Rule change vote #1 (Blocked Shots)

[GypsieDeathBringer]

Attached is a quick thing.  Basically if you want to take the D-man contract reduction away, making them have the same contract value as forwards, we'd probably want them to score at a similar rate and to do that the blocked shots should be worth .5

Doing that puts the average of the top 140 d-men at 2.56 while the top 140 C is 2.75 and top 140 wingers 2.67

[Rob]

Attached is a quick thing.  Basically if you want to take the D-man contract reduction away, making them have the same contract value as forwards, we'd probably want them to score at a similar rate and to do that the blocked shots should be worth .5

Doing that puts the average of the top 140 d-men at 2.56 while the top 140 C is 2.75 and top 140 wingers 2.67

They wouldn't have the same contract value as forwards, they would just be the same as they are in the NHL and not reduced. The top D man right now would be around $9m, the #10 would be $7m, #20 would be $6m. But if you compare that with ALL forwards (not just lw/rw/c individually), they're still less expensive.  For this reason I believe 0.25 is sufficient.  We're not going to be able to match Forwards - there's something like 75 forwards who are over 3PPG last year and there's only 20 or so Defensemen - and that difference gets more staggering when you go to 2PPG.  And I'm comparing at 0.50 pts per block. 

You can keep increasing to 1.0, 1.5, whatever and I still don't think you get any closer to the scale of forwards.  Also - forwards get blocks too so it's somewhat relative.

[Rob]

They wouldn't have the same contract value as forwards, they would just be the same as they are in the NHL and not reduced. The top D man right now would be around $9m, the #10 would be $7m, #20 would be $6m. But if you compare that with ALL forwards (not just lw/rw/c individually), they're still less expensive.  For this reason I believe 0.25 is sufficient.  We're not going to be able to match Forwards - there's something like 75 forwards who are over 3PPG last year and there's only 20 or so Defensemen - and that difference gets more staggering when you go to 2PPG.  And I'm comparing at 0.50 pts per block. 

You can keep increasing to 1.0, 1.5, whatever and I still don't think you get any closer to the scale of forwards.  Also - forwards get blocks too so it's somewhat relative.

I think the perfect mix would be exactly twice as many forwards over 3PPG than there are D-men.  This means (at 0.50 points per block) we'd need to get 20 more defensemen over that 3PPG mark to scale with forwards.  That's not going to happen solely by adding BS, regardless of the value we set it to. 

[SlackJack]

Attached is a quick thing.  Basically if you want to take the D-man contract reduction away, making them have the same contract value as forwards, we'd probably want them to score at a similar rate and to do that the blocked shots should be worth .5

Doing that puts the average of the top 140 d-men at 2.56 while the top 140 C is 2.75 and top 140 wingers 2.67

Split the difference! No way Blocked Shots should be worth more than Hits or Shots. Introduce Blocked Shots at .25 and cut the discount in half rather than doing away with it entirely. Should work out nicely and is much less disruptive.

[Rob]

Split the difference! No way Blocked Shots should be worth more than Hits or Shots. Introduce Blocked Shots at .25 and cut the discount in half rather than doing away with it entirely. Should work out nicely and is much less disruptive.

Not a bad idea.  I see a 20% increase in production in the top 140 for BS at 0.25pts.  A 20% increase in the cap would be about the same as splitting the difference (18% reduction or so... .Round it up to 20%?). 

[SlackJack]

Not a bad idea.  I see a 20% increase in production in the top 140 for BS at 0.25pts.  A 20% increase in the cap would be about the same as splitting the difference (18% reduction or so... .Round it up to 20%?).

Would love to see the dummy fantrax adjusted to .25 to see the effect.

[Rob]

Would love to see the dummy fantrax adjusted to .25 to see the effect.

Done, go look now.