AHL- Apolyton Hockey League 08/09: Preseason

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Where do you see that?

It's in their "What's new" section for new features to Yahoo Fantasy Hockey this year.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher


It's in their "What's new" section for new features to Yahoo Fantasy Hockey this year.

It's not in any of the settings that the commish can change that I have found.

Is anybody a commish in another league and can help an old, blind man out?

[notyoueither]

I've sent a message to Yahoo tech support to find out what is up with this 'new feature.'

[snoopy369]

NYE, did you join the ESPN league yet? I didn't see your join as of last I checked.

Also, Tingkai, I pm'ed you again - I don't see a PM with your email address...

[snoopy369]

By the way, the max acquisitions per week setting is in the initial league setup screen. I couldn't change that once I got into the actual league, though. You probably were unable to set it because you carried over the old league...

FYI, if we go with ESPN for the auction league, there is in addition to limits on acquisition, limits on actual games played at each position each week - so you can, say, limit the LW spots (together, I think?) to 10 games per week, or whatnot.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by snoopy369

FYI, if we go with ESPN for the auction league, there is in addition to limits on acquisition, limits on actual games played at each position each week - so you can, say, limit the LW spots (together, I think?) to 10 games per week, or whatnot.

I would be totally against that


I can understand somewhat restrictions that prevent "churn" or whatever but why limit people-- If I think my team will kick azz with 4 leftwingers, why shouldn't I be allowed to do that

The big one I noticed was a limit on goalie games and I am completely and utterly opposed to that. Let people decide themselves how manygoalies they want to keep

[snoopy369]

The idea would be to have a 'level' playing field where you get an even number of games out of each position each week, so instead of comparing your 25 LW games to my 15 LW games, we compare 15:15. It's an effective way of controlling 'churn' that is used to increase skater games, without actually limiting roster moves.

The only reason most of us object in any way to 'churn' is because of people churning to increase their skater games (to have, say, 7 games each week out of every single roster spot, or as close as possible to it). This addresses that directly.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by snoopy369
The idea would be to have a 'level' playing field where you get an even number of games out of each position each week, so instead of comparing your 25 LW games to my 15 LW games, we compare 15:15. It's an effective way of controlling 'churn' that is used to increase skater games, without actually limiting roster moves.

The only reason most of us object in any way to 'churn' is because of people churning to increase their skater games (to have, say, 7 games each week out of every single roster spot, or as close as possible to it). This addresses that directly.

OH I understood exactly the purpose but IMHO its using a hand grenade to kill an ant. Some of the limits make it almost useless to carry a third goalie on your roster (if your top 2 will play 7 games that week for instance) and effectively eliminates strategic options such as overweighting a position .

If people want to limit churn put in a weekly transaction limit or something-- But ws it that much of an issue? In our league I was the worst "offender" and really my numbers reflected an average of two player switches a week -- 2 changes equals 4 transactions-- ( my final transaction numbers were jacked up by a large number of last day transactions to try to win a close playoff round in both the semis and the 3rd place round). But I would much rather play with a severe limit on transactions than have a limit on games played by position.


A limit of 4 moves a week ( so two player changes on the roster) would seem to be simple and easy . That few is hardly churning but allows me to have my fun of playing a hunch

[notyoueither]

I think a change from player a to player b only counts as one move.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I think a change from player a to player b only counts as one move.

I don't think so-- IIRC when I dropped a player that counted as a move and then when I added one it was a move-- I could absolutely be wrong and perhaps I could have halved my number of transactions by doing the two parts at once-- but thats my recollection

[notyoueither]

Our recollections differ. No harm in that.

We'll know for sure pretty soon.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by snoopy369
NYE, did you join the ESPN league yet? I didn't see your join as of last I checked.

I was/am having problems with my ESPN login. Not sure how to resolve it.

That may be all for the good though, as real life has been keeping me busier than normal and I got a larger dose of the disease today. For that reason, I think you should find a replacement for me as I certainly have no time for another league.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Our recollections differ. No harm in that.

We'll know for sure pretty soon.

We can just agree beforehand if we want to limit on total # of new players added vs # of players dropped and added...

[notyoueither]

It makes a difference if we want to use Yahoo settings. Many of them can't be changed after the draft and some others can't be changed after the season starts.

The commish tools page tells me I can't modify 'roster changes' settings after the draft.

Can you recall if a sub counted one or two changes?

I'm pretty sure it is one.

[Asher]

I think it may count as two "moves" but one "roster change"...I seem to recall the "moves" figure being grossly inflated due to dropping/adding.

[notyoueither]

My recollection is supported by Jonny's '07 team. The final standings show him making a single move.

He drafted
1. (8) Jaromir Jagr
2. (17) Marty Turco
3. (32) Daniel Sedin
4. (41) Patrick Marleau
5. (56) Dion Phaneuf
6. (65) Keith Tkachuk
7. (80) Jay Bouwmeester
8. (89) Manny Fernandez
9. (104) Derek Roy
10. (113) Alexander Radulov
11. (128) Fredrik Norrena
12. (137) David Legwand
13. (152) Scott Hartnell
14. (161) Christian Ehrhoff


6. (65) Keith Tkachuk
is not on his final roster. Kolzig is.

Week 23
Jay Bouwmeester (Fla - D) 15 22 -5 4 10
Christian Ehrhoff (SJ - D) 1 21 9 1 4
Scott Hartnell (Phi - LW,RW) 24 19 2 10 2
Jaromir Jagr (NYR - RW) 25 46 8 7 22
Slava Kozlov (Atl - LW) 17 24 -10 5 9
David Legwand (Nsh - C) 15 29 -4 4 9
Patrick Marleau (SJ - C) 19 29 -19 7 19
Dion Phaneuf (Cgy - D) 17 43 12 10 23
Alexander Radulov (Nsh - RW) 26 32 7 4 2
Derek Roy (Buf - C) 32 49 13 6 17
Daniel Sedin (Van - LW) 29 45 6 12 20
Goaltending
Manny Fernandez (Bos - G) 2 .832 1
Olaf Kolzig (TB - G) 25 .892 1
Fredrik Norrena (Cls - G) 10 .896 2
Marty Turco (Dal - G)

Hense, dropping one and picking up another at the same time would be one move.

[Asher]

Good call. I think you're right.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Asher
Good call. I think you're right.

Perhaps

Although Kolzig for Tchuk was a trade though -- I remember because I was a party to it and traded Ollie when I was too deep in goalies

Also if I move a player to IR I didn't think that was a move since that was part of your roster-- BUt picking up the replacement would be a move would it not ?? So if someone IRed a player and picked up somone and they ended the season that way, thats another way to have a single move

Note that Jonny has 15 players on his final roster-- Slava Kozlov is also new

So with all respect, I think Jonnys team supports my view if anyone's

[notyoueither]

Yes. To IR is not a move, but adding a player is. That is my understanding.

Let me see if I can look something else up.

[notyoueither]

I am sure this has come up before. I did not find the place in a past season I looked at.

I am still positive that dropping a player for another counts as one move.

[notyoueither]

Time of draft moved to 12 noon Eastern on the 14th.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Yes. To IR is not a move, but adding a player is. That is my understanding.

Let me see if I can look something else up.

Thats my thought


Move Cleary to IR -- no move

Add Patrick Sharp to replace Cleary -- 1 move

A week later decide to drop Cleary since its a long injury and is just added stuff on your player list -- 1 move

--------------------------------


Instead of the above-- Drop Cleary and add Sharp-- 2 moves

I'm not CERTAIN but I am pretty sure that is how it goes-- I seem to recall seeing my moves go up by TWO every time I replaced a player

--------------------------------------------------------------------


Since it didn't matter last year I didn't pay that close attention. But if we are contemplating restrictions, we should know what they are. If I am right, 40 moves would mean really only twenty switches which may sound like a lot but is less than one player switch a week-- I just want to make sure we understand what the restrictions mean . . .



____________________________________



I am still trying to get at what people are trying to protect. I can understand a distaste for churning I guess but too strict a limit frankly means that what I would call more active management is curtailed. Is it that people want managers to have to pretty much stick with their drafted players?

Its the playing of hunches, or deciding to pick up a player for a week because they play LA and Tampa Bay-- or deciding to dump a player because they struggled. . . . thats the fun and interest for me. and yes that includes noticing that all my 3rd right winger's games are on nights when the two RW ahead of him play as well-- and then picking up someone new

IIRC I essentially permanently dumped 3 or 4 of my drafted players-- and I want to be free to do that again. Part of the fun of this for me was taking a wild hunch by drafting a Bobby Ryan and seeing how it goes (or making the TERRIBLE ERROR and drafting Ray Emery) but then being able to easily pick up someone else-- I have looked at "draft and live with it" type pools and frankly I would find that boring-- I like the idea that I CAN easily fix my drafting mistakes, that I can garner advantage by noticing and picking up a streaky player at the right time (and dumping him at the right time), that I can compensate for injury somewhat.

The very reason that I liked this league was that all that was possible. Did I churn? The only time I had that going on was when I had a rotation going on RW of Kovalev, Sharp and Kane IIRC but that got "corrected" pretty quick when two of those guys got snapped up and then I used Cleary a few times. But even goofing in not keeping Kovalev is part of the fun for me. It was like dang "he took Kovalev" even as I cursed him in my mind

The only other big churn element was my desperation moves on the last day of close playoff races. I think I added 4 or 5 players each time (16-20 moves? total ). If people don't like that type of move I could understand it but thats why I thought a weekly limit on moves was better (assuming a limit is needed/desired)--


Last year I was surprised how passive many of the managers were (its not a criticism ast all as our regular season leader was the most passive, mainly because he drafted so freakingly well-- but I was surprised). But knowing the setup, I had assumed from the outset that people would be pretty active. I also thought there might be more banter than there was. But I was wrong on both accounts and while no one has been completely blunt about it (that i recall anyway) , I get the sense that some people must find how I played the league last year "wrong" or at least not in the spirit of the league.

I will play with whatever restrictions people want but IMHO if you restrict things too much , you turn the league into something --at worst where the draft is everything-- BORING-- but at least something where following hockey closely to try to gain tactical advantage becomes moot-- Isn't that part of the idea of a pool like this?-- to encourage our interest and make the games even more interesting to us?


Sorry to rant and glad to get it off my chest. AS always contrary opinions accepted and even welcomed.

[snoopy369]

Hmmm, if NYE doesn't have time for the league, then we have 8 managers, so perhaps we should just go with that, and not use ESPN to manage the auction. It will make the auction take significantly longer (hopefully not TOO significantly longer, but it will definitely be a longer process) and it will be more error-prone, but such is life.

If we do it this way, what are our options as far as chat programs? Does everyone have MSN, GTalk, Yahoo IM, AIM, which? (I have all of the above, of course)

[Asher]

I have MSN and Google Talk.

I prefer Gtalk.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Flubber


Thats my thought


Move Cleary to IR -- no move

Add Patrick Sharp to replace Cleary -- 1 move

A week later decide to drop Cleary since its a long injury and is just added stuff on your player list -- 1 move

--------------------------------


Instead of the above-- Drop Cleary and add Sharp-- 2 moves

I'm not CERTAIN but I am pretty sure that is how it goes-- I seem to recall seeing my moves go up by TWO every time I replaced a player

--------------------------------------------------------------------


Since it didn't matter last year I didn't pay that close attention. But if we are contemplating restrictions, we should know what they are. If I am right, 40 moves would mean really only twenty switches which may sound like a lot but is less than one player switch a week-- I just want to make sure we understand what the restrictions mean . . .



____________________________________



I am still trying to get at what people are trying to protect. I can understand a distaste for churning I guess but too strict a limit frankly means that what I would call more active management is curtailed. Is it that people want managers to have to pretty much stick with their drafted players?

Its the playing of hunches, or deciding to pick up a player for a week because they play LA and Tampa Bay-- or deciding to dump a player because they struggled. . . . thats the fun and interest for me. and yes that includes noticing that all my 3rd right winger's games are on nights when the two RW ahead of him play as well-- and then picking up someone new

IIRC I essentially permanently dumped 3 or 4 of my drafted players-- and I want to be free to do that again. Part of the fun of this for me was taking a wild hunch by drafting a Bobby Ryan and seeing how it goes (or making the TERRIBLE ERROR and drafting Ray Emery) but then being able to easily pick up someone else-- I have looked at "draft and live with it" type pools and frankly I would find that boring-- I like the idea that I CAN easily fix my drafting mistakes, that I can garner advantage by noticing and picking up a streaky player at the right time (and dumping him at the right time), that I can compensate for injury somewhat.

The very reason that I liked this league was that all that was possible. Did I churn? The only time I had that going on was when I had a rotation going on RW of Kovalev, Sharp and Kane IIRC but that got "corrected" pretty quick when two of those guys got snapped up and then I used Cleary a few times. But even goofing in not keeping Kovalev is part of the fun for me. It was like dang "he took Kovalev" even as I cursed him in my mind

The only other big churn element was my desperation moves on the last day of close playoff races. I think I added 4 or 5 players each time (16-20 moves? total ). If people don't like that type of move I could understand it but thats why I thought a weekly limit on moves was better (assuming a limit is needed/desired)--


Last year I was surprised how passive many of the managers were (its not a criticism ast all as our regular season leader was the most passive, mainly because he drafted so freakingly well-- but I was surprised). But knowing the setup, I had assumed from the outset that people would be pretty active. I also thought there might be more banter than there was. But I was wrong on both accounts and while no one has been completely blunt about it (that i recall anyway) , I get the sense that some people must find how I played the league last year "wrong" or at least not in the spirit of the league.

I will play with whatever restrictions people want but IMHO if you restrict things too much , you turn the league into something --at worst where the draft is everything-- BORING-- but at least something where following hockey closely to try to gain tactical advantage becomes moot-- Isn't that part of the idea of a pool like this?-- to encourage our interest and make the games even more interesting to us?


Sorry to rant and glad to get it off my chest. AS always contrary opinions accepted and even welcomed.

We can certainly look at bumping the limit from 40.

I'll look more later for a good answer to our unresolved question. Also, Yahoo may get back to me about the weekly cap. The first response I got directed me to Commish Tools. Der...

[Asher]

Does anyone actually support a season-based cap on player movements?

[notyoueither]

Well, no limit would be a bump. However, I am under the impression that there are several managers wanting some form of limit.

I'll check back later.

[notyoueither]

Cavalcadeus has gotten back to me on his invite. He's been away. He would play, but does not want to inconvenience anyone (odd number of managers and bye weeks).

I would like to invite him in regardless of odd numbers. To me, more managers is better. It is a casual league, and there would be more people interested in discussions.

Besides, once he joins, maybe we get another.

Any opinions?

[snoopy369]

Flubber, I guess what I have to say is that I don't care how many MOVES you make, but aiming for maximizing games played to a ridiculous level is where it starts to become annoying. I don't actually know if you did that - and don't really have a problem with your play last year, TBH - but I could care less if you swapped out your entire team every week, as long as your team plays roughly the same amount of games as my team during the week we play each other. When a player start going for an insane number of games played per week (which for forwards is ALWAYS a better option if possible, because only +/- is not a cumulative stat) then I have a problem. Then you're effective comparing my performance over, say, 20 forward games, with your performance over 30 forward games - which is obviously not even.

Hence why i'd rather enforce a week-to-week limit on games played, not a move limit. The issue is that you consider this strategy (overloading skater-games) to be a legitimate strategy, while I consider it to be mildly questionable. (I don't really care all THAT much, and would be fine with no limit at all, but if I have to have an opinion, this is it.)

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Cavalcadeus has gotten back to me on his invite. He's been away. He would play, but does not want to inconvenience anyone (odd number of managers and bye weeks).

I would like to invite him in regardless of odd numbers. To me, more managers is better. It is a casual league, and there would be more people interested in discussions.

Besides, once he joins, maybe we get another.

Any opinions?

More the merrier, I'm fine with a bye week if it happens.