Rule Discussion: Scoring System

[thunderblade]

My opinion is 100% against shootout points counting. They don't count in NHL. Its a artificial stat.

[Tony]

My opinion is 100% against shootout points counting. They don't count in NHL. Its a artificial stat.

[SlackJack]

My opinion is 100% against shootout points counting. They don't count in NHL. Its a artificial stat.

[SlackJack]

Also, I'm sure it's been talked about but I think the goalies can and should be nerfed without taking too much away from how prominent they are.

I was appalled to learn that Tomas Greiss earned me a half point the other night after he got shelled for 6 goals on 36 shots. That's a save percentage of .833 which I find difficult to accept that he was rewarded for.

Looking at it closer:

30 Saves +7.5
6 Goals Against -6
Loss -1
Total +0.5

This kind of scoring system makes goalies an "always play" regardless of their opponent. It would be far more interesting if a loss was somehow more punitive.

I fully understand and appreciate that the entire make-up of Backyard's team rosters has been influenced by how important goalies are and that it would be unfair to dramatically reduce their value.

That said I would think a slight reduction in points awarded for saves is in order. Consider 0.2 points per save vs. 0.25. The same game would have resulted in the following:

30 Saves +6
6 Goals Against -6
Loss -1
Total -1

As an alternative (or in tandem) I would suggest reducing the Goalie Cap to 3 Max, allowing impoverished franchises a much better chance at landing new starters or promising back-ups.

[SlackJack]

For what it's worth, I'd actually be more in favour of a larger make-over from this:

Wins: 2
Shutout: 2
Saves: 0.25
Goal: 10
Assist: 1
GA: -1
Loss: -1
Penalties: -0.10

To This:

Goalies
Wins: 2
Shutout: 3
Saves: 0.15
Goal: 10
Assist: 1
GA: -1.5
Loss: -2
Shootout Loss -1
Penalties: -0.10

I think Mike Smith had a 40 save shutout the other night for a ridiculous 12 points. Under the alternate system posted above that same shut-out would be worth a fat 9 points while the Greiss loss in my previous example would have been -6.5!

With this format 1 goal against effectively nullifies 10 saves so a goalie would have to earn a save percentage of better than .9 to win points for saves. The current system rewards play at just above a .8 save percentage which is actually sub-par for professional hockey. (In other words, why reward goalies for play that would get them thrown out of the AHL?) If a goalie has a really bad outing you should pay for it. This would force you to think about who you are starting.

Please people, I'm just talking here. This is not an argument for radical change. Just fodder for conversation.

 

[favo_zomg]

I like the idea of bringing goalies down a bit, but at the same time, we cannot nerf them to the point that no one wants to take a flyer on a back up. Teams have put in so much effort in order to obtain a back-up, so i feel they should be valuable, but not willy wonka ticket valuable.

How about this:

Goalies
Wins: 2
Shutout: 2
Saves: 0.2
Goal: 10
Assist: 1
GA: -1
Loss: -2
Shootout Loss -2
Penalties: -0.10

With this model, a goal nullifies 5 saves instead of only nullifying 4 in the current model, or needing 10 in order to recover from one goal in your previous proposal. Mike Smith's 40 save shut out would be worth 16 points while Griess's 30 shot, 6 goals allowed lose is worth -2 points. Thoughts? Counter proposals?

[SlackJack]

Good conversation.

Again, if the goalie cap was reduced to 3 the effect would be considerable without altering the scoring in any way. Spread the wealth!

[favo_zomg]

Good conversation.

Again, if the goalie cap was reduced to 3 the effect would be considerable without altering the scoring in any way. Spread the wealth!

I think the goalie cap should stay at 4 as it will reward those that drafted well as well as those that are aggressive enough to obtain their goalies.

[SlackJack]

I think the goalie cap should stay at 4 as it will reward those that drafted well as well as those that are aggressive enough to obtain their goalies.

Drafting well will always be rewarded. Anyone that has a surplus of talent will always be able to make a a good hockey trade for other positions of equal talent.

Regardless of the how or the degree; we both agree goalies should be nerfed.

[favo_zomg]

Drafting well will always be rewarded. Anyone that has a surplus of talent will always be able to make a a good hockey trade for other positions of equal talent.

Regardless of the how or the degree; we both agree goalies should be nerfed.

I agree that they should be nerfed, but I do not agree with lowering the number to 3. I think it should stay at 4 and we should adjust the points a little.