Put your thinking caps on, and grab a bit of alchohol while you are at it.

Hello gentlemen. Whilst lying in bed the last couple of days, I had a bit of time to think about just about everything, and my mind happened to run across fantasy hockey and just happened to revisit this simple fact about our league that has been nagging me for a couple of years now:

Without doubting the integrity of a single GM, it is still an inescapable fact, that at certain times, a loss is more advantageous for a GM than a win. In short: at times it is better to lose than to win. To use John as an example, had he lost to the Tigers in the last week of the regular season, he would have been rewarded with one additional keeper heading into this season. Looking at his roster, that additional keeper would have been a talented player. His playoff position would have been slightly different of course, but looking over what took place in round 1, he might have ended up matched up against Ray, in which case he would have come out a winner.

So, I would like to once more reiterate, that I do not think that there are any tankers amongst us. That said, I still dislike the fact that GMs could ever be in the position that a loss is more beneficial than a win. It just feels wrong. Like wiping with the wrong hand. It is just not right.

Is there a perfect solution? Nope. Not that I can find.

Is there perhaps a tweak that our fine league could entertain that would remove any incentive that a GM could ever have for coming up with a loss rather than a win? Perhaps. I have taken a crack at this before as you all know, but my last effort was fogged with red wine and in retrospect it was too complicated for a sober mind to absorb. This effort, while not perfect, would be very simple to implement and does require the use of anything higher than grade 11 math plus basic typing skills.

Brace yourselves.

So, first place team keeps 10 and drafts 10th, second place team keeps 11 and drafts 9th, teams 3-8 hold 13 and will draft according to their standings come the end of playoffs, and the last two teams hold 15 and will draft according total points against with the team with the lowest points against landing the top pick. This points against strategy is a way of encouraging GMs to put the most points on the board each and every night, week in and week out. The more points a team racks up, the higher the points against totals rack up for opposing GMs, which could translate into securing that last pick depending on how the season progresses.

Just for interest sake here is what things would have looked like last season with this format:

1. Team PoPo (hold 15)
2. Fitzsy Stars (hold 15)
3. Arthur Tigers (hold 13)
4. Shoreside Situation (hold 13)
5. Soo Storm (hold 13)
6. Jugernauts (hold 13)
7. Gamblers (hold 13)
8. BCC (hold 13)
9. Suicidal Frogs (hold 11)
10. Desolation Row (hold 10)

I like this method. It fixes the top two teams nicely. It lumps teams 3-8 together, which removes any incentive to drop down a notch for that extra keeper. It rewards one of the two worst teams with the top pick, which might be lacking in some sort of lottery format. It also keeps GMs wanting to rack up points at all times which is a positive and healthy thing for any league. It also rewards the teams that perform well in the playoffs with higher draft picks. This has the very important side effect of keeping interest high until the very end for all teams save the last two. This, in my opinion, would be a massive improvement on the format that we are currently running. From every angle that I look at this format I see a winner.

I say, let's take a test drive next season and see how it fits with the Nutbars.

I feel so strongly about this I have taken the liberty of putting this in poll format.

Greg

I like it. Not too complicated and seems to get rid of any incentive to lose. Also it makes every point your guys get add up in points against to further hurt your opponent. You should try coming up with more ideas while you're sober....

Sounds like you have put a ton of time into thinking about this Greg (which I appreciate), but I still prefer the way we are doing it now. It is the easiest of all formats to understand and implement, and, as you suggest, there is incentive to win so that a team can face a weaker team in the opening round of the playoffs. Last year was the only year out of four where a lower-seeded team made such a big upset in the playoffs, so there is incentive to face a weaker team in the first round or two of the playoffs.

Of course, we will go with majority rules. But if the league should vote to try the new format, may I ask why you chose 13 and 15 keepers for the lower-seeded teams? Why not stick with the numbers we have? Either twelve, thirteen or fourteen? I think it's hard enough for a team that finishes high to be competitive the next season without having the lower-seeded teams (ie. especially 9th and 10th seeded teams) keeping even more players. At the very least I think we should go 12 and 13, or 13 and 14.

Still, I prefer what we have now.

i voted yes, but i was thinking the exact same thing with the number off keepers (13, and 15). i would prefer 12 and 13. the quality of the september draft will be better this way.

This is funny. I too had those same thoughts running through my head in regards to number of keepers. The plan is very good, but if we tweak the number of keepers a little (to 12 and 13), that would make it even better.

.... thinking... that should take a while!

it always does.....LOL

Sometimes I have to squirt some WD40 into my ears

I'm out of WD40. Does spray paint work?

Ewwww!

What color?

Lots of colours. I spray paint softballs, so that we can see the flight pattern of the ball! Red, green, blue, grey...

Jammed up here at 5-1 now for a couple of days.

Shall we get those last 4 votes in?

I agree with brandon and ray, and greg.
Im fine with a rule change but i do like 12-13 keepers

Looking like the new format with a hold pattern as follows:

1st: 10
2nd:11
3rd-8th:12
9th: 13
10th: 13

Judging purely by the amount of time Greg dedicated to this proposal I am in for a change. Not to mention this thing is much easier to understand when drinking wine instead of Jack Daniels.

Has it been clarified as to the number of keepers the final two lucky finishers get to hold? 13?

Seems like 13 is the popular choice my good man.

I'll go with the flow...

Speaking of flow, that Colorado River was running brown... that's one hell of a deep hole... and those damn Indians don't care if you fall in off the West Rim, you could trip and fall right in!

Just to clarify, this would take effect the year after this year, assuming we have an NHL season this year. If not, it would take effect the year after that. Anything else would be unfair as we have already planned around a certain number of keepers for the upcoming season.

Correct.

Hope I read this right. I kept 12 players.

SCOOP

It's not going to change until after the next NHL season anyway Scoop, but as a matter of fact you keep twelve players under both sets of rules.