FCHL Temp Home

Zach6668 · Guru

RE: Gameday 25 - November 27, 2016

Zach6668 · Guru

Having 3 goalies mitigates the no-goalie thing dramatically too. I have only 2 non-goalie games all season, 0 in the playoffs in the AHL. The best I could do in the FCHL is 6/1. I think the best possible combo in the FCHL is about 4/0. I'd have to double check though. I think there were 4 AHL combos that didn't have a single game without goalies, reg season and playoffs.

Zach6668 · Guru

That said, you still have people who don't pay attention to it (Daniel, for example), and he ends up with a dozen no goalie games. So it still rewards people who bother to put in the work.

Zach6668 · Guru

Bob's response for those who don't venture over to FCP:

Pretty sure it was -3.0 when I first started in the pool. That was a time there were available goalies and we could use "temps" for a game who weren't on any other AHL team. This was in the days of phoning our lineups in so nobody else other than Darrell saw who you used as a temp until the scores were done and multiple teams could use the same temp if they had empty roster spots.

Broadway · Guru

Always can go to 3 sets. That also open up the possibility of a 16th team

rich · Overselling players since 1993

Or just no goalies. Let's reward scouting talent, not grabbing and organizing data in an excel sheet.

Zach6668 · Guru

16 teams and you guys won't get your precious double headers. :D

All we need is one more expansion team to go to 16 teams without moving to 3 goalies, also, if we decided we didn't want that.

I do think 3 sets works pretty well, though.

I don't know what to do with the leftover sets, though.

With 15 teams, 3 sets each, 31 NHL teams, we'd have 17 leftover goalie sets. The market would be flooded with goalie supply... and goalie contracts are already mostly set by tacit collusion at the auction, lol. Where most/many peak at 0.50 with a select few going super high (for goalies) in the $3-4 range.

Not that it's necessarily a problem, but just something to think about. Is that a dynamic we want to change?

You'd also have to consider limiting goalie pickups, maybe, so teams don't just cycle through. Though that problem sort of solves itself with the fact that likely the bottom 17 sets will be the ones left available, and we max 2 pickups per week. Plus the risk of dropping a better set to fill a hole opens you up to the risk of not getting them back after.

Zach6668 · Guru

rich wrote:
Or just no goalies. Let's reward scouting talent, not grabbing and organizing data in an excel sheet.

I'm not sure why looking at NHL schedules is considered a negative.

Fenxis · Guru

Zach6668 wrote:
rich wrote:
Or just no goalies. Let's reward scouting talent, not grabbing and organizing data in an excel sheet.
I'm not sure why looking at NHL schedules is considered a negative.

My only issue is that people are using goalies as a year-to-year commodities instead of as keepers and long term investments. Not that using individual goalies is much better..

Zach6668 · Guru

Well, the very nature of goalies is that they tend to fluctuate year to year, with a few exceptions. Note that both of my sets were locked in prior to this off-season.

Something to think about...

The difference right now between the best goalie set and the worst goalie set is about 0.700. That's the difference in going from 2 high end forwards (say .700 scorers), to 2 slightly below average forwards (say, .350). So having to pick good goaltending isn't exactly trivial.

I think it's ideal that we have to balance goalie goodness vs coverage. My AHL team has 2 non-goalie games, but my sets are awful (partially a function of missing the auction and making a trade for 2 sets that fit, rather than risk having leftovers from the auciton.

MLP · Guru

Zach6668 wrote:
rich wrote:
Or just no goalies. Let's reward scouting talent, not grabbing and organizing data in an excel sheet.
I'm not sure why looking at NHL schedules is considered a negative.

Cause it really has nothing to do with why people play fantasy sports. You're trying to beat the other guy in knowing who the better performer is, not whose appearances match best with another teams appearances.

Zach6668 · Guru

MLP wrote:
Zach6668 wrote:
rich wrote:
Or just no goalies. Let's reward scouting talent, not grabbing and organizing data in an excel sheet.
I'm not sure why looking at NHL schedules is considered a negative.
Cause it really has nothing to do with why people play fantasy sports. You're trying to beat the other guy in knowing who the better performer is, not whose appearances match best with another teams appearances.

But 1 appearance is better than 0 appearances. It's all part of making a team. You telling me you don't do the same with skaters? We're going to sit here and pretend that we don't place lesser value on Anaheim players because they play fewer games?

It's just part of what's factored in to making a team. It isn't the only thing I look at. It's a balance between coverage and ability, like any other position.

Zach6668 · Guru

btw I'm enjoying this discussion

MLP · Guru

Zach6668 wrote:
But 1 appearance is better than 0 appearances. It's all part of making a team. You telling me you don't do the same with skaters? We're going to sit here and pretend that we don't place lesser value on Anaheim players because they play fewer games?
It's just part of what's factored in to making a team. It isn't the only thing I look at. It's a balance between coverage and ability, like any other position.

I think the work required to figure out which goalie match up well with other goalies is more involved than just checking out of 80 nights, who plays the most+least.

Dont get me wrong, Im not even a fan of Mike Ribeiro >>> Corey Perry, because Perry doesn't play as much. Its a factor of this league that I DO NOT like.

And Im sure there are guys, maybe you, maybe Dale, who have already figured out their optimum lineups and which teams play on short nights in the playoffs and bla bla bla....Im just saying personally, I really dont see the point of making that a competition between us.

I dont think that should be a rewarded skill in a fantasy league, and my feelings on it has little to do with who does it and who doesnt do it, with gtd and/or fwds. I probably do more work than 50% of the AHL, and prob 50% of the FCHL....I dont think I should be rewarded for it though.

Zach6668 · Guru

What skills should be rewarded?

Zach6668 · Guru

PS - The beauty of the FCHL is that there are many different approaches that owners may choose to take, any of which can be successful.

rinswun · Guru

I would for sure be down for getting rid of goalies. Zach's excel skills are much better than mine and that gives him an unfair advantage haha.

In truth, I always forget to change the ****ers due to where they are on Yahoo. Also, and this is probably just me, but because we don't field individual goalies I don't think I could name more than about 10 starting NHL goalies.

Zach6668 · Guru

rinswun wrote:
In truth, I always forget to change the ****ers due to where they are on Yahoo.

Buddy, I've been pushing to fix this rule since the day we moved to Yahoo, but it keeps getting blocked. It's insanity.

(the rule being that if you have a set available but forget to dress them, it's automatically no goalies)

Jay · Turning Back the Clock

I've always been in favour of goalies. It's just part of the element that has always been with the league. I wouldn't mind exploring going to 3 sets though to minimize non goalie nights. I would also be in favour of reducing the penalty to -2.0

Zach6668 · Guru

rinswun wrote:
Also, and this is probably just me, but because we don't field individual goalies I don't think I could name more than about 10 starting NHL goalies.

Also, this is funny. When I was adding players to everyone's Yahoo team before the season I had a seriously hard time figuring out who was starting for half the teams.

SBriand · Guru

I'd be done for 3 sets and -2.0. And expansion. I nominate Serge.

Adam · Guru

Rinne, Lundqvist, Anderson, Schneider, Brian Elliot, Lehner, Luongo, Miller, Mrazek, Rask, Dubnyk, Smith, Quick (though I think is Budaj right now), Price, Crawford, Ward, Bishop...Bobrovsky...

Who am I missing...

Anaheim - John...something...ugh, it's right there.
Dallas - They platoon between Lehtonen and Niemi, I believe
St Louis - Um...the other St Louis starter from last year...Jake Allen! Had to think about it
Edmonton - Kid who used to be the Rangers' backup...got it! Cam Talbot
Islanders - Halak? I think.
Philly - I can't come up with it
Washington - Ugh...I shouldn't be bricking this...Holtby!! Haha, remembered.

That's only 25 teams, I always get to a point with remembering teams and then I can't get over the hump. I used to memorize every backup goalie in the league just for fun, but I'm nowhere close to those days of hockey fanaticism.

Hmm...

26 - Pittsburgh, take your pick between Fleury and Matt Murray right now
27 - Toronto...I really have no idea who is considered the starter these days
28 - San Jose...um...the guy from LA and Boston...ugh. Jones!
29 - I
30 - Giveup

MLP · Guru

Zach6668 wrote:
What skills should be rewarded?

picking the players who get the most points.

picking the goalies who give up the least number of goals.

picking the prospects who will become the players who get the most points.

Were you being sarcastic, or looking for a deeper answer than the obvious ones? Isnt this blatantly obvious to you, I really dont get why you dont see it tbh.

Zach6668 · Guru

MLP wrote:
Zach6668 wrote:
What skills should be rewarded?
picking the players who get the most points.
picking the goalies who give up the least number of goals.
picking the prospects who will become the players who get the most points.

Were you being sarcastic, or looking for a deeper answer than the obvious ones? Isnt this blatantly obvious to you, I really dont get why you dont see it tbh.

This format isn't that simple. But those skills are all well represented here.

Zach6668 · Guru

I guess what I'm getting at is there's a broader skill, if you want to call it that, in constructing a team that fits all of the different rules and quirks of this specific format. That is, one where we play head to head, where we play on specific game nights, where goals are worth 2x assists, where no-goalies are a possibility and the penalty is -2.5 points, salary cap, min/max caps, farm rules, etc.

That's more than just the three skills you listed above, though they form a decent chunk of it.

Jay · Turning Back the Clock

I know it's super early for discussing. Maybe it isn't..but who would we give the 16th franchise to? My vote would be Ortenzio.

GOCUBSGO · Guru

SBriand wrote:
I'd be done for 3 sets and -2.0. And expansion. I nominate Serge.

Did he quit FCP? Haven't seen him for days. It's been lovely.

SBriand · Guru

GOCUBSGO wrote:
SBriand wrote:
I'd be done for 3 sets and -2.0. And expansion. I nominate Serge.
Did he quit FCP? Haven't seen him for days. It's been lovely.

Yes I ampretty sure when we all snapped and piled on him that one night he hasnt been posting since. Curious if hes been on at all...nope. Hasn't been there since 11/19 the night of the incident

MLP · Guru

Zach6668 wrote:
I guess what I'm getting at is there's a broader skill, if you want to call it that, in constructing a team that fits all of the different rules and quirks of this specific format. That is, one where we play head to head, where we play on specific game nights, where goals are worth 2x assists, where no-goalies are a possibility and the penalty is -2.5 points, salary cap, min/max caps, farm rules, etc.

That's more than just the three skills you listed above, though they form a decent chunk of it.

Do you think this particular skill has anything to do with hockey, hockey team management or anything that exists in the NHL or any hockey league anywhere? Because I think pretty much everything else you mention (ie caps, farm rules, values of goals) all have a basis of hockey.Not sure why you would think this would be a skill you would look to have in a hockey league, if you were to start one today.

Personally, I think its because you like to do it, and because you are good at it, and it gives you an edge. I would guess if you were bad at it, or didnt like to do it, you wouldnt be this for it. Hence, why Im against it. I dont like doing it. :)

And when I realize I do it, and somone like Chris doesnt do it, I hate that it gives me an advantage. I think its a silly way to win a hockey pool.

-- Edited by MLP on Monday 28th of November 2016 07:54:15 PM

-- Edited by MLP on Monday 28th of November 2016 07:54:56 PM

MLP · Guru

SBriand wrote:
GOCUBSGO wrote:
SBriand wrote:
I'd be done for 3 sets and -2.0. And expansion. I nominate Serge.
Did he quit FCP? Haven't seen him for days. It's been lovely.
Yes I ampretty sure when we all snapped and piled on him that one night he hasnt been posting since. Curious if hes been on at all...nope. Hasn't been there since 11/19 the night of the incident

Im guessing hes been registering as a guest and reading.if you miss him, follow him on twitter for his persicope videos of driving around Fresno. Incredible action that.

Zach6668 · Guru

MLP wrote:
Zach6668 wrote:
I guess what I'm getting at is there's a broader skill, if you want to call it that, in constructing a team that fits all of the different rules and quirks of this specific format. That is, one where we play head to head, where we play on specific game nights, where goals are worth 2x assists, where no-goalies are a possibility and the penalty is -2.5 points, salary cap, min/max caps, farm rules, etc.

That's more than just the three skills you listed above, though they form a decent chunk of it.
Do you think this particular skill has anything to do with hockey, hockey team management or anything that exists in the NHL or any hockey league anywhere? Because I think pretty much everything else you mention (ie caps, farm rules, values of goals) all have a basis of hockey.Not sure why you would think this would be a skill you would look to have in a hockey league, if you were to start one today.
Personally, I think its because you like to do it, and because you are good at it, and it gives you an edge. I would guess if you were bad at it, or didnt like to do it, you wouldnt be this for it. Hence, why Im against it. I dont like doing it. :)
And when I realize I do it, and somone like Chris doesnt do it, I hate that it gives me an advantage. I think its a silly way to win a hockey pool.

-- Edited by MLP on Monday 28th of November 2016 07:54:15 PM

-- Edited by MLP on Monday 28th of November 2016 07:54:56 PM

Now you're talking specifically about being able to utilize spreadsheets?

There are other ways to do it. Ortenzio tells us he does goalie comparisons manually.

I do enjoy messing around in Excel, and I enjoy the numbers part of the game. Maybe that's biasing me? I don't see that.

The spreadsheet is just the way I manage my understanding and analysis of all of the rules, goalies, cap, cash, goals, assists, points, etc. It's not magic or anything. It's just a tool to use that may or not work. Hell, it may blind me to other factors. You're talking to a guy who has never won anything in fantasy hockey in his life.

And if we're going to compare it to the NHL, I'd assume every GM has infinite spreadsheets on the go, lol. Or at least the AGM does. :D

Jay · Turning Back the Clock

I don't understand how doing extra work shouldn't be rewarded, when it's information that's available to all of us. Anybody can figure out what goalie sets work best in a given combination. It takes me about an hour and a half in August or September to figure that out.

In regards to building my team this year, I'll tap the glass and give a peek into what I did. Who knows if this will even work out, but I felt it gave me the best shot to construct another championship team. It may blow up in my face.

- I figured out what teams played on what nights for our schedule

- I put all available FA's on a spreadsheet and inserted their stats from last year. I devised a ****amamie formula where I assigned a multiplier to each player depending on how many league games they would play this season. I then added a 2nd multiplier for playoff games

- I took all the players that are currently on my roster (pre-auction) and inserted them into games 1-7 for all 3 rounds of our playoffs. Doing this allowed me to see what nights I would be short handed

- I checked to see what teams would be playing on the short nights and gave a 3rd multiplier on my spreadsheet to those teams

- Each player would then be given a final value. I then had to divide that number by a different formula depending on what I perceived they would go for at auction. Someone like Patrick Kane had the highest score, and I figured he would go around $20, which still made him as valuable as an $8 Wayne Simmonds or a $7 Daniel Sedin, but then your gut has to come into play. Kane was only returning that value if he put up the same numbers as last year, which I didn't feel he would. Another tweak had him coming in at $16.75 to return value (in my eyes)

- I did this for every (worthwhile) player available

GOCUBSGO · Guru

Sigh, all this talk of goalies made me go and check my next doubleheader. Of course it's on another night with no goalies.

Two doubleheaders in a row with no goalies. Nothing like getting f'd by the schedule.

SBriand · Guru

lol just checked. 10 game night for my double header and neither goalie is playing. So it's looking like most are suffering with this.

Zach6668 · Guru

Jay wrote:
I don't understand how doing extra work shouldn't be rewarded, when it's information that's available to all of us. Anybody can figure out what goalie sets work best in a given combination. It takes me about an hour and a half in August or September to figure that out.

In regards to building my team this year, I'll tap the glass and give a peek into what I did. Who knows if this will even work out, but I felt it gave me the best shot to construct another championship team. It may blow up in my face.

- I figured out what teams played on what nights for our schedule

- I put all available FA's on a spreadsheet and inserted their stats from last year. I devised a ****amamie formula where I assigned a multiplier to each player depending on how many league games they would play this season. I then added a 2nd multiplier for playoff games

- I took all the players that are currently on my roster (pre-auction) and inserted them into games 1-7 for all 3 rounds of our playoffs. Doing this allowed me to see what nights I would be short handed

- I checked to see what teams would be playing on the short nights and gave a 3rd multiplier on my spreadsheet to those teams

- Each player would then be given a final value. I then had to divide that number by a different formula depending on what I perceived they would go for at auction. Someone like Patrick Kane had the highest score, and I figured he would go around $20, which still made him as valuable as an $8 Wayne Simmonds or a $7 Daniel Sedin, but then your gut has to come into play. Kane was only returning that value if he put up the same numbers as last year, which I didn't feel he would. Another tweak had him coming in at $16.75 to return value (in my eyes)

- I did this for every (worthwhile) player available

See, stuff like this is fun, and maybe its enlightening, and I do similar things, but it's also not guaranteed to get you the best result, even an edge. Like, firstly, we're using backward looking statistics, not future - that's the gut part at the end, and we're making up formulae and applying multipliers and that's really all just guess work, right?

Like nobody here is looking at the power rankings I posted and saying like, welp, it's over, I'm ranked 3rd. May as well pack it in. There's a million other factors.

Maybe putting in time like this gives us an edge, maybe that should be rewarded, but maybe different strategies come up with a bigger edge. Maybe watching hockey subconsciously gives you the ability to predict player output better than a spreadsheet does, and you put in a ton of time watching hockey and never touch a spreadsheet. That strategy might be even better!

There are two beautiful things about this format.

1) there's no one correct strategy.

2) everything is hella random and comes down to luck on every single game night, especially in the playoffs.

Zach6668 · Guru

Doubleheaders represent just 1/15th of the schedule. It's unfortunate when teams have no goalies for those games, or they fall on nights that your team isn't built for, but it's not really any different than if we happened to have 80 regular game nights. I still think the odds work out the same in the long run. You're just as likely to have a double header fall on a night when you have your top 10 and best goalies going than it is to fall on a night when you have 3 skaters and no goalies. And even then, it's just one additional game. I think we're overplaying the meaningfulness of our DH games.

Also, you can win with no goalies. At least 4 teams did that yesterday. And 6-game nights for you are 6-game nights for everyone else, lol.

Like I said above, it's all hella random luck.

But I enjoy the theoretically and strategic conversations. :)

MLP · Guru

Zach: didnt mean just excel, dont think I ever mentioned excel. Yes, a guy like Ortenzio (and even Dale) uses paper+pen. Thats irrelevant to me, and my argument. I dont think I can state my viewpoint any more without beating a dead horse, so ill leave it at that.

Jay: I do a few of the things you mentioned. Probably more so for AHL than FCHL, but thats only cause my FCHL team hasnt been competitive in years. And I think much of what you mention is not really about goaltending, and thats where I have the biggest issue.

I dont discount that all/some of this "studying" is fun for some/all of us. I just think its not really the point of a hockey pool to see which combination of goalies fits the best in a particular schedule. We should be aiming to draft the better goalie based on hockey play, not on our arbitrary schedule.

Poolie A: Predicts perfectly the #1 ranked to #30 ranked goaltending for 16-17. But doesnt properly look at schedule.
Poolie B: Missed significantly on which goalies will perform well, but does ok based on taking 2 hours out of his time to see how the schedule works, which has nothing to do with hockey in my view.

Poolie B might never have watched a game of hockey or even know what the sport is. Lets face it, its just numbers, not anything to do with hockey. Personally, I dont like that.

Keep in mind, this is coming from a guy in 7 keeper pools of hockey alone, and who is certainly not preaching about spending too much time. I am as big a geek as anyone, I think.
I am easily the guy who spends the most time in most of my pools, and I do it out of joy. I just think there are times when effort should not be rewarding more than skill, and sometimes I dont like when my effort is rewarded more than someone elses skill.

Dubey · Guru

I don't feel too strongly either way, but just wanted to point out that I am enjoying the discussion!

Zach6668 · Guru

MLP wrote:

Zach: didnt mean just excel, dont think I ever mentioned excel. Yes, a guy like Ortenzio (and even Dale) uses paper+pen. Thats irrelevant to me, and my argument. I dont think I can state my viewpoint any more without beating a dead horse, so ill leave it at that.

Jay: I do a few of the things you mentioned. Probably more so for AHL than FCHL, but thats only cause my FCHL team hasnt been competitive in years. And I think much of what you mention is not really about goaltending, and thats where I have the biggest issue.

I dont discount that all/some of this "studying" is fun for some/all of us. I just think its not really the point of a hockey pool to see which combination of goalies fits the best in a particular schedule. We should be aiming to draft the better goalie based on hockey play, not on our arbitrary schedule.

Poolie A: Predicts perfectly the #1 ranked to #30 ranked goaltending for 16-17. But doesnt properly look at schedule.
Poolie B: Missed significantly on which goalies will perform well, but does ok based on taking 2 hours out of his time to see how the schedule works, which has nothing to do with hockey in my view.

Poolie B might never have watched a game of hockey or even know what the sport is. Lets face it, its just numbers, not anything to do with hockey. Personally, I dont like that.

Keep in mind, this is coming from a guy in 7 keeper pools of hockey alone, and who is certainly not preaching about spending too much time. I am as big a geek as anyone, I think.
I am easily the guy who spends the most time in most of my pools, and I do it out of joy. I just think there are times when effort should not be rewarding more than skill, and sometimes I dont like when my effort is rewarded more than someone elses skill.

Well, ok. There's other things going on here than what I thought we were talking about then.

The underlying issue seems to be the relative value of the goalies. That's been a problem since day 1, I think, where some teams just opt to go without any worry on goalies, spend 50c on a pair, and spend their money elsewhere. Problem isn't the right word, because that's a fair strategy, but maybe it screws up the rest of the goalie market because it takes out some demand.

There's also the issue that goalies aren't all that important? Or maybe they are? I don't know. The difference between the best goalies and the worst goalies is 0.700 points per game right now. Would you pay extra money for that? We pay $15 or $20 for someone like Karlsson who will get you maybe 0.500 or 0.600 points per game, without even factoring in that a random D replacement would be like 0.150. But there's also the scarcity factor in there, and another issue.

Maybe the problem with goalies is the uncertainty, because so much changes from year to year, and so much is based on team defense, rather than just goaltending.

However, teams aren't bidding up ****ty goalies just because they cover more games, are they? We're still spending $4 on guys like Lundqvist, Quick, etc. Maybe their coverage factors in, but not necessarily? I don't know.

This is lazy chartmaking, but here's the correlation between current GAA and contract price.

Light blue is the GAA on the left axis, dark blue is the cost, on the right axis. The dashed line is the trend line for the cost. Worst goalies tend to go for less. There are outliers of course, since other factors are at play - 5 year contracts, coverage incentives, luck, etc.

========

One more question -

Who are you to say what reasons a person is allowed to have for why he builds his team the way he does, anyways?

Like, say I base all of my decisions purely off my spreadsheets, or whatever, numbers, that's not ok. But I use the team I built to increase my enjoyment of hockey exponentially by being sucked into games where other teams and players are playing who aren't just the Penguins, simply because I let my spreadsheet tell me to acquire them. I don't know what's wrong with that.

I guess you want it to be a scouting competition, rather than an in depth league with many other factors at play? I'm sure you're not that extreme, but to show my point.

========

To get back on track - The issue seems to be goalies. Right now, you think people are focusing too much on coverage instead of talent. I don't think that's true.

I could have had worse goalies that covered me better, but then I wouldn't have two amazing goalies. I actually got lucky this season because I had to UFA sets that happened to line up in the top 10 in coverage, depending on how you score it, and I've been lucky that NJ has been good, so far. (So far! Don't smite me, ye olde hockey gods).

How far would I have gone to get better coverage if they didn't wind up being good? I don't know. Depends. With 2 sets of goalies, it's really hard, actually. There are a lot of no-goalie games.

The average combo misses 10.25 regular season games and 2.5 playoff games. Many of those combos will never see the light of day, of course. We start the season with 30 of a possible 435 combinations. I like to think the efficiency of the market eliminates the worst half, probably, maybe more. The rest are based on goalie talent.

The very best sets this year are either one set with 4 regular season misses, zero in the playoffs, or one set with 3 regular season misses and 1 in the playoffs. So, they aren't *that* far off the average of all combinations, and I'd bet they're even less far off the average of the combinations that are actually in use.

[...does spreadsheet stuff...]

Ok, well, turns out we aren't an efficient market.

The average for current goalie sets is 10.13 regular season, and 2.26 playoff games. So we barely beat random average.

So what does this tell you? Are we going out of our way to get "coverage" or are we going for the best goalies?

I'd wager the latter at this point, but obviously nothing is definitive.

I will say, the AHL has a lot bigger problem with this (if it is a problem) since three goalies means there's a lot larger fluctuation in the total games missed between combos. There are 0-0 combos, and others that are like 15-5, probably worse.

I went with coverage for the simple fact that I was missing the auction - not by choice. I would have tempered coverage with quality significantly at the auction (and also if I wasn't so pressed for cash).

======

Ok, lots of ranty stuff happening.

If we think it's a problem, we can mitigate the "edge" one might get. That would be done by reducing the penalty for a missed goalie game. I think 0.5 probably overdoes it, but still leaves you with a penalty of like 0.7 for a game not involving goalies than the 1.2 penalty now (based on average GA this season).

However, it should be pointed out... no goalie games hurt teams with the best goalies the most. Teams that have bad sets face less of a penalty. So teams who go for the best set regardless of coverage pay a larger penalty than teams who have worse goalies, but better coverage, say. That's true no matter if it's -2.5 or -2.0, though, but the relative penalty increases for the better sets as we lower the automatic score against.

I want to run one more simple thing:

Scenario A) Say you have the two best goalies in the league, they allow 1.1 FCHL goals against (so 2.2 average NHL). BUT, you miss 21 games.

Scenario B) You have two bad goalies. They allow 1.65 FCHL goals against on average. But they only miss 3 games.

Which scenario would you rather have?

(btw those numbers are literally the two worst goalies and the two best goalies in the NHL, roughly)

Zach6668 · Guru

Well **** Arp, I was going to go to bed an hour ago.

Jay · Turning Back the Clock

On the surface - Scenario A

However, a more involved poolie could dig deeper into the numbers and be rewarded.

Zach6668 · Guru

Maybe that example doesn't say as much as I think it does. The answer is A and it's not even close.

But it's an extreme situation and probably not as telling as I thought - the reality is somewhere in between.

Something like you have Team A at 1.1 GAA and they dress 50 games, Team B and 1.3 GAA, you play them 20 games, and you have 10 non-goalie games.

Meanwhile, another poolie opts to go with goalie Team C at 1.3 GAA who plays 50 games, and Team D at 1.4 GAA who plays 27 games, and you have 3 games missed.

Something like that is a little closer to reality.

I guess the point is, you can't win with the worst goalies, no matter what you do (or at least, you won't have the edge in goaltending, but you will have extra cap for players).

But going with middling goalies who give you coverage can maybe be as valuable as having the best goalie, and an above average goalie who are average coverage.

I'm not sure why this is bad.

This league is just so much more than "pick the best goalies" and I like it that way.

Jay · Turning Back the Clock

Something to factor - Scenario A could more than likely have an owner spending around $5.00 on their 2 sets, and scenario B would have the owner spending $0.50. The extra money could come in handy at an auction.

GOCUBSGO · Guru

Lol Zach. Longest post FCHL history? If nothing else, you have the longest post featuring a graph in FCHL history. Add it to the record books!!

Fwiw, I read every word of it.

-- Edited by GOCUBSGO on Monday 28th of November 2016 11:45:38 PM

MLP · Guru

wow Zach, I cant even begin to reply to whatever that was. lol

But ill give it a shot to try and keep you awake as long as possible, and see if we get a 1000 word essay out of you. :)

1. "However, teams aren't bidding up ****ty goalies just because they cover more games, are they?"
I have seen you do exactly this in the AHL, and then tell me that was exactly why you did it. So ya, teams are doing it. :)
You bid up Carolina and when I asked why, you said they matched better than a St.Loius type, who was clearly a better gtd. So, you have these situations where goalies that are unanimously considered worse go for more than the better gtd. I find this happens more in AHL, but I could be wrong.

2. you seem to think that adding the wrinkle of an arbitrary schedule that effects the goaltending enough that you feel is what turns a "simple pick the best goalies" into an in depth pool. Every other part of this in depth pool I have no issue with, and Im not sure why you think somehow reducing the effect of "goalie matching" simplifies the pool or changes which forwards you play. I never said anything about how to run the team or players or anything beyond goalies.

3. I think your scenarios are way too extreme. Just my 2 cents.

MLP · Guru

For me, there is no real solution to my "problem" for lack of a better word. I just brought it up because I agreed with Rich (I think it was him), and I just think this is a part of a pool I dont think should be so heavily rewarded. And I think it is.
And I would assume most of you do too, or else people wouldnt take the time to figure out the best matchups and make trades based on matchups.

MLP · Guru

But if there is anything I would look strongly into, its to consider the reduction of the -2.5. Not because I think the -2.5 is crazy high, but just so to bring the NHL reality more into play with our reality, meaning the better goalies should be more universally desired, instead of an annual check of the spreadsheet to see matchups.

but hey, thats just me. :)

Zach6668 · Guru

Interestingly, the average goalie costs $1.15.

So teams spend $62.70 on the other 23-26 roster spots.

We're currently spending 955.75 on players and goalies... 385 players, 30 goalies.

So 921.25 on 385 players... average player cost is $2.39.

Goalies are hampered by a very limited market, I think. We're paying an extra $10 to get from 0.500, say, to 0.750 for a forward, but we won't pay more than ~$3 or so to get from -1.35 to -1.10.

Zach6668 · Guru

MLP wrote:
But if there is anything I would look strongly into, its to consider the reduction of the -2.5. Not because I think the -2.5 is crazy high, but just so to bring the NHL reality more into play with our reality, meaning the better goalies should be more universally desired, instead of an annual check of the spreadsheet to see matchups.

but hey, thats just me. :)

I think going down to 2.0 would be palatable to me. It would address your "issue" a little bit, even if I don't think it needs to be addressed... but I do hate no goalie games all around, and running the numbers for every possible set for the first time every opened my eyes to how many no goalie games we actually have.

Maybe three goalies is the answer, then it's more important to have better goalies, as scheduling is less important.

(You'd go from like an average of 5 missing games to 1 or 2 misses if you tried, rather than 10 to 5.)

If nothing else, I've learned that coverage is barely important, if at all. Even at -2.5.

Lol. Well, all else being equal, it isn't.

I don't know. I've lost track of the issue again, because goalies end up being the same as forwards or defense, in that players who play more games are more valuable, typically. Two players with identical stats, I think we're all paying more for one who plays 55 games vs 45 games. Works that way with goalies.

Good night, you bunch of dweebs.

Zach6668 · Guru

MLP wrote:
You bid up Carolina and when I asked why, you said they matched better than a St.Loius type, who was clearly a better gtd. So, you have these situations where goalies that are unanimously considered worse go for more than the better gtd. I find this happens more in AHL, but I could be wrong.

I was going to say that there's no way I did this because this off season was the first time I put it together to show me who the actual best combinations are - and I wasn't there.

The year before I had like 5 randomly selected groups that worked well with Dallas, and Carolina was part of that. But I wasn't prepared at all for the auction, so I would have bid poorly if I tried to go for the best goalies too. :D