Can we simply delete the teams that aren't playing anymore or do you want to just restore free agents and leave it as is so that it's fair to teams that won't play the no teams as much.

As I've said it really doesn't make a difference to me because I'm only playing for fun, if this was football I would choose to freeze the teams as they were.

I can't see how that would be any fun.

No problem about all the fuss, Maple.

This thing's gotta happen every few months or so - helps to get rid of the bad blood. :p

You can't delete them.

Even if you could, you wouldn't want to because then the teams that have three games remaining against them wouldn't have anyone to play those weeks, so they'd be playing a 19 week schedule while everyone else would be playing 20, so that wouldn't be fair to them .

Also, I don't understand why you would feel differently if this was football.

Presumably, it's because you took football more seriously, which is fine.

But that shouldn't change your objectivity.

PL, you make good points, but I think the whole thing is being blown out of proportion. If you're playing an inactive line-up, you should still score at least 7 or 8 points. The difference IMO is minimal.

I agree. The difference is minimal.

See, I can understand everyone thinking "what's the big deal, this is all for fun."

But in that case, why bother keeping score at all?

Why? Because if we didn't, it wouldn't be any fun.

So if we are gonna keep score, and someone is gonna finish first, and someone else second, etc., then 2 or 3 points in the standings could make a difference.

And that's just adressing the scheduling issue.

The waiver thing is a whole separate argument.

Maybe I'd feel different if I didn't think my team was unbeatable anyway. Same goes for the waiver moves.

Well, then think both issues through objectively.

Remove yourself from the league and pretend you're DB or JG - someone who knows fantasy sports but isn't involved in the game.

Having thought about it, probably the best thing that could have been done would have been DC taking over the dead teams, and setting their rosters every Monday for the entire week.

The problem with that would have been the following:

Reg Dunlop didn't change his team even once from day one, so his should have just been frozen. Then, except for the unbalanced schedule, everyone would have played the exact same team the same number of times.

Nothing could've been fairer than that. To start managing his team in the middle of the season would have been unfair to the people who at that point had played him fewer times.

Iceman had been playing off and on all along. There were times when he missed several days in a row and times when he changed his team every day, seemingly at random.

I would've done nothing with him. No emails suggesting that he play, no nothing. I would've just let him go along as he had been. Just left it up to luck as to who had the good fortune or misfortune to play him on the days or weeks when he was inactive or active, as it had been up until then.

Buffalo Chill stopped playing after Week 5. At that point everyone had played him once while he was active, except for the SI Rockets, so the impact of his inactivity at that point was minimal. I would've just frozen his team as well.

Had we done that, except for the extra week that SI Rockets got to play Buffalo when he was inactive - and, BTW, they were 5-5 that week - the impact of those three teams inactivity on the league as a whole would have been nil.

OK, I'm done for now.

Tune in tomorrow when I examine if putting all of these players on waivers served to increase or decrease competitive balance.

Perhaps someone can answer me one thing. This is a small gripe, but mainly a question. Of the 6 remaining players I'm at the bottom in league standings, yet I'm also at the bottom of the waiver list.

I know in football the worse you were doing the higher you were on the waiver list.

Of the 4 players I put in for, 3 were denied.


Oh well back to the drawing board.

The waiver claiming goes in turn, based on your waiver priority. When you make a successful claim, you then go to the bottom of the prioity list.

When you have multiple claims in, you're only awarded one at a time. Then you go to the bottom of the list.

If no one claims the other player(s) that you did, you would get that player also, but in this case your waiver priority was #5 when all of this started, and the three other players you selected apparently were claimed by people with a higher waiver priority than you had.

Stick around for a while though, IM.

I'm in the middle of writing an analyis of the whole thing. You were lucky to get anyone.

I don't think so.

Unless it's a private league and the commissioner changes the waiver priority order, that do it the way I described above.

And even if you were first in waiver priority, you still would have gotten only one player and then gone to the bottom of the list.

They do it the way you're saying in real life though.

As far as i know, in all sports, the team at the bottom of the standings always gets the first crack at waived players.

But think about it for a minute:

If you would've gotten all four of the players you claimed, your team would've gone from being maybe the weakest to maybe the strongest overnight.

That certainly would not have been fair.

Yeah to be truthful I am surprised that I got one of the players. But actually Plaw I was #6 on the waiver priority, unless I missed something. One of the players I put in for you got.


Yeah it would've.

Yeah, you were #6. I was #4, though.

Here's a breakdown of the results of the waiver add/drops.

I didn't include DMC's goalie pickup; apparently he was the only one who felt he needed one.

The transactions are listed in the reverse order in which they appear on the league transaction log. The log lists them with the most recent first, and the oldest last.

I listed them in the order in which they occured, which, I believe, reflects the waiver priority at the time.

My observations & analysis:


The four best available players were, I believe, Alfreddson, Demitra, Jokinen, and Thornton, in that order.

Although the order in which I put them is arguable, I think that they were clearly the best four. And the best by a wide margin, which, I believe, made this whole thing unfair in the first place since there were six teams involved.

Anyway, the biggest single factor which affected the process, I think, was the failure of the Staten Island Rockets to claim anyone.

He had the #1 pick, and had he used it he almost certainly would’ve claimed one of the “Big Four”.

By not doing so, he left the door open for Plaw to get one of them, as he moved up from 5th to 4th and Iceman, by the luck of DMC’s mistake (read on) to get one with the 5th pick, after moving up from 6th.

Bway Blues took the best player, Alfreddson. Although it could be argued that Demitra is the better right wing, it was his choice.

5 For Fighting took the second best player, Demitra. Although it could be argued that Jokinen is the better center, once again, it was his choice.

Now the plot thickens....

With Jokinen and Thornton still available, DMC wound up with St. Louis.

What I suspect happened here - and I'm suspecting this because I did the same thing - is this:

The players from Buffalo Chill were listed first, followed by those from Reg Dunlop.

What I did, and what I'm certain DMC did as well -and DM, please correct me if I'm wrong - was scroll up and examine the staistics of each player available.

Every time he saw one that he wanted, he clicked the "Add" button.

The four players mentioned above as the best, as well as St. Louis, appeared on the transaction log in the following order:

Alfreddson
St. Louis
Demitra
Thornton
Jokinen

So I think that DMC claimed Alfreddson first, who was obviously claimed by the Bway Blues who wound up getting him because of their higher waiver priority, and then claimed St. Louis second, because he was the next player listed in the scroll that DMC wanted.

The fact that the player who DMC dropped (Knuble) was possibly better than the one he picked up (St. Louis) notwithstanding, it's hard to believe that he preferred St. Louis over Thornton or Jokinen.

If you have multiple waiver claims in at the same time, Yahoo will award them in the order in which you submit them.

Once they are submitted, they give you the option of changing the order since, obviously, if you have more than one claim in at a time you can't be awarded both unless no one else claims those players, and I imagine that what typically happens in a large league, when there could be more than one decent player on waivers at the same time, is that if you claim more than one, Yahoo has to know which one you want more, just in case of the likely event in which you are not awarded both.

I'm sure that DMC, however, did not take advantage of that option, or he most certainly would have wound up with Jokinen or Thornton instead.

DMC, you can check that, BTW. Yahoo sends you an email to tell you the results of your claims, and they do it in the order in which the claims were submitted. So the second email you get from them should be the one tellling you that you were awarded St. Louis.

Anway, that opened the door for me.

I know who I claimed: Alfreddson, Demitra, Thornton, and Jokinen, and in that order: The order in which they appeared on the transaction log.

Although I would have preferred Jokinen, whose stats are clearly better than Thornton's, since I claimed Thornton first, that's who I got.

And then came Ice Picks, who said in a post that he claimed four players.

I'll assume, and IM please correct me if I'm wrong, that the four he claimed were the usual suspects: Alfreddson, Demitra, Jokinen, and Thornton.

With the first two already gone, the only reason he got Jokinen instead of Thornton was because of my mistake in claiming Thornton first and not re-ordering the priority, and the only reason he got any of the four was because of DM's mistake as described above and SI Rockets failure to participate.

So, where does that leave us? What are the results of all of thos folderol?

Well.....

The two best teams definitely got two of the best four players, although they most certainly had to drop two decent players to get them. But their teams did get stronger, even if only marginally.

Also, the two players they dropped will probably be picked up by two of the weaker teams, which should strengthen those teams a bit more.

DMC, IMO, is arguable. I think that they player he dropped was better than the one he got. And he certainly screwed himself out of one of "The Big Four".

SI Rockets also clearly hurt himself by not participating. He allowed the two teams in front of him to get stronger without strengthening his own team, and he allowed at least two of the three teams behind him to get stronger as well. He’s certainly the big loser here.

If he didn’t know about this “draft” for one reason or another, he has every right to scream his head off, I think.

As for me, well, I would've preferred Jokinen to Thornton, but it's not that big a deal. With the fifth spot on the priority list, I was certain that i wasn't gonna get any of the four, so i can't really complain.

The guy I had to let go was pretty decent, too. AAMOF, center was my strongest position, and I would have much preferred Alfreddson or Demitra. So I improved, if only marginally, as well.

So...Marginal improvement for Bway, Five For, and myself, altho based on who we had to give up, I'd say they improved more than I did.
Big improvement for Ice; He's the big winner here because of DMC's screw-up.
No improvement for SI Rockets, and a worsening of his position and those ahead of him got stronger, and at least two of the three behind him did, too.
No improvement, and possibly a worsening of his team for DMC.

Did all of this "help competitive balance"?

IMO, no, it did not.

As JustLou suggested would happen, the rich got richer.

Yes, the team lowest in the standings got help, but that was purely through luck.

And for the three middle-of-the-roaders, SI Rockets, myself and DMC, there was only very marginal improvement, no improvement, or a possible worsening.

The only remaining question is purely philosophical:

"Should actions be taken in the middle of a season designed to make the league more competitive that may, in fact, not make the league more competitive but rather less so, and should such actions be taken even if there were a certainty that they would make the league more competitive, or should things be allowed to simply play themselves out?"

I’ll leave that one open for discussion.

You were right Plaw the 4 I put in for were the four you listed. Obviously I got lucky by getting anyone of them based on your analysis.

I'd have to go back and check my e-mails from Yahoo, I can't recall at this point in time what order I had the waivers in.

It wouldn't have mattered in your case. You could only get the one that was left since you were picking 6th, and SI Rockets and DMC didn't take any of the four.

It mattered to DMC, because when his turn came two of them were left.

And it mattered to me, because since DMC screwed up, two of them were left for me as well.

Thanks for reading that whole thing, though.

I can't believe DC got Alfredsson, and I got 3 players. Luckily you guys overlooked Gaborik. After missing a month earlier in the season, he's been on fire the month of December. He also plays LW and RW which gives a lot of flexibilty in this game.
I gave up Kariya to get him, but he was killing me with his +/-. Same for Crosby, who I gave up for Demitra.

Hmmmm.....

That's another big mistake I made

When I looked at all the player's stats, I never thought to look at their games played.

That's what happens when you don't follow the game, I guess.

Charra was a pretty good pickup for you, too. Him, I just flat-out missed or i wouldv'e grabbed him.

And if DC didn't get Alfreddson, he would've gotten Demitra, I imagine. Not that much of a difference.

The only weakness my lineup had was +/-. I picked up 3 players that besides being top offensive players, are a combined +45.
.....I should be a GM somewhere. :rolleyes:

Waiver Priority


I have the option of changing the waiver priority. If everyone agrees, I can change the waiver priority based on the standings every week.

I AM PUTTING THIS OUT THERE FOR DISCUSSION!

ATTENTION PLAW!!!
ATTENTION PLAW!!!

No crying allowed on this one!!!!!

I am going to send out an e-mail through the league and take a vote. Please respond.


OK PLAW? OK PLAW? This way it should wipe away any tears. :p


Don Cardi

Kinda like closing the barn door after the cows got out or something, huh? :p

Yeah, I'd vote for that, now that it's too late. :rolleyes:

Actually, I was wondering if you and JL made your claims the same way that DM and I, and presumably IceMan did, i.e. without re-ordering but just leaving them in the order in which you claimed them.

If you did it that way, then it would have wound up as follows if we picked in reverse order of our standings:

IM: Alfreddson
DM: St. Louis
PL: Demitra
DC: Thornton
JL: Jokinen

What really screwed up the works was DM's pick of St. Louis.

Otherwise, if you really wanted to make the league more balanced and competitive, IM, DM, myself, and SI should have each gotten one of the top four.

If you and JL didn't do it that way, but re-ordered your picks, and we picked in reverse order of our standings, we would have wound up with:

IM: Alfreddson
DM: St. Louis
PK: Demitra
DC: Thornton or Jokinen, depending on your order
JL: Same as above

How come SI didn't participate, BTW?

Oh, and also....

I was never "crying"

I was complaining and offering a well-reasoned and logical opinion. BIG difference.

The new waiver order is fine.... PL, I did set the waiver priority order to the way I wanted it.

DC I think it would be best to change the waiver position based on standings course right now it would benefit me. Then by chance I move up in the rankings change them to again benefit me.


But seriously I think it would be better to change them based on weekly standings. But like always majority rules.

DC,I meant to say it's fine to change it.

I've got a question. Ok here it goes I'm a big hockey fan but the one thing I've never been able to figure out is this +/- statistic. Could anyone please explain this to me.


Just Lou stated earlier that he dumped Paul Kariya due to the fact that his +/- was a disaster for Just Lou. I get the feeling that it's best to have a player in the + category.

I get the feeling I may have screwed up when I picked up Todd Bertuzi earlier today.


Plus for those who are more knowledgleable about fantasy hockey. How smart is it to have 2 centers from the same team?


Sorry if these questions seem stupid. I'm just trying to educate myself about this stuff so I can have a more enjoyable time in fantasy hockey, and to see if I can be more competitive.

When a player is on the ice when a goal is scored for his team, he gets a +. When a goal is scored against, he gets a minus.
Power play goals do not count.

I would not have only 2 players at any position in this game.

I think you may have misunderstood Iceman's question, JL.

As I understand it, he's not asking if it's wise to have only two centers, he's asking if it's wise to have two centers from the same real-life team.

Kinda like having Shaq and Alonzo Mourning as your two centers on a fantasy basketball team.

If I'm correct in my interpretation of your question IM, I'd answer it this way:

In the other major sports, teams almost always have one player who gets most of the playing time at each position.

Like in football, the team's main running back will usually get maybe 90% of the carries during the course of the season and gain maybe 1000 yards.

But if the team has two RBs that they use a lot, like Denver for example, then each, although both very good players, may only gain 600 yards or so during the course of the season.

Hockey is a little different though in the way that the playing time is distributed.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, JL, but I think that most teams usually have four lines that they use regularly.

Their best line may get, say, 40% of the playing time, the second best maybe 30%, the third line about 20%, and the fourth around 10%.

This is all very roughly speaking. I'm not including their penalty killing unit, which may consist of a different combination of players, drawn from all of the other four lines.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the center on a team's second line is a bad thing to have, though.

If he's really good, his 18-20 minutes per game on the ice may be worth more than another team's best center who is getting 20-25 minutes a game of playing time.

It differs from team to team, but there are generally four foward lines and three defensive sets. One of the foward lines, generally the third line is the checking line. The fourth line usually sees minor playing time with lines one and two seeing the most action.

Thats not including the two penalty kill lines for a 5 on 4 or the two for a 5 on 3 or 4 on 3 or the powerplay lines which work the same way. Some teams like to mix up their lines during a game so, say you have Scott Gomez as one center and Joe Thornton as another center and both are on the same team, one being on line one and the other on line two.

If the coach feels that one of them isn't having a good flow with his two wingers, he may move one of them to a lesser line, which, if the chemestry flows right there, the coach may change that line to be ahead of another.

Generally speaking though, if the team is doing good, that it isnt such a bad idea to have both centers on the same team, it's always a good idea to check how much ice team each are logging per game.

Sorry. PL is right. I misread the question. It would have to depend on the team. Teams rotate 4 lines. The top two lines will play about the same amount of time. The 3rd line will likely play less than the 1st two. The fourth line will probably play much less than the 1st, and in some instances will hardly play at all. Teams will also rotate their best players on different lines.