This discussion group is for the General Managers (and other interested parties) of the Net Surfer's Hockey League to share information that may or may not be important to the day-to-day activities of the league. You decide!
I've suggested this rule in the past and it didn't meet with favorable opinion then, however, I think this could help bring some of the lower end teams back to a competitive level.
I had suggested about a year ago a rule allowing teams to select 1 player from their roster and have their values rerated to the ratings that are suggested for their NHL performance.
I suppose the best way of explaining this would be to show an example.
Right now I have Randy McKay sitting on my farm roster. His rating looks like this.
McKay R RW 7 3 7 4 6 3 3 3 4 4 5 49
His rating based on 97-98 NHL stats would be.
McKay R RW 9 6 8 7 7 5 6 6 6 7 6 73
This obviously makes him a respectable player again. But this rule wouldn't need to be applied to a farmer. An owner could select any 1 player from their roster to have rerated.
Originally I was going to suggest that this special rerate only be granted to the 8 teams that don't make the playoffs, or to the 4 teams that finish last in each respective division, however, I think that in the interest of fairness, every team should be allowed to take advantage of this. That, and I don't want to see another thread surrounding the idea of an owner tanking the season.
One benefit that I see is that it may once again become easier to swing a deal in this league, since people would have to take the NHL rerate value into account.
I remember from the last time I proposed this that people wanted us to limit our exposure to the actual NHL, but I don't see how that's possible since we do take NHL stats into consideration when the rookie list is drafted every year.
This rule could help make lower rated teams competitive again, and in the end, make it more fun to participate.
This is a feature that we use in the ISHHL, and I like to think it works pretty well. If I have been unclear about its purpose, perhaps one of the other ISHHL GM's could further expand on the idea.
My thought is that there should be time for this rule to go into effect, so it wouldn't be implemented until after NSHL8 and before NSHL9. This gives everyone 2 NSHL seasons to stockpile their farm rosters to take advantage of this new rule.
Thoughts?
Posted on Aug 3, 1999, 4:02 PM from IP address 209.6.0.149
1. If implemented as it is proposed (i.e. all teams can NHL-rerate a player), this rule would not necessarily help weaker teams become competitive. That would depend on whether or not weaker teams have a better NHL-rated players
on their rosters, and it is probably not the case.
What this rule would definitely do is that it
would make a player's NHL status more important.
2. At this point, Gord has adopted a new rule regarding the dispersal draft (or waiver draft).
That draft is structured in such a way that weaker teams would have a chance to get better players.
Also, tying the definition of a weaker team to
its budget (quality) should help distributing the
off-season perks (picks and camps) more fairly towards weaker teams. I would suggest to see how these measures work out before piling up more measures and rule changes. It is quite possible that what we have adopted this season will be sufficient to start evening things out somewhat.
Posted on Aug 3, 1999, 5:04 PM from IP address 199.45.71.2
I like the genral idea but would onyl support it under these two conditions:
1. Only the 8 teams that miss the playoffs could use this.
2. Said teams could only do this at maximum once every 3 NSHL seasons (this would prevent tanking), and could only be done with a player with a rating of 60 or lower.
Posted on Aug 4, 1999, 7:30 PM from IP address 24.66.243.95
I think that some of the recommendations to Ryan's proposal are justified.
That is to say that:
-this commodity cannot be traded.
-one player per team each season can be affected.
-all teams participate, or can choose to opt out.
This would:
-bring some live back to lesser players.
-give a boost to weaker teams to which one player CAN make a difference.
-still prevent tanking, but enhance the trading aspect of the game as there should be jockeying for that poor NSHL player who is much better in the NHL, ex. Brian Bellows, inter alia.
I wouldn't mind, though, if we had a one shot farmer re-rate. All teams would protect their top 25 players. (Sound familiar?) The remaining players would all be rerated and then (here's the fun part) re-enter the NSHL by a new draft. The teams would pick in reverse order of the NSHL's most recent end-of-season. No trading of picks would be allowed.
Some benefits as I see them:
-This would give all 24 teams about the same number of farmers, give or take one player. This temporarily resolves the lack of protection spots complaint. On the other hand, we could limit the number of picks per team to the size of the pre-draft farm club!
-The poorer teams would get bolstered.
-The stronger teams, picking lower, would get deeper before getting much more stronger.
-The number of usuable players would dramatically increase.
-Trading would increase as the market prefers usable players. Possibly less camps and draft picks would be exchanged in future trades as more teams would have more "quality" players.
This "re-juvenation" draft wouldn't be done each season. In fact, it could be a one-shot deal. Or once every 10 seasons.
Posted on Aug 5, 1999, 10:04 AM from IP address 207.245.239.226
I wouldn't mind, though, if we had a one shot farmer re-rate. All teams would protect their top 25 players. (Sound
familiar?) The remaining players would all be rerated and then (here's the fun part) re-enter the NSHL by a new draft. The
teams would pick in reverse order of the NSHL's most recent end-of-season. No trading of picks would be allowed.
Some benefits as I see them:
-This would give all 24 teams about the same number of farmers, give or take one player. This temporarily resolves the lack
of protection spots complaint. On the other hand, we could limit the number of picks per team to the size of the pre-draft
farm club!
-The poorer teams would get bolstered.
-The stronger teams, picking lower, would get deeper before getting much more stronger.
-The number of usuable players would dramatically increase.
-Trading would increase as the market prefers usable players. Possibly less camps and draft picks would be exchanged in
future trades as more teams would have more "quality" players.
This "re-juvenation" draft wouldn't be done each season. In fact, it could be a one-shot deal. Or once every 10 seasons.
---
I like this idea. It sounds like a way to revitalize the league.
Ryan
Stranglers
Posted on Aug 5, 1999, 2:37 PM from IP address 209.6.0.149
If this were implemented, it should DEFINATELY be allowed to apply ONLY to players rated below ?55?, ?50?. Perhaps 50 is a good mark. Players below 50 have only the value of being a protection slug - though NOW that protection slug is definately a lot more valuable with the OVERNIGHT implimentation of the new protection rules.
But players over 50 DO have their own Re-Rate potential value, and are traded as such already, ON TOP OF their protection value.
But I have had GM's tell me "Trade a farmer? What's the point." and end discussions there. Perhaps this would generate more interest in trading of farm "prospects", which I'm all for!
But again, I think it should also be limited to lower calibre teams. I suggest that the bottom half (12) of the teams, AFTER the draft, rated according to salary as the other bonuses will be. I suggest AFTER the draft, to allow for all the trades that occure during the offseason, which inevitably change the order of the rating list, from the season ending order that Bonus Camps are given for, for example.
So, the bottom 12 teams, listed by salary AFTER the draft, may choose 1 player from their team, rated BELOW 50, to re-rate according to NHL stats.
Posted on Aug 5, 1999, 9:57 PM from IP address 139.175.187.230
I like this idea. I had thought of having a
rehab kind of rerate for one player per team.
This would be exactly that and I would be in
favor of such a rule.
Posted on Aug 11, 1999, 12:51 AM from IP address 207.195.95.129
Gentlemen, I understand that this message board has been developed to give everyone a chance to publicize their "Beefs and Bouquets". As such, it has been extremely interesting following the trials and tribulations of a few of the GM's as they take their turn up on the soapbox. This is much better than any of those soap operas that my wife watches!!
BUT, I really would like to point out that some of us have children, and I for one don't want to have to explain to my 10 year old daughter what some of those fancy words that she found on one of Daddy's book-marked pages mean.
So take a deep breath, think of a way to make your point without the expletives, and then let 'em know exactly what you think.
Now, sorry for the interruption, who's next on the soapbox???
Posted on Aug 2, 1999, 9:40 AM from IP address 149.99.84.62
To type special characters in email or in your wordprocessor, hold the ALT key down (with the NumLock key On) and enter numbers on the numeric keypad. To display special characters in HTML simply insert a special character code. The following chart contains many, but not all of the hundreds of possible email and HTML character entities.
I am, normally, a fairly laid back guy. I see the NSHL news and rarely get vocal with the league. Instead I choose to talk about the issues with specific NSHL GM's that I feel comfortable with and they will remain nameless but know who they are (this would include all 'peg GM's plus an Edmontonian and a couple of TO'ers, that's what I call nameless). But the email that passed my computer today bothers me for a very simple reason.
Jeff has a public life when he is at work. He is observed by others and everything that happens at his job that concerns him and his actions is going to have a direct effect on the way others see him.
Jeff has a private life when he is at home. He is observed by no one unless he chooses to let them observe him.
David took an element of Jeff's private life and without Jeff's knowledge, made it public. We see it everyday. A persons private life invades their public life and there is embarassment. Politicians, entertainers, athletes, all seem to fall victim to this on regular basis. I'm suprised that an NSHL GM is now on this ever-growing list. Suprised and disapointed.
My good friends know about my Internet hockey league. A few of my co-workers know about it too becasue I decided to tell them. David crossed the line and at the very least should have asked Jeff if would be ok for him to write a letter to Mr.Brock mentioning Jeff's name.
Adam
Posted on Jul 30, 1999, 9:36 PM from IP address 207.161.142.230
To let you know, I have told Jeff that I appologise for any serious embarrassment that this letter may have caused him. It was, as stated, a simple volly into surrealism, that if anyone would take seriouosly, they'd need to be examined by a good psychologist! But you are right, there are people who IN FACT need to be examined, and so the problem did potentially exist, which is where I ered. I keep supposing (optimistically) that human beings can see the difference between what is important and what isn't. I sometimes forget that it's been my experience that in fact VERY FEW can. And so, I appologise to Jeff for the use of his name in a private letter - that was somehow LEAKED to the ENTIRE BLOODY EDMONTON ESKIMOS TEAM ORGANIZATION, according to what's been written as worries over this.
And THIS is the wonder of it all??? This was a PRIVATE letter addressed to Dieter Brock! How in the world did the entire office staff of the Eskimos get to be reading it??? THIS should be worry Jeff, and ANYONE ELSE who works there, more than my letter!!! Now, perhaps Mr. Brock came out of his office announcing this letter for everyone to read! But I doubt it... BUT if he did, do you think he came out in a fit of RAGE over the contents, and asked everyone to read the letter so that they could all hate me AND Jeff for ever?!?
Again, I doubt it - it was much more likely, if Mr. Brock allowed anyone to read it, that he did so laughing about it's playfullness.
But to be honest, I IN FACT more highly expect that the letter was read by people OTHER than Mr. Brock, before, during and after he may have read it, WITHOUT his consent. And thus the contents were mouthed around the office as often happens in situations where people do not respect other's privacy (PARTICULARLY TRUE in closed office environments, where behind the back gossip is rampant!)
How did JEFF get a copy of the letter? Did Mr. Brock give him one? I asked Jeff, but he didn't respond. How did the office staff read the letter? I also asked Jeff this, without explanation. THIS concerns me, and like I said, should be more of a worry to Jeff than the contents of the letter. I suspect, in fact, that had the letter been forwarded to Mr. Brock AS IT SHOULD HAVE without being read by office staff, then NONE of this would even be a concern. But perhaps I'm wrong, and in fact Mr. Brock came flying out of his office throwing copies of the letter everywhere, denouncing the horror of its contents and Jeff's association with ANYTHING "Fantastic" and David Easton, that evil human being in China, in particular. But something continues to nag me, saying "I DOUBT IT!!!"
I welcome any informed explanation. (which means from Jeff).
PS: This has only a coincidental relationship with Jeff Tetz anyways! I also e-mailed other coaches of my teams, including Tom Landry, and am currently drafting a letter to the PERFECT Ms. Moore, about their association with me in the "fantasy world" of the NSHL. I picked Dieter Brock to Coach The Kenting Quakers LONG before Jeff mentioned his being employed by The Eskimos. This was NOT PERSONAL, and I hope Jeff in the end understands that the most.
Thanks for the time,
David
Posted on Jul 31, 1999, 7:08 AM from IP address 139.175.56.71
You can email anyone you want, just don't include my name with anything that would lead others to believe that you are crazy. It would be different if you were a friend and you said, "Oh by the way, my friend Jeff Tetz works at the Eskimos and I just wanted to say what a big fan I am of yours Mr.Brock. Instead you write all of this garble that would have lost him half way through the email and he'd be left thinking, "What kind of morons does Jeff hang out with?"
Jeff.
Posted on Aug 3, 1999, 5:21 PM from IP address 207.34.78.62
The whole issue of whether Internet e-mail is private has many levels.
Was the letter addressed to Mr. Brock?
Did the e-mail include a standard privacy warning?
For example:
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE.
IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR AN AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY
NOTIFIED THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS DOCUMENT IN ERROR, AND THAT ANY REVIEW, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY RETURN E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE AT THE NUMBER SET OUT ABOVE AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE.
Even so, sending e-mail is like mailing a post card. You can not expect it not to be read by anyone who passes it on, including your ISP.
This issue should govern how everyone behaves. Would you want your mother to see what you wrote? B^)
Posted on Aug 3, 1999, 5:51 PM from IP address 209.89.174.236
I personally think there is a major problem with the way we currently do the draft order. B\c we have a divisional playoff system, a team that is stuck in with a powerful division could end up perenially finishing 5th in the division and miss the playoffs and yet draft lower than a team that finishes 2cnd in their division every year. I see this as incredibly brutal. I personally think with a lottery where the max you can move is 4 spots (only one draw made and only one team moves up...just like the NHL and NBA), and with the NON-PLAYOFF teams participating you would serve league parity a lot more than the current (and my opinion), brutal system. As it is right now any team that is in a strong division and would have to fight just to make the playoffs with 85+ pts (not going to mention any names Artur), would be dumb to do their best and would better serve theiur teams by tanking the season in order to get a better draft spot.
Posted on Jul 29, 1999, 9:11 PM from IP address 24.66.243.95
first, again, this should be at the penalty box - but I don't have an access
there from work. I apologize.
I would like to make a proposal to the rule changes - it is a simple one.
Currently, there is no provisions to release a player if you like.
There was no need so far. However, introduction of the team quality brings about
the need for answering such question.
Say team A would like to cut payroll by "removing" some of its expensive players.
One way to do so is through trade. I think that we need another way - simple
release. This need can arise in the following case:
- noone needs your player and it is impossible to trade him for an empty bag of pucks
The released player can then be made available
to other teams in order of their team quality. If not picked, he can reenter
the league through the draft. In other words this is a sort of a waiver system.
Please, respond to this if you like at the penalty box.
Also, send me a copy of your response, as I can't get to the box.
Artur
Posted on Jul 29, 1999, 3:33 PM from IP address 207.245.239.226
This does seem to be an adjustment to the waiver draft.
Some leagues force a player to be put on waivers if he is sent down to the farm club.
More realistically though, if you're willing to give up a player to waivers then why not just trade him for the proverbial bag of pucks, a camping trip or the old favorite, a warm body?
Artur, if you have an players you really don't want, let me know and I'll take them. I certainly don't mind increasing my team's quality.
Larry
Posted on Jul 29, 1999, 3:39 PM from IP address 207.245.239.226
In my continuing effort to keep things relatively simple, I would just as soon prohibit the releasing of players at the GM's discretion.
Right now, the only way a player is removed from the league is through retirement. With the new "team qulaity" scale being introduced this season, allowing teams to dump salaries seems to be another way to get around something. Your team payroll is too high? OK, no problem, just dump a player who makes a little too much, and move down the team quality standings.
I would prefer that if a team wants to get rid of a player they figure isn't earning his keep, they should have to trade him. If they can't, then they are stuck with him. There are always teams looking for protection pawns, however, so I don't see this being a problem.
Thanks.
Posted on Jul 29, 1999, 4:22 PM from IP address 24.66.52.85
With NSHL7 about to start it's time for me to start thinking about the Power Rankings. They were more popular than I could have imagined in NSHL6.
To help prepare for NSHL7 I'd like to get everyone's opinion on how often they'd like to see a new issue of the Power Rankings, and what angle should be used to rank the teams.
This second point is the tricky one. Is it more important to have a consistent ranking based on some specific measurable factors, or should the rankings be more mysterious and flexible?
The former could be based on any number of combinations of stats, from team PIMs and goal differentials to winning percentage and point totals. The latter is just, well, inexplicable.
As well, I'd like to invite interested parties to create the rankings for specific issues. LMK and we'll work something out!
Larry
SunDogs
Posted on Jul 27, 1999, 12:25 AM from IP address 207.245.239.226
I personally think the rankings should be a combination of the last 10 games a team plays and their winning ptc and should be done on a regular schedule (lets say every 7 to 10 days).
The weight should be 70-30 in favour of the last 10 games played.
eg) team A is 7-3-1 in last 10 with a total wptc of .650 for the season. The formulae would then be .75*70 + .65*30=ranking ptc. The teams would have this done for each of them and then they would be ranked in order.
Posted on Jul 29, 1999, 9:03 PM from IP address 24.66.243.95
I'm kinda dissappointed at the lack of response to you question about it at The Penalty Box. (But what's new!)
My take is to keep them unpredictable (why re-post the league standings?) but not excessivly wild, either, as without some legitimacy, they don't gain the respect and they may deserve and the pride that can be felt by passing your arch-nemisis in THE POWER RANKINGS! (if you know what I mean... PSYCHOSIS ARE GOING DOWN !!!)
Posted on Aug 6, 1999, 11:39 AM from IP address 139.175.186.70
Although I am very sad to see the streaks\slumps go, as there were a fundamental part of the NSHL and one of the best ways for weaker teams to have a chance against the stronger teams, it is the last time I will EVER talk about them again.
Although they will undoubtably come up for vote again, I will NEVER vote of the issue myself.
Streaks\slumps has been erroneosly removed from the NSHL and has to me become a dead issue. I for one will lead by example and grow-up and accept the results of the vote. I will NEVER vote on this issue again.
Posted on Jul 17, 1999, 10:41 AM from IP address 24.66.243.95
Hey Trev,
If the issue were to come up again, I would urge you to vote. As we have seen, every vote counts. This has always been a tight issue, so your abstention will only ensure that you'll never see streaks and slumps again.
Cheers,
Larry
Posted on Jul 18, 1999, 11:08 PM from IP address 207.245.239.226
Larry has a VERY VALID POINT, here - (PS: has the world turned upside down? Trevor agrees with me about something ???)
Obviously, some GM's are blind enough not to see the value of Streaks / Slumps (even the sad Stranglers - who could use them the most!). If you are really so keen FOR them, as EVERYONE should be !, then we'll need EVERY VOTE WE CAN GET to get them back into the NSHL, where they can do nothing but HELP the weaker teams get better!
Please VOTE to bring The Streaks / Slumps BACK !!! (IF we are allowed to do so)
AT THAT POINT (when they are reinstated) - the league would have "tried" both ways, and seen the error of its ways, and THEN maybe we shouldn't bother voting again for sometime - THAT would make sense. But considering the number of GM's that can't see the benefits right before their eyes, we're going to need THAT POSITIVE VOTE in future debates. I hope you continue, as I will, to campain AGAINST the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer!
Posted on Jul 20, 1999, 12:55 PM from IP address 210.242.84.161
>Larry has a VERY VALID POINT, here - (PS: has the >world turned upside down? Trevor agrees with me >about something???)
Agreed.
>Obviously, some GM's are blind enough not to see >the value of Streaks / Slumps (even the sad >Stranglers - who could use them the most!). If >you are really so keen FOR them, as EVERYONE >should be !, then we'll need EVERY VOTE WE CAN
>GET to get them back into the NSHL, where they >can do nothing but HELP the weaker teams get >better!
Ok, one thing I can't stand is when people speak for me. David, I appreciate your desire to get the streaks back, but please, don't use me or my orginization to promote your cause.
My team is probably in the shape it's in because of streaks and slumps. A suck team like mine is just as likely to fall victim to the -2 Monley Virus that could bite yours. And can you honestly tell me that if I have the same # of guys slumping as you do, I stand a chance of beating you? (Using last years teams as my benchmark in this argument)
Not likely.
>Please VOTE to bring The Streaks / Slumps BACK >!!! (IF we are allowed to do so)
While I agree that we should vote on issues like this, let's leave the campaigning until next off-season. The issue has been decided for NSHL7. Let it rest.
>AT THAT POINT (when they are reinstated) - the >league would have "tried" both ways, and seen the >error of its ways, and THEN maybe we shouldn't >bother voting again for sometime - THAT would >make sense. But considering the number of
>GM's that can't see the benefits right before >their eyes, we're going to need THAT POSITIVE >VOTE in future debates. I hope you continue, as I >will, to campain AGAINST the rich getting richer >and the poor getting poorer!
Well, as someone that has had a lengthy career in another hls league, and missed the playoffs despite having a 32-28-20 record (finished w/ 84 points tied with the 4th place team), I'd like to think I know what I'm missing in the streaks.
Again, I want to see Trev keep voting year in and year out. It's damned important.
Posted on Jul 20, 1999, 4:41 PM from IP address 209.6.0.149
>Larry has a VERY VALID POINT, here - (PS: has the >world turned upside down? Trevor agrees with me >about something???)
Agreed.
>Obviously, some GM's are blind enough not to see >the value of Streaks / Slumps (even the sad >Stranglers - who could use them the most!). If >you are really so keen FOR them, as EVERYONE >should be !, then we'll need EVERY VOTE WE CAN
>GET to get them back into the NSHL, where they >can do nothing but HELP the weaker teams get >better!
Ok, one thing I can't stand is when people speak for me. David, I appreciate your desire to get the streaks back, but please, don't use me or my orginization to promote your cause.
My team is probably in the shape it's in because of streaks and slumps. A suck team like mine is just as likely to fall victim to the -2 Monley Virus that could bite yours. And can you honestly tell me that if I have the same # of guys slumping as you do, I stand a chance of beating you? (Using last years teams as my benchmark in this argument)
Not likely.
>Please VOTE to bring The Streaks / Slumps BACK >!!! (IF we are allowed to do so)
While I agree that we should vote on issues like this, let's leave the campaigning until next off-season. The issue has been decided for NSHL7. Let it rest.
>AT THAT POINT (when they are reinstated) - the >league would have "tried" both ways, and seen the >error of its ways, and THEN maybe we shouldn't >bother voting again for sometime - THAT would >make sense. But considering the number of
>GM's that can't see the benefits right before >their eyes, we're going to need THAT POSITIVE >VOTE in future debates. I hope you continue, as I >will, to campain AGAINST the rich getting richer >and the poor getting poorer!
Well, as someone that has had a lengthy career in another hls league, and missed the playoffs despite having a 32-28-20 record (finished w/ 84 points tied with the 4th place team), I'd like to think I know what I'm missing in the streaks.
Again, I want to see Trev keep voting year in and year out. It's damned important.
Posted on Jul 20, 1999, 4:46 PM from IP address 209.6.0.149
>Larry has a VERY VALID POINT, here - (PS: has the >world turned upside down? Trevor agrees with me >about something???)
Agreed.
>Obviously, some GM's are blind enough not to see >the value of Streaks / Slumps (even the sad >Stranglers - who could use them the most!). If >you are really so keen FOR them, as EVERYONE >should be !, then we'll need EVERY VOTE WE CAN
>GET to get them back into the NSHL, where they >can do nothing but HELP the weaker teams get >better!
Ok, one thing I can't stand is when people speak for me. David, I appreciate your desire to get the streaks back, but please, don't use me or my orginization to promote your cause.
My team is probably in the shape it's in because of streaks and slumps. A suck team like mine is just as likely to fall victim to the -2 Monley Virus that could bite yours. And can you honestly tell me that if I have the same # of guys slumping as you do, I stand a chance of beating you? (Using last years teams as my benchmark in this argument)
Not likely.
>Please VOTE to bring The Streaks / Slumps BACK >!!! (IF we are allowed to do so)
While I agree that we should vote on issues like this, let's leave the campaigning until next off-season. The issue has been decided for NSHL7. Let it rest.
>AT THAT POINT (when they are reinstated) - the >league would have "tried" both ways, and seen the >error of its ways, and THEN maybe we shouldn't >bother voting again for sometime - THAT would >make sense. But considering the number of
>GM's that can't see the benefits right before >their eyes, we're going to need THAT POSITIVE >VOTE in future debates. I hope you continue, as I >will, to campain AGAINST the rich getting richer >and the poor getting poorer!
Well, as someone that has had a lengthy career in another hls league, and missed the playoffs despite having a 32-28-20 record (finished w/ 84 points tied with the 4th place team), I'd like to think I know what I'm missing in the streaks.
Again, I want to see Trev keep voting year in and year out. It's damned important.
Posted on Jul 20, 1999, 4:48 PM from IP address 209.6.0.149
the "blind" GM's aremuch more open-minded persons than you, oh the arogant one who knows what we should be doing. Not only you have no credentials and/or authority to know that, you just showed how closed-minded you are, because you already know what your vote will be before you even tried playing without streaks.
Posted on Jul 21, 1999, 8:39 PM from IP address 216.13.20.8
PS: Being open or closed, blind or insightful, has nothing to do with being right or wrong - don't confuse the two.
I could be as open to ideas as I possibly could be, yet I still would refuse, at any argument, to let you rape my children. I would see something WRONG with the suggestion, which would superceed my OPENESS.
It is in fact the SIGHT achieved that allows for the argument against the act, not the blindness.
At the risk of posing a pun... do YOU see?
Posted on Jul 29, 1999, 6:05 AM from IP address 210.242.84.152
This is not at all "the SIGHT achieved" that is
the reason for you being negative here. Not at all. Many people from NSHL participate in other leagues (ISHHL is one example) where
1. Most of GM's enjoy it VERY MUCH.
2. There are no constant champions - as I said before, in 8 seasons we had 5 different cup winners in ISHHL.
Also, these GM's of NSHL had the opportunity to play both ways (with streaks and without). These GM's compared something they experienced and not
something that they express in pages of USELESS demagogy.
So who SEES things and who is BLIND after all?
Or should I better say ASS-LIKE STABBORN? (here
ass is an animal that has a habit of stoping and not moving no matter what you do - reminds me of your behaviour somewhat).
Posted on Jul 30, 1999, 4:30 PM from IP address 199.45.71.2
1. Re-rating
************
Back to the old system of hiding as many players as you want, only limited by the number of farmers you have. Nice and simple.
THIS IS A MAJOR CONCERN OF MINE - MAINLY FOR PLANNING PURPOSES. FOR EXAMPLE, THE LIZARDS HAD ABOUT 18 PLAYERS ON THEIR FARM GOING INTO NSHL6, AND NOW THEY ARE DOWN TO ABOUT 5 ! HAD THEY KNOWN ABOUT THIS COMING INTO AFFECT, OF COURSE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE JUST TRADED AWAY 2/3 OF THEIR FARM TEAM. MY POINT IS, AND I MAKE IT VERY STRONGLY, IS THAT IF THIS RULE IS TO COME INTO EFFECT, IT BE IMPLIMENTED AT LEAST 2 SEASONS FROM NOW, WHEN TEAMS KNOW WHATS GOING TO BE EXPECTED OF THEM, AND CAN STOCK UP ACCORDINGLY. ANOTHER WAY IT HURTS IS FOR THE TEAMS WHO HAVE TRADED AWAY THEIR DRAFT PICKS, THE EASIEST AND CHEAPEST WAY TO RESTOCK YOUR FARM TEAM. I'M SURE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE DONE SO HAD THEY KNOWN THE VALUE OF A FARMER WITHIN THIS NEW RULE CHANGE.
I DON'T MIND THE PRINCIPLE OF THE IDEA - BUT TIMING MUST BE LOOKED AT.
AS FAR AS THE "OLD" CURRENT SYSTEM GOES, I THINK IT is WORKING. I HAVE NOW BEEN ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE (X-PROTECTIONS / 4 PROTECTIONS), AND I CAN TELL YOU THE X IS A HELL OF A LOT BETTER! I HAVE HAD TO TRADE AWAY DEVELOPING PLAYERS FOR PLAYERS OF LESSER RATINGS JUST SO I WOULDN'T GET CAUGHT LOSING ALL GROUND - SUNDOGS HAVE BEEN SCRAMBLING TOO IN THE SAME WAY. THE TRADERS/MUFFS DON'T HAVE AS MUCH A CONCERN BECAUSE OF THEIR DEPTH, BUT FOR THE TEAMS TRYING TO GET TO THE TOP, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT. THE LIZARDS SHOULD HAVE FINISHED WAY DOWN THE LIST, AND WE'D STILL HAVE PLAYERS LIKE NABOKOV/SELIVANOV/RUCHINSKY/NIINIMAA/ETC IN THE LINEUP.
ALTERNATIVELY, THESE GOOD PLAYERS HAVE BEEN GOING TO WEAKER TEAMS, THOSE WITH ENOUGH PROTECTION SPOTS TO HIDE THEM FROM RERATING, THUS MAKING THOSE TEAMS BETTER! SO, GOOD TEAMS GET WEAKER/BAD TEAMS GET STRONGER - I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE OBJECTIVE.
2. Waiver draft
***************
To help out the weaker teams, we'll try out the waiver draft idea.
Each team will protect 6-10 players (I suggest 8), and then each team
selects one player, with each team losing one player. You can select a
player from your own team if you want. Order for this draft will be determined by a "team qulaity" scale, as determined by the sum of the salaries, as calcualted by HLS2, of your top 20 players. The lowest paid teams get to pick first :-)
Also, this draft will occur immediately (within a day or two) of the end of the playoffs. No trades will be permitted from the trade deadline until the completion of the waiver draft. Nobody wants the Muffs picking 1st in the waiver draft, now would they? Also, the trading of waiver drat picks will be prohibited.
THE QUALITY OF TEAMS IDEA IS GREAT WITH ME. IT ALEVIATES MANY OF MY PREVIOUSLY VOICED CONCERNS.
FOR THE WAIVER DRAFT I'D SUGGEST MAKING THIS FIGURE 11 (TWO FULL LINES OF PROTECTIONS AND ONE GOALIE). THIS ALLOWS FOR TEAMS TO DEVELOP PLAYERS AND KEEP SOME COSISTENCY WITH THEIR TEAM. OTHERWISE, WHAT I SUSPECT YOU'LL START TO SEE ARE TEAMS ONLY PLAYING THEIR BEST PLAYERS, AS WHY BOTHER PLAYING AND DEVELOPING A PLAYER OVER THE 9 PLAYER WAIVER DRAFT LIMIT, IF YOU'RE JUST GOING TO LOSE THEM ANYWAY? THIS WILL DETRIMENTALLY AFFECT THE OVERALL QUALITY OF THE LEAGUE, AND ALSO LIMIT SUBSTANTIALLY THE TRADE PROCESS AND COACHING STRATEGIES.
THE IDEA OF A WAIVER DRAFT IS GOOD.
3. Bonus camps
**************
The bonus camps will stay the same, but will be determined by the above mentioned "team quality" scale, as of the end of the regular season.
THAT'S FINE WITH ME - HOWEVER, I STILL LIKE THE IDEA OF AN ADDITIONAL 1 OR 2 CAMPS GOING TO TEAMS THAT HAVE MISSED THE PLAYOFFS (AS IN THE EAGLES CASE, WHERE THEY GOT CAUGHT IN STRONG DIVISION AND COULDN'T PARTICIPATE IN POST SEASON PLAY - BUT DON'T GET ANY COMPENSATION FOR THAT.
2ND THOUGHT IS: WHY NOT ALSO GIVE BONUS CAMPS TO THE TOP 3 OR 4 TEAMS IN THE REGULAR SEASON STANDING? AS A REWARD FOR PLAYING OUT THE LONG SEASON SUCCESFULLY? RIGHT NOW, THERE IS VERY LITTLE REWARD FOR REGULAR SEASON PLAY - EXCEPT THE Braggers' Bowl, AND POSSIBLY HOME ICE ADVANTAGE IN THE PLAYOFFS. BUT THEN WE HAVE A SITUATION LIKE THE SCHULTZ DIVISION, WHERE THE 4TH PLACE SUNDOGS NEVER SEE HOME ICE ADVANTAGE, AND THE 3RD PLACE LIZARDS HAVE TO MEET THE 4TH PLACE SUNDOGS IN THE 1ST ROUND! SOME REWARDS FOR TRYING AND SUCCEEDING DURING THE REGULAR SEASON !!! SO, INSTEAD, REWARD THEM FOR A JOB WELL DONE.
4. Entry Draft
**************
The order of selection for the entry draft will still be determined by the final regular season standings. This is a nice tradition, and changing this would take away the mystery and intrigue involved in the trading of draft picks. I do like the idea of a draft lottery, however. I would suggest we would hold a lottery similar to the NHL. Beside taking away any incentive to dog it, this will also provide us with a decent excuse to get together and drink beer (or Rum).
Posted on Jul 15, 1999, 7:12 PM from IP address 139.175.187.206
As I see it we probally didnt take two seasons to implement the current system. I dont have a problem with someone trying to take full advantage of a system but you cant expect to put all your bags in one basket and not worry about the possbility of something like this happening. I think something like this is to difficult to agree on so it is best that one person, in this case the commish, decide this issue. If you dont have a problem with the theory then it should work. Every team is in the same boat and you have one season to rectify the situation.
Therfore, I submit that we should all just jump aboard and say hey thats the rules, its not a horrible rule, so lets get at it.
I see that small things take up to much thought than is required. This is suppose to be fun.
Thats my rambling opinion, quickly and thoughtlessly put together as I have to go drinking.
Wait till I get home... then you will see some quality Sweet Pee thoughts!
Good night to all.
Posted on Jul 15, 1999, 7:32 PM from IP address 24.66.63.39
First of all, the SunDogs have successfully traded away and parlayed 4 protection spots to the best of the club's potential. It's not like I traded away half my roster, only 4 new faces in training camp this season. That's the same number I picked up in the draft last season.
Two, the waiver draft won't stop anyone from developing past the protection limit. You can only lose one guy over the limit. But in return you get someone else. This is at worst, an enforced HAT TRADE! Bring 'em on home, baby!
Three. Quality. Oh boy! The SunDogs quality level was much lower than their finish at the end of NSHL6. There should be a trophy for performing so well with such a small budget. Ah, but where would I put?
Four. Typing in all caps, while may not mean that you're yelling in still considered bad 'netiquette. (Mr. Passey excepted.) It's also very daln hard to read, especially when it turns to italics on this "respond" page.
In conclusion. Prove that you're a great GM by using the new rules to your full advantage. And why not ask why the HLS2 won't allow the change in playoff format before you rant about that again?
Posted on Jul 15, 1999, 8:13 PM from IP address 207.245.239.226
Well, just a few points. First, noone knew and was getting ready for these rule changes. If you
made a few trades that don't look too good in the light of the upcoming rules... well, we are talking farmers. Just get them back - I was able to get 3 for 3 camps just another day. Maybe now you can get 3 for 4-5 camps. Not a big diff.
Development of players is not hindered by 1 round draft. You are loosing one player only. BTW, if you want to protect 11, than the weaker teams will have a chance to get a thirdliner from some team. Mind you, it can be a decent player, but it would be more like throwing bones.
Artur
Posted on Jul 16, 1999, 12:09 AM from IP address 216.13.91.162
What can we do about getting rid of some of the cruft on this page? There are a number of messages from more than a couple months ago that really should be purged by now.
Posted on Jul 13, 1999, 5:36 PM from IP address 24.128.40.38
This is a Good Idea - as long as most of The GM's actually get to The Penalty Box and read the issues being discussed - even old ones here - that would be NEW to anyone who hadn't been here yet, and for that matter, may still very well have relevance to current issues.
But then, that's NOT LIKELY GOING TO HAPPEN AROUND HERE, IT APPEARS, so, go ahead - clean house!
Posted on Jul 15, 1999, 8:02 PM from IP address 139.175.187.206
If you recall, the old messages had to do with some nasty business in April.
Discussions that lead to changes in the business of the NSHL will be reflected in the NSHL Constitution which is now available on the web site.
The constitution will soon be updated to reflect the new rules that are also posted on the site. It is the intention of the NSHL to keep a history of the rule changes with rationales (where needed) to use as a FAQ and help new GMs who have not yet read them to understand what has happened in the past and why things are the way there are now.
In this proper context, sound debate can thrive.
Posted on Jul 15, 1999, 8:18 PM from IP address 207.245.239.226
According to the regulations for entry into the Hall of Fame, it said that a player inducted must have a career total of more than 1 Point per Game, which DOESN'T qualify #99, right?
So, what is the debate? Or do we want to change these guidelines?
By the way, this Survey question has been on the system for LONG time now, and I'm VERY surprised (and in a way NOT) at so few GM's (7) responding to it. I don't understand the apathy.
Posted on Jul 13, 1999, 1:01 PM from IP address 210.242.84.158
I refer to HOF rule for entry 1.c. which states and anything else we decide. Or something like that.
And yup, there was a hell of a lot of controversy over Mario's entry since he didn't exactly burn up the NSHL. (Look out for Donald Audette.) That was 5 seasons and I think 2 years ago.
But, it is the summertime, the off-season and the living is easy.
Posted on Jul 13, 1999, 1:47 PM from IP address 207.245.239.226
Let's Make One! Call it the Pete Rose Rule (for getting kicked out)
- the guidelines would be that after a player was inducted, a lull time is instituted, then when the dust finally settles, we recognize that the player spent most of his career UNDERACHIEVING, COASTING, CRYING & WHINING his way to EARLY RETIREMENT - "Boo-hoo... they body check & hold my stick in the NHL... I'm taking my puck and going home" - and why not, he's got enough $$$$$$ now to last the rest of his life!
Ya know, if Lemiuex had of actually TRIED, he would have been one of the greatest players ever - but I never respect half ass efforts!
Posted on Jul 16, 1999, 1:16 PM from IP address 139.175.186.70
This is REALLY REALLY sad, and SILLY! (sorry, Artur!).
I think that for such EXTREME changes in league policy in the future, maybe a 75% or 70%, or something, Majority vote should have to come in. New things, 50% is okay - but to change the whole system, and basically the entire ESSENCE of The NSHL, a higher vote should be needed, as per other companies who run businesses with integrity.
My opinion,
David Easton
GM, Ping Tung Lizards of The NSHL
NSHL6 League BRONZE MEDAL Winners!
Posted on Jul 12, 1999, 9:43 PM from IP address 139.175.187.109
I also think that any changes of such DRAMITIC nature should be implemented in (at LEAST) 2 Seasons time, allowing teams to plan long term on changes to the system that WILL be coming into effect in the future. I'm sure some teams (including mine) are immediately regretting some moves they have made, now that Streaks/Slumps has disappeared. Allowing for some PLANNING TIME would be much better.
PPS: Of course, this is another DISSADVANTAGE to playing the game from The Republic of China! I would be UNAWARE of the general consensus of opinion about a potential rule change, and therefore an expected result on a vote, because I'm not sitting in The Foomanchu's Home Ice rink chatting with half the GM's in the league. I (and other GM's not living in The Winnipeg area) therefore can't SEE a rule change coming, and start adjusting our rosters accordingly. This gives us a distinct disadvantage, which I'm happy to accept for playing the game, but which also would be aleviated somewhat if any rules changes were implemented in 2 Seasons, not immediately.
thanks,
Lost In China
Posted on Jul 13, 1999, 1:15 AM from IP address 139.175.186.53
Well, I have been to every single meeting at the Foo's home rink, and I can say without a doubt that I was unsure which way the streraks/slumps vote would go, right up, literally, seconds before I sent out the results.
As for this coming as a surprise, it shouldn't have. I think that it has been fairly common knowldge a vote on this would be forthcoming, since we've voted on it practically every season!
Posted on Jul 13, 1999, 5:10 PM from IP address 24.66.52.85
nothings should be set in stone (except the length of David's messages :-). If the streaks and slumps are missed by majority after the next season, they could easily be reinstated. There is no need
to be so pessimistic about the change. Look at the
rerate changes: it didn't work well for a few seasons - out the window the change went. Now we know that what we did wasn't working well. Maybe we will do something else in the future, but we won't repeat the same mistakes.
In any case, streaks/slumps were in NSHL since the very beginning, and since the very beginning they
were under huge criticism. I think a few good GM's left as they couldn't bare what this thing did to their teams (remember GM of Vipers - currently Foo?). So trying to play without them may be
something that people like more.
Artur
Posted on Jul 14, 1999, 11:09 AM from IP address 199.45.71.2
I've only voted on it once, and at THAT time it was being called for an END to ever voting on the issues again. So, that it was to be voted on again was in fact "not expected" by me (a New GM) for the reasons you've suggested.
Posted on Jul 15, 1999, 7:43 PM from IP address 139.175.187.206
About 4 months ago we had a trade discussion when I warned you that streaks/slumps is in danger of
being deprecated.
On another hand, could you please explain what can a team do to prepare for such a move that a team wouldn't do if this change didn't happen?
Just curious.
Posted on Jul 14, 1999, 11:02 AM from IP address 199.45.71.2
I am (was) preparing my roster around the statistcal averages that so many of my players will be in a STREAK or SLUMP for the course of NSHL7. (SO MANY PLAYERS PER ROSTER POSITION - with the likelyhood that ONE per position will be undoubtedly slumping throughout the season)
I wouldn't have needed to do this without Streaks/Slumps having affect on my players. I could then TRADE away good players I have in excess at a certain position beyond who I'll be using anyway.
Etc...
There are MANY stratagies involved - that's the BEAUTY of Streaks/Slumps.
I believe the rule was voted out because in the end, no one want to work for their teams performance (with exceptions to certain GM's of course) - another effect of the apathy inherent in The NSHL (at a certain level).
It's just too bad.
Posted on Jul 15, 1999, 7:51 PM from IP address 139.175.187.206
Not only you don't have control over streaks/slumps, but you can't "work" with them.
There were many examples during the last season
when teams would go very hot for 15-20 games, then lost 15-20 games in arow (Eagles, Sundogs, Traders,... to name just a few). If what you say is right, the coaches of these teams all of the sudden turned apathetic and stopped working with their rosters. I just don't buy this.
Also, if you are able to work with streaks, what happened in the playoffs? I thought that Sundogs just withered in the second half, meaning Larry turned apathetic. How come you couldn't beat an apathetic team? How come a successful GM like Tetz
couldn't beat the one of the lowest quality teams like Crunch? How did Crunch get to the finals? What happened with Crispy between the 2 seasons ago and one season ago? Did he attend the course on how to stop being an apathetic GM?
David, even though you are very arogant in this post (and in most of your messages - nothing personal, just a statement of fact) as if you indeed know what you are doing with streaks and slumps while other GM's don't, what you said is worth very little in practice.
Cheers
Artur
Posted on Jul 16, 1999, 12:25 AM from IP address 216.13.91.162
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
This guy NEVER ceases to break me up! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
What a laugh! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
I'm pulling for you, Artur - maybe one day!
Posted on Jul 16, 1999, 1:03 PM from IP address 139.175.186.70
First, I haven't read all the messages on this subject, so sorry if I repeat someone's thoughts.
Before we send our proposals, we should clearly understand what is wrong with what we have now.
IMO, the major problem with rerating is the fact that the rules are incredibly umbiguous. Let me explain.
A few seasons ago, the league adopted the position to limit the number of players that any team can hide from rerating. While the idea behind it was sound (i.e. to skew rerating in favour of weaker teams) the implementation of it turned out to be the biggest fiasco of NSHL.
Can anyone tell me (after 2 or 3 seasons of using this new rule) what on earth "hiding X players" from rerating mean?
So far I thought that this meant hiding X players from 25 men roster that was set at the trading deadline. Then, however, this opens incredible loop hole. Here are just a few examples. One, send some underachieving players to farm just before the deadline. Two, after the season, make any trade and have newly aquired players be sent down to farm (this is a standard procedure actually) - no need protecting them. Another hole: trade 1 for 2 and get 1 extra player that you don't have to protect. I can mention about 4-5 ways to avoid bad rerating. All of the above should be quite legitimate actually (however, I don't advise you follow these simple scheemes - our Gord (almost like our Lord) will catch you - come up with something more elaborate if you like). So, as far as I am concerned, the current rerating formula is like "yellow lines on the snow".
What can we do to fix it? Well, the rerating was working great before these limits were imposed.
The simple way to get the sanity back would be to remove these limits. There is actually one good reason to abolish these limits: THEY HURT LOWER STANDING TEAMS MORE THAN THEY HURT STRONG TEAMS! (IMO of course).
There is another big problem with rerating and that is that the current rerating is very predetermined. I am currently working on an alternative rerater, however, and hopefully we will have it by the next season.
This is my take on the situation.
Thank you for reading.
Posted on Jul 12, 1999, 5:23 PM from IP address 199.45.71.2
Protections (ESPECIALLY WITHOUT STREAKS) are now one of the increasingly rarer ways that a poor team might gain any ground on a stronger team - and NOW you want to take THAT AWAY TOO!
It's all over!
Posted on Jul 13, 1999, 1:06 AM from IP address 139.175.186.53
Please, read my original message again - where did I say to take it away? I said to return it to the way it used to be - protection with no limits. God knows who made Gord accept these limits anyway. They haven't worked well - experiment should be over.
Posted on Jul 13, 1999, 10:52 AM from IP address 199.45.71.2
On the re-rate issue:
*********************
I would propose a hard trade deadline, where absolutely NO player movement is allowed after the deadline, right up to the day of re-rating (which could then occur immediately following the championship game).
All the players on your 25 man PRO roster (it would be mandatory to fill your roster with 25 guys) would then be subject to re-rating.
The "hiding" of players from the re-rater could still happen, but with some risk. In conjunction with this, I would be in favor of some sort of minimum games played in order for a player to be eligible to suit up in the playoffs.
On the draft order:
*******************
I think the current system is fine, but I kind of like the playoff-based one as well. I also like the concept of basing the draft order on the actual "skill level" of the temas as of the end of the season (or as of the trade deadline, if we went with my proposal above). It has some merit, I believe.
Carry on.
Posted on Jul 12, 1999, 2:42 AM from IP address 24.66.52.85
RE-RATING MONSTER
Ace's re-rate timeframe is an interesting option. It offers the features that the Theef mentions of filling a roster and a qualifying number of games to play (or at least be on the pro roster) to be eligible to play in the playoffs. The exact number of actual regular season games played to be eligible for playoff action would have to be worked out. Maybe 25, with goalies excluded? And to discourage the abuse of this, in addition to playoff eligibility, make the rule similar for trophy eligibility, even ipso facto trophies like for most goals scored, etc. Not on the pro squad at game 80? Then no trophy son!
Another benefit is that there would be no need to trade away players so that at least some team would be able to benefit from their pre-re-rated totals. Unless done so before the deadline. ALSO, as every player would be subject to the re-rate, a better balance to the league would arise with the new found parity (as opposed to parody). This assumes that HLS2 likes all players to have a total of 66. B^)
And while hiding could still be done, those players would be unavailable until the new season with the risk of a re-rate while on the farm club. (As well as ineligible for playoffs and trophies. But trophy material is usually spared by the monster anyway.) This assumes that there would be ZERO protection spots. The poorer teams would then have to prepare for the lack of a playoff series and move some players around. The better teams would possibly juggle and balance their teams for a playoff run. The mediocre (longshot 4th place teams) would have to decide if they should take a chance or wait until next season. There would be, of course, no turning back.
THE DRAFT
I agree that the current draft system isn't bad, but it could be better as shown in the example by the Theef. The draft isn't currently as "make or break" as the re-rate monster.
Posted on Jul 12, 1999, 8:56 AM from IP address 207.245.239.226
I'd just like to say that I disagree that Gord's idea would bring PARITY to the league. Is this not just reverting back (with slight changes) to when Limited Protections were NOT in the leaague? The fact that limited protections were introduces, I must assume, was an attempt TOO CREATE PARITY, so why would going back do the same thing?
In that system, the rich-get-richer, AND the poor get poorer. A team like The Buzzards, who just traded away THE ONLY HIGHLY RATED PLAYERS they had, looking to the future (I assume) before knowing that Streaks/Slumps would be eliminated, has now all but given up the chance he will EVER see an 80's rated player on his roster in the future. The ONLY way there may be a chance for these weaker teams, is to play their TOP 5 PLAYERS together, double shifting them, and hope for the best! - IN THE MEANTIME, without any balance allowed on their teams (BALANCE without STREAKS will ultimately result in ALL your players re-rating down!) their 2nd (unless double shifting is employed) and 3rd lines will get BLOWN OUT of the water, and 20 players (less the 5, YOU HOPE) WILL be rerated DOWN!
It's too bad. Protections (ESPECIALLY WITHOUT STREAKS) are now one of the increasingly rarer ways that a poor team might gain any ground on a stronger team - and NOW you want to take THAT AWAY TOO!
It's all over!
Posted on Jul 13, 1999, 12:44 AM from IP address 139.175.186.53
I like the idea although we would have to make stipulations for the weaker teams. I would suggest that we implement a version of the camp bonus system that Dave Easton thought up. It might not solve all of the problems but it's a start. I looked at the idea and I think it would work well with this type of rerate system.
Bonus camps would be given to teams that have the fewest players with a particular rating and higher (75+). We should collate this list from the final standings projected rerate list.
EXAMPLE:
Teams 1-6 (being the teams with the most 75+ players)
0 bonus camps
Teams 7-12
2 bonus camps
Teams 13-18
4 bonus camps
Teams 19-24 (being the teams with the most 75+ players)
6 bonus camps
The number of 74+, 73+, and so on would break ties. Each team would still receive 5 each year and I like the bonus 2 for non-playoff teams. I am more than will to compile this list if the rule gets implemented (wouldn't be hard). Let's talk.
Actively yours,
The Thief
Posted on Jul 12, 1999, 9:03 PM from IP address 209.103.40.107
It will show how easy it is to set up and give everyone an idea of what it would look like.
One question though. Which roster would be used to determine the average totals? Oh yeah, and how many ways will GMs think of to circumvent this new system? B^)
Posted on Jul 13, 1999, 8:41 AM from IP address 207.245.239.226
This COULD be interesting, especially now that actual ACTIVE ROSTER activity will be reduced DRAMATICALLY due to the loss of Streaks/Slumps. We will not see teams NEEDING so many players on their Pro rosters, because they'll just be playing their top 20 guys (barring injury) for ALL 80 GAMES !!! (HOW BORING CAN IT GET !!!)
However, INJURIES do make make this system problematic; you'd have to include an "injury" clause, that allows for the movement of players up from the farm team in the case of injuries depleting your roster. Admittedly, the chance of having 6 players injured at the same time is remote, BUT not impossible.
Posted on Jul 13, 1999, 12:22 AM from IP address 139.175.186.53
I'm all for tinkering (or at least talking about tinkering) with these items. I would prefer, however, that we avoid a system that is too overly complicated.
The things that I would like to add to the mix concerns draft placement, camps and protection spots. I agree that teams that miss the playoffs should receive some "bonus" consideration. I do think that it is unlikely that a GM would purposely supress the performance of his team to obtain a better draft position or "bonuses." It's like the pitcher who purposely throws 4 balls to walk a batter and then 9 times out of time walks the subsequent batter. In any case, here's some suggestions to chew on.
DRAFT PICKS
I would like a draft lottery for the worst eight teams or the teams that happen to own those picks at draft time. Also, instead of the #1 team picking 24th. I think that the Neely Cup winner should pick 24th. So the top 16 picks are based on a combination of playoff performance and end-of-season placement. The bottom eight by lottery. The 2nd round of the draft would follow the traditional reverse order.
I'd have to work on example, but maybe Mr. Easton would give it a try. B^)
TRAINING CAMPS
I like the idea of giving bonus camps for deserving teams. But I'd hate to see them use their welfare cheques on booze and cigarettes. The idea of grating these bonuses is so that weaker teams can slowly strengthen their rosters and not to sell them off for a cheap round one playoff elimination.
THE RE-RATING MONSTER (PROTECTION SPOTS)
It's a nice idea and we eliminated the trading of protection spots last season. (Half pre- and half post- re-rate trades.) I like this to be consistent from season to season so that I can do longer term planning. Last season's change from "protect any x number of players" to "only x number of players can move between farm and pro" caused a little pain. This season it's seen some major (sentimental) player movement. It's hard enough with the inevitable (and sometimes surprising) retirements. So more players are actually missing the re-rating as they are traded from one team's pro roster to another team's farm club. At one time I was building a 25 man farm club to be able to protect my whole pro roster. Now the strategy is to trade away the worst case scenario players for the same, but have the incoming guys land on the farm club. It does FORCE one to trade and remain interactive with the league to maintain strength. So it does have its good points.
WAIVER DRAFT
This might be a good place to suggest a limited "waiver" draft of players that don't make the 25 man pro roster after the season begins. Something like exposing the best three farmers to the draft. Every team gets one pick and no team can lose more than one player. You can't pick your own. Draft would be in reverse order of the previous end-of-season finish, ie. last picks first & no trading. This should help rookies that could play be on some team's pro squad.
Posted on Jul 10, 1999, 10:23 AM from IP address 207.245.239.226
I would like to point out that the option for a GM to throw a game/ suppress their teams performance is an option we have to get rid of. If there were no protections, or a set amount, it would not only simplify things but it would also insure that all games are played with the thought of winning in mind.
If you don't think that the option to suppress a team's performance hasn't been exercised you obviously haven't looked at starting rosters late in the year.
I like a draft lottery also. A question arises regarding the draft being determined by a combination of league standings and playoff performance. How wouldn't this be complicated, especially if you give it to Easton to come up with examples? (I like the Idea though).
Everyone should rerate (NO PROTECTIONS!!). If there has to be protection (because of a vote to keep them) we should have a predetermined amount for teams making the playoffs and teams not making the playoffs. (see Easton "PROTECTION SPOTS", Jul 9 and THEEF "NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS" Jul 9).
Actively yours,
The Thief
Posted on Jul 10, 1999, 8:03 PM from IP address 209.103.17.152
PROTECTION SPOTS
It is interesting to ponder the idea of no protection spots for the teams that make the playoffs. I would definately consider it. But how does that prevent late season "intentional slumping?" That 4th place position may not be so enviable when the Neely Cup is a long shot and zero protection spots are a guarantee. What would encourage a weaker team, say seeded 14th, to go for the brass ring?
LIMIT THE ACTIVE ROSTER TO 20
But what about the stronger teams that it seems are sometime accused of holding back their best players? This has come up a few times this past season. Maybe "better" or "more playable" are better terms. We could reduce the active pro roster down to 20, thus forcing scratches on to the farm team to face the possibility of a mid-season re-rating. A side benefit is 5 more protection spots across the board, assuming that we keep them.
FORCE POOR PLAYERS OUT
An speaking of the farm team, let's get rid of the players who will NEVER see ice time. A point total of less than 33 should force an NSHL retirement.
THE PROPOSED DRAFT
The proposed draft based on playoff performance perhaps works best when every team has only one pick. I tried an example based on NSHL6 and the Eagles were shut out although they still had their original position (untraded). They were also the only team in the top 16 to miss the playoffs, so that is the bug in the system. I would be willing to give up the performance part of the proposed draft to keep the lottery portion under the KISS Principle.
Posted on Jul 11, 1999, 12:02 PM from IP address 207.245.239.226
Good point. An opportunity to fight for the 4th place spot, receive no protections and lose in the first round of the playoffs isn't that inviting. Maybe we have to make a set amount of protections for all teams regardless of position in the standings (be it 0 or 8).
LIMIT TO 20
A possibility. It would ensure that nobody is hiding any players from playing without having them in the farm and subject to a possible mid-season rerate.
I would like to suggest another possibility. Keep the 25-man roster but institute a minimum number of games a player has to play to be eligible for playoffs. This would ensure that a player wouldn't be hidden from rerates unless a GM doesn't want to go into the playoffs will all of his better players. I think the options a GM has shouldn't be limited.. If a GM wants to sit out a player to avoid the rerate monster I feel that is part of the strategy of the game but he can't have it both ways. By keeping the 25 man rosters it allows you two options.
1) Play the player, use him in the playoffs and have him subject to end of season rerates.
2) Don't play him, don't use him in the playoffs and keep his ratings intact for next year.
The 25-man roster also allows me to change my starting roster/lineup faster in the event of an injury. Instead of me requesting a player to be called up from the farm and then making a change to my lineup I can just add/remove a player from my 25 man roster as needed using the GM file.
FORCE PLAYERS OUT
I agree. A number can be decided on if it gets to a vote. The player would be removed at the end of the year if his rating were below that number? (Makes sense). A few points would have to be ironed out concerning this. I see a lot of players that are below 33 and used for protection purposes. (Unless we change the protection rule at the same time)
PROPOSED DRAFT
I agree. There is a bug. What if the playoff spots are determined by the non-playoff teams first. The bottom 8 can have a pool to see who picks 1-8. The remaining 16 teams can be inserted according to final standings. This would allow a team like the Eagles to draft before the Fatguys/Crunch/Thistles/Terrors, all of whom finished with fewer points but made the playoffs.
If you look at the draft order you will see the thistles, the team that made the playoffs with the fewest points is picking 7th and the Eagles, the non playoff team with the most points is picking 12th. If we would change the present format to adopt the above-mentioned proposal, the Thistles would pick 9th and the Eagles would pick either 1-8. I think this is fairer than the present rule.
I suggest that we change the Protection rule to have all teams allocated the same amount of protections and the draft rule be changed to implement a rule similar to the above mentioned plan. Let's talk.
Actively yours
The Thief
Posted on Jul 11, 1999, 9:05 PM from IP address 209.103.40.70
I can't agree with the teams that miss the playoffs get the top 8 picks! The Eagles SHOULDN'T pick higher than The Stranglers, JUST because they play in the 2ND TOUGHEST *smile* Division in The NSHL, and therefore missed the playoffs. That's not fair. The Eagles (or The Muskiehunters/Blazers, etc.) PAY for being stuck in those divisions - too bad - luck of the draw.
That's one of the idiosyncracies of playing in a Division format League - the other is what happened to The Sundogs/Lizards/Traders. Ranked 2, 3, & 4 in the OVERALL STANDINGS, only ONE team could ever see 3rd Rnd Action. Bad luck! Great Divisional Competition.
The alternative is to go to a Conference wide seeding of teams for the playoffs - which has it's pros & cons that we won't go into. THEN the suggested draft order could be accepted.
Posted on Jul 13, 1999, 12:02 AM from IP address 139.175.186.53
I don't care one way or another - there are arguments for and against either way.
I don't think that it is a very important issue
to harp over. I think that Gord likes tradition of awarding draft positions based on standing - I can live with that.
Posted on Jul 14, 1999, 11:56 PM from IP address 216.13.20.121
I don't like the idea of only 20 players up on the pro team. I usually have more than that, despite having players that could Auto-rerate positively if they were on the farm, as I untillize ALL these players in different situations, and am ACTIVELY changing my lineups all the time.
I like the idea (previously submitted) of allowing only players who have played a MINIMUM # of games (say, ?15?) during the Regular Season to be allowed to play in The Playoffs. This way, teams CANNOT protect their good players from rerate, by not letting them play enough games to re-rate, yet have them all of a sudden PERFORM (ala Ken Dryden - the EXCEPTION to the rule!) in the playoffs like they were seasoned veterans. See The Traders Legwand and Stuart these past playoffs, for example (THIS HAS NOTHING AGAINST YOU, JEFF - just the 1st example that came into my mind, as we're divisional opponents, and I know your roster best!) *smile*
This would be a wonderful, and simple, rule change.
Posted on Jul 12, 1999, 11:36 PM from IP address 139.175.186.53
I like the idea of your Waiver Draft - though I'd suggest 20 PLAYERS be protected from the draft, MAXIMUM! (less would be better - I'd like to see 15). Most teams rosters DON'T HAVE 25 players over 50 points! (may be a slight exageration - but check the rosters, count down the top 25 rated players, and see what's left - you'll see what I mean)
Posted on Jul 12, 1999, 11:01 PM from IP address 139.175.186.53
protecting 25 players plus 10 farmers and do the draft for the rest. How silly!!!!!!!!!!!!
What do you think this draft is for? To exchange 4th line players? Another point missed you David,
another one indeed.
Posted on Jul 21, 1999, 9:07 PM from IP address 216.13.20.8
The reason is that in the bottom 8 teams, there is a HUGE difference between the bottom 4 and the top 4 teams.
Statistically (you can look this up) usually, the bottom 4 teams of a league this size, with 16 playoff spots, ARE REALLY BAD, and NEVER had a chance !!!
But the next 4 teams are teams that JUST missed the playoffs, or would make the playoffs in another less strong Division.
It wouldn't be fair to give the a team in the top 4 a chance to get 1st overall pick (even with a weighted lottery- see: Orlando Magic of NBA as an example). The botton 4 teams NEED the help too much.
Perhaps ???? you could put these bottom 4 teams into a lottery, but I STILL don't favour ANY type of lottery.
Posted on Jul 12, 1999, 11:13 PM from IP address 139.175.186.53
The NSHL draft lottery would work just like the NHL lottery. First, it is weighted, giving the bottom temas the best chance of "winning" the lottery. Also, the highest a team could move up in the draft would be 4 spots. So, only the bottom 5 teams would be eligible for the top pick. If, by some miracle, the Muffs won the draft lottery, they would only move up 4 spots, and pick 20th instead of 24th.
How does that sound?
Posted on Jul 14, 1999, 3:06 AM from IP address 24.66.52.85
I think you've got half the idea there. I'd like to limit the lottery to only the bottom 4 to 8 teams. This is to help discourage jockeying for last place, etc.
Leave the rest of the draft either as-is or with the draft order adjusted for playoff performance.
Posted on Jul 14, 1999, 10:45 AM from IP address 207.245.239.226
The biggest issue is what to do about the Proections/Rerates?
Giving teams the option of either losing a game to aquire 2 more protection spots or to win a game that doesn't mean anything is not much of an option. I can hoestly say that if I had the choice I would rather have the 2 protection spots.
Question: How can we stop potential teams like the Thieves from doing such unsportmanlike tactiques?
Answer: Get rid of the option.
We have to assign either a set amount of protection each team will get (be it 0 or 8) or get rid of the protections. This is the only way we can be sure that the Thieves will put their best foot forward each game.
I have included some options in a response to larry's rerate comment. Take a look. NAMED RERATE OPTIONS
Thank you
The Thief
Posted on Jul 9, 1999, 6:40 PM from IP address 209.103.17.168
I can appreciate how isolated you must be in China. I know you depend on written words to determine the amount of participation a GM has in the league as you don't have the luxury to attend league events here at NSHL central and see for yourself. Unfortunately (Or perhaps fortunately), I don't express my keen interest in the league as openly as you do with never ending emails/ press releases/ messages/ novels/ volumes/ etc/ etc. If I did, I may hear more about me than I do about you when I am active here with league events. Let me thank you again for the words of encouragement and reassure you that I am more active in the league than my Lack of Written material may lead you to believe.
If you need some advice or input regarding league matters feel free to drop me a line BUT KEEP IT SHORT! I am more than willing to help you out.
Actively yours,
The Thief
Posted on Jul 10, 1999, 2:57 AM from IP address 209.103.17.218
>The biggest issue is what to do about the >Proections/Rerates?
>Question: How can we stop potential teams like >the Thieves from doing such unsportmanlike >tactiques?
>Answer: Get rid of the option.
>We have to assign either a set amount of >protection each team will get (be it 0 or 8) or >get rid of the protections. This is the only way >we can be sure that the Thieves will put their >best foot forward each game.
Why? IMNSHO, the best thing to do is go back to an unlimited number of protection slots regardless of finishing.
Every team must still expose 25 guys to rerating, but anybody left over can be used as a protection spot.
Frankly, if someone is tanking games just to pick up 2 more protection spots, then it says a lot about their integrity. Why even bother playing if you're going to throw it in the toilet.
The idea is to win the Cup, and those that want to will do anything to make it happen. My team sucks now BECAUSE I went for it all. And you know what? I wouldn't change a thing.
My suggestion for the rerate process is to go back to 25 men exposed regardless and however many players you have left determine the number of rerate spots you get.
Ryan
Stranglers
Posted on Jul 12, 1999, 5:08 PM from IP address 24.128.40.38
Any suggestion like this would have to be a long term implementation, as teams now would need to stock up on farm players, to expose to the rerate.
There are teams out there already, who are trading away all their future draft picks to seasons NSHL11, for crying out loud! They would regret these moves if they knew now that they had to be stocking and restocking their farm teams with non-roster players (which are what MOST draft picks are, let's face it), just to allow for protection spots!
Long term planning HAS ALREADY BEEN UPSET DRAMATICALLY by the sudden demise of Streaks/Slumps. This would upset things EVEN MORE!
I think ALL league wide changes of such dramatic effect should have (at least) a 2 season waiting period to be implemented, to allow for teams to make long term plans knowing that changes are coming.
Posted on Jul 13, 1999, 12:58 AM from IP address 139.175.186.53
I simply REFUSE to go through his re-rate system again. It clearly SUCKS. Everyone will just have to adapt to the new, I believe, improved system right away! there is really no sense in waiting,
and using a crappy system.
Posted on Jul 14, 1999, 3:12 AM from IP address 24.66.52.85
I had a 20 man farm club. Emphasis on had. Now it's 12. After the draft it will be 13 and then I have at least one retirement coming up. I'll do my best to build it up again. If there was a 3 season wait I'd be stuck between trying to build a farm club and trying to work out deals under the soon to be old rules. An impossible and intolerable situation.
Make a clean break. We all know that this would be voted on season-after-season. It's been a well-aged whine. At last the bottle has been broken.
Posted on Jul 14, 1999, 10:50 AM from IP address 207.245.239.226
Hmm, finished 1st overall. Has the best overall franchise winning percentage. Good thing the Muffs have given up talent for all those (7!) 1st round draft picks. I'd hate to think how much better they could've been!
Posted on Jul 9, 1999, 3:32 PM from IP address 207.245.239.226
We all worry about Gord, and how much talent he has. Draft picks are simply another commodity we all start with, and we all value to a more or less degree from the next GM. Just like camps. If you can get 12 1st Rnders, because THAT's what you value as improving your team, then GO FOR IT. Why limit a GM with that?
Look at The Theives Camp Trips - 18 !!! and counting!!! Are we to say that he must be limited to a maximum of 10 only ? I hope not ... yet I'd LOVE to have 18 Camps.
Posted on Jul 9, 1999, 9:34 PM from IP address 139.175.187.244
I would like to express three options here. I know there may be more but here is just three
1)
I would like to see the protections disappear except for the teams that don't make the playoffs. I would like to see the teams that don't make the playoffs get 4 (or a number decided on) protections. Keep the camps bonuses (big deal).
2)
Everyone gets 4 protection spots (or a number decided on) regardless of position in final standings. Keep the camps bonuses (Big Deal!! again)
3)
Everyone get 4 protection spots except for the teams that don't make the playoffs. The teams that don't make the playoffs get 8. Keep the camps bonuses (Big deal).
I like number 3. What do you think? (keep it clean)
Posted on Jul 9, 1999, 6:15 PM from IP address 209.103.17.168
I still think we could give them out based on a total # of players on a team that are OVERALL RATING of more than 75, AFTER rerates, and before the Entry Draft. NOTHING to do with standings!
The Muffs, for example, have 14 players rated over 75. The Infantry have 12, The Lizards have 9, the Terrors 4. The Camps would then be distributed based on a reverse order of the above list.
Also, the NON-playoff teams would each receive an extra 2 Bonus Camps, as compensation for not being able to participate in Post Season Action.
The actual # of Camps are debatable. (see next response titled FORMULA EXAMPLE)
The reasoning is this. Bonuses are NO LONGER tied into performance, which can be manipulated to obtain better Bonuses in the current system.
- PLEASE: I'm not saying here it ever is, just that it CAN be! No HATE mail, please!
The last time I was suggesting this formula, I got a mixed response. The main argument AGAINST it was that I put the Overall rating too high, as there are players in the league that are VERY POWERFULL offensive weapons (9/9/9 Pa/PC/Sh) that were rated below 80. That's true. But there are VERY FEW players rated 75 or lower that are in this catagory (if any). After looking at the rosters, it seems to be a good cut off point.
Finally, Goalies ratings, of course, would have to be pro-rated. For goalies,, I think an equivalent cut of point would be about 65, regardless of whether they had 9's in Qk/PC or not.
I'd REALLY like to get away from Negative Performance Bonuses, as it takes away from the importance and status of doing well in the regular season for many GM's I've talked with.
Posted on Jul 9, 1999, 8:08 PM from IP address 139.175.187.244
The following is an Example of how the Proposed Bonus Camp system might work. It's interesting to note how closely this list is between # of players rated over 75, and the average seasonal results of the respective teams. This list was based on CURRENT rosters, which have changed somewhat (considerably, for a few teams) since the end of the season. Also, like any statistical analysis, there is the ODD anomoly that seems out of place - there ALWAYS will be.
But for the most part, I think this system would be VERY FAIR for the weaker teams trying to grow stronger, which is what Bonus Camps are designed to do, right?
How this formula will improve what we have right now. I think the current camp allocation is simple and fair. Can you give one good reason to change it?
Posted on Jul 12, 1999, 5:01 PM from IP address 199.45.71.2
Teams perform BELOW their ability to get extra incentives - period.
So, my "formulas" are a way to make the Bonuses LESS profitable for teams to throw games and drop in the standings. THAT'S why I'm suggesting them. SOMETHING has to be done, for the Integrity of The NSHL.
If you want to REALLY see the good teams perform, streaks & slumps or not, then eliminate the Neely Cup Playoffs, and have the League Championship the Best Trophy to get. Then we'll see how these strong teams end up in (hypothetical placings) 5th, 8th, 13th, 16th place - NOT! Instead, we'll see the Best Teams reaching 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th...etc. BET ON IT!
Posted on Jul 12, 1999, 10:49 PM from IP address 139.175.186.53
In part to offset the damage done by the re-rate monster.
So why not just get rid of the re-rates?
Any system that lets one set of teams have something and another set not have something will create the potential for abuse. And by abuse, that includes trading away food stamps for drugs. We intend for the bonus camps and additional protection spots to help the weaker teams. But if these camps are traded away to stronger teams then why bother?
Posted on Jul 13, 1999, 9:03 AM from IP address 207.245.239.226
Again, I feel there is a problem with protection spots being to weighted towards Negative Performance inducement.
Instead of the huge discrepency in Protection spots, I propose this formula:
Top 8 Teams with Home Ice Advantage in The Playoffs : 3 Protection Spots
Remaining Teams in The Playoffs : 4 Protections
Non-Playoffs participating teams : 8 Protections
Again, this takes away from the chances of performing to GAIN protections. A team would have to lose Home Ice Advantage to gain the extra spot, or NOT participate in post season play to gain the extra 4 spots. That wouldn't be worth it for most GM's, I'd imagine.
Also, this gives teams like this season's Eagles & MuskieHunters, a better break, as they fall down the order relative to the Total Point Standings in the league, gaining something for missing the playoffs, over teams like the Thistles or Terrors, who had LESS points in the regular season, but participated in Post Season play.
Posted on Jul 9, 1999, 9:00 PM from IP address 139.175.187.244
I have no problem with the way protection slots
are allocated at this time. David's formula
doesn't change things too much, and I for once
would vote to keep protection spots status quo.
BTW, David, a difference between the 1st place and last place is much more than the extra need to
protect only 4 players, thus I think that giving
lower standing teams an opportunity to protect as many players as they need is justified.
Also, I don't buy your conspiracy theory Re: poor performance vs league perks - I have not seen any no proof for that.
Posted on Jul 12, 1999, 4:48 PM from IP address 199.45.71.2
