All Forums > SimLeague Hockey > Theme Leagues > MLD Rules Discussion
4/8/2014 11:58 PM
Just throwing more ideas out there

1/ Scrap all the non playoff bonuses. At least this would make tanking a less palatable solution. Yes you can still go for a high draft pick to improve your team but at least it would take you longer to get back to the top. The weak teams wouldn't be affected - they are not getting these bonuses right now anyways. And it would be easier for the commish.

2/ Scrap the stratified non playoff bonus and go back to a flat non playoff bonus. What makes the 24th place team worse than the 17th place team? Right now the 24th place team has done a better job of losing but more often the 17th place team has weaker players and is in more need of player infusion. (Maybe someone could tell me why this flat non-playoff bonus disappeared in the first place)

3/ Institute a minimum point total to be eligible for the bonuses. I have seen this done in other progressive leagues. You could set the bar low at 25, or 30, 40. (I would go with 30, even my crap team this year has a shot at 30 points)

4/ Institute anti-tanking rules. Any team that intentionally tanks is not eligible for the bonuses. So what would a tanking team look like? Perhaps a team that benches 4 players with 100 def rating would be considered a tanking team. Gives you up to 3 players with 100 def that are able to be saved for a future season. So you could rest that 50 stamina 100 def player. But only up to 3.
4/9/2014 12:01 AM
I'm actually a bit surprised to see such little appetite for change given how badly the current rules are being abused.
4/9/2014 9:07 AM
You've at least hit on the crux of the problem, paul71. Everyone knows the league would be better, the scores would be higher, the playoffs would be less predictable if super teams were not able to be built. Games are not decided by who has the most greater players, but rather who has the most weaker players.

Now you have to find the owners who are willing to say, yes, OK, in the interest of the league I will agree to limit my ability to pump up my players. Human nature.

4/14/2014 11:14 AM
Perhaps we need to organize and setup a committee of some sort to discuss and possibly make decisions regarding MLD stuff.

I was thinking maybe a 6 person MLD committee with an elected representative from each division, who would represent their division's concerns and essentially be the voice of that particular division.

Just an idea.......although a negative to this would that it'd introduce a level of politics to the MLD and if real life is any indication, politics can sometimes get messy.  lol
5/6/2014 4:16 PM (edited)
I like OKP's playoff HERO idea :)

And I suggest we should consider making a ruling every team must dress at least 6 D-men and 12 skaters for 20+ games every season. I think this will be a fair tweak, it will not influence too heavy with tactics, but would indirectly address some issues imo. This should be rather easy to police. If implemented we should probably use forced retirements as punishment to those who for some reason fail to obey this rule.
5/6/2014 6:54 PM
Posted by rammers on 5/6/2014 4:16:00 PM (view original):
I like OKP's playoff HERO idea :)

And I suggest we should consider making a ruling every team must dress at least 6 D-men and 12 skaters for 20+ games every season. I think this will be a fair tweak, it will not influence too heavy with tactics, but would indirectly address some issues imo. This should be rather easy to police. If implemented we should probably use forced retirements as punishment to those who for some reason fail to obey this rule.
I agree with the minimum playing roster idea, but I don't agree with the numbers. I frequently only dress 5 d-men if one is injured, and if I have an abundance of say, right wingers, and I have a right winger out for a few games, I won't replace the injured player and let the other right wingers sub for him throughout the game. Perhaps dressing 16 as a minimum is a fair compromise?
5/7/2014 4:04 PM
Looks like it could be a good rule.  Just wondering how it would be applied.

Say the rule is there must be at least 18 players who played 20 games for your team.  For season 41 there are 3 teams that will not have 18 players reach the 20 game mark.

Say the rule is you must have at least 16 players on your roster at the end of the season that have played at least 20 games.  3 teams will not meet that criteria.

I'll use my team as an example.  There are 19 players that have suited up a minimum of 20 games for my team.  But there will be only 13 at the end of the season on my roster that will have made 20 games and increase salary.  So will I have beaten the rule because of so many trades, or would I be stung by the rule because I traded away 3 veterans at the end of the season for draft picks and prospects I would rather develop first before trading?
6/30/2014 1:34 PM
bump
7/5/2014 2:28 AM
Throwing out a few suggestions, in the interest of keeping the league rules simple and bringing a bit more parity to the results. I know there are no perfect rules, someone will find a way to bend any league rule created, but here goes.

1/ Eliminate the SC bonus. + 20 is too large of a bonus. It creates an artificial 3 year cycle of finishing at the bottom. It seems that only the teams playing for the SC bonus can achieve it, not the struggling teams it was originally intended to help out.

2/ Change the out of playoff bonus so that all teams out of the playoffs receive the same bonus. If the SC bonus is eliminated +10 across the board to the first pick for all non-playoff teams would be easiest to calculate. Should remove some of the incentive in going for the #24 position. Gives a decent boost to 8 teams that could use this extra bonus, and equals the improvements that playoff teams accrue during the playoffs.

3/ Add in a minimum point total to receive the bonus. Perhaps 40 point minimum. How you get to 40 points does not matter, what you do after 40 points does not matter. But at least all teams will need to put up a few wins. If you don’t make the 40 point floor there is no punishment, you just don’t get the bonus that might otherwise come to you.


Overall the rules are pretty good, and many of the rules already created are doing a good job in what they were intended for, such as the 20 game minimum to be eligible for the playoffs. These are just a few tweaks to try and get even more out of this league.
8/1/2014 4:04 PM

"3/ Add in a minimum point total to receive the bonus. Perhaps 40 point minimum. How you get to 40 points does not matter, what you do after 40 points does not matter. But at least all teams will need to put up a few wins. If you don’t make the 40 point floor there is no punishment, you just don’t get the bonus that might otherwise come to you."


Paul, by this line of thought, say I finish a season with 39 points. I wouldn't be punished for no reaching this "minimum" total, however I wouldn't receive the +10 bonus to my top draft pick. By taking away any bonus that's being punished.

Now I understand that everyone would like a level playing field, but the fact is some of our GMs know what they are doing (or at least appear to) and set forth a team that does well every season. There was a reason for have a 19 game min. GP for playoff eligibility. For those of you that weren't here when that was put into place, it was to prevent GMs from playing their "best" players 18 regular season games the sending them to the minors only to call them back up when the playoffs started. IMO that leveled the playing field because GMs had to decide if they were going to use up a season on a player or not. It's also why there's the "true" rookie replacement rule as well.

The whole idea of making it so GMs have to have a set number of players play 20 games is a bit of a joke. Since each of us has paid money to take part in the MLD, none of us should be able to tell any GM how to run their teams. If next season another GM wants to roll with an "Iron Man" lineup, then knock yourself out. Just imagine if OKP's team made the playoffs and went on to win the Cup? Nobody would say a word about it, and I think there would be more then a few to try that approach too.

If there are realistic rule changes (I,e, length of season for skaters, goalies, or FP) please speak up. Personally, I'd like to see the draft talent get bumped up, drop the SC bonus, and go with the +10 for non-playoff teams first rd pick. To really even things out add +8 to 2nd Rd picks, and +5 to 3rd Rd.

I'd also like to see an actual punishment meted out to GMs that use "illegal" players. Right now if you use a player that passes the 612K salary, and said player isn't your FP then you have to retire that player. If it happens in the playoffs, said team should have to retire the player immediately, and lose their #1 pick in the next draft.
8/8/2014 11:44 AM
Big_drive, it looks like we do agree on a few things

1/ dropping the SC bonus

2/ replacing the bottom 6 bonus with an evened out non playoff bonus.

3/ the punishment you have listed - losing your first round pick - is a good idea.

I don't disagree with the idea of bumping up 2nd and 3rd round picks as well but I think that would be too difficult for OKP to manually change each off season
8/12/2014 9:29 AM
I agree with everything said big_drive, except losing a first rounder. Sometimes life gets in the way, and people are unable to sign draft picks, let alone work on their draft board. A team may start a season with illegal players because of the owners inability to set his lineup at the start of a new season. That being said, if an illegal player is used in the playoffs, then admin needs to get involved if the team using that player won the game. I think perhaps losing a 2nd rounder would be more appropriate instead of a first rounder though.
I disagree about the minimum point totals as well. I am retiring 12 players this season, and will be at the bottom of the pond for the next few seasons until I build the team up again. The quality of players available has not been good the last few seasons, and when you are drafting at the bottom of the round, there becomes less to chose from. 3rd round picks usually are just fillers anymore. I agree about the quality being bumped up as well.
Also remember, OKP has done a great job with this league, but we can't overwhelm him or other owners with too many rules to police.
8/12/2014 1:12 PM
i think the level (or quality?) of the draft picks is fine.  the players improve pretty good over their careers.  we don't want sixteen teams with full maxed out rosters in the post season.  as for dropping the SC bonus, i've been saying that we should for years.  even though i'll be receiving it this year.  and i like the idea of giving all the bottom six (or eight?) an equal bonus to their first round pick.  i think ten is maybe too high, so i'd say eight is decent enough.  i too though think taking away a first round pick for playing an illegal player is a little too much.  even though i've never made the mistake myself.  if it's done during the regular season, maybe have okp subtract points from the team in question.  three points per game, whether they won or lost (and give the other team the two points for winning if they happened to have lost the game.)  if someone is playing an illegal player, they are likely trying to make the playoffs, so an increased point deduction is good incentive to fix it, IMO.  if it happens in the playoffs, maybe require them to sit their FP for the next game (or games if it was multiple offenses).  that would help even out the series a little and create incentive to not make the mistake in the first place.  :>
8/15/2014 9:43 PM
Hey guys

While update the stats site, I thought of an idea that could work with regards to the controversial SC Bonus.  A few actually, and they might work well individually or combined.  Might be a bit tricky to work with at first but it may be easy enough to manage.

I've noticed a trend that sees some teams racking up multiple SC bonus players.....simply by falling out of the playoff picture 3 seasons in a row.  This is completely within the current rule set.

What if, a new rule tweak went with the following.

A) Once a team receives the SC bonus after 3 out of the playoffs, in order to get their next SC bonus, they must miss the playoffs 4 seasons in a row.....and *IF* they do end up missing 4 years, (given its not used with the idea below) they must then miss 5 in a row to get their next one......etc etc....

AND/OR

B) Limit a franchise....or rather, current GM of any given franchise, to be eligible for a maximum of 2 SC bonuses period.........a hard cap.  If you are the GM and you have had 2 or more Sc bonuses awarded to you with you in the GM seat, you will no longer receive the SC bonus.

Both the above suggestions would be retroactive.....meaning that if any current has received more than 2 SC players, they would be ineligible to receive anymore.



I'm thinking this could prevent the SC from being misused, but still allow for it do what it was originally intended to do..



Thoughts?

(I'm just thinking out loud here......like I said, was updating the stat sheet and wanted to jot this idea somewhere while it was still fresh in the old noggin lol)
8/17/2014 8:07 PM
I'd be okay with either of those suggestions. Though I still think the SC bonus is not needed. If you miss the playoffs three years in a row, you already have likely three players with bottom six bonuses. I think those are sufficient enough within themselves. But I think a hard cap of two SC players is more than reasonable, as it's seldom in real life that a franchise gets more than one. And yes, it should be by GM, so a new owner could qualify. :>
of 8
All Forums > SimLeague Hockey > Theme Leagues > MLD Rules Discussion

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.