|
|
Post by Coal - Kraken on Mar 15, 2019 15:30:09 GMT -5
Teams that have a “bye” objectively have a significant advantage. That’s the free walk to the second round of playoffs. I’d take my players being at risk of getting injured while not accumulating points for me for a free win any day. And even then, if your argument is that the players might get injured, why does there need to be any stipulation anyway? As every team can drop/call up a player in the case of that happening. That fun fact is nothing but arbitrary. We were not discussing "free wins," we were discussing the adding/dropping of players. My fun fact might be arbitrary, but it is observable. Players getting injured is completely arbitrary AND hypothetical. Yes, exactly. Players getting injured is completely arbitrary and hypothetical. But you're arguing that the bye-week teams need to have unlocked rosters because a player might get injured while not accumulating stats for the team they play for. But if they get injured, you can replace that player anyway under the same rules of the locked roster team. |
|
|
|
Post by Coal - Kraken on Mar 15, 2019 15:37:34 GMT -5
The San Jose Sharks release (G) Stuart Skinner from Vancouver. The San Jose Sharks reassign (G) Kyle Keyser to Vancouver. The San Jose Sharks sign (G) Sam Montembeault (21/0)* and assign him to Worcester. ie. having the non-locked roster can lead to this where only 4/12 has the chance to sign Sam Montembeault (21/0)* who could significantly impact the current fantasy playoffs. |
|
|
|
Post by Kyle - Devils on Mar 15, 2019 17:26:24 GMT -5
I agree with Kyle that the majority of "OUT" players are rightfully injured players. In the scenario you addressed I feel that would be a very rare and obscure case. The "OUT" designation gets applied simply because teams in real life don't want to put certain players on their IR. In fact, more often than not, players listed as "OUT" are usually longer term injuries or else Yahoo would apply them as "DTD". I am not arguing that point. I do not anticipate any issues, I just wanted that exception on record should it randomly come up. I think yes some clear ruling on this would be good going forward. Daniel makes a good point in that most players get listed as O because the team doesnt want to put them onto IR, for myself its not something i would like to see changed immediately but i think it is something we can look to in the offseason to make it clear. As right now the rule has some holes. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Mar 15, 2019 18:11:42 GMT -5
We were not discussing "free wins," we were discussing the adding/dropping of players. My fun fact might be arbitrary, but it is observable. Players getting injured is completely arbitrary AND hypothetical. Yes, exactly. Players getting injured is completely arbitrary and hypothetical. But you're arguing that the bye-week teams need to have unlocked rosters because a player might get injured while not accumulating stats for the team they play for. But if they get injured, you can replace that player anyway under the same rules of the locked roster team. No. I am arguing that "Bye" week teams are able to interact with their farm teams, free of the injured player caveat. The reasoning behind this is that no matter what a Bye week team does, a matchup can not be manipulated because there isn't a current matchup to manipulate. However, a non-bye week team does not have this luxury because any move that teams makes, affects the current matchup. 1 injured player for 1 healthy player on the farm. Not one fresh body every day because a player is slumping and/or to maximize games played. The main objective is to prevent any form of streaming/roster manipulation. The injured aspect is secondary and something YOU are trying to make an issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Mar 15, 2019 18:13:10 GMT -5
I am not arguing that point. I do not anticipate any issues, I just wanted that exception on record should it randomly come up. I think yes some clear ruling on this would be good going forward. Daniel makes a good point in that most players get listed as O because the team doesnt want to put them onto IR, for myself its not something i would like to see changed immediately but i think it is something we can look to in the offseason to make it clear. As right now the rule has some holes. It is pretty clear from these issues (as well as others) that we need to have a lengthy discussion about some rules during the offseason and revamp the rulebook. It is the #1 priority. |
|
|
|
Post by Coal - Kraken on Mar 15, 2019 19:13:07 GMT -5
Yes, exactly. Players getting injured is completely arbitrary and hypothetical. But you're arguing that the bye-week teams need to have unlocked rosters because a player might get injured while not accumulating stats for the team they play for. But if they get injured, you can replace that player anyway under the same rules of the locked roster team. No. I am arguing that "Bye" week teams are able to interact with their farm teams, free of the injured player caveat. The reasoning behind this is that no matter what a Bye week team does, a matchup can not be manipulated because there isn't a current matchup to manipulate. However, a non-bye week team does not have this luxury because any move that teams makes, affects the current matchup. 1 injured player for 1 healthy player on the farm. Not one fresh body every day because a player is slumping and/or to maximize games played. The main objective is to prevent any form of streaming/roster manipulation. The injured aspect is secondary and something YOU are trying to make an issue. What I originally arguing is that every team should be subject to the same rules from the beginning of the fantasy playoffs regardless of if they have a bye-week. Theres no reason that there needs to be a special stipulation for a bye-week team. |
|
|
|
Post by Daniel - Canucks on Mar 15, 2019 20:14:48 GMT -5
I agree with Kyle that the majority of "OUT" players are rightfully injured players. In the scenario you addressed I feel that would be a very rare and obscure case. The "OUT" designation gets applied simply because teams in real life don't want to put certain players on their IR. In fact, more often than not, players listed as "OUT" are usually longer term injuries or else Yahoo would apply them as "DTD". I am not arguing that point. I do not anticipate any issues, I just wanted that exception on record should it randomly come up. For the sake of being cut and dry, I just want to confirm because it will come up. As long as the "OUT" player is legitimately injured in the same way a "DTD" or "IR" player is injured, GMs are able to drop said injured player and replace said injured player with a farm player. Is this correct? |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Mar 15, 2019 23:24:38 GMT -5
I am not arguing that point. I do not anticipate any issues, I just wanted that exception on record should it randomly come up. For the sake of being cut and dry, I just want to confirm because it will come up. As long as the "OUT" player is legitimately injured in the same way a "DTD" or "IR" player is injured, GMs are able to drop said injured player and replace said injured player with a farm player. Is this correct? Correct. I don't enjoy having such strict rules, but unfortunately a more lax set of rules were taken advantage of in the past. All I care about is that there isn't any streaming or malicious intent to gain an unfair advantage in games played on any given week. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Mar 16, 2019 3:17:11 GMT -5
All I care about is that there isn't any streaming or malicious intent to gain an unfair advantage in games played on any given week. You're currently manipulating the goaltending position to gain an unfair advantage in skater games played. Anybody rostering 2 goalies is manipulating the goaltending position to gain an unfair advantage in skater games played. Would you roster 12 skaters? Nope. You even roster 5 or 6 defensemen demonstrating a need for extra players at each position, so then why else would you only roster 2 goalies? Oh yeah, to manipulate the goaltending position to gain an unfair advantage in skater games played. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Mar 16, 2019 12:10:29 GMT -5
All I care about is that there isn't any streaming or malicious intent to gain an unfair advantage in games played on any given week. You're currently manipulating the goaltending position to gain an unfair advantage in skater games played. Anybody rostering 2 goalies is manipulating the goaltending position to gain an unfair advantage in skater games played. Would you roster 12 skaters? Nope. You even roster 5 or 6 defensemen demonstrating a need for extra players at each position, so then why else would you only roster 2 goalies? Oh yeah, to manipulate the goaltending position to gain an unfair advantage in skater games played. A player on the IR can not play a game. If a player can’t play a game then it is literally impossible to manipulate games played. Also, I am on a bye. What you are saying makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever. This is nothing more than a continued effort to defame me and create chaos in the league. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Mar 16, 2019 17:56:21 GMT -5
You're currently manipulating the goaltending position to gain an unfair advantage in skater games played. Anybody rostering 2 goalies is manipulating the goaltending position to gain an unfair advantage in skater games played. Would you roster 12 skaters? Nope. You even roster 5 or 6 defensemen demonstrating a need for extra players at each position, so then why else would you only roster 2 goalies? Oh yeah, to manipulate the goaltending position to gain an unfair advantage in skater games played. A player on the IR can not play a game. If a player can’t play a game then it is literally impossible to manipulate games played. Also, I am on a bye. What you are saying makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever. This is nothing more than a continued effort to defame me and create chaos in the league. Weird response! What I'm saying went into your head and made zero sense somehow but what I'm actually saying makes perfect sense. If you roster 2 goalies, which you are, Calgary is, Winnipeg is, Washington is, have been most of the year, then you are manipulating the goaltending position to gain an unfair advantage in skater starts as you'll have more skaters to play because of it. Despite the fact that you see a need to have additional players at each position elsewhere...except goaltending. That's because you are manipulating the goaltending position to gain an unfair advantage in skater starts. This is why adding Saves as a category is essential to stop this type of behavior and make managers actually think instead of setting and forgetting. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Mar 16, 2019 23:12:40 GMT -5
Manipulation
the action of manipulating someone in a clever or unscrupulous way
Unscrupulous
having or showing no moral principles; not honest or fair:
You love to take things out of context and highlight irrelevant information. I said I was trying to prevent malicious roster manipulation by streaming to accumulate extra games played. There is nothing malicious about rostering two goalies. As a result I have less of a chance to win the wins and shutout categories. It’s a give and take. It’s called strategy. On any given week a team might have 60 total starts by all 19 skaters and goalies combined. How those starts are allocated DOES NOT MATTER so long as you meet the roster requirements. There is a BIG difference in the nonsense you’re saying and someone literally streaming 7 new players every single day to raise total games played to well over 100 for the week.
This will be my last post on the subject. This has gone on long enough. It is a complete and utter waste of time and I am done enabling your nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Mar 16, 2019 23:28:40 GMT -5
I was making an aside comment piggybacked off of your 'desire' for fairness and highlighting another problematic issue...that's all. You see a need for extra players in every single position except goaltending but because you can get away with manipulating GAA and SV% in a virtual lock to concede a tie or win outright with goaltending stats you can then gain extra skater starts to bet all in on your offensive categories getting you a win. That's no strategy. It's anti-strategy, strategy would be deciding on which games to play, picking favorable opponents, sitting goalies, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyler - Jets on Mar 18, 2019 13:18:59 GMT -5
Having only two goalies is a strategy to increase GP for other positions. A risky strategy which I proved this past week when my goalies got pulled three times and a 6 spot in a win lol. My offence put up a fight but with my own risky roster moves not paying off I’m stuck watching the finish to the season. Every GM has their own view on how to best deploy their players to get the most out of each category. Rostering more skaters also makes you have bigger decisions of who to bench on big nights when there are lots of games. Usually Thursday and Saturday you can get burned by benching the wrong guy. Each has pro and cons with risks either way,
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Mar 18, 2019 18:03:47 GMT -5
Having only two goalies is a strategy to increase GP for other positions. A risky strategy which I proved this past week when my goalies got pulled three times and a 6 spot in a win lol. My offence put up a fight but with my own risky roster moves not paying off I’m stuck watching the finish to the season. Every GM has their own view on how to best deploy their players to get the most out of each category. Rostering more skaters also makes you have bigger decisions of who to bench on big nights when there are lots of games. Usually Thursday and Saturday you can get burned by benching the wrong guy. Each has pro and cons with risks either way, You said it, you do it to increase games played for other positions so that you have more games played than your opponent. It isn't about which team or players are better but rather how many starts you can get over your opponent. You should see a need to have at least one extra goalie, no? If you have a need for extras at other positions why wouldn't you want that? It's because with the current stats you can get away with it, which I dislike. It is risky, it's a bad strategy, goalies can easily be injured as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Tyler - Jets on May 6, 2019 14:07:33 GMT -5
Is it going to be the standard June 1st for keeper submissions. I’ll be going on vacation really soon I was thinking of posting mine today. Don’t see the headline anywhere yet so just double checking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on May 7, 2019 14:50:36 GMT -5
The 2019 Keeper Submission Thread has been posted. As of right now we are still planning to submit all keepers by the June 1st date per usual. If/when any rule modifications or changes take effect we will address any changes then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on May 13, 2019 4:24:51 GMT -5
Why has the playoff pool not been paid for by now?
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on May 13, 2019 13:27:57 GMT -5
Why has the playoff pool not been paid for by now? The playoff pool has now been paid. It was not previously paid because it was pretty much a foregone conclusion who was going to win based on the results of the first round of the playoffs (and definitely after the second round). I have seen stranger things happen though, so looking back it probably should have been paid sooner. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Jun 13, 2019 15:41:44 GMT -5
Everything has been updated for the summer drafts. Double-check and make sure all roster and picks are listed correctly for your team. If a player is listed in bold on your team that means he is in violation of a roster or his age/games played has not been updated. Please fix these issues as soon as possible. Submit all age/games played updates in the Official Keeper Thread. Thanks.
|
|
So exciting.
You better make that pick or trade it! I'm excited to see if we can use up all the draft picks this year.