Just turtle and relax... this will all make sense by the end of the episode. And, as always, your favourite team wins.
Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Definitely Offside Podcast Ep.3: "P.P. & Pujols"
Wowzers, this episode is a lengthy, epic play-off classic! Kommissioner Kev (K-Mac), Ross (Smitty) and Mike (Gersy) dipsy-doodle up and down the ice like The Oilers kid-line! Off-season acquisitions Wil Wheaton, Albert Pujols, Richard Park and the reanimated corpse of Moammar Ghadhafi help take this game into triple overtime against DO's fiercest rival: coherent logic. Up next on the grueling road schedule: The Seattle Commodores!
Sunday, 23 October 2011
Goalies
I had been intending a better researched, more edited post on this topic, but never seem to make time, so instead you get the poorly written version.
I want to use Kevin's post about goalies as a springboard to offer some possible solutions. Specifically, I want to suggest that, if we accept Kevin's summation, we should look at these issues as possible forms of competitive advantage.
One - owners don't appreciate goalie value. I think that this is true - I also think that, from my perspective, at different times, owners have not appreciated the relative value of centres, rws, lws, d, older players, rookies, draft picks. I have seriously, at some point in these three years, lamented that people have different feelings than I about all of these things. I have come to accept that this is a good thing. That is why this league is fun - because there are so many different ways to win. For a current example - Sarah has only six wingers for her six positions. I think that she should be offering me all of her top picks right now for my depth wingers, because I can't imagine not having a back up at either wing position. Yet she has not made such an offer. Now, the proof is in the pudding - I think my team structure makes more sense than hers, but I have not won, and she is on her way to 2-0. Her strategy, to this point, has offered a competitive advantage to her. I might wish that she valued my players more, but she doesn't, and my feelings are my problem. Til my strategy wins, I can't say anything to her.
With the goalies, those of us who have not valued them (like me) were, when we consider Kevin's numbers and the points made during this discussion, CLEARLY WRONG. I have wrongly valued goalies. It took this sort of discussion for me to realize that, and now I am trying to find a way to rectify it (I wish we had done all of this before the draft...)
So, Sarah, when you are ready to trade a goalie for a depth winger, give me a call....
Two, Number of games: I think this is again an issue of competitive advantage. Obviously, a goalie who plays a lot is its own skill. Just like a player who never gets injured, they are more valuable than a player who is injured regularly (just ask Kevin). I appreciate that this a much more significant issue with goalies than players, but I still feel like it can be solved through research and preparation, which (theoretically, though J may prove this wrong) separates successful owners from less successful owners. Mostly it is guesswork, but there are some easy signs - back to backs, for example, or the proclivity of teams to play their backups in the middle of road trips or occasionally against opponents that are important to them/in their hometown/on hockey night in Canada.
That said, I recognize that there is randomness and it has a huge effect on the results of the week (more on that below). So I do think we should do something to rectify this. I don't like the "draft the whole team" solution, because it essentially means we want to pick the best defensive teams, not the best goalies (as individuals). And I don't like the idea of playing two goalies at a time - that means goalies will immediately be the most valuable players in the league, and I don't think that goalie dominated leagues are as fun as the one we play in now.
I do like the idea of creating another roster spot, though, that can only be used for a goalie. I like this because it exaggerates the existing scarcity (more on that in a second too); because it mirrors actual NHL rosters (23 man rosters, everyone carries at least two goalies); and it does not upset the positional balance of scoring, but does ensure that having a really strong goalie is harder to do, and thus more valuable.
Which brings me to my last point of this rambling post. When we discussed this at the draft, we all agreed that we wanted more positional scarcity among goalies. But I think our discussion, and Kevin's stats, suggest that this is not an issue. That is to say, there already IS positional scarcity. As Kevin said, having the best goalie last year (not counting Thomas, who had an historically amazing season) was worth .5pts/g more than having the 13th best goalie. In comparison, having the 2nd best centre last year was worth .6pts/g. So we are (roughly) in the range of the scarcity at the other positions.
In fact, last season, I went from having one of the best goalies (Jonas Hiller) to one of the worst (Miika Kiprusoff, who I plucked off the waiver wire) and immediately faltered. I picked up Niemi (available very late because he did not have a steady job until February last year) and immediately recovered, then outsmarted myself in the playoffs and played Kipper, and went the way of, well, the Flames. Now, because I misunderstood this issue, I didn't realize that goaltending was what had caused my collapse. But it is clear to me now that part of the reason I was knocked out of the playoffs last year is because I had misunderstood this important part of roster building.
My point is, I feel like we have a lot of what we want from goalies already, and to the extent that we don't, we need to make minor tweaks (adding that goalie bench slot) rather than major ones (adding a second playing goalie or playing teams instead of individual goalies). Especially when we add two more teams next year, having a bench spot that can only be used for a goalie will mean we dig really deep into the goalie market, and the scarcity will be felt keenly by teams who are not well prepared.
Who wants to trade me a goalie?
Dale
I want to use Kevin's post about goalies as a springboard to offer some possible solutions. Specifically, I want to suggest that, if we accept Kevin's summation, we should look at these issues as possible forms of competitive advantage.
One - owners don't appreciate goalie value. I think that this is true - I also think that, from my perspective, at different times, owners have not appreciated the relative value of centres, rws, lws, d, older players, rookies, draft picks. I have seriously, at some point in these three years, lamented that people have different feelings than I about all of these things. I have come to accept that this is a good thing. That is why this league is fun - because there are so many different ways to win. For a current example - Sarah has only six wingers for her six positions. I think that she should be offering me all of her top picks right now for my depth wingers, because I can't imagine not having a back up at either wing position. Yet she has not made such an offer. Now, the proof is in the pudding - I think my team structure makes more sense than hers, but I have not won, and she is on her way to 2-0. Her strategy, to this point, has offered a competitive advantage to her. I might wish that she valued my players more, but she doesn't, and my feelings are my problem. Til my strategy wins, I can't say anything to her.
With the goalies, those of us who have not valued them (like me) were, when we consider Kevin's numbers and the points made during this discussion, CLEARLY WRONG. I have wrongly valued goalies. It took this sort of discussion for me to realize that, and now I am trying to find a way to rectify it (I wish we had done all of this before the draft...)
So, Sarah, when you are ready to trade a goalie for a depth winger, give me a call....
Two, Number of games: I think this is again an issue of competitive advantage. Obviously, a goalie who plays a lot is its own skill. Just like a player who never gets injured, they are more valuable than a player who is injured regularly (just ask Kevin). I appreciate that this a much more significant issue with goalies than players, but I still feel like it can be solved through research and preparation, which (theoretically, though J may prove this wrong) separates successful owners from less successful owners. Mostly it is guesswork, but there are some easy signs - back to backs, for example, or the proclivity of teams to play their backups in the middle of road trips or occasionally against opponents that are important to them/in their hometown/on hockey night in Canada.
That said, I recognize that there is randomness and it has a huge effect on the results of the week (more on that below). So I do think we should do something to rectify this. I don't like the "draft the whole team" solution, because it essentially means we want to pick the best defensive teams, not the best goalies (as individuals). And I don't like the idea of playing two goalies at a time - that means goalies will immediately be the most valuable players in the league, and I don't think that goalie dominated leagues are as fun as the one we play in now.
I do like the idea of creating another roster spot, though, that can only be used for a goalie. I like this because it exaggerates the existing scarcity (more on that in a second too); because it mirrors actual NHL rosters (23 man rosters, everyone carries at least two goalies); and it does not upset the positional balance of scoring, but does ensure that having a really strong goalie is harder to do, and thus more valuable.
Which brings me to my last point of this rambling post. When we discussed this at the draft, we all agreed that we wanted more positional scarcity among goalies. But I think our discussion, and Kevin's stats, suggest that this is not an issue. That is to say, there already IS positional scarcity. As Kevin said, having the best goalie last year (not counting Thomas, who had an historically amazing season) was worth .5pts/g more than having the 13th best goalie. In comparison, having the 2nd best centre last year was worth .6pts/g. So we are (roughly) in the range of the scarcity at the other positions.
In fact, last season, I went from having one of the best goalies (Jonas Hiller) to one of the worst (Miika Kiprusoff, who I plucked off the waiver wire) and immediately faltered. I picked up Niemi (available very late because he did not have a steady job until February last year) and immediately recovered, then outsmarted myself in the playoffs and played Kipper, and went the way of, well, the Flames. Now, because I misunderstood this issue, I didn't realize that goaltending was what had caused my collapse. But it is clear to me now that part of the reason I was knocked out of the playoffs last year is because I had misunderstood this important part of roster building.
My point is, I feel like we have a lot of what we want from goalies already, and to the extent that we don't, we need to make minor tweaks (adding that goalie bench slot) rather than major ones (adding a second playing goalie or playing teams instead of individual goalies). Especially when we add two more teams next year, having a bench spot that can only be used for a goalie will mean we dig really deep into the goalie market, and the scarcity will be felt keenly by teams who are not well prepared.
Who wants to trade me a goalie?
Dale
Definitely Offside Podcast Ep.2.5: "Occupied"
The bonus episode! What was too taboo for episode two? The sounds of Ross talking too much about nothing in particular as he struggles vainly to unify the topics of Steve Bartman, the Occupy movement, the Vancouver riots and fisting! More stunning evidence of the cryptozoological wonder: Racist Jason Sullivan! Rhys goes for a poop! Now that's a podcast, folks.
Episode 3 taping tonight, up by Tuesday!
Episode 3 taping tonight, up by Tuesday!
Saturday, 22 October 2011
Returning to the Goalie Debate
The comments to Dale's question, 'What do we really want?' are summarized below. Please speak up if I've misunderstood the issue or your point.
Matt argues that goalies are undervalued (as keepers, trade bait, and on the waiver wire) such that even elite goalies are not sought after commodities. He wants to see a system in which the best goalies are among the most valuable assets in the league (alongside elite players). Andrew agreed, as did Sean. Sean also thought this was a function of having only one goalie slot and suggested we add a second.
Ben voiced that fluctuations in per week goalie games have a disproportionate effect on whether a team wins or loses. Specifically, a team is twice as likely to lose if they have even one fewer goalie game. He also echoed Matt's point about the value of goalies being messed up, but was cautious in suggesting we grow the number of goalie slots.
To further summarize, I see two issues:
1) People are concerned that other owners don't value goalies.
2) People are concerned that goalie performance has too great an effect on weekly matchups, a problem made considerably worse by the very up-and-down nature of a one goalie system.
Is that an accurate depiction of the comments made on Dale's post? Further, is that a fair summation of how you (Matt, Ben, Andrew, and Sean) actually feel about the currently goalie system?
Friday, 21 October 2011
The future of the blog
Ross and your Commish met to discuss what I will now term the 'Blog Project.' Right now this blog serves as a 'community' where we can share thoughts and resources with each other. I know that Ross would like to start making some of our community available for public consumption, including the podcast and blog. The when and how are still up in the air, but Ross has some great ideas for turning our fantasy hockey league into something accessible. Plus there has been talk in the past about our podcast graduating from the farm system of our 13 person community into the big leagues on Hockey Gods. I may have read that on Eklund, so don't quote me on it.
Still, it feels like it might be time to open up the discussion about what people want from the project again.
Still, it feels like it might be time to open up the discussion about what people want from the project again.
Sunday, 16 October 2011
Definitely Offside Podcast Ep.2: "American American"
This week, Mike and Ross are joined by Kommissioner Kev and his boy-toy Rhys! We further the legend of Racist Jason Sullivan and discover that one league member may be Richard Nixon. The Jets, the Sabres, Don Cherry and Mike Millbury all get the DO treatment - they like it rough, after all.
**There is an edit near the end where we veered off into a very tangential conversation. I felt the episode ran a little long, so I snipped it, but there's some good stuff there so I'll post it later this week as a bonus!
**There is an edit near the end where we veered off into a very tangential conversation. I felt the episode ran a little long, so I snipped it, but there's some good stuff there so I'll post it later this week as a bonus!
Saturday, 15 October 2011
Hey, gang, you might like this new bit I've written about sports movies, as referenced on the podcast.
Go Oilers.
Link it up: Base Hits and Beatdowns!
Smithee
Go Oilers.
Link it up: Base Hits and Beatdowns!
Smithee
Wednesday, 12 October 2011
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
The Rouge!!
For your reading pleasure - a nice piece on AC and our quirky, modest li'l CFL.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7082619/the-best-passing-quarterback-ever
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7082619/the-best-passing-quarterback-ever
Sunday, 9 October 2011
Definitely Offside: The Podcast!
Because absolutely no one demanded it! Here's our first stab at podcasting featuring Ross and Mike. Constructive feedback is more than welcome but go easy on us, we're new to this! Apologies to Mr. Sullivan - we know you're not a racist. Or do we...?
1,000 Page Views!
Me again.
Our little blog has a little analytics engine that tells us who and how many people are viewing our little corner. I haven't told anyone outside the league about it, so its just us. Still, without tracking my own views, we've just reached 1,000! We're not so little anymore. Since we only have 24 posts, I suppose people are checking often for new updates and comments. In other words, I think its working as a platform to have discussions like the one going on about goalies currently. Keep up the chatter and the checking people!
Also, just out of interest, Batarangs' post about what else could be done with his $50 is the most viewed post so far. And pretty much nothing I write is ever read. So I think its time for some fresh (and more funny) voices. Remember we can all be authors and its super-duper easy to post anything and everything you want. Post links to other stuff you're doing, share videos, whatevs. Maybs (probs) you'll get mad props, yo.
Our little blog has a little analytics engine that tells us who and how many people are viewing our little corner. I haven't told anyone outside the league about it, so its just us. Still, without tracking my own views, we've just reached 1,000! We're not so little anymore. Since we only have 24 posts, I suppose people are checking often for new updates and comments. In other words, I think its working as a platform to have discussions like the one going on about goalies currently. Keep up the chatter and the checking people!
Also, just out of interest, Batarangs' post about what else could be done with his $50 is the most viewed post so far. And pretty much nothing I write is ever read. So I think its time for some fresh (and more funny) voices. Remember we can all be authors and its super-duper easy to post anything and everything you want. Post links to other stuff you're doing, share videos, whatevs. Maybs (probs) you'll get mad props, yo.
Saturday, 8 October 2011
Sloppy Seconds Second Gig
Hey all,
Mike has a new piece up on Bet Fair:
http://www.betfairblog.com/nhl-betting/the-nhl-is-finally-starting-to-grow-up/
It's a solid recap of some of the controversial hits in the Stanley Cup Final re-framed by this year's rules and context. All I can hear is Milbury and Cherry yelling about how if it was up to them, they'd just shoot any hockey player who came up lame because of a head injury.
Enjoy!
Mike has a new piece up on Bet Fair:
http://www.betfairblog.com/nhl-betting/the-nhl-is-finally-starting-to-grow-up/
It's a solid recap of some of the controversial hits in the Stanley Cup Final re-framed by this year's rules and context. All I can hear is Milbury and Cherry yelling about how if it was up to them, they'd just shoot any hockey player who came up lame because of a head injury.
Enjoy!
Thursday, 6 October 2011
Happy October!
Season's Greetings!
I just wanted to wish everyone a very merry and happy October 6, the first day of the NHL season. I've been waiting impatiently for this for many months and still somehow I can't believe it has finally arrived.
I look forward to trouncing you in fantasy hockey this year, but I'd be even more excited to catch a game or two with everyone.
M.Mori
I just wanted to wish everyone a very merry and happy October 6, the first day of the NHL season. I've been waiting impatiently for this for many months and still somehow I can't believe it has finally arrived.
I look forward to trouncing you in fantasy hockey this year, but I'd be even more excited to catch a game or two with everyone.
M.Mori
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
Background on the Goalie Debate
What, exactly, do we want?
Hi everyone,
Andrew's comment on the Campbell Conference Prospectus, as well as the great discussion between Kevin and the Bealls, made me wonder if we are all working towards the same goals in this goalie issue. What makes this worse is the comment Sean placed on an earlier piece, in which he indicated that I had failed to explain this debate to him at the time. It seems clear that we don't all agree on why we want to reform the goalie position.
Could people who have an opinion on this issue place the reasons they want to reform the goalie slot in the comments below? You don't necessarily have to offer a model of how to reform it - we are working through that - but just to specify what you want to be different.
Possible options might include a desire for positional scarcity; a desire for the gap between the best and worst goalies to be greater, so that playing a bottom rung goalie hurts your fortunes more; a desire to make goalies' points a larger part of the pie, and thus to make them more important to the results each week; or a desire to try to avoid the common issue of goalies playing fewer games than expected, resulting in uneven performance from week to week. Or anything that I am missing.
Thanks everyone,
The Mercs.
Andrew's comment on the Campbell Conference Prospectus, as well as the great discussion between Kevin and the Bealls, made me wonder if we are all working towards the same goals in this goalie issue. What makes this worse is the comment Sean placed on an earlier piece, in which he indicated that I had failed to explain this debate to him at the time. It seems clear that we don't all agree on why we want to reform the goalie position.
Could people who have an opinion on this issue place the reasons they want to reform the goalie slot in the comments below? You don't necessarily have to offer a model of how to reform it - we are working through that - but just to specify what you want to be different.
Possible options might include a desire for positional scarcity; a desire for the gap between the best and worst goalies to be greater, so that playing a bottom rung goalie hurts your fortunes more; a desire to make goalies' points a larger part of the pie, and thus to make them more important to the results each week; or a desire to try to avoid the common issue of goalies playing fewer games than expected, resulting in uneven performance from week to week. Or anything that I am missing.
Thanks everyone,
The Mercs.
Re: Moron Goalies
I can't include an image in the comments, so I had to make this a post. Sorry folks.
My personal feeling (always open to being out-voted) is that the variation in goalie scoring is not so wild as to create a structural problem. Experientially, I feel like the number of games can *generally* be anticipated at the start of the week, but I have no real evidence for that and I'm sure we've all been surprised on occasion. To explore Matt's larger point a bit about the variation in weekly scoring, we can actually go to the ESPN system itself (for an 'all you can anecdote' festival of small samples). Pick your favorite goalie and your favorite skater, and use their 'Charts' function to compare weekly scoring. You can see Rinne vs Ovechkin below.
Goalies do have higher peaks and lower valleys (crossing the 0 plane in most cases), but its partly their higher averages (4 vs 2 games at 2.4pts creates more visual up-and-down than 4 vs 2 games at 1.9pts). If Ben has the data from his last analysis, we could run some simple descriptives to get a better account. Still, I'm not convinced the flux is totally out of proportion with skaters. I'd be interested to see more examples as well as more rigorous evaluation.
(PS: Nice meme, Matt)
My personal feeling (always open to being out-voted) is that the variation in goalie scoring is not so wild as to create a structural problem. Experientially, I feel like the number of games can *generally* be anticipated at the start of the week, but I have no real evidence for that and I'm sure we've all been surprised on occasion. To explore Matt's larger point a bit about the variation in weekly scoring, we can actually go to the ESPN system itself (for an 'all you can anecdote' festival of small samples). Pick your favorite goalie and your favorite skater, and use their 'Charts' function to compare weekly scoring. You can see Rinne vs Ovechkin below.
Goalies do have higher peaks and lower valleys (crossing the 0 plane in most cases), but its partly their higher averages (4 vs 2 games at 2.4pts creates more visual up-and-down than 4 vs 2 games at 1.9pts). If Ben has the data from his last analysis, we could run some simple descriptives to get a better account. Still, I'm not convinced the flux is totally out of proportion with skaters. I'd be interested to see more examples as well as more rigorous evaluation.
(PS: Nice meme, Matt)
Tuesday, 4 October 2011
Season Prospectus - Clarence Campbell Division
Following my outlook on the season for the Prince of Wales Division, this piece will cover the other six teams. Lets again remember that I took last in 2010/11, and clearly can predict player performance like Irving Fisher can predict the stock market. (That is the only way in which I'm at all like Irving Fisher, by the way).
Projected Standings
Young Guns (15-7)
Edmonton Mercury's (14-8)
St Albert Stultifiers (12-10)
REMS (11-11)
Mama Ramotswe (9-13)
Catville Cats (8-14)
The Campbell Division is coming out of the shadows this year with exceptional drafts by the Stultifiers, Ramotswe and the REMS (for a second year running). All the teams in this division have major star power, with only depth and balance separating the top of the division from the bottom. It will be hard to win those divisional match-ups in the CCD. Collectively, I've projected them to take home 69 of the 132 available wins in the regular season - the same number of wins by the Wales Division in 2010/11. Move over Welchmen, it's time for a rich guy name Clarence to shine.
See my reasons why after the break.
Mama Ramotswe (9-13)
Catville Cats (8-14)
The Campbell Division is coming out of the shadows this year with exceptional drafts by the Stultifiers, Ramotswe and the REMS (for a second year running). All the teams in this division have major star power, with only depth and balance separating the top of the division from the bottom. It will be hard to win those divisional match-ups in the CCD. Collectively, I've projected them to take home 69 of the 132 available wins in the regular season - the same number of wins by the Wales Division in 2010/11. Move over Welchmen, it's time for a rich guy name Clarence to shine.
See my reasons why after the break.
Moron Goalies
Kev, thanks for the post. Good that people (other than me) are thinking about this very, extremely important issue. This was originally a comment on your last post. Then it got out of hand. Now I've promoted it to be a post of its own! And so:
I have a few thoughts, too (surprise, surprise):
As you noted, your proposal does not address the issue that Ben presented to us, which I think is the most significant in this discussion (and certainly one of the reasons goalies aren't really valued higher than a 10th player on a roster).
A number of teams have carried two goalies (including ours, yes) and have tried to manage the slot like any other position. I imagine this has reduced, by at least some small amount, the likelihood that those teams have a game disadvantage for any given week. I doubt it's been by much, however. For instance, here's a easy to imagine a scenario as our league is currently configured: Team A has two goalies, one with 3 games, one with 4 for the coming matchup; Team B has only one goalie, who has 3 games; at the end of the week, Team A only got two goalie games, despite choosing the 4-game goalie, while Team B got 3.
Anyway, without getting into it much further at this point, the above scenario shows two main flaws in our current setup: (1) we have only one slot with which to accumulate points for the week for a particular position, and (2) goalies, unlike other players, often do not even play in games for their team (and owners rarely have the opportunity to know when those missed games will be).
By retaining the one-slot, lock-in roster position and current scoring system, even if we 'force' owners to hold at least two goalies, I doubt we'll significantly reduce the rather nasty games-in-hand advantage, nor will we address the high volatility of weekly scoring by goalies (something that Ben didn't talk about, but which I think exists, and which also hurts the balance of the league at bit -- stats people? more sweet graphs?)
A change that would remedy, at least in part, all three of those problems (game advantage, missed games, scoring volatility) is allowing teams to play two goalies per week -- hence my initial suggestion. To tweak the goalie scoring per game to keep balance in the league (in terms of player position output relative to contribution to winning) in this scenario would be trivial -- we could just adjust it to work for us. I'm not convinced that the concern about goalies' value overriding that of all other players in a two-slot scenario is warranted, either (especially if we balance the scoring relatively well). Sure, having two 2.0 goalies vs two 1.5 goalies would great, but so is having three 1.8 centres vs three 1.4 centres -- almost nobody in the league is "rich" enough to have 3 C's at 1.8+, but everyone is rich enough to have 1.4's. Any team that wanted to spend their pool of player value on good goalies would have to do so at the expense of other talent. (Another small reason: even with a powerful relative scoring position, goalies' year-to-year scoring variability will always suppress their market value to some degree -- are you going to get 2010 Ryan Miller or 2011 Ryan Miller?)
All that said, where this idea might fall down is with league expansion. As we move to 14 (or 16) teams, even with a two goalie per team maximum, I doubt the pool will be deep enough to accommodate two starting goalies. Here's the number of goalies starting 50 or more games from the last five seasons:
So, I'm not sure where that leaves us. I don't as of yet have an alternative to suggest. Looking at some past stats and other scoring models will probably help. So, I guess I'll do that...
I have a few thoughts, too (surprise, surprise):
As you noted, your proposal does not address the issue that Ben presented to us, which I think is the most significant in this discussion (and certainly one of the reasons goalies aren't really valued higher than a 10th player on a roster).
A number of teams have carried two goalies (including ours, yes) and have tried to manage the slot like any other position. I imagine this has reduced, by at least some small amount, the likelihood that those teams have a game disadvantage for any given week. I doubt it's been by much, however. For instance, here's a easy to imagine a scenario as our league is currently configured: Team A has two goalies, one with 3 games, one with 4 for the coming matchup; Team B has only one goalie, who has 3 games; at the end of the week, Team A only got two goalie games, despite choosing the 4-game goalie, while Team B got 3.
Anyway, without getting into it much further at this point, the above scenario shows two main flaws in our current setup: (1) we have only one slot with which to accumulate points for the week for a particular position, and (2) goalies, unlike other players, often do not even play in games for their team (and owners rarely have the opportunity to know when those missed games will be).
By retaining the one-slot, lock-in roster position and current scoring system, even if we 'force' owners to hold at least two goalies, I doubt we'll significantly reduce the rather nasty games-in-hand advantage, nor will we address the high volatility of weekly scoring by goalies (something that Ben didn't talk about, but which I think exists, and which also hurts the balance of the league at bit -- stats people? more sweet graphs?)
A change that would remedy, at least in part, all three of those problems (game advantage, missed games, scoring volatility) is allowing teams to play two goalies per week -- hence my initial suggestion. To tweak the goalie scoring per game to keep balance in the league (in terms of player position output relative to contribution to winning) in this scenario would be trivial -- we could just adjust it to work for us. I'm not convinced that the concern about goalies' value overriding that of all other players in a two-slot scenario is warranted, either (especially if we balance the scoring relatively well). Sure, having two 2.0 goalies vs two 1.5 goalies would great, but so is having three 1.8 centres vs three 1.4 centres -- almost nobody in the league is "rich" enough to have 3 C's at 1.8+, but everyone is rich enough to have 1.4's. Any team that wanted to spend their pool of player value on good goalies would have to do so at the expense of other talent. (Another small reason: even with a powerful relative scoring position, goalies' year-to-year scoring variability will always suppress their market value to some degree -- are you going to get 2010 Ryan Miller or 2011 Ryan Miller?)
All that said, where this idea might fall down is with league expansion. As we move to 14 (or 16) teams, even with a two goalie per team maximum, I doubt the pool will be deep enough to accommodate two starting goalies. Here's the number of goalies starting 50 or more games from the last five seasons:
- 2010-11: 24
- 2009-10: 18
- 2008-09: 19
- 2007-08: 22
- 2006-07: 22
So, I'm not sure where that leaves us. I don't as of yet have an alternative to suggest. Looking at some past stats and other scoring models will probably help. So, I guess I'll do that...
Sunday, 2 October 2011
Recap: Oilers/Canucks, Oct.1
Last night I had my first chance to see this year's model of the Oilers play against the Canucks and here's my assessment of my cherished Oil on the brink of regular season play: they're gonna lose a lot again this year. They are exciting as hell, have tons of talent and grit and assertiveness and if they can maintain the last two, they won't finish in last place just near it.
What was obviously missing, as demonstrated all too effectively by the Canucks, is structure and patience. The Canucks looked like Zen masters out there. There were some lapses in their play, defensively mostly, but nothing more than early-season rust. While the Oilers kept coming in mad flurries, the Canucks were like Steven Segal, eating a meatball sub with one hand and sending Taylor Hall crashing over the bar with the other, just guiding him there with his own momentum.
Or if the players were lovers and not fighters, the experienced lady-killer needs to take the young buck aside with a little advice. Segal to Hall, heart to heart:
"Hey, man, in the words of the legendary New Edition, you got to cool it now. I know you want to score, We all want to score. and you're here, you're in the show, this lady wants you in her boudoir. It's not about living up to the hype now, it's about making her forget everyone else. You can't just pounce on her! You got to coax her, figure out what's working and let her come to you. This is love aikido, man. Ain't no sense in throwing all your tricks at her at once, just keep it simple, baby. Say sweet things to her, kiss her all over, get the juices flowing and then, only then, work the clit. (for the Canucks this is getting the puck to Daniel.) You can't go straight to the anal pile-driver! You just can't! She is not into that! Give it time, son."
I look forward to the day when the Oilers can dominate and go straight to the anal pile driver, hoagie in hand, greased-back pony-tail shining in the pool hall light, but it's still a long way away. More importantly, I look forward to when they realize they don't have to but they can if the lady is feelin' freaky. Love Aikido. Hard to kill. Cool it now.
Game notes:
What was obviously missing, as demonstrated all too effectively by the Canucks, is structure and patience. The Canucks looked like Zen masters out there. There were some lapses in their play, defensively mostly, but nothing more than early-season rust. While the Oilers kept coming in mad flurries, the Canucks were like Steven Segal, eating a meatball sub with one hand and sending Taylor Hall crashing over the bar with the other, just guiding him there with his own momentum.
Or if the players were lovers and not fighters, the experienced lady-killer needs to take the young buck aside with a little advice. Segal to Hall, heart to heart:
"Hey, man, in the words of the legendary New Edition, you got to cool it now. I know you want to score, We all want to score. and you're here, you're in the show, this lady wants you in her boudoir. It's not about living up to the hype now, it's about making her forget everyone else. You can't just pounce on her! You got to coax her, figure out what's working and let her come to you. This is love aikido, man. Ain't no sense in throwing all your tricks at her at once, just keep it simple, baby. Say sweet things to her, kiss her all over, get the juices flowing and then, only then, work the clit. (for the Canucks this is getting the puck to Daniel.) You can't go straight to the anal pile-driver! You just can't! She is not into that! Give it time, son."
I look forward to the day when the Oilers can dominate and go straight to the anal pile driver, hoagie in hand, greased-back pony-tail shining in the pool hall light, but it's still a long way away. More importantly, I look forward to when they realize they don't have to but they can if the lady is feelin' freaky. Love Aikido. Hard to kill. Cool it now.
Game notes:
- Taylor Hall is the dumbest looking player in the NHL. I'm not saying he's dumb, just dumb looking. Those pneumatic lips and glazed eyes make him look like he's on the cusp of drooling at all times.
- Nugent-Hopkins is going to be fierce. Once they get some weight on him, he's going to impose his will on people.
- Is Lapierre going to be a goal-scorer this year? Looks plausible. Likewise Hamuis? He looked good on the point. Stay healthy, boys!
- Everybody in Rogers Arena is still holding their breath any time a puck gets near Luongo. No pressure, Lou, no pressure.
- No mullet for Ryan Smyth - hey, Asshole, we paid good money for that mullet, you grow that shit back! Ryan Jones presence doens't mean your follicles get the season off!
- The Pirate Malholtra was strong in face-offs. I guess maybe the key dominating the circle is just to squint.
- Mark Lee and Kevin Weekes continue to be the most stilted duo in broadcasting. Every game is like Lee just lobbed a racial slur at Weekes right before airtime and now they have to work through it. Because they're professionals, dammit!
- I sill don't know how to spell Piejaarvi. Mmmm... pie...
Saturday, 1 October 2011
Possible Goalie Compromise
Me again. I had an idea for resolving some of the debate around goalie slots that I want to share for feedback. It's not perfect, and it doesn't address Ben's concern at all. I think it's worth hearing out that discussion before we try to ratify any ideas around goalies, but I hope Ben won't mind me stepping in with this idea a bit early.
THE IDEA!:
What about having a designated bench slot for goalies? Every team would still only play one goalie per week, but would also have a second goalie bench slot that cannot be filled with a player. I prefer a system in which teams can ONLY hold two goalies and can only have a maximum of 21 skaters, (for a maximum of 23 players of any position).
THE IDEA!:
What about having a designated bench slot for goalies? Every team would still only play one goalie per week, but would also have a second goalie bench slot that cannot be filled with a player. I prefer a system in which teams can ONLY hold two goalies and can only have a maximum of 21 skaters, (for a maximum of 23 players of any position).
Season Prospectus - Prince of Wales Division
With the draft a few days past and the lotion and tissue supply dwindling, I thought it might be fun to look at each team critically and make some predictions in the standings. It's still September, and I took last in 2010-11, so take this with a fist full of rock salt.
During 2010/11, this division could be considered the more competitive division. These six teams posted a total of 69 wins of the 132 available in the regular season. This year, the Wales division is set to swap places with the Campbell Div'ers. Look for them to lose the inter-conference show down and post only 63 of the 132 wins available.
Projected Standings
Vancouver Batarangs (14-8)
Memento Mori (13-9)
Santorum Sloppy Seconds (10-12)
Billcago Hawksby (9-13)
Eric Staal Resplendent! (9-13)
Team Seamus (8-14)
During 2010/11, this division could be considered the more competitive division. These six teams posted a total of 69 wins of the 132 available in the regular season. This year, the Wales division is set to swap places with the Campbell Div'ers. Look for them to lose the inter-conference show down and post only 63 of the 132 wins available.
My explanations for each team are after the break.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)