NJ Hfboards Yahoo Fantasy Hockey (Keeper League Discussion)

[Henry Killinger]

I'm fine with either direction. There are benefits to each. 16 teams does make it a challenge, and 12 teams would free up some good players. I got no issue with either choice.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

I like 16 teams.

 

[tmg]

I like 16 as well though I suggest we establish well in advance a drop to 2 minimum goalie appearances rather than 3.

I don't like the concept of new managers being saddled with the mistakes of the deadbeats, so I would rather those teams be folded and the new managers given 'expansion teams', rather than the teams transferring as-is.

And by expansion teams I mean each returning team protects its 4 players, the 'expansion' teams have a 4-round draft in which they can pick any unprotected veteran (they can't pick rookies like McDavid or Eichel) to get their teams to a similar state as our 4-protected-players teams, then the full league draft begins (with likely a lottery of nonplayoff teams to give both bad-returning teams and new teams a crack at McDavid).

 

[Henry Killinger]

I also agree that we drop the goalie appearances to a minimum of 2 next season.

 

[Peter Sidorkiewicz]

If i get out voted I will change to 2 goalie appearances a week but personally I think that is too easy to achieve.

I'm lucky enough to have Cory Schneider and he can get those starts by himself. I think there should be a minimum of 2 goalies on each team.

 

[DenisSamson3]

If i get out voted I will change to 2 goalie appearances a week but personally I think that is too easy to achieve.

I'm lucky enough to have Cory Schneider and he can get those starts by himself. I think there should be a minimum of 2 goalies on each team.

Problem is most goalies get injured.

 

[Wingman77]

Problem is most goalies get injured.

Yea I've had every one of my goalies injured at some point this season

 

[tmg]

If i get out voted I will change to 2 goalie appearances a week but personally I think that is too easy to achieve.

I'm lucky enough to have Cory Schneider and he can get those starts by himself. I think there should be a minimum of 2 goalies on each team.

The problem is, even setting aside the injury conundrum, if there are 30 starting goalies in the NHL and 16 teams in this league, by simple math some teams will not have a second starting goalie. This gets worse when some teams hog three starters (looking at you Mr Schneider-Anderson-Luongo!) If you're one of the have-nots, you're counting on being lucky enough that your backups play on convenient nights/weeks for your team needs and that you get early warning of the relief appearance. You may try to mitigate this by carrying your #1 guy's backup (I carried Tokarski as Price handcuff for a while until I switched to Emery as Mason handcuff, and that switch is now paying off), but even then, not every team plays 3 games a week like clockwork like NJ does. If I ran Price-Tokarski alone I'd fall short on 2-Habs-game weeks.

 

[Peter Sidorkiewicz]

Ok. We can change to 2 goalie appearances.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

I vote against two goalie appearances. Someone can very easily luck their way into winning gaa/sv% and sit their goalies for the rest of the week.

Instead, there should be a max goalie appearances for the week. This will disincentive teams from stashing goalies on their bench and rotating in. You could also combine this with a limit of three active goalies on the roster.

 

[Henry Killinger]

I would be fine with leaving goalies as is, if maybe we could institute a salary cap? Keep people from hogging 3 starting goalies possibly.

 

[Peter Sidorkiewicz]

I would be fine with leaving goalies as is, if maybe we could institute a salary cap? Keep people from hogging 3 starting goalies possibly.

That can't happen. If a manager wants to pick 3 starting goalies with their first 3 picks, I have no problem with that. It would obviously mean that their forward group won't be as good. Remember there are only 4 goalie category to win each week.

I vote against two goalie appearances. Someone can very easily luck their way into winning gaa/sv% and sit their goalies for the rest of the week.

Instead, there should be a max goalie appearances for the week. This will disincentive teams from stashing goalies on their bench and rotating in. You could also combine this with a limit of three active goalies on the roster.

I'm not sure if there is a max goalie appearance option. Even still I don't like it given one of the category to win is saves. If there is a situation where a manager lucks away into winning GAA and SAV% and then decides to sit their goalie, then they are settling themselves to lose the saves category and possibly the wins too. In that scenario they might win 2 out of 4 and haven't really gained an advantage.

When Yahoo! fantasy hockey starts again next season, I will have a look at the options and we can put it to a vote on what stats category we want; goalie appearances etc. To discourage managers from taking goalies (like myself as I like to carry 3-4 goalies on my team) we may just increase the forward/defence stats options from 8 categories to 10. And we can also add another IR slot to give more team flexibility with regards to injuries.

****Also I have appointed tmg as co-commissioner. I thought it would be good to have a 2nd person to help out in case I may be offline.****

 

[Wingman77]

I vote against two goalie appearances. Someone can very easily luck their way into winning gaa/sv% and sit their goalies for the rest of the week.

Instead, there should be a max goalie appearances for the week. This will disincentive teams from stashing goalies on their bench and rotating in. You could also combine this with a limit of three active goalies on the roster.

Choosing to sit goalies as a result of leading in certain categories is up to the manager and just as Peter Sidorkiewicz said, it may not always work in the managers favor and could run into problems for them as a result.

It's no different than you choosing to carry only 3 defensemen in favor of having the extra forward that will obviously get you more points than the 4th defensemen. Where a problem would occur would be when you have the nights where every player has a game and you are stuck with one lineup position with no player playing in a game that night compared to the other team having a full lineup because they carry 4 defensemen. That's your decision as the manager and if you feel it works best, so it be. That's how it should be - but with the logic of not being able to sit goaltenders, then a manager should have to have each of their roster spots filled, meaning 4 defensemen in your case.

If you put a max on goalies, then you run into a problem when you have goalies getting injured and what not and my team would serve as a perfect example of that.

Literally all of my goaltenders have been injured missing several weeks of the season at one point. I've had 2 on NHL IR at the same time and was carrying 4 goalies at that point obviously because I otherwise would not have had any goalies getting ice time. If you set a max of say 3 goalies (not sure you can even do that in fantasy?), then the person in my shoes is stuck with 1 healthy goalie each week and further who likely won't reach the minimum starts per week.

I would be fine with leaving goalies as is, if maybe we could institute a salary cap? Keep people from hogging 3 starting goalies possibly.

Nobody is hogging goalies, that just comes across as whiny and 'it's unfair because my (not your's specifically, just generally anybody saying that) team's goalie situation stinks'. In a 16 team league like this, you knew what you were getting into when you signed up. Goalies would be at a premium no matter what. Some people were going to have it tougher than others, but it's just the nature of the league with that many teams.

It is up to a teams manager how many of the amount of players they want to carry for any position. That is how fantasy sports work. If a manager feels carrying 5 goalies is to their advantage, then power to them - they then lose out on having an extra 2-3 players that could be giving them offense and that are going to be playing nearly every game unlike a goalie who will not be playing 15-20 games every year.

That can't happen. If a manager wants to pick 3 starting goalies with their first 3 picks, I have no problem with that. It would obviously mean that their forward group won't be as good. Remember there are only 4 goalie category to win each week.


I'm not sure if there is a max goalie appearance option. Even still I don't like it given one of the category to win is saves. If there is a situation where a manager lucks away into winning GAA and SAV% and then decides to sit their goalie, then they are settling themselves to lose the saves category and possibly the wins too. In that scenario they might win 2 out of 4 and haven't really gained an advantage.

When Yahoo! fantasy hockey starts again next season, I will have a look at the options and we can put it to a vote on what stats category we want; goalie appearances etc. To discourage managers from taking goalies (like myself as I like to carry 3-4 goalies on my team) we may just increase the forward/defence stats options from 8 categories to 10. And we can also add another IR slot to give more team flexibility with regards to injuries.

****Also I have appointed tmg as co-commissioner. I thought it would be good to have a 2nd person to help out in case I may be offline.****

A second IR spot is something I wouldn't mind.

 

[Henry Killinger]

Even ignoring the goalie aspect of it, I still think a salary cap would make it more interesting.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

Choosing to sit goalies as a result of leading in certain categories is up to the manager and just as Peter Sidorkiewicz said, it may not always work in the managers favor and could run into problems for them as a result.

It's no different than you choosing to carry only 3 defensemen in favor of having the extra forward that will obviously get you more points than the 4th defensemen. Where a problem would occur would be when you have the nights where every player has a game and you are stuck with one lineup position with no player playing in a game that night compared to the other team having a full lineup because they carry 4 defensemen. That's your decision as the manager and if you feel it works best, so it be. That's how it should be - but with the logic of not being able to sit goaltenders, then a manager should have to have each of their roster spots filled, meaning 4 defensemen in your case.

It's not quite the same because having an extra forward in there influences the offensive categories marginally...having an extra goalie greatly increases your odds of winning several categories. The effect is much greater.

As far as the injured angle...I don't see why managers can't target backups when their goalies are on the IR. Most backups are available in free agency. It's not like holding 3+ starters is the only way to insure against injury. I don't believe max roster limits count for players on IR.

 

[tmg]

As far as the injured angle...I don't see why managers can't target backups when their goalies are on the IR. Most backups are available in free agency. It's not like holding 3+ starters is the only way to insure against injury. I don't believe max roster limits count for players on IR.

Because other managers might beat them to the punch (either before the injury or with a quick scoop after). When the news comes down that your starter is hurt, if you're not already carrying the backup, he probably won't still be there for you to scoop out of free agency by the next time you log in, because there's a strong chance one of the other fifteen managers heard the news before you did and scooped the backup for their own team, or was already carrying him hoping for the injury.

When Rinne went down to injury, Wingman77 quickly snapped up Carter Hutton. Status Quo wasn't able to pick up the backup after the fact because someone else heard the news before he did and capitalized.

When Das Booters lost Lundqvist to injury he couldn't pick up Cam Talbot, because Moves Like Jagr had already picked him up weeks earlier.


We only have 1 IR slot (and it's not even an IR+). If you're fortunate enough to even have an unoccupied IR slot, you would need to (a) jump on the backup before anyone else does (and cut a relevant player to do so), and (b) carry the dead weight now-injured starter until the team and then later Yahoo officially designates the player to be on IR so that you can finally stash him and sign a replacement.


This is why I carried Tokarski so long, why I picked up Emery before I 'needed' to. Because if I waited until I needed Emery, I probably wouldn't be able to get him. It is a tough choice to make, whether to carry a virtually-never-playing backup on your roster (and gimping your offensive production accordingly) as insurance against injury (or in the MLJ/Talbot case, a lottery ticket hoping for an injury).

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

Because other managers might beat them to the punch (either before the injury or with a quick scoop after). When the news comes down that your starter is hurt, if you're not already carrying the backup, he probably won't still be there for you to scoop out of free agency by the next time you log in, because there's a strong chance one of the other fifteen managers heard the news before you did and scooped the backup for their own team, or was already carrying him hoping for the injury.

When Rinne went down to injury, Wingman77 quickly snapped up Carter Hutton. Status Quo wasn't able to pick up the backup after the fact because someone else heard the news before he did and capitalized.

When Das Booters lost Lundqvist to injury he couldn't pick up Cam Talbot, because Moves Like Jagr had already picked him up weeks earlier.


We only have 1 IR slot (and it's not even an IR+). If you're fortunate enough to even have an unoccupied IR slot, you would need to (a) jump on the backup before anyone else does (and cut a relevant player to do so), and (b) carry the dead weight now-injured starter until the team and then later Yahoo officially designates the player to be on IR so that you can finally stash him and sign a replacement.


This is why I carried Tokarski so long, why I picked up Emery before I 'needed' to. Because if I waited until I needed Emery, I probably wouldn't be able to get him. It is a tough choice to make, whether to carry a virtually-never-playing backup on your roster (and gimping your offensive production accordingly) as insurance against injury (or in the MLJ/Talbot case, a lottery ticket hoping for an injury).

Which is why I would do a free agent auction system and bump up to two IR slots.

 

[LetsGoDevils30]

Keep me on that reserve list if you guys decide to expand next year

 

[Peter Sidorkiewicz]

Keep me on that reserve list if you guys decide to expand next year

We have a few teams that were not active season and they be replaced. So you are pretty much guaranteed an invite next offseason if you are still interested.

 

[DenisSamson3]

Didn't realize how hard this pool would be. What I finally found out now is that goalies are the most important factor in this pool. You need to have a starter that doesn't sit. Thought Halak and Hiller were safe as on the low end of the starters but they end up sitting a lot. Thought I could get away with superstar goal scorers but now know you need all the other stat players to balance the team. Also injuries are a huge part of the roster. With not much choices from free agency you are in trouble.

 

[Peter Sidorkiewicz]

Good luck to everyone in the playoffs over the next few weeks.

The top 8 battle for the inaugural championship and bragging rights for the next 12 months that you are the best fantasy hockey GM on this board.(This is the toughest league i've been involved with).

I have now realized that Yahoo won't allow the bottom 8 battle for consolation playoffs. (I dont know why given in a 12 team league the bottom 6 can still play on, I assumed in an 8 team playoff the same would happen). Therefore I require input from you on who should get the no. 1 pick. Should we have our own draft lottery?

I found this online tool that we could use:
http://draftpicklottery.com/m/index.php

A reminder of the keeper rules that you have to keep 4 players for next season so keep that in mind should you want to drop a player.

 

[Peter Sidorkiewicz]

I'm kind of pissed off that Yahoo won't allow the bottom 8 teams to continue to play in the playoffs.

So I need your input on how we want the draft order be selected for next season.

1. Should we use a random draft lottery generator for the bottom 8 teams, knowingly that 4 teams will likely have new GMs as the current GMs that haven't been active since December, being:
-Elias Drop Pass
-Henrique Inglesias
-llmike 93
-NJDevs4994's Team
will likely get replaced by new people who want to be committed players.

2. Consider this season a one year only league. And start a new keeper league next season with only 12 teams - being the current 12 active teams we have this season. In this situation, all players will be back in the pool and the draft will be a random order as determined by Yahoo!

***I had high hopes for the 16 team league but I think it doesn't work if Yahoo won't allow the bottom 8 teams to participate a 'consolation' playoffs. I am really big in this to discourage tanking that the winner of consolation playoffs should get the no 1 pick in the draft next season. The reduction in teams, would also help address the goalie issues that some teams have had in making the 3 required starts.****

3. Any other potential options? Please write in.

 

[theking72]

All I know is I can think my lucky stars for Rinne and Holtby, they carried me all year

 

[Wingman77]

I'm fine with either option, it being a keeper next season, or just starting over - doesn't matter much to me.

I was looking the other day at my initial post-draft roster and despite having made 22 moves, there are only 4 guys from my initial draft roster that are no longer on my team which makes me sick to even want to think about how many days of injured players I had

 

[billingtons ghost]

I'm kind of pissed off that Yahoo won't allow the bottom 8 teams to continue to play in the playoffs.

So I need your input on how we want the draft order be selected for next season.

1. Should we use a random draft lottery generator for the bottom 8 teams, knowingly that 4 teams will likely have new GMs as the current GMs that haven't been active since December, being:
-Elias Drop Pass
-Henrique Inglesias
-llmike 93
-NJDevs4994's Team
will likely get replaced by new people who want to be committed players.

2. Consider this season a one year only league. And start a new keeper league next season with only 12 teams - being the current 12 active teams we have this season. In this situation, all players will be back in the pool and the draft will be a random order as determined by Yahoo!

***I had high hopes for the 16 team league but I think it doesn't work if Yahoo won't allow the bottom 8 teams to participate a 'consolation' playoffs. I am really big in this to discourage tanking that the winner of consolation playoffs should get the no 1 pick in the draft next season. The reduction in teams, would also help address the goalie issues that some teams have had in making the 3 required starts.****

3. Any other potential options? Please write in.

I don't think #2 is a valid option, since folks based their whole drafting strategy long term instead of a single year. Sucks if I have to give back kids that I picked over vets hoping for long term success...