|
Post by Mike Bastarache on Jan 17, 2009 8:22:53 GMT -5
I think we all have different thoughts and rules on how to assign free agents. The OHL uses a huge formula.
Jerry, could you go into detail how to do it for us? My goal is for all of us to agree on how the best system for this to work and I will build the formula into the site.
|
|
|
Post by Jerry on Jan 19, 2009 11:22:51 GMT -5
First, word for word, what the OHL Rules says about this.....I will follow up with a explanation
|
|
|
Post by Jerry on Jan 19, 2009 11:31:19 GMT -5
So it sounds complicated but the jist of it is....
A team is awarded 'likelihood' points of getting a free agent based on location to the players hometown, standings and availability on the roster.
The reasons are....
Location - if a player can choose to play anywhere, then playing for a team he grew up cheering for and close to family would be a favourable option. I see it time and time again around the real OHL. Not to mention that teams are better positioned to find local FA prospects than a team further away from the local minor hockey system
Standings - If a player has the option to play for a good team or a bad team then where do you think he will go??? Exactly, everyone wants to play for a winning team. So this is factored into the equation.
Roster Availability - This was added for two reasons. The first reason was that a player wants to know that if he signs with a team then he will actually get to play and not sit in the press box or go to the farm. The other reason is that we want to use the free agent system to populate our teams that are short players on the roster. So this way teams can build some depth, if needed.
We have used this system since November and it's worked really well. I've seen rosters slowly fill up, players go to hometown teams and top teams getting some of their bids. There's been no bias in the system and all teams have a shot as getting Free Agents.
I post free agents at the start of the week and then on the weekend I calculate the numbers and assign the free agents. It's a little time consuming but I think it's worth my time, since it makes the league better. If it was ever automated then it'd be AMAZING.
Questions? - I know this may be totally new for you in the Q and dub.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Bastarache on Jan 19, 2009 11:34:36 GMT -5
Not bad. I would like to hear other peoples thoughts on this.
|
|
|
Post by titangm on Jan 19, 2009 11:38:39 GMT -5
I like it. It's better then randomly selecting a team and it makes it more realistic.
|
|
|
Post by genghis99 on Jan 19, 2009 12:26:35 GMT -5
It's an interesting idea... but doesn't this make it sort of have the "rich gets richer" kind of mentality?
One thing I like about the way we do it now is that it helps the weaker clubs rebuild. It's not much fun having a sucky team all season, and we want the GMs to have enough fun that they will stick around to get better...
Rebuilding shouldn't be a 10-year process...
That's the only question I have about it...
|
|
|
Post by titangm on Jan 19, 2009 12:32:06 GMT -5
Maybe make it so the younger players will be more likely to go to rebuilding clubs or younger teams and older players would be more likely to go to contending teams.
|
|
|
Post by chiefs on Jan 19, 2009 17:28:43 GMT -5
This is the most of my problems in our league. I took over the Chiefs this year, and we had about 13 twenty year olds. That left me with pretty much nothing after moving some or having to release since no one wanted them. However, when FA's came up I only received a few, while other teams who were stacked also got a ton. Not real fare in my book. Anyways, there needs to be a formula or something worked out to better this system.
|
|
|
Post by Drummondville Voltigeurs on Jan 19, 2009 17:38:48 GMT -5
Maybe make it so the younger players will be more likely to go to rebuilding clubs or younger teams and older players would be more likely to go to contending teams. I like this idea...Teams that rebuild will be stronger in 3 years so that should be more attractive to a younger player !
|
|
|
Post by Jerry on Jan 19, 2009 19:41:14 GMT -5
It's an interesting idea... but doesn't this make it sort of have the "rich gets richer" kind of mentality? One thing I like about the way we do it now is that it helps the weaker clubs rebuild. It's not much fun having a sucky team all season, and we want the GMs to have enough fun that they will stick around to get better... Rebuilding shouldn't be a 10-year process... This was certainly the biggest concern but in the end it was decided that free agency is not a tool to make bad teams good. Instead we went for a more realistic approach. With drafting, trading and waivers a team is able to rebuild. Free Agency should not be yet another tool to handicap crappy teams - where in hockey does that happen? A player that is able to play in his home town, for the best team in the league and make the roster right away is the BEST case for a free agent to sign - that's reality - that's what happens in the OHL. A player that has to travel to the other end of the province, play on the worst team and sit on the bench - would rather stay home or play NCAA - the hard truth. I think good GMs agree that it is not fair to be out of the Free Agent market because you do a good job drafting and trading to build a good team. Why punish a GM for a great job and reward another GM for not putting in the same effort.(I know that in some situations its a new GM inheriting a weak team, not a weak effort) Simply isn't fair. I'd rather make rules to reward our quality GMs. Our goal in the OHL is 20 solid owners that are rewarded for their hard work and manage in a league that tries to emulate the real deal. Those that enter the league will know that they will be given no freebies, and be required to put the same effort in to build a contender.
|
|
|
Post by gatineau on Jan 20, 2009 11:35:52 GMT -5
The only think i have to tell about that is ... i like what Jerry use about FA but, in the season when a GM make some search for find guys playing in the league and was not in a team already and that player was offer to all other GM.
That was not really funny for the GM take time for make some search and finally a other GM sign that guys and he as do nothing.
What i find stupid is because the GM who put he's finger in he's nose will maybe have the player you make time to find him.
That was what i think about that but i like the ID of Jerry about FA but between dead season ( end of the season to end of the pre-season )
thanks for your time
Ray
|
|
|
Post by thunderbirds on Jan 20, 2009 15:07:15 GMT -5
Unfortunately i think at times certain aspects of Fantasy Hockey Leagues need to be simplified. Giving rebuilding teams priority makes the league better and stronger. Teams do enjoy winning it all, however in the WHL you will notice that teams come and go as contenders and rebuilders. In the WHL you've seen the likes of Red Deer and Medicine Hat in recent years hit their highs and lows. Free Agency signings in a Fantasy league should support this trend.
I would suggest producing a priority list based on standings throughout the season, at a specific interval, like 10, 20, 30 games into a season. Once a team selects a player in Free Agency this team is moved to a locked position on the bottom of the list. Somewhat simple but something like this would be far to all GM's, regardless of Geographic location to a specific player.
|
|
|
Post by RikiPanthers on Jan 20, 2009 15:16:32 GMT -5
i was wondering for free agents , like if there is a 20 year old interesting me in the OHL and i am a Q GM would be nice to go and get him , or after 15 games or days that a 18 or a 19 year was not taking then any other league could come and get him .
|
|
|
Post by Colts21 on Jan 20, 2009 15:55:54 GMT -5
I agree the player movement like that between leagues although very rare does happen from time to time. for example G Dan Spence leaving the WHL for the Sarnia Sting this year
|
|
|
Post by genghis99 on Jan 20, 2009 16:47:58 GMT -5
It's an interesting idea... but doesn't this make it sort of have the "rich gets richer" kind of mentality? One thing I like about the way we do it now is that it helps the weaker clubs rebuild. It's not much fun having a sucky team all season, and we want the GMs to have enough fun that they will stick around to get better... Rebuilding shouldn't be a 10-year process... This was certainly the biggest concern but in the end it was decided that free agency is not a tool to make bad teams good. Instead we went for a more realistic approach. With drafting, trading and waivers a team is able to rebuild. Free Agency should not be yet another tool to handicap crappy teams - where in hockey does that happen? A player that is able to play in his home town, for the best team in the league and make the roster right away is the BEST case for a free agent to sign - that's reality - that's what happens in the OHL. A player that has to travel to the other end of the province, play on the worst team and sit on the bench - would rather stay home or play NCAA - the hard truth. I think good GMs agree that it is not fair to be out of the Free Agent market because you do a good job drafting and trading to build a good team. Why punish a GM for a great job and reward another GM for not putting in the same effort.(I know that in some situations its a new GM inheriting a weak team, not a weak effort) Simply isn't fair. I'd rather make rules to reward our quality GMs. Our goal in the OHL is 20 solid owners that are rewarded for their hard work and manage in a league that tries to emulate the real deal. Those that enter the league will know that they will be given no freebies, and be required to put the same effort in to build a contender. One of the darkest and worst parts of junior hockey is the backroom stuff that goes on. Whether it's players playing the "NCAA card" so that they can be drafted by their favourite club, or trades with hidden future considerations, or coaches leaving teams while still having valid contracts, too much messy stuff goes on. I might be in the minority here, but I don't think that's what we should emulate. I think the free agency is a valid tool to help squads rebuild. Adjusting the formula to reward the better clubs with the older players sounds like an interesting idea though. In this way, our free agency works more like waiver priority in the professional leagues, and I think that's a good thing. Parity is a good thing... because it helps the long-term health of the league. The more fun everyone is having, including the lowest teams, the better it is for everyone. GMs will stick around longer, become more knowledgeable, and be better at building and rebuilding. I'm one of the top clubs (currently first in the Q), and I don't have any problem with allowing the worst to have more access to tools to allow them to rebuild.
|
|