Lethbridge Golden Seals vs. Lost Cause Broadway vs. Iowa Crop Dusters asdfjkl; vs. Royal Oak Fearsome Beavers BlackDevilHawks vs. Newmarket Hurricanes Kansas City Reserves vs. Tulane Flyers Toronto Rocket vs. The Ales The Injured Reserve vs. Whalers
seems like everytime I make a late lineup change, it bites me in my ass. I had Carolina in there since Rinne got injured, saw than Ward got pulled in yesterday's game, so switched to nashville tonight. whoops.
Ollie is widening the gap in the average points per game race...
Steve's still alive!
The funny thing is, you have Steve, who has 6 wins, will have a less than 50% shot to get McDavid. And then you'll have a team who is just 5 points out of the playoffs getting Eichel.
The funny thing is, you have Steve, who has 6 wins, will have a less than 50% shot to get McDavid. And then you'll have a team who is just 5 points out of the playoffs getting Eichel.
Ya, I agree, Steve should have even less of a chance to get McDavid.
__________________
Rich, 1-30-2020: "Arp is showing the kind of grit that most Millennials lack. His team stinks but he's still scrapping it out. It's inspiring."
I just think it's funny that Steve is clearly tanking, self admittedly, and still the odds are greater that he doesn't get McDavid, yet the team that does wind up with Eichel is going to be one that is already pretty much a playoff team.
-- Edited by Jay on Saturday 17th of January 2015 11:29:46 PM
I just think it's funny that Steve is clearly tanking, self admittedly, and still the odds are greater that he doesn't get McDavid, yet the team that does wind up with Eichel is going to be one that is already pretty much a playoff team.
-- Edited by Jay on Saturday 17th of January 2015 11:29:46 PM
Actually, based on the odds, is it not the probability that the team who winds up with Eichel is actually Steve's then?
That "near playoff" team is going to get McDavid.
And thats the bonus of finishing last.....you get a top 2 for sure. Great year for it.
Yes I was being sarcastic if anyone was unsure. If you ask me, no reason to award teams that finish at the bottom, but rules being what they are, I would do same as Steve.
__________________
Rich, 1-30-2020: "Arp is showing the kind of grit that most Millennials lack. His team stinks but he's still scrapping it out. It's inspiring."
arp wants a system where the non-playoff teams get draft picks in order of performance, so that everyone in the league has a reason to care about winning. as part of the expansion, steve, zach and I were put in a sorta no-win situation as expansion teams, and I took the hard-line tanking approach, which caused us to think about making rules to keep that from being a standard thing. we now have the cap floor (and ceiling) as a result. I kind of wish we had done the reverse lottery, too, because I really don't want to ever be in a position to need to tank like that ever again.
Lethbridge Golden Seals 0 vs. Lost Cause 6 Broadway 3.5 vs. Iowa Crop Dusters 3 asdfjkl; 4 vs. Royal Oak Fearsome Beavers -1 BlackDevilHawks 1.5 vs. Newmarket Hurricanes 1 Kansas City Reserves 4 vs. Tulane Flyers 2.5 (miss, very likely would have won with 3+ on the bench) Toronto Rocket 2 vs. The Ales 4.5 The Injured Reserve 3 vs. Whalers 1.5
Seems reasonable enough. Any interest in something like this? I stumbled across this a few years back and have actually used it in some other fantasy pools I've run.
"A different (and slightly less nerdy) way to address tanking is to institute monetary penalties for the teams that finish at the bottom of the league, with maybe an additional penalty for the last place team. This can create the headache of dealing with an additional collection at the end of the season, but even a small penalty can psychologically encourage last place teams to compete until the end of the year. A final solution I have seen is to give the first overall pick to the team that finishes in the last spot that doesn't result in a monetary penalty, and then to let the bottom teams pick right before the top few teams. In a league with twelve teams with the top three finishing in the money and the bottom three paying an additional penalty, such a draft order might be (with the numbers representing the team's place in the previous year's standings): 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 12, 11, 10, 3, 2, 1. You can play with the order a bit, but such a system greatly encourages owners finishing near the bottom of the league to stay competitive."
not a fan of monetary fines, because really, someone can still tank to the bottom, and just say, sure Ill pay a $5 fine to get McDavid.
Also, the whole pool costs us what, $30. How much of a fine can we really make.
My thing has always been, reverse the odds we have now, whatever they are. instead of starting with the bottom, you start with the guy who had the best team to not be in the playoffs, and go down. It will not eliminate teams who trade off rentals for futures, but it will make you think twice before you gut your roster completely, hoping to lose games. The pool I put this rule into is not even head to head, frankly, for head to head, I think this kind of anti tanking rule is a must. If I go trade off St.Louis, Hossa, Doughty and everyone else tomorrow, sucks to be the guy who had to play me last week, and then watch his competition play me next week with Eric Fehr as my best fwd in my lineup.
Again, nothing against Steve at all, I am actively trying to do exactly what he is!!! lol
Just stating something I have believed for a long time, and since it came up, Im discussing it again.
-- Edited by MLP on Sunday 18th of January 2015 01:15:39 PM
__________________
Rich, 1-30-2020: "Arp is showing the kind of grit that most Millennials lack. His team stinks but he's still scrapping it out. It's inspiring."
I don't think it has to necessarily be a monetary penalty. The penalty could be anything related to cap, picks, contracts, etc.
The thing that sucks is that I've been trying my best to put forth a competitive team every night and I am in no way intentionally tanking (simply rebuilding from Danny's disaster), yet I would be punished for finishing near the bottom of the league. As a result, it would be even harder, although not impossible, to turn the team into a winner.
I think I would rather see all the non playoff teams with an equal chance at getting the first pick instead of punishing the bottom teams and rewarding the borderline playoff teams.
My intentions starting last year was to compete for a high pick. Last year I made the playoffs. Oops.
This year I honestly planned/ expected to compete for the bottom. Not take it outright like I did. Big issue is that my future is messed up. I have a lot of cap next season and I don't think I want to try next year. Sure I have a 40% chance at mcD but a 98% chance to squander it.
Wonder what I could get for my first rounder?
I have no issue with reversing the order. Next season ;)
The thing that sucks is that I've been trying my best to put forth a competitive team every night and I am in no way intentionally tanking (simply rebuilding from Danny's disaster), yet I would be punished for finishing near the bottom of the league. As a result, it would be even harder, although not impossible, to turn the team into a winner.
I think I would rather see all the non playoff teams with an equal chance at getting the first pick instead of punishing the bottom teams and rewarding the borderline playoff teams.
ok, fair enough if that is your opinion, but curious....why not reward the person who had the better results.
Put another way, why is it punishment for you if you finish lower and get less of a shot, but not punishment for the guy who finished 9th, just out of the playoffs, to get nothing more than the guy who finished 15th and had the worst team in the league?
__________________
Rich, 1-30-2020: "Arp is showing the kind of grit that most Millennials lack. His team stinks but he's still scrapping it out. It's inspiring."
Because rewarding a person who is already close to making the playoffs does nothing for league parity. There is a reason why nearly every professional sport gives the worst teams in the league the best chance to get top draft picks and works backwards from there.
An example, take the 2013-2014 NBA season. The team with the best record that missed the playoffs was the Phoenix Suns at 48-34. The worst teams in the league were the Bucks at 15-67 and the 76ers at 19-63. Do you really think it would make sense for the NBA to give the Suns the best chance at the top draft pick and the Bucks and 76ers worse picks? Of course not because all you are going to do is make the Suns better and keep the 76ers and Bucks in the basement.
A lottery gives the worst teams the best chance to improve, but is far from a guarantee. You might not even get the top pick. Even if you do it doesn't mean you are now a surefire championship contender.
If you wanna help prevent teams from intentionally tanking, even out the percentages a little bit more.
Your confusing real life with fantasy sports. There is no reason to promote parity in fantasy sports, unless you have poolies who arenèt as into it when their team is no good.
We dont have a fanbase to protect here, we dont have TV rights to ensure for the next contract.
NOTE: WE ARE NOT A PROFESSIONAL LEAGUE!
Since you seem much more into this argument then I am, and I have never had any support on this before either, and seems the new guy is hell bent against it, I will stop here.
__________________
Rich, 1-30-2020: "Arp is showing the kind of grit that most Millennials lack. His team stinks but he's still scrapping it out. It's inspiring."
I'm not confusing anything. Fantasy leagues (dynasty leagues in particular) are set up to mimic professional sports leagues on a small scale.
And if you don't think its in the best interest of the league to promote at least some level of parity, then I just don't even know what else to say except we are polar opposites when it comes to how we view fantasy sports. You know what happens to leagues where half the league always sucks and the other half is competitive? They either cease to exist or they have constant turnover. Pretty sure we don't want either of those things.
I personally could care less if teams wanna tank to speed up their rebuild or snag a high draft pick, but you seem to have an issue with the current setup so I proposed numerous solutions. If we disagree, ok. If its important to the league, hold a vote.
-new guy out
-- Edited by GOCUBSGO on Sunday 18th of January 2015 05:39:09 PM
-- Edited by GOCUBSGO on Sunday 18th of January 2015 05:45:28 PM
Your confusing real life with fantasy sports. There is no reason to promote parity in fantasy sports, unless you have poolies who arenèt as into it when their team is no good. We dont have a fanbase to protect here, we dont have TV rights to ensure for the next contract.
NOTE: WE ARE NOT A PROFESSIONAL LEAGUE!
Since you seem much more into this argument then I am, and I have never had any support on this before either, and seems the new guy is hell bent against it, I will stop here.
Don't stop. I'm following, just not replying. I'm into it. It's an interesting discussion.
I don't necessarily think anything is broken with the current system, tbh, but I would be open to change if there's a good reason, and strong support.
I don't see what the negatives of having a team like Steve's in the lineup. I also don't see the negatives of you trading all your good players midway through the season. I think the argument that a team facing you before/after the trades should have the right to face a similarly skilled team is tenuous at best. It's a keeper league with trades, so it should be expected that team strengths can fluctuate, even within the same season. I'm just not so sure why it's a bad thing. It's basically a zero-sum trade off in the long run. One team gets lucky with the schedule one year, gets the ****ty end the next year.
I kind of like the idea equal chance for all of the teams outside of the playoffs. Maybe you even draft the top 3 spots, like the AHL, so last overall can fall all the way to 4th pick?
Cubs, don't let Arp dissuade you from contributing, or the fact that you're "new". You're an equal member of the league, and entitled to post your opinions and suggestions on every league matter.
I agree with Josh here. Any league has to try and promote parity of sorts (whilst also promoting active participation). I understand wanting to have a rule in place to prevent tanking but the way I see it is that tanking is a legit strategy if you think it's going to give you the best chance to win it all sooner. Also, if a guy is happy to pony up his readies and then lose all year, the guys competing at the top end are going to be getting added value for their buy in.
I think having an already bad team and having less chance to become good will see the league become more like the premier league than the NHL.
I agree with Josh on the importance of Parity in a long term dynasty fantasy league.
I disagree with the notion that anything needs to change with the current system. I think the current system is fine. The league is healthy and the owners are happy for the most part.
So if tanking is considered an acceptable strategy, why do we have a min cap in place?
Keep in mind that I am also in favour of tanking being accepted, as long as the team in question is making an effort to improve in the near future. There is no evidence here to suggest otherwise.
Case in point, I have Patrick Sharp who could definitely help a contending team, and it would be great if I could move him for some help even next year, if not 2017. Min cap prevents me from doing this.
