Gonchar Gonzo


Best digested with well aged Scotch

The Highlanders post their take on the FunHL draft.

I'm going to try and be a little more active on my own blog this season, though will still post stuff here. Stuff that I think may be of interest to the wider FunHL I'll post as a link. If your just interested in my babling, well feel free to pop by.


Prospect Draft Rules of Thumb

- With less then a handful of exceptions (Paul Kariya, Ryan Miller and... uh....Toni Hrkac? Tom Kurvers?), avoiding the Hobey Baker winners has been a sound strategy.

- Also be wary of any collegian who played for their whole academic career. The really good ones almost always jump ship after one season.

- It's in the genes. I don't think its an accident that there are multiples of Sutter, Nilsson, Bourque, Hextall, Miller, etc. dotting the NHL statistical landscape, so picking kids and relatives to be NHLers isn't a bad strategy (see; my selection of Paul Stastny). That said, for every Brett Hull you unearth you can dress a line of Keith Gretzky, Blake Geoffrion and Chris Bourque.

- The earlier they show up on the radar the better. Statistically speaking the younger they flash their genius, the more likely they are to maintain that gap against their peers throughout their careers (see; Gretzky Crosby, Lindros, the Bure/Fedorov/Mogilny line, etc). That said, behold Dan Cleary. A scoring prodigy at 15, he nevertheless failed to progress over the next few years and by his draft year had fallen out of contention for top five status. I hate you Dan Cleary.

- Trust the scouts. If their is a lot of positive buzz about a kid, its typically because he is pretty good.

- Never trust the scouts. They want different things than you do. They are looking for kids who will play a role in the NHL - not necessarily kids who will impose overwhelming offensive force on to the opposition. For example, Manny Malhotra. Terrific hockey player, but scoring stat black hole. Luke Schenn and Chris Phillips are also in this category.

- Teams matter. Is Jakub Kindl as sexy a pick if he is on the Bluejackets farm team? Does Janne Pesonen get selected if he is in Florida rather than Pittsburgh?

- Big guys (6'2"+) usually take longer to flash their dominance, but the earlier the better.

- Defensemen always need an extra year or two to adjust to the NHL pace.

- Goaltenders by far take the longest to get their crap together. Netminders frequently don't emerge from their mediocrity till well into their 20's (see: Ryan Miller-G Buf, Kiprusoff-G Cgy. etc.).

- Legitimate goon and +/- prospects are so rare as to be extinct. And then there is Steve Downie.

- Skating is the biggest clue to success. Prospects who have skating concerns should always be considered as a higher risk. The AHL is chock full of guys who have oodles of talent, but lack the ability to gear it up with the big boys.

- Selecting veteran players (25 or over) as prospects is in most cases a losing strategy. Why? Because everyone else is fishing for the exceptional player (say...Phaneuf, or E.Staal), and the result of targeting players who aren't likely to develop into elite players (say Stu Barnes) is to leave more of those potentially elite players for the rest of us. I call this the 'Oleg Teverdovsky Experience' in honour of a certain defenseman prospect pick of mine who I selected in the 2nd rnd. If I had kept to my lists and taken the prospect I should have I'd have a different FP.

- Injury replacement, shminjury replacement. Fear of injury is no excuse for average players selected as prospect picks.

- Scout the World Juniors, especially games that don't feature Canada. Offensive dominance at this level is typically a powerful indicator of future performance. However, don't be too seduced by every kid wearing our jersey, less than a handful of them go on to have solid pro careers.


Don't worry Doug

I'm sure its nothing.

Cameron's Completely Biased Prospect Draft Review

In my own preparation for the prospect draft I came to the conclusion that while there were a large number of players I really liked, there wasn't a sure-fire home run selection to be had (which is my explanation for reaching back another year on Hall), nor was there any consensus on who the top pick would/should/could be. I compared the out lines of my list to several GMs over the last few weeks and never got a sense of their being one guy who made everyone's list. I also got the impression that some GMs definitely were holding a name or two back - but it was never the same guys.

The Shadowmen:

Pesonen-L Pit: There were a trio of Euro left wingers, all; overage (23-25), highly skilled (a Swedish Elite league scoring title and the 1st and 2nd in the Finnish Elite League between them), a little undersized (none is over 6ft), and all potentially top six forwards just entering their prime. As it stands Pesonen has made the Penguins, but hasn't as yet cracked the top six. Think Stu Barnes.

Hodgson-C Vcr: Given how starved for talent at forward the Canuck roster is right now, Hodgson may make the team on an energy line and get a turn on the powerplay - and produce enough to be tantalizing but fall just short of being dressable. More likely he'll get bumped back to the AHL to continue his progress in a more or less orderly fashion. He's an average sized gritty playmaker and hustler ala Daymond Langkow.

Purcell-R LA: AHL scoring monster needs to crack a talented young Kings roster to be sucessful. A highly skilled beanpole, Purcell is a late bloomer who may end up producing in a solid offensive role despite the obstacles. A lower case Nieuwendyk, he won't be a checker.

Kindl-D Det: A cut and re-draft, the Shadowmen cagily added a year of development to the rearguard's contract. He's an all-round two way horse ala Roszival, so he may not command even 2nd unit powerplay time - especially on the Wings who are deep with offensive defensemen. Still projected to eventually land a job in the top 4.

Overall draft rating: A. Pesonen is a solid bet to produce a scoring role as soon as this year and the team added other assets besides him. Purcell and Hodgson are solid projections to earn future roles at their positions for their teams (the Cammalleri trade in particular is taylor made to free up ice for prospects like Purcell), and Kindl though clearly still a project, now has another year on him.

The Scourge

Brunnstrom-L Dal: Dallas won a bidding war for Brunnstrom's services - probably the most talented of the 'three dwarves', Dallas is all but compelled to hand him a top six spot. As such, he's the most likely to suceed. A Swedish Martin Straka.

Hornqvist-R Nsh: A slower footed, less experienced version of Brunstrom. May get a shot at the big time because of Radulov's defection to the KHL. Has a big league wristhot, but below average wheels. Think a slower Petr Prucha.

Winchester-R Ott: He's an older (24) forward, having graduated from Colgate. More a two-way player than future offensive force. he lacks both an offensive pedigree, and the time to develop one.

Hickey-D LA: Some critics thought Hickey was undersized for where he was drafted by the Kings, but I bet they don't think so anymore. A quick puck moving defenseman with loads of offensive ability, he merely needs to add some weight and experience to his resume before assuming a prominent spot in LA's top 4 with Doughty, Johnson and Teubert. The new Darryl Sydor.

Overall Rating: B. Brunnstrom was a strong candidate to go first overall, and Hickey is the kind of pure puckmoving defenseman that don't grow on trees anymore. However it would be shocking if either Winchester or Hornqvist survived as prospects past this season.

The Wolves

Bowman-L Car: The Spokane Chief was their top weapon in a march to the Memorial Cup. Unforntunately his game doesn't translate well to the NHL as he lacks the skating gears necessary to compete with the burners. May carve out a niche as a Shane Willis type.

Dupuis-L Pit: Checking winger has the speed to play defensive conscience on a line with Crosby and Satan, and could chip in offensively by osmosis, but he could also be bounced at any time because he lacks the finishing touch to be a reliable top 6 producer. Pittsburgh's version of Paul Ranheim.

Backlund-C Cgy: The talented forward slipped to Calgary because of concerns regarding a knee injury, or he would have been a top 10 pick. Backlund has all the ingredients for a top line center (skill, speed, hands, hockey IQ) except size (he's 6ft even), and with Calgary's lack of depth on the wings vs its number of pivots he may be converted in the short term if he earns a roster spot based on his talent. Otherwise its at least a year in Quad City for Backlund. He's more like Thomas Steen than Alex is.

Schenn, B-C OHL: Unlike his brother Luke, Bradyen is an all-offense, all-the-time forward. Has a big league set of wheels, and despite modest stature, projects well as a top scoring forward. Will get drafted into the NHL after John Tavares and Viktor Hedman - but not long after. Another whirling dervish ala Stamkos.

Stoll-C LA: Injury prone checking center in the mold of Kris Draper, is in mid-career and has already started to break down. Has Hollywood starlet/supermodel wife in LA, so he's got that going for him. Potentially useful only in short bursts as an injury replacement. Explanations for how the same GM that so adroitly picked Schenn could also pick Stoll requires a plot device like an evil twin or teleporter accident. Stoll is Shawn Horcoff without the offensive upside. Exactly.

Wheeler-R Bos: A hulking power winger with raw offensive potential. Skates like the wind. Just needs to put all his tools into the same box and he'll be formidable. If he can unlock the offense he's a potential bulldozer/Bertuzzi like winger, if he can' -t he's the second coming of Shawn Antoski.

Overall Rating: B+, Schenn, Wheeler, Backlund and even Bowman are all very promising prospects, but Stoll and Dupuis aren't likely to be sound long term investments. That all said, 3.5 out of 6 ain't bad at all.

The Knights Templar

Pietrangelo-D StL: Erik Johnson just mangled his knee so their is now ample room to have the swift skating stud Pietrangelo develop on the big team. Has all the tools to be a rock star defender, including big point shot and passing abilities. With Johnson out, Pietrangelo may be the most talented puck rusher on the roster. Could be dressable in the second half of the season.

Overall Rating: A. If you can only add one prospect to your roster in a year, you want it to be a prototype defender like Pietrangelo.

The Personal Vendetta

Sterling-Atl: A 5'7" gunner, he lacks the footspeed to be an effective smurf at the NHL level. Will one day win an AHL scoring title. Mike Comrie without the wheels.

Brule-C Edm: Mike Peca without the scoring, hitting or checking ability. Despite repeated chances, he couldn't crack the lineup in Columbus.

Bogosian-Atl: Almost completely makes up for the first two prospects picked. A big all-purpose defender who can log 20 min, run the powerplay and destroy people in his own zone. Atlanta will be hard pressed to send him down.

Overall Rating: Sterling and Brule aren't likely to contribute, but Bogosian could be a stalwart for years if he makes the roster.

The Lost Boys

Boedker-R Phx: A one touch sniper with terrific wheels and a high hockey IQ. A new Simon Gagne. If he doesn't force his way onto the roster this season (a possibility) expect him to be knocking on the door soon.

Bailey-C NYI: An all round talented pivot, he may be a better fit as a #2-3 when he reaches the FUNHL as he lacks outstanding ability in any one offensive skill, but plays with grit and heart.

Overall Rating: B+. Boedker is a legit bet to be a 40 goalscorer in the future, and Bailey has a good chance at being a useful center for the Islanders sooner rather than later. Not bad at all.

The Edge

Maclean-R Phx: Another high scoring Jr player who lacks the raw speed to play at the next level. Even with his soft hans his chances of making the Coyotes top lines is small, but he could stick around on a checking unit to see if he can get his skating up to par. Was accused of fattening his stats as Tavares' favourite winger. Most likely future is as an AHL goalscoring champion.

Perron-R StL: Undersized winger was a surprise to stick around with the Blues for last year, but proved his mettle by demonstrating speed and offensive flair. While he must be on a scoring line to suceed, Perron has locked down a spot in the teams top 6 forwards moving forward. He lands somewhere between last years Gionta and St Louis.

Kontiola-C Chi: In a dogfight with other prospects (Beach and Bolland) to earn a spot on the 2nd line. Has skillset similar to that of Christian Ruutu, but lacks the size of Bolland or the snarl that Beach brings. Part of a deep Chicago team that is just getting to know how good they can be.

Murphy-D Fla: Undersized blue-liner was a revelation coming out of training camp as he earned himself a spot running the powerplay. A couple of months in and a knee injury later, Murphy was a drop and re-pick by the Edge GM. Adding another year to a top 4 defenseman is only a good thing. But is he a legit top 4 defenseman?

Salcido-D Ana: With the inevitable departure of Schneider freeing up a spot on the roster, Salcido has a chance to turn his game pro. Has an outside chance of being a decent offensive defenseman if given the ice-time, but may lack in defensive coverage costing him coach confidence. A solid all-round two-way defender.

Overall Rating: B+. Maclean and Kontiola aren't bad, but they aren't solid bets to be producers either, while the rest are all solid prospects who should be dressable at some point in the future. Perron may even be dressable now.

The Highlanders

Hedman-D Modo: A monstrous defender with elite size and skating ability, he's been playing against men since he was 15. He loses a year with the Highlanders reaching for him, but he's being touted as a once in generation type of talent. The comparison I liked was to Larry Robinson.

Overall Rating: B+. Hedman is both a defenseman, and loses a year of eligibility which means his chances of producing for the Highlanders is comparatively small. Still, if you have to reach for a defenseman, Hedman is the one to reach for.

The Ramapithicines

Justin Williams-R Car: Its no secret that I hated this pick as first overall. Williams was a legit 30 goal scorer for two seasons in a row - coincidentally the only two seasons of his career he managed to stay relatively injury free. Worth repeating, the guy is 27 going on 28, and he has two years injury free on his record. When he's healthy he's a 65-80 point player depending on his linemates. Why was he available to be taken in the prospect rounds? You guessed it - because he's currently injured.

Mathias-C Fla: In direct contrast to Williams, we have Mathias. A full-blooded prospect with a history of offense, elite size, speed, World Jr experience, and a roster spot waiting for him. If he had been taken first overall I wouldn't have blinked twice. From what I've seen he's another Getzlaf but without the hair trigger temper.

Overall Rating: B-. I can't get past the Williams pick. I just can't.

The Great Whites

Doughty-D LA: Of the big three defenders available (not including Hedman) Doughty was the big prize, and the most likely to flit with a ppg. With his skating, passing and shooting abilities, pundits are using comparisons like Ray Bourque. I hear he wasn't bad.

Couture-C SJ: A cut and re-draft, Couture is a slick playmaker in the Sharks organization. His career has been derailed by a couple of serious concussions and a bout of mono, but if he can get his head in the game, he could be a top line producer. Tim Connolly is the obvious comparison.

Lepisto-D Wsh: A powerplay specialist from Europe he is attempting to crack the Caps lineup. If he does he has a chance to contribute immediately. Like Rafalski, Visnovsky and Murphy before him, he has the chance to prove he belongs.

Overall Rating: B+. Couture isn't a lock to perform, but Lepisto and Doughty have chances to be excellent.

The Bladerunners

Filatov-L Clb: An offense first winger with blazing speed, and a rocket shot. He was at the top of several other GMs lists, and IMO was a strong candidate to go first overall. Unlike some prospects using the KHL as a bargaining chip, Filatov seems intent on making the team and not looking back. Alexei Kovalev type skill, hopefully without a Kovalev type of attitude.

Berglund-C StL: A full meal deal power pivot in the mold of Ollie Jokinen or Mats Sundin. Future first line center of the Blues.

Svensson-Paajarvi-L Swe: A high skill sniper from Sweden, Svensson-Paajarvi is a candidate to go high in next years Entry Draft.

Overall Rating: A. Much like last year the Bladerunners loaded up on highgrade talent through the draft.

The Severed Heads

Hall-C OHL: Next year Tavares is hoped to go first overall. The year after that it should be Hall's turn. He's a warp speed sniper already turning heads for his offensive ability. Son of a CFL player gets compared to Pavel Bure because of his speed and shot.

Leino-L Det: the third of the three dwarves has a shot at making the champion Detroit Red Wings out of camp. Surprisingly responsible defensively, he may slot in next to Filpulla on the 2nd line.

Karlsson-D Ott: An offense first puck rusher, he may have the highest offensive abilities for the defenseman in his class - which is saying something. Though on the short side (5-11) he has the build that can add muscle and weight easily to help him defensively. At least a year away, but a strong candidate to be a fixture on the Sens blue-line moving forward.

Caputi-R Pit: this years winner of the Milan Kraft award as top Pens prospect who gets stupid love only because he is a Penguins. Caputi had a break out year in the OHL where he scored over 50 times and had just shy of 120 pts. Like many prospects he may lack the skating to take it to the next level, but if he makes it the next level has playmakers like Crosby and Malkin to help him out.

Overall Rating: B+. Hall is a two year reach as a draftee, and no matter who he turns into, thats a lot of time to give up. Leino has a good shot at being a dressable winger, Karlsson to be a decent defenseman, and Caputi a long shot to be the next Rob Brown. So all things considered, not a terrible draft for the Heads.

Major Injuries already...

Most of these are old news but what the heck its slow today...

Sergei Gonchar-D- Penguins
Sep. 24 - 11:18 am et
Pittsburgh doctors continue to wait for Sergei Gonchar's swelling to subside in his shoulder before performing an MRI.
Gonchar's injury is believed to be serious but a time frame for it won't be known until an MRI is done. Stay tuned.

Erik Johnson will be out of action for the next six-nine months with a torn ACL according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Johnson tore the ACL in his right knee during a golf tournament last week. He tried to stop his cart and his right foot got caught between the accelerator and brake. He will have surgery in the next couple of weeks. Johnson will be back in mid-March at the earliest.

Justin Williams
Sep 17
January to March
Latest News:Justin Williams suffered his torn achilles tendon in an off-ice workout on Wednesday. Williams underwent surgery and is still expected to be out for four-to-six months.

Ryan Whitney
Sep 17
Latest News:Ryan Whitney was walking around without crutches as training camp opened in Pittsburgh. The defenseman underwent foot surgery in mid-August that is expected to keep him sidelined until mid-November at the earliest. "I saw the doctor and he said the X-rays look fantastic and the scars are healing nicely," Whitney said. There have been reports that the offensive defenseman could be sidelined until January, although no one really knows at this point.

Sergei Zubov
Sep 19
Mid-October to Mid-November
Latest News:Sergei Zubov watched the Dallas Stars practice on Monday. Zubov is on crutches after undergoing arthroscopic hip surgery on Thursday. He will be re-evaluated in three weeks and could be out another month after that depending on how quickly he recovers. He should return sometime in late October or by mid-November to the Stars lineup


Your Mileage May Vary...

Sure you know that you drafted the best team in the league last Saturday - me too - but that doesn't mean that there isn't some interest in knowing what other interpretations are out there. Its an inexact science to be sure. Of the "Big 3" guides (The Hockey News Guidebook, The Score Sports Forcaster and McKeens), only the Hockey News provides predictions for goaltender GP and GAA allowing for a prediction based on our formula. No guide gives a prediction of PIM. Post-publication injuries to players (Gonchar, Gaborik, Alfredsson, Johnson) or trades (Meszaros) can mess with the value of these predictions. Oh, and they are so often wrong - no, like really wrong.

Still, it can't hurt to look - can it...

The Hockey Pool Guide Book predicts ... the Edge to hoist its first Predator Cup beating the Highlanders by 6pts.

The Score Sports Forcaster predicts ... the Scourge to eke out a 5pt win over the Knights Templar.

While McKeens predicts ... the Personal Vendetta to win in a walk, by 37 pts over the Wolves. Note that McKeens predicted the Vendetta to win it all last season as well.

As for who may have had a rough draft day? Well there is some consistancy there. The Great Whites are predicted to finish 12 by both the Hockey News and the Sports Forcaster and 11th by McKeens while McKeen's gives the Turkey Title to the Lost Boys who finish 11th according to the Hockey News and tied for 11th (along with the Severed Heads) according to the Sports Forcaster. As said in the title, your mileage may vary.


FUNHL Master

Hey everyone,

Just a quick note that I have updated the link for 'FUNHL Master' on Google docs to include our newest spreadsheet.

If you have any problems viewing it let me know.



The Draft

Thanks again to Collin and his family for hosting the draft. Despite coordinating the feeding arrangements for almost a dozen people, technical issues involving people spread across the country, space issues and the omnipresence of a small child and gregarious dog, the draft was an unqualified success!

Great to see everyone again! Analysis to follow soon.



FP Drops

Shadowmen drop Marleau,
Highlanders drop Jagr,
Lost Boys drop Sakic,
Great Whites drop Whitney.

Draft Day!!!

Let It Begin...


Top Ten Mustaches

I didn't notice Rob's blonde caterpillar thing on this list, nor was I able to find Dan's goat-stache. Must be an oversight....

In any case, I weep for my testosterone when I see this list


Voting results

After tabulating the results: (Reminder, I stated that in all yes/no votes an obstension counted as a yes). Bob has concurred.

Brian is now a member of the DC committee.

3 Year terms for the DC failed by a vote count of 8 Yes to 4 no. With a little clarification this would probably pass. ie Nobody would be forced to sit on the DC. It is only the term of a volunteered sitting member that rotates.

Droping prospects before the ED failed with 8 no votes

Of the goalie calculation votes. GM's are wanting a change as keeping the status quo received 8 no votes. Also receiving 8 no votes is Dan's new formula, GM voting on the GAA each year, and Mike's proposal of points for wins and shut outs.
Current formula with no negatives (11 no votes) - Fails

The bandwidth proposal for determining baseline GAA received 9 yes votes and 3 no votes. This passes for next year.

So at the end of the season. The total goals scored/total games played will equal X. X will fall into one of the bands and the corresponding GAA will be used for the next season.

The ranking were poorly responded to (five and four) thus inconclusive. This was dissapointing as the each of our opinions on the value of a goaltender is different and is the route cause of much of the past months discussion. This could have solved many issues and provided easier group concensus for the future.

Baseline GAA for this current season is 3.75 as per the DC decision earlier.

Thanks for your participation.


A look at the FuNHL Rules

According to the latest posted rules that I could find, goalie stats are a rule, and need to be voted on by the league GM's.

7. Goaltender points are calculated by multiplying three and one-half (3.5) by the number of games they played for that week, then subtracting the number of goals allowed for the week. The number of games played during a week is calculated by dividing the number of minutes played by the Goaltender by sixty (60). Partial games are included in this calculation, as are minutes played in overtime games.[Note: For simple calculation, a 60 minute shutout is worth 3.5 points.]

53. The Disputes Committee is also responsible for the amendment of these rules via rule proposals or changes to calculated stats such as goal-keeping. The Rules of the Fun-HL are not allowed to change during the course of a season without the agreement of all League GMs.

Last but not least...

As of August 17 2006

Fait accompli changes:- Rule 7 – Edit to change base goaltending calculation from 3.5 to 4.0

Unless I am a total git, the above text tells me that goalie stats are a rule, and we need league approval to change such stat.

Therefore, I find the DC is incorrect in changing the goalie stats system from 4 to 3.75.


Illustration as per Cameron's query

Hey all,

Cam had expressed the notion of having a #1 goalie being roughly equal to a #1 centre, so I thought I would illustrate that with my proposal :-)

Let's say we adopt a rule that statistically aims to meet the goal above:

The top 12 centres last year earned an average of 86.4 points

The top 12 goalies (by FuNHL stats) last year played an average of 67.75 games, and earned an average GAA of 2.34

If we want the top centre average to be the guide, then our formula is simply:

We want top 12 goalie average = 86.4

86.4 = (X - 2.34) x 67.75 games played

so X = 3.62

In other words if our formula for this coming year were to be
goalie stats = (3.62-GA) x GP

and we applied it to goalies from last year, the top 12 would average exactly the same as the top 12 centres.

(Interestingly a result in the middle between 3.5 and 3.75 almost exactly)

To compare:

- Use GPG sliding scale (GPG 5.57 means magic # is 3.75): avg top 12 goalie = 95 pts

- Use the ever popular 3.5: avg top 12 goalie = 78 pts

- Use formula above: avg top 12 goalie = 86.2 (almost bang on a top 12 centre)

Personally if we really think a top 12 goalie should score like a top 12 centre, this way works perfectly

IMHO ;-)

More voting instructions

I will conduct the votes my email.

Please only respond to Bob and myself. I will tabulate the results and Bob can confirm. As there will be multiple things to vote on please only respond yes or no to the question being asked. Any non responses will be a concidered a yes. I will send my vote to Bob and he likewise to me. Note the vote for the DC member will be a choice of Mike or Brian. Majority rules.

As there are lots of proposals regarding Goalie calculations voting may need to be done over multiple rounds. So voting periods will be short. You can vote yes to more than one Goalie calculation solution as your first choice may not be acceptable to others in the league. Only the top 2 or three vote getters will continue to the next round.


Voting instructions

Thanks Doug for your votes but you jumped the gun here.

I will send out voting instructions (tommorrow). I want to talk to Bob first.

Mike, I will include your proposal for the Win, SO system in the vote. Do you still want the no negatives in the vote.


My votes

As it isn't clear to me what proposals are out there, here are my votes on what I undestand to be the proposals.

1 - Dan's Goaltending Proposal based on creating an average goaltending standard linked to last year's average center.

I am intrigued but vote against it as being too complicated for my little Pooh-brain to follow.

2 - Rob/Bob's Goaltending "Bandwith" proposal for setting the goaltending baseline.

I would vote in favour of this should we continue to use the current goaltending formula.

3 - Brian's 3-year terms for DC members proposal.

I would vote against this.

4 - Mike/Richard/Chris?'s proposal to make change the calculation of goalie stats from the current formula to one of 2pts for a W, 1pt for an OTL and 1pt for a SO.

I have found myself, with reservations, won over by the simplicity, certainty and equity of this proposal and will change my vote to support it for implimentation next season (2009-2010). I would vote against a change for this season.

5 - Richard/Bob?'s proposal to keep the current formula for goaltenders but to not include negative scores.

I would strongly vote against this statistician's nightmare.

I think that covers all the proposals I have seen out there. If there are others - let me know.


FYI, I have taken my stress pills and am feeling much more myself now. Please disregard my previous posted statement that I will not be doing stats next season. I will (though I can see occaisional delays in their posting do to my work committments). That said, should proposal #5, above, be adopted I will be resigning - not out of anger but out of fear :-)

GAA determined by bandwidth Proposal

This proposal uses the existing Goalie calculation but instead of using the DC to determine the base GAA the bandwidths determine the base GAA. Here are the proposed bandwidths.

The base GAA is determined by the previous season overall GAA.Thus
4.00 - 4.4999 use 3.00
4.50 - 4.9999 use 3.25
5.00 – 5.4999 use 3.50;
5.50 – 5.9999 use 3.75;
6.00 – 6.4999 use 4.00;
6.50 - 6.9999 use 4.25;



I'd like to ensure we have a Covenant that is current as per most recent rule changes and that each year the covenant is dated so we know it is most recent one. I 'think' that Doug and Bob were last guys to make some revisions. I'd be happy to go through covenant with a fine tooth comb to look for anything that might be confusing BUT I want to ensure I am looking at the correct covenant!!

So.. with that said, I'd like to ensure clarification re. rule changes. IF a rule change requires 12/12 for current year and 9/12 for following year then let's ensure that is clear in the covenant.

And... should we say that votes must be decided BEFORE the ED each season or is this just 'preferable'?? The concern I have with voting on ED day is 1) it just adds time to a long day as is and 2) it can lead to some bad feelings on ED day which is 'supposed' to be a fun day).


I would like to propose a vote that decides whether or not the DC will continue to decide the goaltending stats base as of next season. IF 9 plus GMs decide that the DC should NOT make this decision, then the DC will give up this responsibility and the league will need to vote each year to change the baseline (and we'll have to decide if 9/12 each year would be good enough to make change). IF less than 9 GMs vote in favor of a change, then the rules stand and DC decides.

*This rule proposal would become null and void if the stats for goaltending changes altogether i.e. as per Mike/Richard rule proposal. The Mike/Richard rule proposal should probably be tabulated first and then IF it fails, we move onto a vote on this proposal.

**It 'might' be an idea for current/recent members of the DC to abstain in which case 6 votes would be necessary to make a rule change re. DC purview (i.e. 6/9 instead of 9/12) ??


FUNHL Site Changes

As I mentioned a few months back I've been making changes to the FUNHL site in the hopes of improving its utility for everyone.

First, I have added a bunch of blogs to our blog roll, in particular I encourage everyone who craves a daily fix of hockey information to check out; 'Illegal Curve' and 'James Mirtle'. Illegal Curve is a group of guys (students?) at the University of Manitoba who make frequent daily postings on hockey related items of all sorts - its good stuff.

Mirtle is my favourite hockey blogger and has ties to the Globe and Mail, as well as to the Oilogosphere (which is HUGE), so he has a vibrant and lively blog with an equally vibrant and lively group of commenters.

I've also added blogs like 'Puck Daddy' and 'Melt Your Face Off' for their pure entertainment value, and the blog like 'Five Hole Fanatics' because it covers the Flames in depth.

Personally the all-round best blog is probably 'Lowetide' - and I say this as someone who can't stand the Oilers, but it is so well written that I can't stay away for long.

If you have other recommendations to make please do so, as I can always make the blog-roll longer.

Well that covers some of the new blogs, but some of you may have noticed that if you click on the link for 'FUNHL MASTER' at the Top Right hand corner of the FUNHL Blog you will access an on-line version of our Master list!

Unfortunately, this document needs to be updated in Google Docs for it to remain useful (Brian? Dan? DC members? Stats guy?) - the good news is that updating it is rather easily done. All I need is few minutes of time with whomever this task is currently assigned to teach them how to update this link and we can all access an updated master from the blog whenever we wish. If done once a week it eliminates the need for constantly sending out a new Excel file. If nobody (other than me) cares I'll get rid of it.

However, given that the Waiver Wire posting appears to be a failure (it wasn't updated by anyone past week 7 last year) and given that the trade tracker was similarly little used I am deleting them. If anyone wishes me to I can add them back in at a later date.

Also, you may note that I have dropped the list of GMs from the sidebar. I did this because;

A. It was taking up key visual space on the blog, and
B. I figured we knew who the other members of the FUNHL are by now.

Last but not least, you may notice that I have adjusted the look of the blog a little. Please let me know what you think.

Proposal Voting Date - Sep 17

In effort to avoid any voting and long discussions on draft day. Bob and I feel that the vote needs to take place before then. Thus voting day will be Sep 17th which will give one final week after all rule change proposals are submitted for discussion. This will also allow everyone to know by Friday the results so any draft lists can be modified if necessary.

Proposal Closing Date - Wednesday Sep 10

I think no knew proposals for rule changes should be made after this Wednesday Sep 10th.

Would those who proposed Goalie changes please re post them each as a seperate post except for Dan's that was recently posted.

New proposal - not GAA related

Now that the last of the original DC has resigned why do we not implement a suggestion of a couple of years ago that the DC is composed of 3 members each serving a staggarded 3 year term so that each year we have one new DC member.
A previous DC member must have a one year break between 3 year terms.

Someone will replace Dan this year.
Either Bob or I will drop next year ( not sure who has served longer on this current stretch)
Bob or I drop the following year. (Dan could now serve again after a 3 year wait)



Am I wrong in thinking that the DC was formed to resolve disputes between GMs?

Did we not change the responsibility from RC (Rules Committee) to DC because we thought any changes to the FuNHL rules were preview to ALL GMs, not just a small group? We all have a voice when it comes to the rules.

It does say in the Covenant that we need to vote on rule changes. Changing goalie calculations IS changing a rule.

We need to take conflict out of rule changes, and let the DC focus on DISPUTES.

Therefore I put before the FuNHL GMs a proposal to vote on the proposals set forth by myself, Rob, Dan and whom ever proposed the change to 3.5.

It is getting close to the ED and we REALLY need to put this issue to bed. NOW. I want closure so I can get my lists set in stone.

Whos at Center?

What does the covenant say about entering the ED with more than the requisite slots in a position?

Should we allow more than the stated number of players in a given position to be surpassed?
How many players in any one position do we really need?
Should we really allow GMs to over stack a position during or after the season?
Do we just go with the 22 players on the active roster regardless of position as long as you dress the required (or less) number per position every week?

We need clear definition in the Covenant.

Rule Proposal regarding Prospects

I propose that at the beginning of the ED, all prospects that are not likely to be held onto by any GMs be dropped.

This will bring more players into the fold for the ED. It makes sense to me to treat drops the same way we do at the WDs, ALL drops are announced at the beginning of the ED, before any picks are announced. There are occasions where GMs enter the PrD with more than the allowed 8 prospects.

It may seem inconsequential to some, but there are prospects that do not generate interest as prospects, but are prospects, and are dropped at the start of the PrD. But, those players in question could be better suited for 4th line spots by others.

I just feel we should have the sound knowledge of who we are dropping from our Prospect roster at the beginning of the ED. Having said that, the Prospect draft is technically part of the ED. Maybe we should treat those dropped prospects as RFAs for the duration of the ED, that way they still hold some sort of value.


GMs - Please Make Your Lists

Hello All,

The final act of the last DC set the Shutout standard at 3.75. That will be standard for this coming year 2008/09 ED. GMs - Please make your lists.

As well known, there is a vacancy on the DC for which nominations are open and will be settled at the ED at Collin's home.

There is need potentially for a new statskeeper as Doug wishes to set down.

There is also a vacancy as FUNHL treasurer which I will temporarily volunteer for [having collected the Lost Boys entry fee] until a more suitable candidate is found.

Any Rule Proposals for FUNHL changes should posted to the Blog on a different posting ASAP, perhaps by end of next week as a deadline so the league can consider each proposal.

Please abide the Covanent's Last Rule - Have Fun!


It's not 3.75, right?

I'm not going to add to the clown-car of posts below through a series of replies, since by now they would be ignored. I find myself in the awkward position of agreeing with Cam's logic to oppose the decision, and then not wanting to be so affiliated with him when he uses the brick-bat of personal attacks to really hammer it all home.

Anyway, with Dan's resignation, and his clear disinterest in continuing to back 3.75. Can we do the sensible thing as aleague choose to ignore this particular finding of the DC? We no longer have 3 committee members willing to back it (and it would not have passed with a clear majority of GMs by the way--Cam, myself, Mike and Chris have all argued for 3.5 [or at least against 3.75] on the blog, and Brian has confirmed Corey, Collin and Bob would also all be against it in a vote. That's 7 GMs out of 12 by my count.)

I do want to say, that after weeks of what I thought was my vociferously arguing against 3.75 and finding a clear majority of GMs saying they didn't favour it. After beginning to plan my draft list with 3.5 as the goalie base. After arguing for a new system with the logic that it was generating similar stats to 3.5--which was unambiguously supported as being the superlatively accurate assessment of goalies by people on both sides of that particular debate. After having discussed this ad nauseam with Bob. After having my concern that 3.75 was too complicated a number to use rationally aired to some end with Rob. After all that...

After all that... it is personally hurtful to me that I'm being told the base number I adamantly opposed and rejected--and still do, for several different reasons--is being handed down to me from the DC. Blessed wisdom from Sinai. No consultation with me. No rationale other than "it is a good number, and no one objects but Cam." Which I guess means I'm invisible, or my concerns are easily dismissed by my betters in this league.

But, moving forward. Since this whole stat thing really has been well discussed--but I'm willing to do it again if anyone missed it the first time--I suggest that for 2008-09, unless a new DC convenes and backs 3.75 again--it be determined by vote, by all GMs, at the ED. And that we only propose for 3.5 this year, since that's the only number clearing the majority territory we need to get the change. (And, if it fails--we go with magic number 4, again.)

I will still be seconding Mike's Win-Loss system, since it's still superior--but it remains to be seen if Mike still wants it presented.

Well--that's my vent. Thanks for bearing it out.


Rule Proposal

Since there aren't enough options out there :-)

While I personally like the notion of linking goalie stat calculations to scoring in the league, I think the proposed scale is a weak approximation. Based on the numbers provided by Bob/Doug, the "shutout number" for goalie points would increase as league scoring increases but at a ratio of 1:2 - That is, if average goals per game in the league goes up by 1, the shutout number goes up by 0.5. I presume this is because an increase in league GPG does not translate directly into a similar increase in GAA for the top 24 or so goalies, so we are using an approximation.

Why not decide what we think goalies should be worth, then index it to last year's goalies?

For example, take the top 24 goalies (GAA) based on those who played at least 2500 minutes. Calculate the average # of games played (for argument, let's say that is 60), and calculate the average GAA (AGAA)

Then answer the question - what should an average goalie get for points?

Let's say we think the average drafted goalie should get 75 points. If the avg games played is 60 as in this example, the formula for the ensuing year would be:

goalie points = (X minus AGAA) * (Mins played/60)

where the magic number X would simply be AGAA plus 1.25

thus X minus AGAA = 1.25, x 60 games played = 75 points.

If the average drafted goalie should in our estimation earn 90 points,
X would be AGAA plus 1.5

That way we index goalie scoring not to league average GPG, but to actual prior year goalie stats, and align it to our pre-chosen target using THE ACTUAL STAT we are trying to optimize.

Just a thought...


Trade Talk

Well time to get back to the business of managing my team!

With Carey Price in the wings, it is only logical that I explore trade options for the services of Mr. Lundquist for another FP - In fact I had begun such discussions before the summer and need to pick up where I left off!

Doug - I believe you had mentioned something about Lundquist for Pronger and ?

Other interested parties - you know where to find me :-)


DC Nomination to fill 3rd DC posting

Unfortunately with Dan quite legitimately tendering his resignation as a member of the DC we now search for nominations for a 3rd member. I will nominate Brian, GM of the Bladerunners.

Dan, it was fun working with you and I'm sorry you had to take the brunt of some fierce criticisms.

Cameron, I know you vowed never to be on the DC after you quit the DC after a storm of fierce criticisms (irony?).

Doug, you are the present statskeeper and have a "unofficial" role on the DC as it stands which is why I will not volunteer your name.

If anyone else has nominations, please let Rob and I know either through this post or personally.


Goaltender Stats

Having conferred with the balance of the DC, and reviewed the Covenant rules (in which there is no guideline whatsoever that restricts the goaltender "shutout" changes to be in increments of 0.5 - sorry Cam), please be advised that for the coming season, goalie stats will be calculated as follows:

Points for a goalie = (3.75 minus goals against) x (mins played / 60)

For future guidelines on determination of goalie stats, watch this space for a summary of proposed rule changes. (If someone wishes to propose that the stat be restricted to 0.5 point increments, they may wish to do so...now)



DC Update

Hi all,

Sorry for the delay, but I am back in the "real" world, and wrapping up talks with Rob and Bob. Here's what you can expect:

1) A decision on the formula for goalie stats for the current year

2) A concise summary of proposals for consideration, which we would like to narrow to the most popular 1 (or 2) for a formal vote on draft day (or before if we can manage it) to see if we have the requisite 75% support for any changes that would take effect Fall 09

On a personal note, having just read 2 months worth of blog debate, I am yet again saddened by the fact that we cannot go a single year without discussions being unnecessarily harsh, personal, and negative. Perhaps we need a rule change on what constitutes appropriate GM conduct in a public forum?