun stuff. As far as a 13th cat, I worked around the lack of desire for that by keeping what we have cat-wise, creating an odd number that doesn't blow the percentages between goalie and skater out of the water and only NSH and TB had a comment. I put forth option B earlier, feeling that was a better option. Just leaving no stone unturned. Not long ago, HITS + BLK would not have been brought up here, period. Option A PT (points) Hits + BLK SOG PPP SHP GWG FOW W GAA SV SV% OPTION B G A HITS +BLK SOG STP (PPP + SHP) GWG FOW W GAA SV SV% What I want to know from GMs is why either of the above would not work if the cats are essential staying the same and the skater vs. goalie percentage only has a 3% change?
|
|
|
Post by Adam (Tor) on Apr 16, 2014 17:16:53 GMT -5
3 percent really doesnt sound like much, but i still feel this league is weighted heavily enough in favour of goaltending. Also not convinced going to a odd number makes a big difference in avoiding ties in the playoffs. Id prefer to to stay with 12 cats or look for a 13th. Going with hits and blocked shots as seperate catagories might be the easy answer if we are determined to go to a odd number. We could always combine hits/blocked shots at a later date if a new catagory is wanted.
|
|
|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Apr 16, 2014 17:42:19 GMT -5
3 percent really doesnt sound like much, but i still feel this league is weighted heavily enough in favour of goaltending. Also not convinced going to a odd number makes a big difference in avoiding ties in the playoffs. Id prefer to to stay with 12 cats or look for a 13th. Going with hits and blocked shots as seperate catagories might be the easy answer if we are determined to go to a odd number. We could always combine hits/blocked shots at a later date if a new catagory is wanted. Man Adam, I wish it were that simple. HITS + BLKS have to be together. Having each as a cat would create radical change. We can't go that far. We do things like that, you may as well discuss between rotisserie or h2h. And if we're going that far, that a scrap job which I want no parts of. We are presently at 12 cats: 66.6% - Skaters 33.3% - Goalies The previous two examples with 11 cats: 63.6% - Skaters 36.3% - Goalies As far as weighted toward goalies too much, my 11 cat alternative for that was: G A HITS + BLK SOG PPP SHP GWG FOW W GAA SV 72.7% - Skater 27.2% - Goalie That's A LOT, IMO!!! Adding a 13th cat (another skater): 69.2% - Skater 30.8% - Goalie Just for the record, Adam. I am not looking to AVOID ties as much as reduce them. I would like more SKILL to come forth than luck as well. Yes, to a degree we get lucky with all of this as you never know what anyone will do. However, there is some skill. How many times have we played someone in a week, for example, where you had key players hurt. Would it not be nice to also get a second crack at someone when you are healthy? Just things that keep popping up in my mind as I see the pros far out-weighing the cons.
|
|
|
Post by Dave (Chi) on Apr 16, 2014 18:10:38 GMT -5
I prefer Option B (since SHP isn't the greatest category; SHP are fairly rare and can lead to ties).
[I apologize if this is off topic, but if you wanted to consider a 13th category, while keeping the scoring focus, what about:
G / A / PTS / SOG / PPP/ SHP / GWG/ FOW / Hits+Blks; W / GAA / SA / SV%
[All 4 goalie categories are the same. As for skaters, 7 of 8 categories are retained; 1 category is dropped (+/-); and 2 new categories are added (PTS - which keeps a focus on scoring which is important to this league; and the combined hits+blks to give some value to non-scorers).
Again, if you only want a comment on A or B, I like B.
The reason I prefer the 13th category is that weighting goalies more is pretty tough, in conjunction with the 2 min starts. Only the G has a min requirement, so weighting that category higher hurts goalie poor teams.
But if it's best for the league to do option b (or option a), I will enthusiastically support either of those.
Dave.
|
|
|
Post by Trevor (Buf) on Apr 16, 2014 18:27:23 GMT -5
Option B by a wide margin for me
|
|
|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Apr 16, 2014 18:28:44 GMT -5
I prefer Option B (since SHP isn't the greatest category; SHP are fairly rare and can lead to ties). [I apologize if this is off topic, but if you wanted to consider a 13th category, while keeping the scoring focus, what about: G / A / PTS / SOG / PPP/ SHP / GWG/ FOW / Hits+Blks; W / GAA / SA / SV% [All 4 goalie categories are the same. As for skaters, 7 of 8 categories are retained; 1 category is dropped (+/-); and 2 new categories are added (PTS - which keeps a focus on scoring which is important to this league; and the combined hits+blks to give some value to non-scorers). Again, if you only want a comment on A or B, I like B. The reason I prefer the 13th category is that weighting goalies more is pretty tough, in conjunction with the 2 min starts. Only the G has a min requirement, so weighting that category higher hurts goalie poor teams. But if it's best for the league to do option b (or option a), I will enthusiastically support either of those. Dave. Your comment about SHP being rare is what I thought as well. It was either that and drop a cat or add a 13th, which I personally prefer. But all of this juggling was me trying to find a way to MAXIMIZE as many angles as possible. Looking at a 13th cat is tough in regard to the quality of cat. There is not much left that is significant that makes sense. Adding a weak cat is stupid because it defeats the purpose of a 13 cat from the perspective of a possible tie breaker. ESP crossed my mind a few times because we have PPP and SHP. I don't know. Just talking out loud. I will say this, however. If GMs would much rather keep 12 cats, as a compromise to playing each other twice we can put the odd number of cat argument to bed. I'll be honest, in my world, I prefer both to be implemented and neither has much impact. I have my doubts as to whether some of us have actually played in a set up where you play two GMs in one scoring period. It can add so much color. You could have a horrible week and lose to 2 teams, a good week and beat two teams or a split. At any rate, your players are going to score however many goals that week, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Apr 16, 2014 18:45:20 GMT -5
Option B by a wide margin for me That is why I did not even mention A. Even with B being palatable for you guys, I'm still open to adding 13 cats. Option B in the aforementioned was me trying to find an alternative. We could poll the following three to "address"the "tie-breaking" issue: 1. option B - 11 cats 2 addition of a 13th cat - if we can just find one cat that most can agree 3. Keep 12 cats but play 2GMs each scoring period I honestly don.t care between the three. I can live with 1 of the 2
|
|
|
Post by Adam (Tor) on Apr 16, 2014 19:00:03 GMT -5
i really like the idea of playing 2 teams per scoring period, and play out a season before making any other changes. id prefer to keep pp and sh seperate, a rare shorthanded point or 2 can bring excitement to a week. if there lumped in with pp points they lose all value and would be just as easy to drop the catagory all together. im good with staying at 12 catagories for now, but open to suggestions on a 13th
|
|
|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Apr 16, 2014 19:17:19 GMT -5
i really like the idea of playing 2 teams per scoring period, and play out a season before making any other changes. id prefer to keep pp and sh seperate, a rare shorthanded point or 2 can bring excitement to a week. if there lumped in with pp points they lose all value and would be just as easy to drop the catagory all together. im good with staying at 12 catagories for now, but open to suggestions on a 13th Noted... I'm putting this up so we can keep things moving. I expected this to be our toughest obstacle
|
|