MLD Rules Discussion Topic

I could support rammers idea of minimum players

I still think the SC bonus can go, or use one of OKP's modifications.

I still think an evened out non playoff bonus would work better than a stratified bottom 6 bonus.

Also think limiting warehousing would lead to a more even league, even allowing most of the warehousing currently used and only limiting extremes (i.e. not allowing players with 100 D rating to be warehoused, but allow warehousing in all other situations.


9/7/2014 7:58 PM
There have been many suggestions thrown out there.  Is there one or a few ideas that all owners can get behind, that will be easy to follow and easy to implement?
9/7/2014 7:59 PM
I have long been a proponent of icing a minimum number of players per game. IMO, you must dress 5 defensemen and 10 or 11 forwards per game (There are times when a d man is injured or a forward is injured/suspended and I don't replace them right away). I am currently icing a team of 5 players due in part to mass retirements and wanting to see if the players improved in ratings due to games played or minutes played. If I am offending anyone, I do apologize but it is within rules, which is why we are talking.
9/8/2014 4:14 PM
Okay. Well. I'm gonna see if I can try to help something out here. Honestly, I've been coasting and neglecting the MLD for a little while, but the state of discussion has intensified this season and it's really caught my attention. And I'm going to say that the renewed intensity is because we are currently in a season marked by higher numbers of Boom Or Bust teams, and the feeling within the league is that this is bad for competitive balance.

Since the (I'll call it) "20 Game Rule" was instituted - we'll recap - it achieved exactly what we wanted it to. Teams cannot be stacked for the playoffs. It's easy to follow, use, police. BUT by enhancing the odds that only the best teams win, we created a situation in which owners who know they are in the middle of the pack will decide to lay back and play for next season. And IMO that can't be helped. This happens in every league I'm involved in where there are clear frontrunners; others play to live and fight another day. We are all smart people, we are all strategists. You can't ask us not to play the angles, or find the exploits.

The second big issue which comes up is warehousing. Warehousing has been around for the entire run of this league, before sim updates, before engine revisions. It was there even when players didn't improve in the minors. Warehousing was originally used to let those ten extra spots in the minors extend players' careers, while developing younger players in the majors. I have often wondered if warehousing is something that it might be time to do away with - I believe I asked onekrazypuck that question on a couple of occasions - only to find that other owners were using it for other reasons than the ones I was. It's multi-faceted, not just about building perfect players. Different owners use warehousing for different reasons, which is why I've found that over the run of this league there has never seemed to be a genuine outward interest in doing away with it. And I have to say specifically to paul71, who has been most critical of warehousing, that I don't believe abolishing it would pass with a majority if put to a vote.

EVEN SO - last week I updated the Franchise Player list, and too extra time to evaluate each team's roster. I was thinking that perhaps I'd find some evidence that would give me an idea about limiting warehousing, but what I discovered was that it wasn't exactly the problem.

With only a few exceptions, most teams are not hoarding experienced veteran players. What I WAS surprised to find is a number of teams building low-experience but higher skilled players. And that's when I finally realized the true advantage of running a short game roster. By shuffling players on and off the roster and in and out of the minors, it's possible to improve virtually all of your players AND have them accrue NO seasons of experience. And it's only possible by gaming the roster, because the sim doesn't penalize you for running a short game roster with the exception of virtually guaranteeing a Loss. So I was dead wrong, when I said in the league forum that I couldn't see any point to playing a short roster. I didn't see it at all.

To my mind, it's the combination of the short roster WITH warehousing that turns this strategy from Boom Or Bust to Ultimate Boom or Ultimate Bust. As I said earlier, we are smart people. We will find the exploit in any system. I commend the owners who found and developed this. I wouldn't even be talking about it openly, had I not found that others have begun to follow suit, and that more will.

So here's what I want to say - there's nothing "wrong" with what I'm talking about here. It's all within the rules.

But do we want to leave it as is? There have already been a few suggestions about rules for minimum game rosters. This is the hard part - any rule we want to bring in should be easy to execute, easy to follow, and easy to police. No one wants to sit around and read every box score, pick apart our opponents' rosters game by game, or sitemail complaints to the commissioner. Everyone has to be on board.

Given what I'm seeing in the league right now, I think some kind of roster limits would indeed address the current state of unrest.


9/8/2014 8:57 PM
Agreed damag. I think though, it may be easy to police. We are all honest people (at least I'd like to think that!). Make a gentleman's agreement that everyone dress and play every game say, 5 defensemen and 10 forwards. Then when checking the box scores, leave it up to the opponent to ensure the opposing team was compliant with the number of players dressed. If the opposing team was not compliant, post in the forums and it will be easy for OKP or whomever to check and to correct the situation. If a team is consistent in not dressing enough bodies, then the loss of a draft pick, or being placed at #24 in the draft order would be appropriate punishment. Life gets in the way of everyone here, that is why the violations must happen on a continuing basis, not a one or two time occurrence. Not everyone can check their teams daily, and with injuries and suspensions, there will be times where a team will not be compliant. If it becomes an ongoing problem, that is when OKP needs to get involved.
9/9/2014 9:30 AM
First, i'd like to throw this out there.  just some info on the current hippos.  :>

i presently have three players on my active roster that have recieved the crosby bonus. my FP, Lord Xzyche, in his final year, Dragon Baleriion, in his fourth year, and Michael Ilett in his first year after just being drafted this year.  for those who say the crosby bonus doesn't give too much advantage, when you add up three players worth, it starts to make a difference.  i also have two first overall picks and a second overall pick on my active roster, with another second overall pick in the minors from last year's draft.  with the bonuses that go along with those as well.  not counting my second overall player in the minors, the other six guys on my active roster have recieved a total bonus bump of 94 points.  (another ten for Michael Jordan sitting in the minors).  :>

the players on my active roster, by season drafted.

season 43 - one player
season 41 - one player
season 38 - one player (though another started the season before getting injured)
season 37 - three players
season 36 - two players
season 35 - three players
season 34 - two players
season 33 - two players
season 32 - two players (one a goalie)
season 31 - two players (one a goalie)
season 26 - one player, my FP. 

twelve of my twenty active roster players were drafted in season 35 or earlier. 

and even worse, i am only retiring two players after this season.  my FP and one other player.  four of my forwards and five of my d-men have 100 defense.  i have a sixth d-man with 100 defense that is sitting in the minors because i decided to leave my crosby bonus draft pick Michael Ilett in for the whole season instead of pulling him after nineteen games.  seven of my forwards have 90 or better shooting (three with a hundred) and seven of my forwards have 90 or better skating (two with a hundred).  i believe i will have five players retire after next season, but i'm not entirely sure.   i have built a super team within the rules to last two to three seasons with a very good chance at winning the cup.  and a possible fourth attempt depending on how my minor league players develop.  then i cycle through losing again for three seasons, picking up high draft picks with bonuses and a possible crosby bonus again.  it's conceivable that a team could end up with four crosby bonus players on their roster if they manage it right, with one being the FP.

9/9/2014 5:08 PM
now that i've shown what kind of team i have built, i ask the question of whether i should have been able to.  personally i think all the bonuses make it too easy to build a super team.  and warehousing helps the effect.  so personally i propose a couple rule changes that would address either or both issues.

1.  remove the SC bonus.  it's outdated and easily exploited.  you can finish 17th overall that third year and still get a twenty point bump to your first pick because you missed the playoffs.

2.  i suggest throwing out all the other bonuses as well.  they just create incentive to lose, IMO. but if we are going to keep the bottom six bonuses, i suggest a uniform bonus, and one that is much smaller.  a six or eight point boost to the first round pick of the bottom six teams. 

3.  and the biggest upheaval for my suggestions.  i think we need to limit warehousing.  at least warehousing of vets.  i have no problem with cooking the rookies in the minors, but i think it's both unrealistic and helps to create the imbalance in the regular season to let owners warehouse vets.  what i suggest is that once a player has played in even just one game, they increase in salary each and every year, regardless of playing time.  you can cook a player for four or five years in the minors if you want, but once they start playing, they retire six years later.  now, to give owners a bit of flexibility and strategy, i suggest a slight change to the FP rules.  allow three FPs.  or possibly two FPs that can play the three extra years, and two others that can play one extra year.  personally i don't think any team should be icing a half dozen almost maxed out forwards and another four or five almost maxed out d-men.  especially when they just won the cup four or five years ago with another stacked team.  it should take a lot of time to build the kind of team i have, but in reality because of bonuses and warehousing of vets (specifically in the losing years), it only takes me three to turn it back around.  these rule tweaks would limit the number of super teams, and create more parity during the regular season.  IMO, it would put some fun and excitement back into the league.  i'm sure 21 owners are looking at the standings half way through the season right now and have already given up on it.  and even yogs isn't sure he can compete with me and corbs.  feel free to comment on or tweak my suggestions to see if we can find something everyone can live with.  :>

9/9/2014 5:22 PM
god_mike - My thoughts

Suggestion 1 - agree
Suggestion 2 - agree on if bonuses are kept they are smaller; OK if removed
Suggestion 3 - injuries make it tough to suggest a player lose a year of eligibility if they get hurt early and have a season ender in games 1-19. However I would like to see the elimination of teams playing short (i.e. we have an injury limit so you can suit an entire team so we need to suit an entire team every game). This eliminates super-warehousing which in addition leads to the "boring" seasons...

love to hear more from others
9/10/2014 9:02 PM
I still say having 100 rated players doesn't mean anything, stamina being the exception. I think if you want a minimum roster limit it has to be 20. (12 FW, 6 D, 2 G). I we can't agree on this then we'll continue to have teams that won't reach 10 wins in a season. A 20 player minimum roster would help towards players retiring more regularly, and may have an affect on how everyone manages their entire roster in stead of having half your team retire at once.

I think truly what bothers me the most about all of this, is I feel that we're heading towards a "everyone wins" mentality. I envy the way some GMs put out a team season after season that can make a serious push for a Cup. That doesn't mean I want those guys to have to change just so I can win. I like the challenge. I know that when my team goes through the PoW part of my schedule I'm going to get beat more than I win. That just means I have to do something different with my team.

I like the idea of increasing the number of seasons for players, but I think we should stick with 1 FP. I think if we do away with the SC bonus, then all teams that miss the playoffs should get bonuses for 1st and 2nd round picks.
9/11/2014 12:16 PM
big_drive, i usually do use a 20 man roster in my losing seasons.  and i don't always have ten wins on the season.  :>
9/11/2014 3:26 PM
Posted by god_mike on 9/11/2014 3:26:00 PM (view original):
big_drive, i usually do use a 20 man roster in my losing seasons.  and i don't always have ten wins on the season.  :>
I do every season, and I don't think I've gone below 10 wins. ;^)
9/11/2014 6:50 PM
We've already talked over many of these points, and I promise to circle back to them, but for a moment I'd like to address one aspect of god_mike's suggestions: the idea of limiting a player's seasons played, regardless of warehousing.

I simply can't think of a way to check or verify the status of each player without manually checking each individual player card, plus/or keeping a database of when players were drafted. The idea has merit, but may simply be too difficult to put into practice.

Anyone have any ideas to potentially resolve this?


9/11/2014 7:46 PM
In regards to god_mike's suggestions

Agree with point 1, agree with point 2 but think an even plus 6 bonus for all 8 teams out of the playoffs instead

How to accomplish point 3? Not sure the sim can be programmed exactly the way suggested, and to manually monitor this would be tough.  It might also force all teams in to the exact same strategy - develop rookies until they are ready, then ride them until their salary runs out.
9/12/2014 2:17 AM (edited)
I thought maybe it could be done with the end of year salary increase. Anyone who doesn't have a $165K salary gets an automatic bump. Not sure if that's possible though. :>
9/12/2014 4:13 PM
What if we get rid of all the bonuses? Do we really need them?

Then GMs who are not going for it will save bodies and get better draft picks. PERIOD. And the playoff bound teams will get a few attributes improvement depending on how deep they go. And the ones going for it most of the time will retire more "star" vets than the lesser ranked teams.

Remember bonuses was implemented to help teams with s-h-i-t-t-y rosters turn Things around faster. In New are everybody Warehouse some good ones, so I say the bonus thing is something of past not needed anymore.

VOTE NO BONUSES..... lol ;)
9/13/2014 7:32 AM
◂ Prev 1...3|4|5|6|7|8 Next ▸
MLD Rules Discussion Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 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.