NL Hockey Pool Issues&Suggestions

[joel]

I started a new topic as this discussion as I think it deserves it's own thread for discussion.

One particular issue that has come up regarding the pool is the lack of trading or movement. There have been some comments about it citing the different causes for it, which I agree with mostly. But it is my opinion that in a lot of cases mid season trades just do not make any sense in our hockey pool with it's current format. It is pretty basic supply and demand. How many buyers are there right now, or typically throughout the majority of the season. Maybe 1-2 teams at most, more often than not it is 0 teams. Since the demand is so small, there is little need for other GMs to acquire short-term expendable assets when their value is seen so low due to the amply supply actually available in the draft. So continues the "Era of Stockpiling Prospects".

All or Nothing Mentality- The format of our pool encourages tanking. Or sucking to build with high end prospects. However distasteful it may be, our league rewards tanking and punishes doing good. Real NHL GMs have owners they have to be accountable to. And their results matter from year to year. But you can stink for decades in our pool with no adverse affect to your team. There is absolutely no benefit to finish 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc...

[supersuk]

rework points for better parity?
reduce roster size to allow 'weaker' teams to have greater depth?
implement a short keeper list, and everything is tossed back into the draft pool? (like 24 man rosters for the season, but you only get to keep 12 players at the end of the season so placement shift easier from season to season. This although would require a longer draft/waiver)

[tiger]

only problem with a year to year limited roster number is that if the number is too small, then the majority of your team are UFA's. There has to be some RFA's too. But that could be re-tooled to work somehow.

I was thinking of a waiver draft during the course of the season, where you can pick up a player, but in turn, you must expose at least 8 players or protect 22, with at least one player from the position of the player you are picking up. But they have to be playing in the NHL for a minimum of 10 games, to keep prospects in the actual draft (since that's is what's happening anyway). This would favour teams that have bums to drop them and pick up guys that are doing well. Also, you cannot trade back for guys you lose on the waivers (no rentals -see Dean McCammond rule in the NHL). So if there's a player that is lighting it up, it will cost the weaker teams nothing, but the weaker teams pass, it exposes some of the depth on the stronger teams.

i.e. If I were to pick up Rich Peverley, I would have to expose Comrie, Samsonov, Rozsival, Kuba, Kobasew, Sutter, Koivu, Picard, and McDonaugh. If nobody picks any of these exposed players, I get to pick the guy to drop.

Now if Tyson picks Sutter, he would in turn have to expose 8 guys, which could lead to another chain reaction. Or if he just has bums, at least he can get some players from other teams who may be trying to hoard players.

Also, let say Craig Anderson or Quick were undrafted. If I wanted to pick one of them up, I'd have to expose Halak or Hiller. If I only had Brodeur, Luongo, and Miller, I'd have to expose one of those guys, so it would deter me from getting another goalie just keep him away from other teams.

[joel]

Here is my opinion on some of proposed suggestions:

I did some basic analysis of the rosters in our hockey pool. Prospects make up about 28% of the entire talent pool.
I think any implemented rules have to cognizant of this trend.

Rework Points for Parity. This could be simplest solution to add a more even, competitive playing field. But how the how to change the point system to have that affect. Maybe 2pts for an OTL and 1pt for a loss for goalies. Your goalie gets pts for just starting. This may adjust the disparity between some of the goaltenders out there. In any case any change to the point system would need much careful consideration.

Reduced Roster Size. Relatively simple change. In theory it would improve the talent pool of the lower teams, but due to the heavy value of prospects our league. I believe this will have teh opposite effectsince teams will be more likely to drop their depth over their prospects. Essentially decreasing the talent pool of all teams instead. In any case I think any parity it adds is minimal. This would likely increase the effect injuries play on standings as well.

Shorter Keeper List - I am against anything that will extend the draft any longer than it already is. Twelve rounds (*15 teams = 180 picks, even at 1 minute a pick that's 3 hours) of redrafting given the rate our draft currently go, seems i'll advised.

Exposed Waiver Draft. This is a more complicated solution and would require some thought and consideration about all the various regulations surrounding it. The idea of being able to pick up players midway seems like a good way to add a bit more excitement through out the season of the league. By draft do you mean a one day mid season pick up? Or do you mean more of a free agent signing any time through the year.

[joel]

The addition of a Playoff Round.

The Playoff would be broken up into 3 rounds. For example, the first round would be a match up between the 2nd vs 15th, 3rd vs 14th, 4th vs 13th, etc... for the duration of the quater Finals. 1st Place would get a buy to the semi-finals. Each team can put up 1 line from their existing roster. 1c,1rw,1lw,2d,1g. Most pts at the end of the round proceeds to the next round; the other player is eliminated. Semi-final round would be the same, except the match ups would be based on the last round finishes. So 1st place for the regular season finish would match up against the lowest pts of all the winners from the quarter final. This would continue for the duration of the semi-finals. Winners would proceed to a 4way battle for the duration of the conf.finals / stanley cup final. Most pts. would take home the Cup!

This way the regular season standings now matter. It's not a given who will win it all, months before the end of the regular season. And we increase the value of non-prospect players as people will need more depth to ensure they can suit up contributing players come playoff time. Now maybe taking all 15 teams may not be the best idea since this may put too much focus on playoff contributers, so maybe taking the top 8 teams or top 10 to ensure GMs have sufficient regular season and playoff contributors on their roster. It would make trade deadline much more meaningful. Also it gives the regular standings leader a focus or goal even with 100pt. lead on the next guy. Instead of relaxing and knowing they have it in the bag; it pushes them to build up a strong playoff team and gives them the margin of error to still place 1st for the by and try to acquire those valuable player on playoff teams. This would be a pretty complicated model but hopefully it would add a lot more competition, movement and interest throughout the season and into the playoffs.

[tiger]

I remembered that I was trying to do a "head to head" weekly standings too. If you have the better week, you get a win. I guess there could be some bonus for doing well in the head to head, like moving up a draft spot. Or having that as to determine the draft positions. Haven't thought this completely thru, so it could be confusing. That way if your players are hot for a short while, it could still count for something.

If you finish 10th overall standings, but have a few good weeks and end up 8th in head to head, you move up 2 spots in the draft. So there is incentive to have the best lineup every week. So the top teams should end up where they should, with a chance of upsets.

[[JT]]

10 bucks says nothing drastic happens. whos in

[tyson]

money and/or reworking point system seem the easiest to do.
some of the other suggestions seem super complicated.

[joel]

A rework of depth into rosters and the point system.
What if we were to adapt a more NHL 4 line style weighted point system. Each team puts up their 20 team lineup for their lineup submissions. 4 forward lines, 3 defensive pairings and 1starter and 1backup. Line 1 would be weighted more than line 2, and so forth. The idea of weighting similiar to the idea of the amount of ice time different lines receive. This would not help the parity issue in anyway, but it would increase depth player usage (indirectly promoting player movement). But i think it would better simulate the NHL and be more entertaining. This would be too hardcore for the casual poolers which at least half our league is made up of though. But I wanted to throw it out there because I thought it was a cool idea.

[tiger]

maybe this question will be a better indicator of how interested GM's are in their teams.

How much time per week do you spend thinking about your team?

I check the stats everyday. At least once a month I'll look at my team's depth, and every couple of months I'll assess the future of my team. I also look at other people's teams to try to determine my competition and what I need to do to adjust my team to be competitive this year and the years to come.

[tiger]

[[JT]]

unless you start all over i think ppl are going to be upset at the notion to have a fee/award, esp. if they know they wont be close to winning for years to come

just a guess

[joel]

[tiger]

[tiger]