Since we haven't drafted yet...one proposal

I rather get this shot down or approved right away, since it greatly effects the landscape of the draft on who I, and other GMs would pick.

I was looking at the rules, scoring, and so forth. I noticed we have 5 Dmen on our roster to fill out. However, we are scoring just G,A, PIM, +/-. Now, while there are some valuable Dmen for PIM. A lot of dmen have horrid +/-. And there are only a FEW fantasy worthy G and A Dmen out there. So having 5 Dmen kind of hinders your team under this scoring structure. A good way to balance this out is to take advantage of ESPN's HITS and BLOCKED SHOTS category. The two areas where dmen are really valuable, not just the superstars like Lidstrom and Phaneuf, but guys like Rivet suddenly become valuable. Since we'll be picking 5 Dmen each, thats a minimum of 50 dmen, so without this scoring bonus, Rivet will probably end up on someone's team as a burden. We could avoid burning ourselves by adding these 2 categories.

Thoughts?

Hi Jay,

Thanks for your thoughts and feedback. You bring up an interesting suggestion, but I'm not sure how much we want to start tinkering with the scoring format at this point. We chose this scoring format because it's relatively straightforward to understand, and because it's been well tested. It's a slightly altered version of a scoring format developed and used for several years by CDM fantasy sports. One of the alterations we did make was to increase assists from three points to five points, which should give defensemen a bit of a boost over the CDM system.

So while Craig Rivet wouldn't earn you as many points as a forward, say, he wouldn't be a hindrance either.

Most importantly, keep in mind that we're all in the same boat. We all have five defense positions to fill, and there are only so many Grade A defense positons to go around. It's part of what makes drafting challenging and fun. What's a veteran D Man like Lidstrom worth compared to, say, a young winger like Nathan Horton? Do you grab a top flight defenseman like Lidstrom early? If so, you might miss out on an upgrade in goal or a solid forward. Tough calls to make, and we'll all be forced to do that in a few weeks.

As you know, GMs in the NHL have to make tough calls like this all the time during the annual June draft. Should be interesting to see how GMs rank their players.

Having said all of this, I will ask Greg about the possibility of including these. If it doesn't throw off the points balance between forwards, defense, and goalies too much we MAY consider adding one or both of these categories.

Anybody else who has an opinion on this, please feel free to offer it here.

Cheers,
Matt

I'd rather keep things the way they are with regards to the scoring formula

I've already started ranking my players at espn with this formula and paid my $60 entry fee to play in a league with a straight forward/simple system .

I commish/webmaster a league with a complex scoring system and joined this one (nutbars)because of the small size / weekly moves / easy scoring format.

in the past I'd join a few random yahoo leagues to get a little extra fix but wanted something a little more solid this year

Hey Butch,

Yeah, I kinda figured that would be the response we'd get. I'm of the opinion that we should keep the scoring format we have in place. Managers have already joined based on this format, and it would be silly to start changing things at this point, especially since this scoring format has been well tested.

We're all in the same boat with regards to drafting forwards, D men and Goalies. There are only so many top players to go around at all positions.

Cheers,
Matt

I noticed at espn that someone named jay resigned

what the heck is wrong with these guys

I suggest we keep it the way it is for this year and if we need to change things, we can always make adjustments next season. I mean, we are all suppose to be in this for the long run, no?

Hey Ray,

Yes, there is a provision in our manifesto that during the offseason managers can make suggestions (we may have to limit the number per year depending on how many), and then as a group we vote on those suggestions to see if majority wants to change.

But yes, this year we're sticking with what we have now.

Cheers,
Matt