ESPN TBL Fantasy Hockey 2009/10

Post by **B. Stinson** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:04 am

kuulapaa wrote:I'm disappointed this league turned out to a joke, as it has. If I had knew that being able to play this league the way it seems to be ment to be played requires me several hours of juggling with FAs every week, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have participated in it. I have no time or intention to change half of my team every evening or even every week, so I suppose I'm gonna be relegated after the season. It's a shame as there would have been others who would have loved to get in the league and maybe they even would have been ready to play it in the way it is now. In the way it really shouldn't be played, in my opinion.

First of all, if the league is that much of a joke for it to be worth your while, I'd have no problem kicking you out in favor of one of the other six people who wanted to play. Considering your level of activity around here, I doubt you'd be missed.

And second, lets try to be a little more respectful around here. This is the first year of this customized league, it's not going to be perfect.

______________

As for juggling rosters every night: You're not supposed to be doing that. That's the loophole that has just come to light that needs to be fixed. You're supposed to have one team, and you start whoever on your roster plays that night. You're not supposed to go head-hunting every night for free agents who have a game that night, and add them to your roster so you have a 100% starting roster every night. That's what Yahoo is apparently putting a stop to this year by enforcing weekly acquisition limits, and something I failed to foresee when I setup the league.

As for setting lineups every night: That's how typical fantasy hockey leagues work... at least, all the leagues I've ever played in allow lineups to be set nightly. I can't say I've ever played, or even heard of, a league that locks lineups and/or rosters after the matchup has begun. With that being said, though, it's pretty standard to sit down on Sunday or Monday, and set your lineups for each day of the upcoming week. Then, you don't have to manage your lineup every single night.

As for changing the rules now: I completely see your point on this, batdad. You are entirely valid for playing the game based on the rules that were in place (or not in place), and it would definitely be unfair to suddenly change them and leave you and anyone else stranded with a roster that was built according to another set of rules. However, these holes certainly do spoil the whole spirit of the league, and would basically destroy the rest of the year (which is still a long way to go)... So, if everyone can respect the fact that I made a big mistake when creating the league, and from now on try to keep their rosters in compliance with a standard fantasy hockey league(see note below), that would be great. There won't be any penalties or enforcement of this this year. But I do ask that you try to follow a standard roster for the sake of allowing the league to run the way it was meant to be.

*How our rosters should work from now on...

In addition to all the official rules already defined on ESPN:

1. Teams should have a minimum 2 Left Wingers, 2 Centers, 2 Right Wingers, 4 Defensemen, and 2 Goalies.

2. GM's are limited to 4 acquisitions per matchup. "Acquisitions" are defined as any waiver claim, or free agent signing. Trades do not count towards the acquisition limit. EDIT: This rule will take immediate effect, as it should not affect anything that has already happened.

Again, the roster issue will not be enforced until next year. You can do whatever you want with the rules currently in place for this year. However, I again ask that you have some decency in helping to make the league fun and play it the way it's meant to be played by additionally following the above rules in red.

P.S. And to compensate for the balance and competitiveness being interrupted, maybe we should ignore relegation for this year? Yes, no?

Post by **batdad** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:28 am

For the most part Stinson I agree that this is fair and valid and the way to go.

Relegation--I don't think we will need it, as we are going to have some guys who do not come back to the league next season anyway and others will get in based on attrition.

Kuulaapa is somewhat active around here, not much lately I know, but he is a poster I respect. I have no issue with him being upset and calling out what has gone on, even on my part. It can be perceived as going over the top. Not my intent, but I do agree it could be seen that way, and I understand it may not make the league as fun.

In terms of number of dmen...I am afraid I have to ask for Gonchar back as if this rule were in place from day 1 he NEVER would have been dropped. NEVER. He was dropped because the rules were the way they were, and that is all.

I would hope that I would be allowed to make 4 moves per week if I so wish in additon to picking up the dmen I need (2 when I get Gonchar back) as again..this is not something I planned to have happen. I was following the rules even if rules are not liked. Similar to being upset about Challenges when people were trading for the same guys over and over (marleau example)...although it was frowned upon it was still allowed. This time I am one of those who made that mistake, and I apologize. Since it was not against the rules...it cannot be punished.

I will leave it up to Stinson to decide if I get Gonchar back...

I will have 4 dmen in my lineup by weeks end, provided I get Gonchar. If not, I will have 3, and will work on it from there.

Changes I make to get back to my roster limits should not be counted as my 4 changes for this week, if I make them today or tomorrow. If they are going to be..I cannot make them completed this week...maybe next, maybe the one after ... maybe in 4 weeks.

Post by **batdad** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:38 am

You will see I have made one move for a dman already. One that was injured/dropped by me earlier. I have another one in line, and a third.

Once a decision is made on Gonchar I will proceed.

Post by **B. Stinson** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:10 am

I edited my previous post. I'm afraid I can't give you Gonchar back, because then I'm sure I'll end up reverse engineering the whole league to give back everyone that everyone wants back.

So, we are going to proceed with the current roster rules. You can keep your roster as is and continue with all forwards if you wish.

And besides, players cannot be started in a position they don't have listed. So, having all forwards really isn't a huge advantage... if it's even an advantage at all. Having all forwards will just limit you to starting only a maximum of 6 players per night.

The acquisition limit, however, will be taking immediate effect. Adding that shouldn't hurt anything that's already been done - just correct things from this point on. And after getting a chance to look at the league, it appears this was actually the bigger loophole, as it allowed rosters to be changed endlessly, and lineups to be filled 100% every night - which is not at all how a fantasy team is supposed to work.

So, to repeat:

- Effective immediately, all GMs are limited to 4 acquisitions per matchup. This is a league setting, and will be enforced automatically by ESPN, not manually by me.

- Positional minimums and maximums are unchanged for this year.

And lastly, my apologies to everyone for the craziness. ESPN does not have a setting for a minimum number at each position, so I kind of assumed that was automatically enforced by the required positional numbers I had picked (2 LW, 2 C, 2 RW, etc.). And the acquisition thing, that was flat-out an oversight on my part.

Post by **Lidas** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:24 am

Last time we played (first time I played a fantasy league), I rarely made any transactions, and thus my results were very poor. I thought Id try playing in another way this year, by making a bunch of transactions, and maybe get better results. By doing this, it seems I have created a bad mood, and I'm truly sorry for this. I'm still a newbie to fantasy leagues, and I didnt know I was breaking some unwritten rules - using loopholes by rotating my rosters, as everyone has the same opportunity, and it only takes a few minutes to change players.

I'm perfectly ok with the new rules, but I feel that it should have been announced (at least a day) in advance, so we would have a little time to adjust. As I have already made the allowed transactions for this matchup, my roster is a bit unbalanced (and Batdad's is even more unbalanced) and I cant change it until next week.

Happy gaming!

Post by **batdad** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:42 am

LIdas--I don't fault you for my making changes to my roster either. I was playing the fantasy hockey the way you were. It just took me longer to see how it was able to be done. Although I wondered about it, I never really saw much wrong with it, and went over the top with the dmen.

Transactions are transactions..anyone could have made them. In fact I was surprised that only 2 or 3 people were doing it regularly because of the rules. I will gradually get back to my 4 dmen.

Stinson--I have a waiver claim in to add a dman right now, not sure from the settings will ESPN boot me from that? Will that player be allowed to play this week? It is a F for D transaction. If we are unsure about it....then I do not want to make the claim and will leave him out there.

Post by **B. Stinson** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:49 am

Lidas, no one caused anything. It's just a couple oversights on my part that allowed for a clever way of managing - that some of us picked up on, and some didn't.

One has been fixed for the remainder of the year, and the other will be fixed for next year. And we've only played a small part of the year, so it's not like this whole season is ruined or anything - plenty of time left for everything to balance out.

batdad, in regards to your waiver claim: I'm not sure, to be honest. Though, my guess is that even if you win him, they won't let him be added to your roster since you're over the acquisition limit for this matchup. He'll probably just go to the next eligible person on the waiver list.

kuulapaa · Post by **kuulapaa** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:00 am

batdad wrote:Transactions are transactions..anyone could have made them. In fact I was surprised that only 2 or 3 people were doing it regularly because of the rules.

If I knew playing this league or at least being able to be competitive in it would demand making several transactions every day, I would have seriously considered my participation in the league.

to Stinson:
What comes to my activity I think the most important thing is that I've set up my roster for every day and also tried to watch if some of my players gets hurt and therefore isn't in his team's roster some night. But as the games in NHL starts in the middle of the night in Finnish time, last minute changes are a bit difficult for me. I've also proposed some (dumb,dull&unattractive) trades in past weeks. I haven't been writing here for a while, but there are some more or less good reasons for it, related to my working projects and traveling. For instance in last week I worked some 50 hours and wasn't able to even get home and see my kids for six days (there is 140 km=1hour 50minutes from my home to my working place). Last week most of my work also had to be done in evenings or nights.

Btw, it was rather funny to see the demand of being respectful (for the league??? I didn't insult anyone, did I) in the next chapter after being threatened to be kicked out of the league and told that no-one wouldn't miss me after that

(Get some, give some...)

to batdad & Lidas:
My text wasn't against either of you (or anyone else), as I know you did no wrong. In a way it was a kind of frustrated outburst, partly because I know that if I had read the league rules before the season started this all wouldn't have been this kind of surprise to me. This is my first season in a ESPN fantasy league and I just didn't think it would be so different from Yahoo's leagues, which I've been playing for some 8-9 years now. For instance the way they handle the free agent acquisitions in Yahoo (FAs are active in your roster only after one day after the transaction - in fear of injuries one can't do the same kind of juggling as in this setup) is a good example of their different rules.

As for the rules, I wouldn't close the relegation out for this season, as there is a possibility that everyone is going to continue playing the league next season. But that is something the league commissioner sees in next September.

corinthian · Post by **corinthian** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:56 pm

I like 4 acquisitions per matchup. I'm okay with the new rules but for the next season I think we should not let Stinson alone doing all the settings, we can make suggestions and give him a feedback. After this season we'll have a better a ideia of what kind of rules seems to make our league more enjoyable and avoid loopholes.

For batdad & Lidas: Nice Strategy. One of the reason I came up with this issue was I don't have enough time to keep moving my player everyday and this was a great advantage (when I saw batdad lineup my thought was no matter I do I'll lose... again Nice Strategy man '=D>'). Anyway I'll lose Smith was awful yesterday '](*,)'.
After this new rules it appears that you'll keep playing without d-men but I guess it makes more difficult.

For Stinson: Don't blame yourself, after all this is new for almost of us. Maybe even a pool for controversials new ideas for next season would be good.

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:16 pm

B. Stinson wrote: As for setting lineups every night: That's how typical fantasy hockey leagues work... at least, all the leagues I've ever played in allow lineups to be set nightly. I can't say I've ever played, or even heard of, a league that locks lineups and/or rosters after the matchup has begun. With that being said, though, it's pretty standard to sit down on Sunday or Monday, and set your lineups for each day of the upcoming week. Then, you don't have to manage your lineup every single night.

I've got one Yahoo league that I'm in that does it this way (only allowing you to set your lineup once per week) and it's boring. I can never remember what that one day is that I can set my lineup, so I just have a team that's playing every week and a bunch of guys on my roster that never play. It's lame.

I've seen in my other Yahoo league in the past where some people are constantly juggling their rosters (waiving and signing players regularly) but not to this extent. I've never done it because I felt like I could be letting a good player go. I think the 4 transactions per week is a good limit. This allows you to replace under-performing players but not your whole roster. And I really don't think it's too late to change the rules (as you've done). The NHL season is a long one and we're barely into it. I know Batdad brought up sticking to challenge rules even after a loophole has been found but I think that's a bit different. Challenge only run a couple months and then we do a new one. The NHL season runs from October through late March or early April, right. I'm not sure what the schedule is with the Olympics this year. Whatever it is, it's the better part of a year. It's good to correct what we can now so that the rest of it is as fair and enjoyable as possible. Moving forward, I like the adjustments that have been made.

Post by **B. Stinson** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:31 pm

but for the next season I think we should not let Stinson alone doing all the settings, we can make suggestions and give him a feedback.

Actually, this is already the case. I don't want to dictate this league, so upon league creation (before it was even made public), bruins72 and CatchUp were given commissioner rights. As far as I know, that allows them to manage the league to the same extent that I can - from changing league settings, to manually adjusting rosters, to editing teams, to writing news on the league's main page, etc. In addition, we had conversations behind the scenes to initially set-up the league rules.

From there on, it's up to everyone playing in the league to make any suggestions or feedback, like you said... and you're all certainly welcome to as long as it's constructive. It's that feedback that patches holes like we have just seen, or brings new ideas that could add to the fun.

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:49 pm

Exactly. This Fantasy League was discussed between the 3 of us quite a bit before it was even posted about in the forums. Of course, this was the first time any of us had done a keeper league and our experience with ESPN leagues was limited to our league last year (as far as I know) and that was a totally different type of league. It's a bit of a learning experience. The main point was to have a fantasy league with the regulars here at TBL. To us, having a familiarity with the people we're playing against meant more than being a part of a pro league with tons of experience. For something like that you could always just join a public league. For me, I'd rather take a few bumps in the road for more fun in the long run.

Post by **B. Stinson** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:37 am

And while we're on the topic of changes, here's one I had in mind for next year:

During the draft, I kind of realized that defensemen really aren't that big of a deal. Their primary function on our team is plus/minus, and maybe assists. And plus/minus is a pretty sketchy stat to begin with. So, with that being said, I was thinking for next year we should add 'Blocked Shots' as one of our scoring categories - replacing one of our more boring stats: Short-Handed Goals (our league leader in SHG after 5 weeks has only 3 SHG). Blocked shots is a fairly common stat shown for defensemen, and I think if we used it, it would give our defensemen a stat of their own and give them a bigger role.

To go along with this, I was thinking maybe we can even switch our current Power Play Goals category to Power Play Points?(Yahoo uses PPP by default)... This would also help to give our defensemen a better role.

Thoughts?

Marsac · Post by **Marsac** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:27 am

Sounds good to me. With the exception of an elite few, defensemen don't really have a big impact within the current scoring system.

Post by **Manimal** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:45 am

B. Stinson wrote:And while we're on the topic of changes, here's one I had in mind for next year:

During the draft, I kind of realized that defensemen really aren't that big of a deal. Their primary function on our team is plus/minus, and maybe assists. And plus/minus is a pretty sketchy stat to begin with. So, with that being said, I was thinking for next year we should add 'Blocked Shots' as one of our scoring categories - replacing one of our more boring stats: Short-Handed Goals (our league leader in SHG after 5 weeks has only 3 SHG). Blocked shots is a fairly common stat shown for defensemen, and I think if we used it, it would give our defensemen a stat of their own and give them a bigger role.

To go along with this, I was thinking maybe we can even switch our current Power Play Goals category to Power Play Points?(Yahoo uses PPP by default)... This would also help to give our defensemen a better role.

Thoughts?

I really like this change for next year. Good one.

bruins72 · Post by **bruins72** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:56 pm

B. Stinson wrote:And while we're on the topic of changes, here's one I had in mind for next year:

During the draft, I kind of realized that defensemen really aren't that big of a deal. Their primary function on our team is plus/minus, and maybe assists. And plus/minus is a pretty sketchy stat to begin with. So, with that being said, I was thinking for next year we should add 'Blocked Shots' as one of our scoring categories - replacing one of our more boring stats: Short-Handed Goals (our league leader in SHG after 5 weeks has only 3 SHG). Blocked shots is a fairly common stat shown for defensemen, and I think if we used it, it would give our defensemen a stat of their own and give them a bigger role.

To go along with this, I was thinking maybe we can even switch our current Power Play Goals category to Power Play Points?(Yahoo uses PPP by default)... This would also help to give our defensemen a better role.

Thoughts?

Excellent ideas! I think this would really help make defensemen more important on our teams.

corinthian · Post by **corinthian** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:52 pm

I like blocked shots, Power play points and ending the short handed goals. Maybe also adding time on ice would favors defencemen.
Today I noted that the settings for goalies change from 3 to unlimited. What's the thinking behind it. My concern is that some team might stack up with four goalies or more.

Post by **B. Stinson** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:09 pm

corinthian wrote:Today I noted that the settings for goalies change from 3 to unlimited. What's the thinking behind it. My concern is that some team might stack up with four goalies or more.

Uh oh, are you sure?

It shouldn't have changed... unless it reset itself when I was setting acquisition limits. In which case, I'll have to fix it when I get home.

No one is allowed over the previous maximum of 3 goalies. Any extra goalies acquired will be removed when the maximum is fixed.

Post by **batdad** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:07 pm

Taking away time on ice for dmen, and not adding in something like shot blocks has made dmen completely boring for this pool. This is why I think it is an absolute must that they be added in to next season's pool. SH goals can come out without missing them at all, and I don't mind changing the stat to PP Points at all. In fact that is a great idea. And losing plus minus would also be a help, allowing the better players on naff teams to get alot more interest in these pools. I mean, really should Tomas Kaberle have been left off a roster for so long? And Peverly in Atlanta? There are a couple of others I can think of as well...Horcoff, etc...Guys who should be on rosters in pools this big that have not been for the whole season or part of the season because of one or two stat problems.

And no worries on me picking up a 4th goalie--What would be the point? with F and D you can move around guys and have alot play most days. G ...it does not work that way.

For instance I left Raycroft out last night (Corinthian will like that now) just because I was thinking the Rangers would turn it around and light him up. Cannot believe they did not cause man did he look weak.

Post by **batdad** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:45 pm

So if you are prepared to work out a fair deal. Check out my available list of F. Check out my non untouchables as well...and maybe we can work out a deal where someone sends me a D for a F. Or a FF for FD trade.

Quick nor Luongo are going anywhere. Don't bother working a goalie into a deal, unless it is Fleury or Emery. And no Roberto won't go even in that deal.

Post by **B. Stinson** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:45 am

How do you like that, ESPN did reset our maximum goalie setting... and it won't let me change back. 'No Limit' is the only option available for all the positions. From the beginning, ESPN has been pretty abundant with odd little quirks like this, where you set something, and you can't possibly go back to what you just had, or setting one thing defaults another thing to something.

I'm gonna see if I can send them an email or something about this.

So, just a reminder: The 3 goalies max. rule is still in effect.

corinthian · Post by **corinthian** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:00 pm

batdad wrote:For instance I left Raycroft out last night (Corinthian will like that now) just because I was thinking the Rangers would turn it around and light him up. Cannot believe they did not cause man did he look weak.

Ryan Miller was awesome yesterday. I woundn't believe in Raycroft either.':-p'

Post by **batdad** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:53 pm

In Raycroft....I NOW BELIEVE! At least for 1 or 2 more games. I have no choice.

Post by **batdad** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:55 pm

As I look at my roster...

I have 2 Keeper C men

Marleau, Richards.

I have 2 keeper LW

Morrow, Hartnell

I have 1 keeper RW

You know about my D issue

So....in light of this Marleau or Morrow could be dealt in exchange for a TOP LEVEL Dman. It has to be a package. No I do not want a deal with some 2nd pairing dman on a naff team. It has to be a GUY who is the GUY.

Chara, Green, Pronger....you guys get the drift, at least in the Marleau scenario.

Morrow scenario--We can work on that. But still a top level player. One who is at least on the PP and one who gets shots on a good team.

corinthian · Post by **corinthian** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:02 pm

Since this is a keeper league Mike Green is my only keeper as D-men so out of question.
By the way next season probably we try to give D-men more importance.