Well, it has been awhile since I've posted on here. It is the end of the 2010-11 season, so I figured I'd see how teams did relative to last season.
Team SJH Forever 1->9 (-8)
Team Open Ice 2->10 (-8)
Beebe Bombers 3->7 (-4)
Two & A Half Pucks 4->8 (-4)
Gym Class Heroes 5->3 (+2)
AR-15 6->4 (+2)
The Puckbusters 7->1 (+6)
The Blades of Steel 8->12 (-4)
Polar Ice Dogs 9->5 (+4)
nikon d300s->11 (+1)
The Rookie 11->6 (+5)
The Pointy Sticks 12->16 (-4)
The Killer Penguins 13->15 (-2)
Lockport Dragons 14->13 (+1)
Lockport Asbestos N/A->2
Mac Attack N/A->14
The expansion draft really shook things up, though Lockport Asbestos may have ended up finishing higher than I would've liked for an expansion team. The other thing I noticed is a changing of the guard toward the top of the standings as teams that picked last in the draft obviously suffered this season.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Post Draft Review
Back in June, I wrote about ideas for expanding the league and included thoughts on how to conduct an expansion draft as part of our normal draft. Here is a link to that article: ideas-for-expansion
Our draft just concluded yesterday and there is much excitement about the new season starting and analyzing which teams did well, etc. However, I am more concerned with how the mechanics of the first 7 round expansion portion of the draft went, especially in regard to fairness.
The expansion teams took a total of 14 players from 14 teams. We imposed a limit of at most 3 players being taken from a single team during those 7 rounds. Here's a breakdown of all teams (listed by draft order) and how many players they lost:
There is a fairly even spread above. My first impression after looking at the quality of players the expansion teams took, is that they made out maybe a little better than I had hoped. The bottom half our their rosters are on par with the rest of the league, and maybe evened things out a tad. Overall though, the expansion teams are entering the season as mid-high level in talent.
It's tough to keep fantasy hockey leagues evenly spread out talent-wise. Some of it has to do with how skilled owners are and some of it has to do with shear luck in which players blossom and which players flop. There are some teams near the bottom of the standings last year that said they would have loved to have the player chosen 3rd or 4th by the expansion teams as that player would likely lead their team in scoring.
Moving forward, we'll have to monitor the situation closely. It isn't much fun for owners if their team has no chance in winning year after year.
Our draft just concluded yesterday and there is much excitement about the new season starting and analyzing which teams did well, etc. However, I am more concerned with how the mechanics of the first 7 round expansion portion of the draft went, especially in regard to fairness.
The expansion teams took a total of 14 players from 14 teams. We imposed a limit of at most 3 players being taken from a single team during those 7 rounds. Here's a breakdown of all teams (listed by draft order) and how many players they lost:
| Lockport Dragons | 0 |
| The Killer Penguins | 1 |
| The Pointy Sticks | 0 |
| The Rookie | 2 |
| 20 cent kane | 2 |
| Polar Ice Dogs | 0 |
| The Blades of Steel | 1 |
| The Puckbusters | 1 |
| AR-15 | 2 |
| Gym Class Heroes | 1 |
| Two & A Half Pucks | 1 |
| Beebe Bombers | 1 |
| Team Open Ice | 1 |
| Team SJH Forever | 1 |
There is a fairly even spread above. My first impression after looking at the quality of players the expansion teams took, is that they made out maybe a little better than I had hoped. The bottom half our their rosters are on par with the rest of the league, and maybe evened things out a tad. Overall though, the expansion teams are entering the season as mid-high level in talent.
It's tough to keep fantasy hockey leagues evenly spread out talent-wise. Some of it has to do with how skilled owners are and some of it has to do with shear luck in which players blossom and which players flop. There are some teams near the bottom of the standings last year that said they would have loved to have the player chosen 3rd or 4th by the expansion teams as that player would likely lead their team in scoring.
Moving forward, we'll have to monitor the situation closely. It isn't much fun for owners if their team has no chance in winning year after year.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
2010-2011 Zoo Zone Draft
The draft is fast approaching this Saturday, September 18th. The custom website for the draft is under construction...
http://zoozone.dyndns.org
http://zoozone.dyndns.org
Friday, July 2, 2010
2010-2011 League Rules Draft
My initial cut at the league rules for the 2010-2011 season have been posted on Google Docs (public read access). I added a link under the Links section of this blog. Here's another:
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1BCP2t5PMo-WFaF8Uh6d78GaBSexPSBsPnfMR6uhi75s&hl=en#
Some things are TBD and others may change as I receive feedback from people. Let me know what you think!
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1BCP2t5PMo-WFaF8Uh6d78GaBSexPSBsPnfMR6uhi75s&hl=en#
Some things are TBD and others may change as I receive feedback from people. Let me know what you think!
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Development of Custom Draft Website
I have kicked off development of a custom draft website that we may end up using for our fantasy draft this year since our expansion draft will likely not be supported by ESPN.
This has got me thinking...there are probably a lot of other fantasy sports leagues out there that hold custom offline drafts for this same reason. Maybe I can roll this out as a service to the community if it works well for us?
This has got me thinking...there are probably a lot of other fantasy sports leagues out there that hold custom offline drafts for this same reason. Maybe I can roll this out as a service to the community if it works well for us?
Friday, June 25, 2010
Keeper Term Limits
With league expansion on the horizon, I've been thinking about the draft. I am realizing that our 2 new expansion teams will have a shot at some players that I may never have a shot at as an owner. Certain players, like Crosby, are nearly un-tradable and can be kept forever with our current league rules.
One idea that I've been thinking about it imposing limits on the number of consecutive seasons a player can be kept. There are many keeper leagues on the net that impose this rule with great success.
Image how much fun it would be for the draft when a guy like Ovechkin's 3 years are up? It would put a whole new meaning to having #1 pick overall! It would also help out teams that are struggling or had a bad streak of luck with some of their good players retiring or getting injured.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Ideas For Expansion
I am considering expanding my league from 14 to 16 teams and have been considering the implications of this.
Divisions
Last Season: 2 divisions of 7 teams
Next Season - Option 1: 2 divisions of 8 teams
Next Season - Option 2: 4 divisions of 4 teams
I'm leaning toward 4 divisions, since it will produce more division winners. (see Playoffs below)
Playoffs
Last Season: best 4 teams of each of the 2 divisions made playoffs
Next Season - Option 1: same as Last Season
Next Season - Option 2: NHL format; based on record, division winners are top seeds
I'm leaning toward the NHL format, since everyone is familiar with it. Also, it is already how ESPN processes the playoff seeds by default. (hence less work for the commish come post season)
Roster Size
Last Season: 14 teams * 25 players = 350 total players
Next Season - Option 1: 16 teams * 22 players = 352 total players
Next Season - Option 2: 16 teams * 21 players = 336 total players
Next Season - Option 3: 16 teams * 20 players = 320 total players
Either way, it seems we'll need to reduce roster size to keep the free agent list talent similar to last season. If we reduce rosters a bit more, then there will be better players on the free-agent list to pick from. I'm leaning toward 20.
Keepers
Last Season: 14 teams * 12 keepers = 168 total keepers
Next Season - Option 1: 16 teams * 10 keepers = 160 keepers
Next Season - Option 2: 16 teams * 9 keepers = 144 keepers
Next Season - Option 3: 16 teams * 8 keepers = 128 keepers
Next Season - Option 4: 16 teams * 7 keepers = 112 keepers
The number of keepers should be reduced to be consistent with the new roster size. However, I am considering reducing the number of keepers a little more to make things more interesting at our draft. Currently, I seem to be stuck on lucky #7.
Draft
If we choose to expand, we will need to address the problem that the new teams entering the league have no existing players to choose keepers from. One idea that I have is to conduct an expansion draft from which our new owners will acquire their keepers from existing teams.
One possibility is to allow each existing team to 'protect' one keeper before the new expansion teams draft a player from one of the existing teams. This process can repeat, one keeper at a time, until the total number of keepers is reached. The normal annual draft could then commence where all un-kept players and free-agents are available. We could impose a maximum number of players that can be taken from any existing team.
In a league with 7 keepers and a roster size of 20:
Divisions
Last Season: 2 divisions of 7 teams
Next Season - Option 1: 2 divisions of 8 teams
Next Season - Option 2: 4 divisions of 4 teams
I'm leaning toward 4 divisions, since it will produce more division winners. (see Playoffs below)
Playoffs
Last Season: best 4 teams of each of the 2 divisions made playoffs
Next Season - Option 1: same as Last Season
Next Season - Option 2: NHL format; based on record, division winners are top seeds
I'm leaning toward the NHL format, since everyone is familiar with it. Also, it is already how ESPN processes the playoff seeds by default. (hence less work for the commish come post season)
Roster Size
Last Season: 14 teams * 25 players = 350 total players
Next Season - Option 1: 16 teams * 22 players = 352 total players
Next Season - Option 2: 16 teams * 21 players = 336 total players
Next Season - Option 3: 16 teams * 20 players = 320 total players
Either way, it seems we'll need to reduce roster size to keep the free agent list talent similar to last season. If we reduce rosters a bit more, then there will be better players on the free-agent list to pick from. I'm leaning toward 20.
Keepers
Last Season: 14 teams * 12 keepers = 168 total keepers
Next Season - Option 1: 16 teams * 10 keepers = 160 keepers
Next Season - Option 2: 16 teams * 9 keepers = 144 keepers
Next Season - Option 3: 16 teams * 8 keepers = 128 keepers
Next Season - Option 4: 16 teams * 7 keepers = 112 keepers
The number of keepers should be reduced to be consistent with the new roster size. However, I am considering reducing the number of keepers a little more to make things more interesting at our draft. Currently, I seem to be stuck on lucky #7.
Draft
If we choose to expand, we will need to address the problem that the new teams entering the league have no existing players to choose keepers from. One idea that I have is to conduct an expansion draft from which our new owners will acquire their keepers from existing teams.
One possibility is to allow each existing team to 'protect' one keeper before the new expansion teams draft a player from one of the existing teams. This process can repeat, one keeper at a time, until the total number of keepers is reached. The normal annual draft could then commence where all un-kept players and free-agents are available. We could impose a maximum number of players that can be taken from any existing team.
In a league with 7 keepers and a roster size of 20:
- rounds 1-7: existing teams select 1 keeper from their own roster, new teams then select 1 player from an existing team's roster
- rounds 8-20: each team selects 1 player from all remaining players
At some point this summer, I'd like to test this draft format to see how it might work out. I think it will be the most fair to the new teams entering the league, while still giving existing teams the chance to keep some of their favorite players.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)