HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2011-12 HFBoards Yahoo Fantasy Premier Keeper League - Draft: Oct 2nd - 6pm

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-01-2011, 09:22 PM
  #726
BrockH
HFBoards Sponsor
 
BrockH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,592
vCash: 500
Just a thought, but people were talking about balancing the stats ratio of skaters:goalies by adding 1 or 2 skater stats. Personally, if people want to go that route I would vote for the removal of the shutout stat. They aren't common enough to expect any kind of consistency week-to-week. A lack of consistency/predictability means it's more about luck and less about skilled managers. I'd rather the remove the element of chance as much as possible. Eliminating that stat would make the ratio 2:1 for skater stats to goalie stats, achieving the ratio that it seems some people are aiming for.

BrockH is offline  
Old
09-01-2011, 10:01 PM
  #727
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,978
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrockH View Post
Just a thought, but people were talking about balancing the stats ratio of skaters:goalies by adding 1 or 2 skater stats. Personally, if people want to go that route I would vote for the removal of the shutout stat. They aren't common enough to expect any kind of consistency week-to-week. A lack of consistency/predictability means it's more about luck and less about skilled managers. I'd rather the remove the element of chance as much as possible. Eliminating that stat would make the ratio 2:1 for skater stats to goalie stats, achieving the ratio that it seems some people are aiming for.
+1...

Tiranis is offline  
Old
09-01-2011, 11:07 PM
  #728
CCF23
Registered User
 
CCF23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Richmond, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,649
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CCF23
I'd be okay with this, but not really for this season...I've built my team around my goalies, so I'd want at least some time to try and adjust over the course of a season if we were headed that route.

I would also like to feel everyone out on the possibility of eventually getting rid of a keeper slot. I feel like 8 is a bit too many. 7 keepers + 2 rookies would make the draft a lot better.

CCF23 is offline  
Old
09-01-2011, 11:21 PM
  #729
Trends Analyst
Squirrel!
 
Trends Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,613
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCF23 View Post
I'd be okay with this, but not really for this season...I've built my team around my goalies, so I'd want at least some time to try and adjust over the course of a season if we were headed that route.

I would also like to feel everyone out on the possibility of eventually getting rid of a keeper slot. I feel like 8 is a bit too many. 7 keepers + 2 rookies would make the draft a lot better.
Screw it. Lets go to 5.

Also, lets play for money. 25 bucks. 1 - 200. 2 - 150. 3 - 25

Trends Analyst is offline  
Old
09-02-2011, 12:19 AM
  #730
CCF23
Registered User
 
CCF23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Richmond, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,649
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CCF23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Light Mosquito View Post
Screw it. Lets go to 5.

Also, lets play for money. 25 bucks. 1 - 200. 2 - 150. 3 - 25
I would 100% do this. It's too easy with 8. Going to 5 would screw some teams that have built for 8 over, though. 7 or 6 would be the best we can do.

CCF23 is offline  
Old
09-02-2011, 12:29 AM
  #731
BrockH
HFBoards Sponsor
 
BrockH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,592
vCash: 500
I'd be okay with dropping a keeper slot, but that and the potential stats change would have to be decided on before this draft if they were to go into effect for the 2012-2013 season (I'll be rewriting the CBA to add that as soon as I get a chance, it seemed to get the stamp of approval when I suggested it in chat).

BrockH is offline  
Old
09-02-2011, 12:32 AM
  #732
Lucbourdon
Kefka cheers for Van
 
Lucbourdon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,599
vCash: 500
I am also okay with 5/6/7 keepers.

Would increase the values for picks drastically. But would also lower the amount of trades involving picks.

Lucbourdon is online now  
Old
09-02-2011, 01:01 AM
  #733
CRDragon
¯\_(シ)_/¯
 
CRDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,680
vCash: 500
Dude guys....these are pretty big changes going forward....might as well make a new league with 5 keepers and money involved.

CRDragon is offline  
Old
09-02-2011, 01:02 AM
  #734
Trends Analyst
Squirrel!
 
Trends Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,613
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRDragon View Post
Dude guys....these are pretty big changes going forward....might as well make a new league with 5 keepers and money involved.
Why? We are already established here, we are just bringing up things that the Iron Fist probably wouldn't have passed before we moved, so now is a good time to bring it up as any. Really, dropping one keeper slot and adding money is not big enough changes to establish a new league entirely.

Trends Analyst is offline  
Old
09-02-2011, 01:12 AM
  #735
CRDragon
¯\_(シ)_/¯
 
CRDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,680
vCash: 500
well anything involving with money...we have had discussions with this before.

my suggestions remains the same
whoever agree to pitch in money can win money...
whoever doesn't agree to pitch in money can't win money...

at the end of the year, the people who pitched money are ranked accordingly to the playoffs standings and money are rewarded accordingly....incase of any ties....go with regular season standings or something.....

CRDragon is offline  
Old
09-02-2011, 01:30 AM
  #736
ubiquitous
*shink*
 
ubiquitous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Prince George, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,533
vCash: 500
Yeah I think next season would be the time to implement changes like removing stats or adding stats... As for dropping down keepers that is something I wouldn't be opposed to. Part of the reason it is so hard to make decisions about keepers is because you can keep so many so it makes the fringe keepers a more difficult decision. :p

As for money well as long as CRD and I get backpay for winning I'm down. but seriously yeah money is no problem for me I'd chip in a entrance fee or whatever.

ubiquitous is offline  
Old
09-02-2011, 02:02 AM
  #737
CCF23
Registered User
 
CCF23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Richmond, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,649
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CCF23
I think 6 keeper slots would be ideal, but I wouldn't be opposed to making it 7 because 6 is kind of a big change. We'd implement it for the season after this one, though.

CCF23 is offline  
Old
09-02-2011, 03:52 AM
  #738
Lucbourdon
Kefka cheers for Van
 
Lucbourdon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,599
vCash: 500
6 keeper slots would be awesome for next season, the removing of SHO would make a massive impact for people who went HEAVY into goalies.

Lucbourdon is online now  
Old
09-02-2011, 03:58 AM
  #739
nameless1
AKA Sami Booth
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,745
vCash: 500
Is there a reserve list or something?
Will I be able to join?
I would love to join a league with real active hockey fans.
In all of my previous leagues, by the halfway point, there will only be maybe half active players.
It makes trades very difficult.

nameless1 is online now  
Old
09-02-2011, 05:25 AM
  #740
LiquidSnake
Agent of Chaos...
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,984
vCash: 500
I'm going to have to disagree about lowering the Keeper slots to anything less than 7. The Draft should involve atleast some type of strategy rather than simply picking up "No brainers" in terms of available players.

Some managers have literally had to jump through holes to keep some of their talent and this makes it way too easy for some of the perennial lower seeded teams to simply improve without learning from their mistakes.

And I cant imagine what the astronomical price for a 1st round pick would be then.

I'm neutral on the SHO stat. Probably would benefit me if it was removed, given my goalie situation. Whatever you guys want to do with that, I'm ok with it.

LiquidSnake is online now  
Old
09-02-2011, 10:56 AM
  #741
Trends Analyst
Squirrel!
 
Trends Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,613
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post
I'm going to have to disagree about lowering the Keeper slots to anything less than 7. The Draft should involve atleast some type of strategy rather than simply picking up "No brainers" in terms of available players.

Some managers have literally had to jump through holes to keep some of their talent and this makes it way too easy for some of the perennial lower seeded teams to simply improve without learning from their mistakes.

And I cant imagine what the astronomical price for a 1st round pick would be then.
It's actually not that huge of a difference if it is 7, I agree. It's only 12 extra players. I would be happy going down to 7.

Trends Analyst is offline  
Old
09-02-2011, 12:53 PM
  #742
Eddie Vedder
Registered User
 
Eddie Vedder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,535
vCash: 500
as someone whose team is ******, i should be all in favor of a lessening of the keepers because mine arnt so hot. But I want to keep it at 8.

I would be down for dropping goose eggs from the goalies though. Tough to decide which stat to pick, however, to add.

Eddie Vedder is offline  
Old
09-02-2011, 12:56 PM
  #743
CRDragon
¯\_(シ)_/¯
 
CRDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless1 View Post
Is there a reserve list or something?
Will I be able to join?
I would love to join a league with real active hockey fans.
In all of my previous leagues, by the halfway point, there will only be maybe half active players.
It makes trades very difficult.
We don't have a reserve list. We choose new members by recommendations from our current league GMs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Vedder View Post
I would be down for dropping goose eggs from the goalies though. Tough to decide which stat to pick, however, to add.
The suggestion was just to drop the SO stat, don't need to add a category. This makes a 2:1 offensive to goalie stats category.

CRDragon is offline  
Old
09-02-2011, 01:50 PM
  #744
Eddie Vedder
Registered User
 
Eddie Vedder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,535
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless1 View Post
Is there a reserve list or something?
Will I be able to join?
I would love to join a league with real active hockey fans.
In all of my previous leagues, by the halfway point, there will only be maybe half active players.
It makes trades very difficult.
theres an empire growing elsewhere on this forum. you should sign up with the sith lord.

Eddie Vedder is offline  
Old
09-02-2011, 01:54 PM
  #745
BrockH
HFBoards Sponsor
 
BrockH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,592
vCash: 500
One point of note. Note only does removing keepers reduce the talent that top teams are able to retain, but it also provides an even greater to those with an early draft slot (since there are more draft rounds). If we remove keeper slots I would suggest that the first 2 rounds of the draft proceed as a snake and then it shift to our current draft order thereafter. For example, in a 4 team league where team 1 finishes 1st, team 2 finishes 2nd, etc. the draft would go:
Round 1: 4, 3, 2, 1
Round 2: 1, 2, 3, 4
Rounds 3-11: 4, 3, 2, 1

Those first few rounds are going to have some talented players and I think it fair if that talent is spread more evenly. We're successfully reducing the year-to-year advantage already by reducing the number of keeper slots, so I would argue passionately for that setup or else something else to mitigate the draft order advantage (this was just my first thought on how we could run it).

BrockH is offline  
Old
09-02-2011, 02:21 PM
  #746
Eddie Vedder
Registered User
 
Eddie Vedder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,535
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrockH View Post
One point of note. Note only does removing keepers reduce the talent that top teams are able to retain, but it also provides an even greater to those with an early draft slot (since there are more draft rounds). If we remove keeper slots I would suggest that the first 2 rounds of the draft proceed as a snake and then it shift to our current draft order thereafter. For example, in a 4 team league where team 1 finishes 1st, team 2 finishes 2nd, etc. the draft would go:
Round 1: 4, 3, 2, 1
Round 2: 1, 2, 3, 4
Rounds 3-11: 4, 3, 2, 1

Those first few rounds are going to have some talented players and I think it fair if that talent is spread more evenly. We're successfully reducing the year-to-year advantage already by reducing the number of keeper slots, so I would argue passionately for that setup or else something else to mitigate the draft order advantage (this was just my first thought on how we could run it).
Eh.

I dont wanna drop the keepers at all.

Eddie Vedder is offline  
Old
09-02-2011, 03:42 PM
  #747
BrockH
HFBoards Sponsor
 
BrockH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,592
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Vedder View Post
Eh.

I dont wanna drop the keepers at all.
I didn't mean to say you were. Since we're talking about this, I thought it best I update the CBA. Here's the revised version. I added a scoring & settings section with the following. TLDR version: we use the same settings as last year. Major changes get 1 year notice and require 2/3 majority support. Minor changes (mostly due to new Yahoo options) can be put in immediately and are agreed to informally, but there's an appeal process if people don't like the minor changes. If everyone's okay with this update, let me know, and maybe we could get the CBA in the first post?

Quote:
ARTICLE 2: Scoring & Settings
a. The league will be administered and scored via Yahoo Fantasy Sports.
b. All Yahoo settings will remain as per the previous year’s settings unless otherwise stated.
c. Any change to the league’s scoring or roster settings will require a two-thirds majority vote. This can be initiated by any league member provided he has two supporters when bringing forth the motion (so basically to call a vote, three people have to put forth the motion for change).
d. If a change to the scoring or settings is voted in, the changes will come into effect a minimum of 1 year following the next keeper submission. For example, if a change is to be put in place for the 2012-2013 season, then it must be voted on and approved prior keeper list submission deadline for 2011-2012 draft (which, per current CBA guidelines, would be 3 days before the 2011-12 draft).
e. Where new Yahoo settings open up previously unavailable setting options, these settings can be put into place for the immediate season provided that they are not deemed to have a long-term strategic impact. Such changes or settings adjustments will be determined informally via the hfboards forum discussion until a reasonable consensus is reached.
f. If a dispute arises under section (e), there are two avenues of appeal:
i. If a league member feels the change has a long-term strategic impact, they can motion for the change in settings to follow the implementation period described in section (d) (i.e. rather than for the forthcoming season). Any one member can bring such a motion, and it will lead to a vote. In this case, if one-third (33.3%) of the league agrees that the change has long-term strategic impact, the rule change will be implemented per section (d) in a later season.
ii. If a league member feels that a consensus has not been adequately reached, then they can table the decision to a vote by acquiring two supporters, whereby all options will be presented (any member can present an option) and each member will cast a ranked vote. The result will be determined using the instant run-off method. That is to say, if there are 3 options on the ballot, then members will rank their preference from first to third. In the first round of counting, only first place votes are considered. Whichever option is in last is removed, and those members who chose it with their first choice will have their vote default to their secondary choice. Members need not rank all options – if all ranked options on a ballot are eliminated, then that ballot is considered to have abstained. In this manner, the vote is narrowed down to the top 2 options and the winning option will have true majority support.

BrockH is offline  
Old
09-02-2011, 04:13 PM
  #748
ubiquitous
*shink*
 
ubiquitous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Prince George, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrockH View Post
One point of note. Note only does removing keepers reduce the talent that top teams are able to retain, but it also provides an even greater to those with an early draft slot (since there are more draft rounds). If we remove keeper slots I would suggest that the first 2 rounds of the draft proceed as a snake and then it shift to our current draft order thereafter. For example, in a 4 team league where team 1 finishes 1st, team 2 finishes 2nd, etc. the draft would go:
Round 1: 4, 3, 2, 1
Round 2: 1, 2, 3, 4
Rounds 3-11: 4, 3, 2, 1

Those first few rounds are going to have some talented players and I think it fair if that talent is spread more evenly. We're successfully reducing the year-to-year advantage already by reducing the number of keeper slots, so I would argue passionately for that setup or else something else to mitigate the draft order advantage (this was just my first thought on how we could run it).
Makes sense to me. I'm of the feeling where even though I'm all for giving bad teams an opportunity to get better at the same time you shouldn't be punished to the point of a disadvantage via the draft for creating solid depth throughout your team. I like dynasties personally, and I like having good managers rewarded by constantly being contenders. It would be nice to not have people be so flippant about trading high draft picks as well.

ubiquitous is offline  
Old
09-02-2011, 04:21 PM
  #749
CCF23
Registered User
 
CCF23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Richmond, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,649
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CCF23
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrockH View Post
One point of note. Note only does removing keepers reduce the talent that top teams are able to retain, but it also provides an even greater to those with an early draft slot (since there are more draft rounds). If we remove keeper slots I would suggest that the first 2 rounds of the draft proceed as a snake and then it shift to our current draft order thereafter. For example, in a 4 team league where team 1 finishes 1st, team 2 finishes 2nd, etc. the draft would go:
Round 1: 4, 3, 2, 1
Round 2: 1, 2, 3, 4
Rounds 3-11: 4, 3, 2, 1

Those first few rounds are going to have some talented players and I think it fair if that talent is spread more evenly. We're successfully reducing the year-to-year advantage already by reducing the number of keeper slots, so I would argue passionately for that setup or else something else to mitigate the draft order advantage (this was just my first thought on how we could run it).
I'm good with this and a 6 keeper system if everyone else was okay with it.

CCF23 is offline  
Old
09-02-2011, 04:23 PM
  #750
ubiquitous
*shink*
 
ubiquitous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Prince George, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCF23 View Post
I'm good with this and a 6 keeper system if everyone else was okay with it.
I'd really like us to make a slow transition to six if we're going that route. Like make it 7-8 first and then drop another one if that works out. Going from our current system to six would feel like a gongshow.

ubiquitous is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:15 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.