Weekly Players !! Week 3 -- How did it go?

[The Great Gazoo]

32-8-5 wow thats pretty dominanting--- Could you list your team?

No problem. 12 Team H2H

C Stamkos
C Giroux
C Berglund
LW Kovalchuk
LW van Riemsdyk
LW Brunette
RW Kane
RW Jagr
RW Stewart
D Pronger
D Burns
D Seabrook
D Bergeron
Util Gagne
Util Havlat
Util Fleischmann
Util Landeskog
Bench Konopka
Bench Nielsen

G Price
G Schneider
Bench Nabokov
Bench Khabibulin
IR Reimer

My great record is probably somewhat a factor of inactive teams (it's not terrible at this point in the season, but yes there are times when managers will have guys who are playing sitting on their bench). But I think more of it at this point is luck/good matchups. Last week I won by 11 goals and 11 assists, the only offensive category that was even close was FW. I also haven't had to face any of the super-hot goalies yet.

[internalprime8]

I can understand why you left. While there are times I find my max weekly transactions (4 or 5 depending on my league) can be limiting, I far prefer it over the insanity of "churn" whenre people are dropping and adding 5 new players every night and as you say, every night you have to be there to make the changes

I understand the logic and yes it can give you an edge but unlimited acquisitions is just stupid. The first week one guy had 80 moves. The league I made after leaving that one has a limit of 4 acquisitions a week. I debated (and might next year) doing a season limit to prevent people abusing the limit but I think larger roster sizes helped too. My old 12 team league had 6 FW, 4 D, 2 G and 4 Bench players so there was ample FA talent to pick up every day. The 4 move limit and 5 player bench has so far been pretty effective at creating a fair playing field.

I'm still pretty new to fantasy hockey so it's kind of a learning experience for me as well.

[flubber]

My leagues are weekly H2h so I favour weekly transaction limits. It somehow seems fairer that a manager has the same number of transactions available in each individual 'match'.

With 4 or 5 weekly transactions you can churn a little but you really need to be careful and plan your moves-- I know I vary with the team-- I have 3 leagues going and in one I have made 14 our of the 15 I could have, IN another 7 of 12 and in the last league I have made ONE.

[flubber]

Gazoo

While thats a fine looking team, I would have expected that Price would have cost you the goalie categories in the first couple of weeks (Montoya played most of the early games before nabokov stepped in.)-- UP front__ since you have Stamkos that means you drafted 1st to 5th(depending on settings and preferences) so then Kovalchuk late 2nd round and then Kane in early 3rd?? then maybe Giroux??
or did you swing some trades?

[The Great Gazoo]

Gazoo

While thats a fine looking team, I would have expected that Price would have cost you the goalie categories in the first couple of weeks (Montoya played most of the early games before nabokov stepped in.)-- UP front__ since you have Stamkos that means you drafted 1st to 5th(depending on settings and preferences) so then Kovalchuk late 2nd round and then Kane in early 3rd?? then maybe Giroux??
or did you swing some trades?

Pretty close. Stamkos was first obviously, then Price in the second because goalies were going pretty early. Kane was third, Kovy was still around in the 4th, and then Giroux was my 5th pick, I was ecstatic he was still there. I only played Price and Reimer like twice each in the first week (ended with 2.57 and .909 for peripherals) so my stats were hardly terrible, but I played the guy with Luongo anyway so it didn't matter.

[flubber]

Pretty close. Stamkos was first obviously, then Price in the second because goalies were going pretty early. Kane was third, Kovy was still around in the 4th, and then Giroux was my 5th pick, I was ecstatic he was still there. I only played Price and Reimer like twice each in the first week (ended with 2.57 and .909 for peripherals) so my stats were hardly terrible, but I played the guy with Luongo anyway so it didn't matter.

Ahhh-- that makes sense-- you were lucky to have an opponent who had a bad goalie week. .909 isn't bad but I find it would lose far more often than it wins in my leagues.

Hmmm--it appears like you got a bunch of guys 5 to 10 spots later than when they went on average at yahoo-- I'll assume you picked say 2nd so you got

Kane at 26 versus his average of 21st
Kovy at 47 versus his average of 35
Giroux at 50 versus his average of 45

Was this because of a big goalie run that pushed most of thee players later than their yahoo averages of did you have some guysn taking flyers on folks

[The Great Gazoo]

I picked 5th, so Kane was 29, Kovy 44, and Giroux 53. While there a bunch of goalies taken early (12 in the first 2 rounds), I think these guys were also a little underrated by the other guys in the pool. Kane missed some time last year, Kovy had an off-year, and Giroux had his first big year last year. There were also some D-men taken early. Probably not an unreasonable amount, but I would never take one with point-per-game guys still on the board. And .909 is definitely bad, but it at least gives you a chance. Most teams probably average like .915 for the year, so it's not that out of the ordinary to be down .006 for a week.

[flubber]

Oh .909 is not bad at all-- I find goaltending can be highly variable-- You get a .945 one week and then an .889 from the same group the following week.

[ldbc]

No offense but that's exactly what I'm talking about lol. How can you not meet the 3 game minimum in a scoring period? Did he have 3 backups?

He's a little lackadaisical. He has Thomas and Reimer and Remier was out. He only got in one game of the 3 minimum.

What I don't agree with is that I get credit/win in the SO catagory just because he didn't qualify, even though I did not have a shutout.