|
Post by bonavista on Jul 13, 2023 14:30:05 GMT -7
I personally dont think this takes out a coaches ability to choose when a player plays.
I haven't seen a scenario where someone goes my #1 scorer can only play 5 games so I am going to sit him games 1 and 2 so he is available for the last 5 games. This just doesn't happen. that guy and the other best 17 guys at their positions are going to play the first x games they are allowed to. we are not sitting our best players just to save them for later games.
|
|
|
Post by Shamrockville on Jul 13, 2023 15:41:35 GMT -7
Actually yes I did do that. I planned out when my top players who missed games were going to sit out and played them accordingly. As an example, I sat Landeskog in game 3 of each series and played Crouse instead. Landeskog was going to sit game 6 if I got there as well, so yes this would impact my ability to decide when and where I am going to play players.
This way, a player who played 56 games might not be "rolled" in for my home games which is where Id want to play my best lineup. I am just a passenger as to when I can play certain players. I will absolutely vote against this kind of randomization of when I get to play players, since I dont have to do so in the regular season, I am against bringing it in as a "special" rule just for playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by nash on Jul 14, 2023 8:16:21 GMT -7
I am absolutely opposed to this rule. This takes out a coaches ability to choose when a player plays, and to change his lineup accordingly so it isn't completely hamstrung by a random rolling of who can play or not. This is over complicating things for no reason. Guys play games banged up in the playoffs, they miss entire seasons and come back and play every game in the playoffs, they miss time early and play in the playoffs. There is no reasoning behind changing this because the regular season and the playoffs are 2 entirely different sets of games. We make accommodations in the way we dress players since we don't have a set schedule during the regular season. That is different in the playoffs where everyone involved knows their upcoming opponent. I think this system is interesting and I'm on board if the league is, but I can be easily convinced to stay the course as well. I'd like to see a single proposal posted by the deadline so we can vote on this.
|
|
|
Post by alphalackey on Jul 14, 2023 8:58:44 GMT -7
Actually yes I did do that. I planned out when my top players who missed games were going to sit out and played them accordingly. As an example, I sat Landeskog in game 3 of each series and played Crouse instead. Landeskog was going to sit game 6 if I got there as well, so yes this would impact my ability to decide when and where I am going to play players. This way, a player who played 56 games might not be "rolled" in for my home games which is where Id want to play my best lineup. I am just a passenger as to when I can play certain players. I will absolutely vote against this kind of randomization of when I get to play players, since I dont have to do so in the regular season, I am against bringing it in as a "special" rule just for playoffs. If you did that, then you made a truly strategically bad choice. On par with a team in the NFL winning the coin toss in overtime and electing to receive first, "just in case". And quite frankly, we should be rolling lineup assignments for regular season games too, but asymmetric schedules and the potential for trades make this difficult; neither of these are a factor in the playoffs. If the object is to emulate the real NHL experience as much as possible, this is easily an improved way.
|
|
|
Post by revelstoke on Jul 14, 2023 9:38:24 GMT -7
Actually, I also did not play my 'best' players first... I rostered my playoff lineup in the hopes of winning specific games, where I felt I would have an advantage in line matching etc, along with knowing that I needed to 'save' a guy in case the series went to 7, otherwise my games 5, 6, 7 rosters are WAY worse, vs marginally worse. I believe Daniel's not incorrect in plotting out who to play when. Strategically, it seemed to pay off for both our teams, for at least one series. The travesty that was the finals of course, doesn't help my argument, but they were 3 close games to one rather poor one.
|
|
Adam (Moose Jaw)
Power User
Da competition is gonna sleep wit da fishes
Posts: 145
|
Post by Adam (Moose Jaw) on Jul 14, 2023 10:55:16 GMT -7
What if we used the proposed system to determine how many playoff games a player can play, but we are able to choose when they play while still potentially rolling in for the partial games.
Using Steve's Edler example, Edler is available for 5.46 games/7 game series. I would be able to choose to play him for whichever 5 games I want without needing to roll, but if I would like him to play a 6th game, I would have to roll with the 46% chance of success (and if Edler plays that 6th game, he would still be unable to play the 7th).
This should more accurately represent playoff game availability without taking too much away from being able to play guys when you want to.
|
|
|
Post by Shamrockville on Jul 14, 2023 12:01:21 GMT -7
There's no reason to clutter up and add more rules limiting who or when we can play players. Both teams in a playoff series have the options to play their players when/how they want so there is no disadvantage to be had for either player. Rolling players in has the chance of depleting one players lineup and not the other simply by luck of a dice roll. There is no benefit to forcing us to roll in players whatsoever. I know we try to emulate NHL, but the best players play whenever they can in the playoffs, and the coaches make strategic line up changes to get better matchups all the time. There is no "randomness" to who plays or not. We're already limiting the number of games players can play based on their regular season GP, even though in many cases those games missed have nothing to do with how many playoff appearances a player has. I dont want more random dice rolls limiting my lineups, I want less.
|
|
|
Post by alphalackey on Jul 14, 2023 14:06:08 GMT -7
What if we used the proposed system to determine how many playoff games a player can play, but we are able to choose when they play while still potentially rolling in for the partial games. Using Steve's Edler example, Edler is available for 5.46 games/7 game series. I would be able to choose to play him for whichever 5 games I want without needing to roll, but if I would like him to play a 6th game, I would have to roll with the 46% chance of success (and if Edler plays that 6th game, he would still be unable to play the 7th). This should more accurately represent playoff game availability without taking too much away from being able to play guys when you want to. This gives the exact same problem: you would have to determine eligibility out of seven games, but only 4 games are guaranteed, resulting in a heavy skew towards lower GP players. The advantage of this system, aside from being more realistic in terms of "you can't plan injuries in the real NHL", is that it factors in how long the actual playoff system is. Given that an average playoff series is 5.8 games, a player who plays 47/82 games and would theoretically be eligible for 57% of playoff games (as he would be eligible for 57% of regular season games) will in fact be eligible for 69% of playoff games. The counter-argument to this (I might want to save them for games that may not need to be played) is not relevant, as it is just a very bad strategy; as bad as saving your best shootout player for the 4th round 'just in case' or opting to kick the ball if you win a coin toss in old-school NFL OT.
|
|
|
Post by nash on Jul 14, 2023 15:11:57 GMT -7
Would I roll for all players or just players I want to dress? If all players, does rolling them in exhaust one of their available games?
I would suggest if the intent is realism that is what we'd have to do. Guys don't just get injured in games.
|
|
|
Post by bonavista on Jul 14, 2023 15:15:37 GMT -7
Previous versions of this rule(or similar rule). You typically rolled all guys until you got enough to play. Some of us rolled extra guys to give more options on how to set potential lines though. If they don’t play they wouldn’t be counted as a game
|
|
|
Post by QC Mike on Jul 14, 2023 15:57:10 GMT -7
Don't really have a dog in this fight as both are bad but am willing to go with whatever ends up being decided. The games played during the season should have the mutual fund caveat attached to it "Past results are no indicator of future performance."
Consider:
Player A plays 72 games and serves a 10 game suspension and then plays in every playoff game. Player A played in every game they were eligible to play in or are you going to say if they miss a game in the playoffs it's another suspension?
Player B finishes their NCAA season and signs with their NHL team and plays all 13 of the games that team has after signing the contract. They played every regular season game that they were eligible to play in and then every playoff game their team had.
Player C played 82 games but broke his leg late in the last one. Doesn't play a playoff game while the rest of the team goes on a run.
FA Player D sits until a contract is signed 20 games into the season. Plays every single game after signing and stars in the playoff run playing every single game.
All plausible scenarios loosely based on actual events but not ones that our proposed systems handle.
If the likelihood of a player injury was determined by ice time missed during the season (ex 5 times on the injury report - you get a ? on 13/216 results) I'd propose something like "Everyone's eligible until they roll an injury during a game and then you have to roll them back in based on some maths based on regular season appearances.
But it doesn't, so we need to ask ourselves what do we want the rule/system to do (manage/plan resources, coach in unexpected situations, pick lotto numbers)? We then tailor it to try and favour that outcome. I'll be happy to vote on the proposals but everyone needs to realize that whatever system we use will be an arbitrary construct designed to meet a need for game play and not reflect any reality.
|
|
|
Post by alphalackey on Jul 14, 2023 18:13:20 GMT -7
Would I roll for all players or just players I want to dress? If all players, does rolling them in exhaust one of their available games? I would suggest if the intent is realism that is what we'd have to do. Guys don't just get injured in games. Roll for eligibility every game for any desired player; games eligible but unplayed don't count.
|
|
|
Post by Shamrockville on Jul 14, 2023 18:14:05 GMT -7
We’ve all accepted that players can dress in the playoffs a number of games based on their regular season games played. The ratio of playoff to regular season game has been adjusted a few times, but the mechanic has stayed the same. Unintended Advantages: - Unlike the NHL, we can choose when skaters will be unavailable. - Allows stacking of early playoff games to push for an early series lead. Unintended Disadvantages: - All players with a range of regular season games played get assigned the same playoff availability. Consider this proposal as a refinement that mimics the nature of player availability in a more realistic way, prevents overt roster stacking, and treats each player based on actual availability and not an “availability band”. Consider, too, a team rolls a 78-game-player in the first game, that player will be able to play every game thereafter without rolling. Any loss of a high-game forward is mitigated. I miss rolling in players. There’s an excitement around what your lineup might look like for a playoff game. And this system of Chuck’s - this Chuckular System - is the best version of rolling guys in I’ve seen. If you want more realistic availability that holds true to our accepted premise that playoff GP is based on regular season GP, this is the system. If you prefer a system where teams magically know when players will be available, and accept that lineup stacking early in a series is A-OK, then you won’t prefer this system. And that’s a shame, because it’s brilliant. A. As to your mention of an "advantage". It's not an advantage because each coach is allowed to do the same thing. Stack them, or try to pre-plan for a best case scenario for a 7 game series, this is YOUR choice, should not be left to a dice roll. B. We choose when skaters are available because we are playing with cards representing last years play. We already know how many games a guy will miss and plan accordingly. If they weren't injured they would have played right? So limiting it by regular season metrics is bad enough, but adding to that, an additional random roll is just punitive and completely unnecessary. As to disadvantages, we currently don't have any because we all know ahead of time what rosters we can use. I dont want a randomized roster, I am already filling injury holes to start with. There's zero excitement to being screwed by a random dice roll that says your guy that "should" miss one game, instead misses 2 or 3 because you're unlucky in rolling. The goalies already pose incredible risk by being completely random rolls to make saves, no goalies can `win`you games in our league, but they can and do in the NHL. We dont need more randomness influencing good coaching and roster construction. As for "magically" knowing who's available? Again, we know because the NHL season has already been played and we have to deal with injury results that have already happened, that's part of our planning. No need to heap on randomness on top of missed games already.
|
|
|
Post by amack17 on Jul 14, 2023 18:19:51 GMT -7
I think the point of this system is that players cannot miss games that they are eligible to play, assuming a series goes 7 games, and you get unlucky and roll a player out for the first two games, you don’t have to roll again (provided that they are eligible to play 5 games that is...)
|
|
|
Post by alphalackey on Jul 14, 2023 18:38:54 GMT -7
I think the point of this system is that players cannot miss games that they are eligible to play, assuming a series goes 7 games, and you get unlucky and roll a player out for the first two games, you don’t have to roll again (provided that they are eligible to play 5 games that is...) The ultimate goal: to make the player's "playoff games played" percentage match their "real NHL GP" percentage in the same way we do for the regular season Systems where you roll in every game accomplish this far better than "you have N games, allocate them how you want"; the latter skews significantly towards lesser GP players, for reasons detailed prior. However, what I'm proposing is an improvement on the standard "roll in every game" system, an improvement for the reasons you described -- mutants won't high roll and play far more games than they should, a player who plays most of the year and misses one game will likely play every other game in the series. One thing to consider: goalies. I can see allowing an exception for two-goalie tandems. If both goalies are eligible to start, you can pick one to be the starter, roll on that goalie; if they don't get in, the other one does. Mostly this will only impact the first game but we don't need no playoff EBUGs
|
|