OT: HFWings Keeper Fantasy Hockey League: Season Three (need one new owner to run team)

[Hammettf2b]

Well, whatever the decision is, it needs to be made soon to give managers time to make some roster changes before the draft.

 

[Winger98]

I can get where @Hammettf2b is coming from about having more of a headsup. The first off-season/draft was crazy because none of us really knew what was going on, how yahoo organized (or didn't organize at all, as the case may be) its draft, etc. A lot of us were sort of hung out to dry that first time. This last one was nuts because of covid forcing everything back, getting people ready, etc., though I thought the draft itself went better.

When do we have to set our keepers, I will just be excited to have a more normal season.

Hard to tell things about what I am building this year. I have traded for a few assets these last few years and I am building out. Don't mind the 8 keepers and 3 prospects, but I agree with @Bench 's point in terms of the other league I play we just have four keepers. I do actually find this league way more engaged than that one, but I think this board helps. Probably my biggest disadvantage joining the league is the caliber of goalies I just don't have. Fewer keepers usually makes that position more balanced across a league.

When next season rolls around is when we generally set keepers. It seems like Yahoo doesn't really keep everything up and running through the summer but I also just sort of compartmentalize fantasy hockey away by the time June rolls around.

Maybe splitting the difference and going with six keepers would be the way to go. I don't know. I like the idea of overturning my roster and just changing things up every once in awhile - especially since we seem a very trade-averse league.

 

[Bench]

i don't mind that, but my gripe the whole time is at least give managers a proper heads up before making changes like this. this isn't the first time this has happened and its getting rather annoying.

This is a surprise for me, too. I'm sorry it's frustrating, but we've had expansion and now contraction. None of those things were accounted for under the original rules. Do you really think I'd sell off my 1st round pick if I knew the likes of Vasilevskiy was going back into the draft?

When we first started expansion, I fought against folks because they didn't want to drop from 10 keepers. We got to 8. That's still a high number for most keeper leagues. We're now 3 years in and the data shows if you started high year 1, you're probably still ending high. With more data over this timeline, I'm suggesting new changes to account for that.

Parity needs to be addressed. I've finished 2nd, 1st, and 2nd in points the last 3 years. I'm one of the teams at the top. And every single change I've recommended has worked against me, yet I still believe it's the right thing to do.

I'm not asking others to do anything that doesn't hurt my team, too. For me, the league will be more fun if the teams unable to raise their standing are actually competitive - not in several years - but next year.

The teams struggling don't have 8 great keepers. And the idea that they'll obtain them due to the 4 contracting teams is a bit disingenuous, because the great teams will be adding nearly as good talent on top of what they already have.

Most leagues operate with 4 to 5 keepers in a 10 team league. This is because most leagues are defined by the top 50 players.

I think it's important for long-term health that there is meaning to the draft each year - which has also been a complaint I've heard from multiple people.

 

[Bench]

Honestly, what sucks a lot of fun out of it for me is the league not reporting starters/injuries until 5 minutes before game time. I've missed out on a lot of points at times because I don't have the time to hover around yahoo to make every last minute lineup adjustment.

Roope Hintz was a nightmare. Literally game time decision every. single. game. They wouldn't announce his status until warm-ups. But he was like the 30th rated forward in average points, so how the hell do you sit him or drop him?

Thank you for giving me a platform to rant about that, ha.

Does anyone else use the Armchair GM thing at Capfriendly? I use it to get an easy visual on putting together the wings, where guys fit, etc. It's fun. I think that's the real appeal of shrinking the keepers, at least it is for me. It's less about doing better in the league and more that it's just fun putting different teams together and this is an avenue of seeing how it would do and I know it's probably not what others find interesting/fun in a league like this.

Yeah I think having a core of 4 great guys is still a huge leg up over the average team, but with some savvy drafting and waiver moves, any year could be the year. I have zero doubt the Turkeys will still be a top roster with McDavid, Barkov, Hedman, and Marner. The next 4 aren't nearly as important as that frontloaded group.

We have rosters that are struggling to obtain 1 or 2 guys as good as any of the above listed. Let alone the depth over 8. It's a hard sell to keep saying, "Hey, stick with it... in year 6 of our league you'll get to do playoffs... if the league even survives that long."

 

[Hammettf2b]

This is a surprise for me, too. I'm sorry it's frustrating, but we've had expansion and now contraction. None of those things were accounted for under the original rules. Do you really think I'd sell off my 1st round pick if I knew the likes of Vasilevskiy was going back into the draft?

When we first started expansion, I fought against folks because they didn't want to drop from 10 keepers. We got to 8. That's still a high number for most keeper leagues. We're now 3 years in and the data shows if you started high year 1, you're probably still ending high. With more data over this timeline, I'm suggesting new changes to account for that.

Parity needs to be addressed. I've finished 2nd, 1st, and 2nd in points the last 3 years. I'm one of the teams at the top. And every single change I've recommended has worked against me, yet I still believe it's the right thing to do.

I'm not asking others to do anything that doesn't hurt my team, too. For me, the league will be more fun if the teams unable to raise their standing are actually competitive - not in several years - but next year.

The teams struggling don't have 8 great keepers. And the idea that they'll obtain them due to the 4 contracting teams is a bit disingenuous, because the great teams will be adding nearly as good talent on top of what they already have.

Most leagues operate with 4 to 5 keepers in a 10 team league. This is because most leagues are defined by the top 50 players.

I think it's important for long-term health that there is meaning to the draft each year - which has also been a complaint I've heard from multiple people.

I get what you're saying, I really do, but there will always be bottom dwellers. When does the "evening out process" end. I can't remember a year where the rules didn't change in this league and thats not good when teams are sprung with new rules after they've built their roster under a certain set of different rules at the time. If lowering the keepers is what people want so be it, but god damnit make it a number where its not going to change again. Also, managers who are not engaged need to leave, period. Doesn't matter if their team is shit or not. If they aren't going to take the time to push 1 button a week then they don't need to be playing in this league. No amount of rule changes is going to change players commitment to a free league like this.

 

[Winger98]

I get what you're saying, I really do, but there will always be bottom dwellers. When does the "evening out process" end. I can't remember a year where the rules didn't change in this league and thats not good when teams are sprung with new rules after they've built their roster under a certain set of different rules at the time. If lowering the keepers is what people want so be it, but god damnit make it a number where its not going to change again. Also, managers who are not engaged need to leave, period. Doesn't matter if their team is shit or not. If they aren't going to take the time to push 1 button a week then they don't need to be playing in this league. No amount of rule changes is going to change players commitment to a free league like this.

well, I think contracting down to ten teams is the hope that we'll have more engaged group of people. I mentioned the group being a bit trade averse, I wonder if greater roster turnover from year to year would help goose some more movement throughout the season, too. Knowing you get more of a reset every year, and knowing that you can't protect everyone anyway, it might make it easier for folks to be okay giving up some of those guys who fit in that 5-8 range on our rosters.

I don't exactly play a lot of fantasy sports (this is it, really) so I'm not exactly coming at this from a greatly informed opinion. I think the league would be a bit more interesting with some more player movement in general.

 

[Bench]

I mentioned the group being a bit trade averse [...]

Movement decreased dramatically after the first season. We had 4 trades all year, 2 of them were mine, and one of them is because Sparty was a bro and took pity on me for messing up my keeper selection of Blackwood. So 3 real trades.

Year 1 had 26 recorded trades.

 

[Hammettf2b]

Movement decreased dramatically after the first season. We had 4 trades all year, 2 of them were mine, and one of them is because Sparty was a bro and took pity on me for messing up my keeper selection of Blackwood. So 3 real trades.

Year 1 had 26 recorded trades.

fear of rule changes might have something to do with it. along with people not being engaged.

 

[jaster]

I vote to keep the keepers the same (at least for this upcoming year) for the same reason I voted for it last time. I, like others, made moves throughout the season with the amount of keepers in mind. Going forward, we need to come to conclusions about rule changes well ahead of time so teams don't get screwed for the way they planned their roster thinking the same rules would apply.

I almost broached this same point, but felt my post was getting too long. Yes. I've been doing keeper leagues in baseball and hockey for 15+ years, and this point is legit. Changes to keeper league rules should be a slow burn, or with a lengthy heads up, not sudden, otherwise it undermines the integrity of the "keeper" part of the "keeper league." My primary keeper league in baseball has had its ups and downs, but one of the best decisions we made years ago is that no rule changes in the off-season can apply until the season after the upcoming season. Otherwise, again, you are just knee-capping and undermining managers who have put time and resources into their keepers (the whole point of a keeper league). Fix the league if necessary, but don't destroy its integrity in the process.

Being worried about miring some teams in mediocrity is a legit concern. Let's avoid that (though it should be far more tolerable in a free league than a money league, just to be clear). But so should be alienating your most active and participating managers, especially when they are making decisions based on rules that, by their very nature of being in a keeper league, are meant to be long-term.

So again.... a contraction draft? I'm not opposed to helping managers who didn't get a fair shake at the start of their ownership, and this could be a way to rectify that without hamstringing other managers unnecessarily.

 

[jaster]

All of this is fair but in the 3 years the teams that started good have stayed good and the struggling teams are still struggling. In order to boost engagement for everyone and not promise fun in 3 more years, I'm willing to reduce my own cache of players and even things out.

If you aren't, that's fine, but I'm offering my own version of a sacrifice and compromise to help make it more fun for others that have been chilling at the bottom since the beginning.

Your team was one of the better performing teams before you took over, I just want to put that into perspective.

What I'm proposing is really bad for me, especially since I traded away a 1st in a draft that will have the best talent in it in the last 3 years.

Your approach is noble. It is. I just think we should pursue a solution that doesn't include putting a tax on managers who are big participants and planned their team's future based on the keeper league rules that were in place. The integrity of the league suffers, knowing that rules can be flipped on their head at any moment and players you spend time investing in may be taken away from one season to the next. Otherwise, maybe just make it not a keeper league? I will say, keeper leagues aren't for everyone. I've seen more than one manager over the years join a keeper league for the first time thinking it was going to be one thing, and then realizing it wasn't for them at all, and just went back to redraft leagues.

And if we can agree on a contraction draft, I'll just say that I don't even want to be in it. Just as I resent a proposal that suddenly removes half my keepers that I was working on the whole season, I don't necessarily want a free opportunity at extra, improved keepers. So maybe a contraction draft just for teams that finished below a certain mark? Or a scaling effect? Top-4 get no selections, 5-8th place finishers get 2 picks, and bottom-2 teams get 4 picks? Something like that maybe. I believe this can be made to work.

 

[Bench]

fear of rule changes might have something to do with it.

Alright dude, you win. The persistent complaints over every tweak in our for fun league is honestly not worth the effort. Every single year there were complaints about issues largely outside of the managers control and it's just exhausting when it's all done out of goodwill on free time. Being liaison to multiple sides of an issue and trying to create harmony and then getting blamed for the disfunction - super fun.

We only have 3 teams confirmed as being dropped (mantha39, BinCookin, and Ricelund), so feel free to add mine as the 4th, @Sparty . That'll be an even 10 for you guys.

Good luck, all.

 

[jaster]

Or... rather than "no matter what" we create systems where you can keep your main core of great players for years and years, but those who are behind any given year can bounce back really quickly.

I'm open to changing keeper rules in the future. We could set a limit on how long you can keep them, or a tax for keeping them (perhaps they are assigned to certain rounds, and every year they move up a draft round or two or three). There are a lot of options to increase parity without upending the whole system.

 

[Hammettf2b]

Not sure if this can be implemented properly or not but what if we get rid of the teams who haven't been managed, and letting the remaining bottom dwellers have first dibs of keepers from those teams based on standings. This way the bottom dwellers get a boost on their keeper personal while the other managers don't suffer of having to lose their assets. The rest goes into the draft pool.

 

[jaster]

When do we have to set our keepers, I will just be excited to have a more normal season.

Hard to tell things about what I am building this year. I have traded for a few assets these last few years and I am building out. Don't mind the 8 keepers and 3 prospects, but I agree with @Bench 's point in terms of the other league I play we just have four keepers. I do actually find this league way more engaged than that one, but I think this board helps. Probably my biggest disadvantage joining the league is the caliber of goalies I just don't have. Fewer keepers usually makes that position more balanced across a league. I am fine with the rules though, I knew it would take a bit of time going in to build up a team.

I don't like divulging strategy, but this isn't a money league, so what the hell.....

It wasn't until after the draft, this being my first year, that I realized just how crazy the scoring for goalies is in this league. After looking at the math, I realized it's bananas and, frankly, makes no sense. But I'm not the least bit mad about it, I don't care if it remains the same, it just helps dictate my strategy if anything. I carried Malcolm freaking Subban for stretches this year, and, though he didn't get as many games, he was outscoring top-10 rated goalies in my head-to-head matchups pretty consistently. And he wasn't the only mediocre goalie to do so for me. Jake Allen. Braden Holtby. As the scoring stands, I'll never keep a goalie in this league, outside of maybe a Vasilevskiy or other top-3 guy who routinely puts up big numbers while playing regularly. And I'd have to stumble into such a player.

So yeah, I did great with goalies this year, almost exclusively off the waiver wire, and with virtually no help from the one goalie I did keep (Anderson). And I won't be keeping any goalies next year.

Goalies aren't your problem, folks, unless you're keeping them

 

[jaster]

Does anyone else use the Armchair GM thing at Capfriendly? I use it to get an easy visual on putting together the wings, where guys fit, etc. It's fun. I think that's the real appeal of shrinking the keepers, at least it is for me. It's less about doing better in the league and more that it's just fun putting different teams together and this is an avenue of seeing how it would do and I know it's probably not what others find interesting/fun in a league like this.

I get that, but, eh, I'm kinda the opposite. My enjoyment of a keeper league comes from the GM perspective, building long-term. When I do redraft leagues though, I'm way more like you're describing, I zero in on roles and matchups and gravitate towards vets more than most people.

 

[jaster]

Maybe splitting the difference and going with six keepers would be the way to go. I don't know. I like the idea of overturning my roster and just changing things up every once in awhile - especially since we seem a very trade-averse league.

So this where I'd go back to the point about this being a keeper league. Why is it a keeper league? That's not meant to be snarky btw. Honest question. Starting to seem to me like this league is having an honest identity crisis. Doesn't seem like it knows what it is. Should we maybe have a vote as to whether it should be a keeper league at all? I personally really enjoy keeper leagues, it's why I jumped in in this case, but a keeper league that changes the rules up on a dime isn't really a keeper league. It's more like a redraft league that likes the idea of being in a committed relationship and also does a lot of coke

 

[jaster]

I'm not asking others to do anything that doesn't hurt my team, too. For me, the league will be more fun if the teams unable to raise their standing are actually competitive - not in several years - but next year.

You're describing a redraft league

 

[Bench]

It wasn't until after the draft, this being my first year, that I realized just how crazy the scoring for goalies is in this league.

Don't worry, that isn't a secret.

It's been known since year 1 and by design... Sort of.

Goalie numbers were adjusted by Eternal Sunshine so that they would be as strong as the best skaters. That's good. The downside was people harvesting 6 goalies to the point literally every single NHL goalie was on a roster.

After year 1, I suggested we cap the number of goalies you can roster to adjust for this but that was an unpopular change, as is tradition, so... Nothing happened.

 

[jaster]

The teams struggling don't have 8 great keepers. And the idea that they'll obtain them due to the 4 contracting teams is a bit disingenuous, because the great teams will be adding nearly as good talent on top of what they already have.

It's not even the least bit disingenuous. We can tweak it in whatever way is deemed fair. See my most recent comments on the idea for a contraction draft. I don't want to gain anything from a contraction draft, and I don't think the 3 teams above me, or maybe even the 2 teams below me, should either. I want the increased parity that is being asked for without the herky jerky sudden rule changes that, frankly, should not happen in a keeper league. What is too easily being discounted is the honest effort several of us made within the rules, pending time and effort in that arena, with the suggestion now that it all be thrown away. It's great you're willing to fall on your sword, but let's be clear, that doesn't improve your argument for what you're suggesting in any way. It's not that I am unwilling to fall on my sword btw, it's just that being willing to fall on swords doesn't necessarily make it the best solution to the problem.

I'm glad we're arguing over fantasy hockey, @Bench, and not COVID/Trump/real life stuff anyway, haha. #respect

 

[jaster]

Don't worry, that isn't a secret.

It's been known since year 1 and by design... Sort of.

Goalie numbers were adjusted by Eternal Sunshine so that they would be as strong as the best skaters. That's good. The downside was people harvesting 6 goalies to the point literally every single NHL goalie was on a roster.

After year 1, I suggested we cap the number of goalies you can roster to adjust for this but that was an unpopular change, as is tradition, so... Nothing happened.

That's interesting. I can't fathom how more than 3-5 goalies TOTAL are bothered to be kept each year. I think I saw one team kept three goalies this year? No offense to whoever did that, but that to me is an utter waste of keeper spots, given the scoring. Skaters who can average 6+ points per game are magnitudes more valuable than almost any goalie in this league, in terms of keepers, given the math.

 

[jaster]

I get what you're saying, I really do, but there will always be bottom dwellers. When does the "evening out process" end. I can't remember a year where the rules didn't change in this league and thats not good when teams are sprung with new rules after they've built their roster under a certain set of different rules at the time. If lowering the keepers is what people want so be it, but god damnit make it a number where its not going to change again. Also, managers who are not engaged need to leave, period. Doesn't matter if their team is shit or not. If they aren't going to take the time to push 1 button a week then they don't need to be playing in this league. No amount of rule changes is going to change players commitment to a free league like this.

Yep. Easiest fix to me is jettisoning managers who don't participate, conduct a contraction draft for the remaining bottom teams (in a fair way), have the ship righted, all while not disturbing the foundation, and move on.

In keeper leagues, there should be bottom dwellers for several years in a row. If this is uncomfortable to some, then again, it probably shouldn't be a keeper league. Cellar dwellers should not be immediately rebounding in a keeper league. That's the way it works. You have to spend time to rebuild, regroup, and be competitive again. And this league has some good mechanisms to make that happen, chiefly among them the prospect keepers. And speaking of that, perhaps we revamp that part of things to give teams another route to rapid improvement? I'm not opposed. Maybe a different number of prospect keepers based on standings?

 

[Bench]

I'm glad we're arguing over fantasy hockey, @Bench, and not COVID/Trump/real life stuff anyway, haha. #respect

Sorry if you're getting the salt, but this has been a few years of me trying to look out for everyone and winning with nobody. It's just not fun, especially when some hyper focus on negatives over and over with little else to say that rest of the year.

Since I'm the unpopular voice in the room it's better for you guys if I just bail and the league can resume on without the debates. Different visions and all that. No skin off my back.

 

[Winger98]

I get that, but, eh, I'm kinda the opposite. My enjoyment of a keeper league comes from the GM perspective, building long-term. When I do redraft leagues though, I'm way more like you're describing, I zero in on roles and matchups and gravitate towards vets more than most people.

There's really nothing to do in this league once the season starts aside from hitting the button to set your lineup for the week and occasionally looking for some waiver pickups to make up for an injury or two. And the waiver pickups are never much to choose from outside of hitting someone going on a hot streak. There has to be more of a happy medium to find where you can build a team and have more turnover/action. I've admitted that I don't do the fantasy thing much at all, but it seems that our having 8 keepers is on the high side.

So this where I'd go back to the point about this being a keeper league. Why is it a keeper league? That's not meant to be snarky btw. Honest question. Starting to seem to me like this league is having an honest identity crisis. Doesn't seem like it knows what it is. Should we maybe have a vote as to whether it should be a keeper league at all? I personally really enjoy keeper leagues, it's why I jumped in in this case, but a keeper league that changes the rules up on a dime isn't really a keeper league. It's more like a redraft league that likes the idea of being in a committed relationship and also does a lot of coke

When the league started I think a fair bit of the folks were more like me than you, not a lot of experience with it and just sort of going with it. Because of that some of the initial rule setups, point values, etc. were maybe less nuanced than they should have been. It's also part of why I'm pretty okay changing things up to try to find something more workable: this whole thing is more of a work-in-progress deal than a set-in-stone monolith.

If all of us had more of a clue when we started I think the league would have probably been set up a little differently from the start.

 

[Winger98]

Sorry if you're getting the salt, but this has been a few years of me trying to look out for everyone and winning with nobody. It's just not fun, especially when some hyper focus on negatives over and over with little else to say that rest of the year.

Since I'm the unpopular voice in the room it's better for you guys if I just bail and the league can resume on without the debates. Different visions and all that. No skin of my back.

sorry if I've been one of the negatives, Bench.

 

[Bench]

sorry if I've been one of the negatives, Bench.

Quite the opposite. You have a rare gift of making people feel heard even when you're likely rolling your eyes at them. Honestly I don't know how you do it and envy that quality.

I'm a bit more, uhh, Ed Belfour, despite my best efforts.