Concerns needing addressed | Reddit Dynasty Hockey League

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Concerns needing addressed Feb 25, 2016 13:40:45 GMT -8 MIN (Juuso) likes this

Quote

Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2016 13:40:45 GMT -8

Feb 25, 2016 13:34:05 GMT -8 @babybigcity said:

I just want to go on record saying that I think there's nothing wrong with keeping fantasy relevant players in the minors. Erik Gustafsson has a higher PPG than Paul Martin, but I choose to keep Martin up so I have security if another defenseman gets injured. This could be the case with any team. It falls under "team management", even if some think other strategies would be more effective.

I also don't have a huge issue with benching goalies. Although it's very unlikely, a goalie can go negative on any given night. That gamble is just another aspect of team management that should be up to a team and not the league.

The solution I keep coming back to is a minimum games played for skaters requirement. This would deter intentionally benching players and also either encourage the call up of fantasy relevant players or require that teams fill their main roster, while also being an objective rule that discourages "tanking". It could be threshold that's easy to meet, as long as someone isn't "tanking".

I also think that Vancouver makes a good point, and we should clearly define how long we can keep healthy players on IR. Like he said, we've been "honor ruling" it.

Obviously I understand benching a player from a "I think he's going to go negative tonight" standpoint but I don't think the events I documented are the same thing. Furthermore, I think magnitude comes in to play here- I'm not talking about keeping somebody in the minors who has 1.5 pts a game in favor of a non-prospect who has 1.4 pts/gm. I'm talking about promoting other, clearly worse-performing prospects instead of a high-performing one to fill a roster spot.

HRT (Anthony)
Insane Member

Posts: 558

Concerns needing addressed Feb 25, 2016 15:29:18 GMT -8 MIN (Juuso), ANA (Ian), and 3 more like this

Quote

Post by HRT (Anthony) on Feb 25, 2016 15:29:18 GMT -8

I don't really know where to start, but I guess I'll start with Vancouver's post regarding my history:

- Regarding benching my goalies, yes this was on purpose, yes it was wrong, and yes I corrected it when it was requested of me to do so. In my head the idea of benching active players was wrong but somehow I thought goalies were different, this was stupid of me and I was upfront and honest when contacted. Can't change that I did it, it was stupid and I guess I should've apologized openly to the league because it was a shitty move.

- During the same time period I missed a lot of days for setting my lineup, this on the other hand was not on purpose. I had a crazy busy holiday, one to a degree that I'm not used to. No excuse, it was shitty to let my roster be neglected, but simply to clarify that not everything I did was on purpose.

- Don't recall the Ristolainen incident, honestly it wasn't a calculated move, probably a brain fart, I can't explain that any further.

- Eichel, like all my prospects were in the minors because that is a valid position for them, and I'll go on to try and further explain later.

- As I said in the chat but I will repeat here for anyone who wasn't present at the time, I recalled Ferraro and Granlund because when I was approached to get my team up from 20 to 24 players I objected the move because there was no rule to indicate this was mandatory. After a discussion with Rob it was agreed I could just call up whoever in the meantime while further discussions went on about "tanking" and here we are.

- Domingue I picked up while he was in the AHL, I had other goalies already and I had no expectation that he'd play any NHL games this season, so when he was called up I didn't play him because he was still part of my original strategy that I didn't want to change because I already had 4 NHL goalies (one on IR).

So I hope that addresses Vancouver's post. I am sorry about benching the goalies around the holidays, that was shitty and again I probably should've made an open post to the league but I didn't realize it was even being talked about by more than just the commissioners and maybe a couple others.

Moving on to defending my roster choices:

- When I had some players move to IR I didn't immediately replace them. In part because I'm trying to work trades and also for Russell or Lovejoy at the time they didn't have a firm timetable so I didn't want them to return but be stuck with a player in their spot because of the 5 day rule. I think that's pretty fair being that the 5 day rule completely handcuffs a person if they haven't thought ahead.

- When the idea of calling up prospects came to mind, I decided against filling 2 slots essentially. Since the prospect still counts against my prospect limit while on the active roster that is 2 positions they are filling.

- People can say I had no intention of filling my roster to 24, but I certainly had intentions of acquiring new players and that's why those spots were left open. I didn't want a traffic jam when players started coming back from IR and players were coming in from trades.

- I've been putting a lot of thought into the waiver draft, and preparing my team with a strategy for that, part of this strategy appears like tanking to a good few of you and that's fine, but I want to express that my focus has been entirely on having the best waiver draft because I think with the strategy I have in my mind I will. Of course the fact that I won't reveal my true strategy will likely negate this point, but I wouldn't go to these lengths to cover up tanking when in the past Rob asked me point blank about the goalie thing and I said "oh ya that was on purpose sorry".

- I have not spent much time adding and dropping waiver players because of previously mentioned strategy. However, in other leagues I've played in when you were eliminated from the playoffs you just didn't continue to add/drop, the idea being that should a playoff team need to acquire a waiver player they should have priority. No I didn't think this was the rule here, but not actively grabbing any waiver player was really done out of the fact that I'm out of the playoffs and I didn't think I needed them. I do continue to review the add/drop threads for players I want.

- I've been as active as possible, checking the forums whenever I have the chance, trying to ensure my lineup is set every day (of course mistakes still happen) and if people think I'm here to ruin the league or make a mockery of it they are wrong. However, I think it is fair that my voice get heard and that I have the opportunity to present the ideas I have for how the league should go and see how everyone feels. We should all be afforded that respect.

Finally, it is upsetting to feel like many of you have already made up your mind about me and what kind of manager I am. I remember when Cale told me about this league months ago I really wanted in, and asked him to let me know if a spot opened. When I got the email from Rob to join I was super stoked. Everyone was super nice when I joined and I've had a lot of fun trying to build a team and making trades with everyone. I hope that everything good I've done to participate in this league with you guys, like the gift exchange, and the chat, etc resonates with everyone and this idea of me being a tank can blow over. Thanks for reading, bless your heart for reading all of this!

MIN (Juuso)
Administrator

Posts: 1,191

Concerns needing addressed Feb 26, 2016 2:41:06 GMT -8

Quote

Post by MIN (Juuso) on Feb 26, 2016 2:41:06 GMT -8

Thank you for writing that up Anthony. You've been caught up in the crosshairs, and it's unfortunate that this had to surface in this manner. There was no explicit rule requiring points maximisation. Some of the points you've mentioned are perfectly valid. There are countless strategies for bettering your team (be it in the present day or for the future), and I don't think there is a prevailing desire to single out moves that are in these grey zones. The concern is when the strategies employed purposefully reduce a team's chances of winning a head-to-head match-up, thereby influencing the balance and integrity of the league.

What's done is done. I don't agree with all of your points. I do however trust that you will attempt to put your best team forward within the confines of your waiver draft strategy (I won't crunch the numbers, but I can almost guarantee that promoting Domingue will yield you more points in that 3rd goalie slot than one of your promoted skater prospects or waiver-wire calibre players). I don't think that anybody's opinion of you is set in stone. Yes, I did not agree with the actions, but I don't think they were necessarily malicious. You've been an active member, and I'm happy to have you in the league.

I hope that this incident will continue to establish precedent for undertaking actions that are not simply self-motivated but also in the best interest of the league. Previously in the season, we got ahead of the potential issue of 'player rentals'. These were not explicitly prohibited in the rules, but could have had a very toxic effect on the league. We stepped in when one GM who had been contemplating leaving the league made an uncharacteristic trade. As a league, we should be fluid in opening up dialogue when something that is not in our collective best interest takes place.

With that said, the issue at the heart of this still exists. Once a team has been eliminated from playoff (or once a team feels like they have little hopes of making a playoff push), there is a perverse incentive in place to lose in order to better their draft position. This is something that we will need to consider going forward; how can we incentivise teams for attempting to win once their playoff hopes are done? We implemented the draft lottery with the hopes of preventing this, but I don't think it's sufficient. For example, say the 12th and 13th placed teams face each other in the final week of the season, both having been eliminated from playoff contention, neither team benefits from winning. I don't think that this is something that we should look to change for this season, but in the off-season we should consider our options.

Thank you everyone for your opinions on this thread. Even without an incentive to win, I would urge everyone to continue completing for the remainder of the season to the best of their ability. Go for the upsets and for the bragging rights!

Last Edit: Feb 26, 2016 3:26:30 GMT -8 by MIN (Juuso)

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Concerns needing addressed Feb 26, 2016 9:14:54 GMT -8 MIN (Juuso) likes this

Quote

Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2016 9:14:54 GMT -8

I want to echo Juuso's thanks for your writeup. I don't necessarily agree with all of your argument, but I can respect that you addressed the concerns that were out there.

I'd also like to note that none of this is personal. I promise, it really isn't. I looked into everybody that was at the bottom of the standings initially because I was a little shocked at the wide spread of records in the table.

What's done is done- Moving forward with the rules we have in place now is the plan, and I'd also like to personally say that never once did I think any of this necessitated your removal or anything of the sort. I just wanted some guidelines in place, and we have them now.

Juuso's last two sentences of his second paragraph sum it up well: "Yes, I did not agree with the actions, but I don't think they were necessarily malicious. You've been an active member, and I'm happy to have you in the league.

Good luck with the rebuild. Hopefully you, Ottawa, Tampa, Chicago, and the other teams looking to the future can knock off the guys on top at the moment sometime soon.