|
| Author | Message / Information |
| bradu Quote | Reply | | Goalie GP limitations posted on: 11/11/2006 3:19:53 PM here is the current rule regarding goalie usage: * Because Goalie injuries are not realistic in APBA, Goalies are limited to a maximum of 150% of actual NHL games played (GP). To calculate this number, multiply NHL GP X 1.5 and round ‘up.’ In other words, a Goalie with 5 NHL GP (5 X 1.5 = 7.5) can play in 8 games. * A Goalie may not exceed 70 GP in an AHL season unless his actual NHL GP exceeded 70. In that case, he may play in the same number of games as his NHL GP. *each team is required to have exactly 3 goalies From last season, I know that we cut it really close. A few teams never were able to acquire enough goalie games and suffered penalties because of it. This season, we have 91 goalies, meaning there's just 1 extra to be in the FAP in case of injury. Non-updates may cause us to see a few extra goalies added, which would allow us to breathe a sigh of releif. However, if we don't see any non-update goalies, we may need to take a look at altering the rules slightly. Here are a few ideas I've got and the pros and cons of each. -require all teams to carry 2-3 goalies. This way, a team with 2 goalies who easily cover the full season would not need a 3rd. Con is that any time that team has a goalie injured, they wouldn't even be able to dress 2. -raise allowed GP from 150% to 160% or higher. What I don't like about this is that it's a lot more difficult on the math side. It's easy to see if a guy has surpassed 150% by doing the math in my head. At 160%, we'd need a calculator. Going to 200% would be too high in my estimation. At 160, at least we'd still have the statdump file which shows us the exact % every time I run the program, so it may still be manageable. -drop the 'maximum of 70 gp' rule. A goalie can play 150% of games, period. This would give teams more breathing room if they've got a goalie with 55 games or so. They wouldn't need a backup who could play a significant # of games. However, the danger here is that we'd see a bunch of goalies playing the full 82 games, which I don't like at all. -raise the maximum GP to 75 instead of 70. This would give many of the actual starting goalies an extra 5 games, which would be significant. |
|
dbrooks
Quote | Reply | |
Goalie GP limitations
replied on: 11/12/2006 2:58:08 PM I think you’re confusing two issues: 1. Teams unable to cover 82 games. 2. GM’s who were lax (or indifferent), resulting in Goalies exceeding their maximum allowable GP. Last season we had just one instance of a team being unable to cover 82 games. The GM was informed (and reminded) of his situation well-before the trade deadline. He had every opportunity to resolve it via a trade, yet he elected to simply accept the (relatively insignificant) penalty. That’s a choice he was fully entitled to make. Accordingly, at this time I feel it would be premature to make any change in the rules. I’m 100% positive that several (if not more) Goalies ‘will’ be non-updated. Among all of the ideas you’ve suggested, I think that raising the maximum to 75 GP is the best, however I doubt it will be necessary to do that. For now, let’s hold off on making any change and see how things shake-out prior to Preseason. By then, teams will have (a) made their non-update decisions, and (b) conformed to the ‘exactly 3 Goalies’ roster requirement. At that juncture, we’ll have a much better idea of whether-or-not a change would be wise, and (if necessary) we can implement it before the start of the regular season. Don / Pittsburgh |
|
bradu
Quote | Reply | |
Goalie GP limitations
replied on: 11/13/2006 7:58:56 PM it's not so much that I felt teams couldn't make the necessary changes, it's just that it was a really tight squeeze for several teams. It's almost like a puzzle for the entire league to get 3 pieces to fit (starter, backup, and 3rd string). If you've got one team with 2 goalies who played over half the season, he almost has to give up one of them just so that someone else in the league can cover the full 82 comfortably. I do agree with you that the 75 gp limit instead of 70 makes the most sense, and I'm leaning towards doing that but I will wait awhile to see what teams look like after our drafts. With non-updates, we should have more goalie games than last year. However, if we don't give ourselves a little more 'breathing room', this is probably an issue we'll see come up every season. There could very easily have been a handful fewer goalies (we got 91 NHL goalies this year...had there been 80, for instance, we'd actually HAVE to rely on non-updates just to get 3 goalies per team.) |
|
zopust
Quote | Reply | |
Goalie GP limitations
replied on: 11/14/2006 8:40:20 AM I see Brad's point on this. As it stands now, if a team wanted to add a young goalie who may not be doing well now, but has potential (i.e. M-A Fleury), but not play him, the "league" may not allow that to happen, because to have 2 or more goalies on one team with 50+ games played means there's probably a team that will be short. It makes it hard to build team depth. However, in response to that, the fact that we can only protect 13 players every year pretty much prevents teams from keeping a full roster intact from year-to-year. Personally, I prefer this method, as it prevents GMs who manage to "coerce" others into making one-sided deals from building up a dynasty team. So what to do this year? Using a max means that the season is more like real hockey (as opposed to some pools where I've had the same goalie start all 82 games 3-4 seasons in a row). Here is an idea... instead of having the one extra goalie in the FAP, could the league non-update some goalies (retired goalies, etc) and have them available for the waning weeks of the season? Obviously, you wouldn't want goalies with .930 save percentage, but I'd say .895-.900 would be fine. That way, teams could decide to carry goalies with few games played, in hopes of them developing in the future, but as a penalty, they'd have no control over the goalie they get at the end of the season to finish their games (when the games count!) My two cents... |
|
canucks_ahl
Quote | Reply | |
Goalie GP limitations
replied on: 11/14/2006 12:16:24 PM I think 150% is the best amount. Eliminating the 70 GP maximum (or increasing it) might help a bit as teams with a goalie that played 50-60 games may then be able to trade a goalie to a team who needs one. But mainly it is up to teams to ensure they have enough goalie GP to last the year. Maybe increasing the penalty will force teams to address any problems? Dan, Vancouver |
|
dbrooks
Quote | Reply | This message was updated on 11/18/2006 3:45:45 PM by dbrooks |
Goalie GP limitations
replied on: 11/17/2006 10:25:30 PM For the record, 160% can be easily tracked in AphComm, via the ‘Statistics’ tab for each player, which displays % of usage. Regardless, I’m not in favor of an increase over the current 150%. I don’t view the ‘number’ of Goalies on the disk as being an issue. As several have suggested previously, a few off-disk Goalies (preferably from the previous season’s FAP) could be non-updated to ensure that we have a minimum of 90 Goalies. We really don’t ‘need’ more than 90. Under the rules, the only circumstance in which a team would ‘borrow’ an FAP Goalie is when that team has two injured Goalies. To my knowledge that situation never arose last season. Yet even if it ‘did’ arise, the commissioner could simply use a Magic Bean ‘or’ allow one of the injured Goalies (whichever had the worst Save%) to dress as the Backup. Brad, while I understand the “tight squeeze” you refer to, another option we have (if necessary) is to remove the penalty for teams being unable to cover the full 82 games. Importantly, teams would still be subject to being penalized for a Goalie ‘exceeding’ 150% or the 70 GP ceiling. BUT: When all ‘three’ of the team’s Goalies ‘reached’ their maximum, at that point, consistent with the rules, the one with the worse Save% would finish the season, immune from injury, only (now) ‘without’ the team being penalized. Just as it is now, of the team’s remaining two Goalies, the one with the worst Save% would be allowed to dress as the Backup. Jeff (zopust), regarding the ‘M-A Fleury’ example you cited—an excellent example—the AHL would never dictate which players a team must play. If a team wishes to protect 2 (or even 3) Goalies, that’s up to them. As you’ve noted, the low number of 13 protections makes those protections quite valuable. When a team chooses to protect 2 Goalies, it’s a tradeoff for a valuable ‘skater’ protection. As Brad has stated, this entire situation will be reassessed after the drafts, when we’ll have a better idea if any change is necessary. Don / Pittsburgh |
|
bradu
Quote | Reply | |
Goalie GP limitations
replied on: 11/22/2006 12:55:53 PM Here is where we stand. Despite the fact that several teams still need a 3rd goalie, only a couple teams are in any danger of not being able to cover the full # of games. They are CBJ and EDM. And all it would take for these two teams to have their bases covered is one trade with the following teams, NJD, STL, and DET. As such, I don't think we need to worry about changing the rules any this season. |
|
LinkBot
|
Gamers Wanted is looking for people to write game reviews and post news, |
|
|
| Tired of seeing ads? Click here to upgrade to Elite Membership! |
ChatArea.com Help & News Forums | Terms of Use | Contact ChatArea.com | Advertising
Powered By ChatArea.com - Get your free Society today! © Copyright 2003 Wewp!