Playoffs - Week 1

[kyuss]

today is the day, and it didn't start well with Lindbohm scratched again and Bortuzzo playing in his place. Too bad when I had to pick the lineup on Monday that fat man did the opposite.

Anyway, Holtby in Winnipeg and Bob in Calgary will determine if I'll have a chance tomorrow to turn it around. All G stats are close right now.

In any case I'll probably need to overturn SOG (currently second in the league but still behind Hong) as I'm going to lose FW despite being currently ahead: tonight Minnesota has a huge advantage there and even in case Dats play tomorrow it will be too little too late for that matter. So I'm basically down 11-5 right now.

[kyuss]

OMG BOB won!!?!




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALmAbySoE3c[/youtube]

[Matthew]

Given Monk's goaltenders have already played 4 times this scoring period, a decision should probably be made on how that situation will be handled before his goalies (Who both play tonight) play his 5th & 6th games.

- illegal roster
- only count first 4 games
- count all his goalie games

Or has a decision already been made?

These goalie games could be the deciding factor for that matchup given how tight it is.

[kyuss]

my guess: Steve sneaks out the W anyway and a mess is avoided.

[Matthew]

Maybe, but it is really close right now. May as well make a mutual decision before to avoid the potential mess.

It's 9-7 for LA, but the jets are only 1 assist behind, 1 point behind, 5 shtoi minutes behind, and are tied in W. This could easily swing, given each team only has 16 games left (NVM this stat. They both have 16 yet to play, but Monk has 2 currently playing, while Steve has 8 currently playing).

[The BBKL Insider]

ya, i dont care, i won last year so its someone elses turn.

[Fraser]

For me an illegal roster is an illegal roster. It shouldn't matter how much of an upset it is, or the past successes of their opponent. All goalie stats should be forfeited for the week.

[Tony]

ya, i dont care, i won last year so its someone elses turn.

Commie

[lightupdadarkness]

EAST
Tor (1) vs NJ (WC2)
Was (2) vs Buf (WC1)
Bos (2A) vs Mtl (3A)
Pit (2M) vs NYI (3M)

WEST
LA (1) vs Wpg (WC2)
Col (2) vs Chi (WC1)
Nas (C2) vs Min (C3)
SJ (P2 vs Cgy (P3)

Should all be entered into FT as such, if there are issues let me know.

Damn look at that

[thom54]

holy fuck a duck. I needed that SO. Still may lose, but god damned fantastic scheduling . Buffalo, @ Nash. Goldddd....OBIN!

[kyuss]

For me an illegal roster is an illegal roster. It shouldn't matter how much of an upset it is, or the past successes of their opponent. All goalie stats should be forfeited for the week.

there is an obvious and key difference in this G thing.

The lineup was NOT at all illegal when dressed. It became illegal during the week, without the GM being allowed to address it and avoid it.

And it's not like he could have known Hackett and Enroth would have been given 0 starts on the week...

so he should have only dressed the G of the worst team of the league without using his better G for fears something might happen and a CC decision might follow?
or his G that would have probabkly only played 1 game because his other G could have played 4 games out of 4?

[Fraser]

For me an illegal roster is an illegal roster. It shouldn't matter how much of an upset it is, or the past successes of their opponent. All goalie stats should be forfeited for the week.

there is an obvious and key difference in this G thing.

The lineup was NOT at all illegal when dressed. It became illegal during the week, without the GM being allowed to address it and avoid it.

And it's not like he could have known Hackett and Enroth would have been given 0 starts on the week...

so he should have only dressed the G of the worst team of the league without using his better G for fears something might happen and a CC decision might follow?
or his G that would have probabkly only played 1 game because his other G could have played 4 games out of 4?

Well with the rules currently in place it would suggest that if you want to be a legitimate playoff contender, or perhaps a better word would be a risk-adverse team builder. You would build your team around a goalie system, rather than individual goaltenders on separate teams to avoid any risk of this occurring whatsoever.

[kyuss]

For me an illegal roster is an illegal roster. It shouldn't matter how much of an upset it is, or the past successes of their opponent. All goalie stats should be forfeited for the week.

there is an obvious and key difference in this G thing.

The lineup was NOT at all illegal when dressed. It became illegal during the week, without the GM being allowed to address it and avoid it.

And it's not like he could have known Hackett and Enroth would have been given 0 starts on the week...

so he should have only dressed the G of the worst team of the league without using his better G for fears something might happen and a CC decision might follow?
or his G that would have probabkly only played 1 game because his other G could have played 4 games out of 4?

Well with the rules currently in place it would suggest that if you want to be a legitimate playoff contender, or perhaps a better word would be a risk-adverse team builder. You would build your team around a goalie system, rather than individual goaltenders on separate teams to avoid any risk of this occurring whatsoever.

it's not like anyone who wants to have a full system can have it.

There are other GMs who are entitled to keep their G who currently is a back-up, like YOU with Vasilevsky (just not to mention a more personal case).

And there are NHL trades that can break tandems anyway (Lehtonen and Lindback were in fact a tandem!)

[Fraser]

For me an illegal roster is an illegal roster. It shouldn't matter how much of an upset it is, or the past successes of their opponent. All goalie stats should be forfeited for the week.

there is an obvious and key difference in this G thing.

The lineup was NOT at all illegal when dressed. It became illegal during the week, without the GM being allowed to address it and avoid it.

And it's not like he could have known Hackett and Enroth would have been given 0 starts on the week...

so he should have only dressed the G of the worst team of the league without using his better G for fears something might happen and a CC decision might follow?
or his G that would have probabkly only played 1 game because his other G could have played 4 games out of 4?

Well with the rules currently in place it would suggest that if you want to be a legitimate playoff contender, or perhaps a better word would be a risk-adverse team builder. You would build your team around a goalie system, rather than individual goaltenders on separate teams to avoid any risk of this occurring whatsoever.

it's not like anyone who wants to have a full system can have it.

There are other GMs who are entitled to keep their G who currently is a back-up, like Fraser with Vasilevsky (just not to mention a more personal case).

And there are NHL trades that can break tandems anyway (Lehtonen and Lindback were in fact a tandem!)

I would argue that someone should have been on the phone to Florida on deadline day about a Lindback-Enroth swap to re-unite the tandem if they didn't want any chance of exceeding goalie starts come playoff time. Or to just roll a single starter if you are unable to complete a tandem and are afraid that there is a risk of exceeding the max GP.

Just seems like a precedent is being set here one way or another. And if nothing is done its essentially throwing the goalie start maximums out the window in the process. Personally I don't have anything invested in this, but to me it just seems that a rule is being broken and its being brushed under the rug.

[thom54]

Just to confirm. ... from my searching around, the higher seed has tie-break in the playoffs?

[kyuss]

Correct

[thom54]

Correct

Thanks Mik! Thought you'd be the one to know

[kyuss]

I would argue that someone should have been on the phone to Florida on deadline day about a Lindback-Enroth swap to re-unite the tandem if they didn't want any chance of exceeding goalie starts come playoff time. Or to just roll a single starter if you are unable to complete a tandem and are afraid that there is a risk of exceeding the max GP.

Just seems like a precedent is being set here one way or another. And if nothing is done its essentially throwing the goalie start maximums out the window in the process. Personally I don't have anything invested in this, but to me it just seems that a rule is being broken and its being brushed under the rug.

nothing has been brushed under the rug, nor I expect to be.

Fact is, I remember this argument already surfaced in the past during playoffs and what was said at the time (which I don't remember well enough) would be what matters, more than something still appearing on the out of date CBA (has not been fully updated accordingly with CC discussions and resolutions, for yrs).

One thing for sure, I have always been against of wiping out all G stats because of something happening out of the GM control (a supposed rule that is not even taken into consideration during the regular season), possibly screwing up our playoffs as a result.

That being said, if some sort of 4 games limitation was kept, Lehtonen's SO coming in the 5th or 6th game of the week is certainly at risk.

btw, Fantrax unlike CBS would probably allow for some reasonable solution.

[The BBKL Insider]

To be fair, starting 2 starters is certainly "not out of the gms control"

[kyuss]

To be fair, starting 2 starters is certainly "not out of the gms control"

I'm not sure going into this week Lehtonen could really be considered a #1G (i mean, as far as THIS week goes) over Enroth, as he lost his last start with a 900%. So personally I was expecting them to split starts this week.


Anyway, my point is:

The lineup was NOT at all illegal when dressed. It became illegal during the week, without the GM being allowed to address it and avoid it.

And it's not like he could have known Hackett and Enroth would have been given 0 starts on the week...

so he should have only dressed the G of the worst team of the league without using his better G for fears something might happen and a CC decision might follow?
or his G that would have probabkly only played 1 game because his other G could have played 4 games out of 4?

why should he cut his chances short because of something that, even in case it happens, is uncertain what consequences it would bring?


In fact, I went back looking for past discussions over this topic, and the only one I could find had a various of possible outcomes left open.

The one specific discussion is 4 yrs old. I think there has been at least another case like this in more recent yrs, but couldn't find any topic addressing it.

4 yrs ago, AND under the limitaions CBS brought (i.e. impossible to take out only the latter games of a G without erasing all his stats accumulated on the week), these are the options that were suggested:
1- we are not "pulling" a goalie after his games. we are simply putting a freeze on his goalie stats AFTER the 4th game is complete. all games after that won't count towards this weeks stats. Once the 4 game is done his goalie stats are DONE for the week.
2- the GM pick before 4th & 5th games
3- less GP goalie is removed
4- Goalie who starts 5th games is removed
5- Goalie receiving unexpected extra starts is removed


#1:
at the time, that was deemed complicated cause it was not possible to do it on CBS and would have needed to copy and past stats on the forum, having a different outcome than on CBS as a result. I think it would be done without problems on Fantrax.

#2:
too late for that, Luke would have needed to make that decision before the 5th game, and there is the valid argument against it as a permanent rule that it would encourage teams to get/keep 2 starters. Albeit to a lesser extent, this may apply as well to #1 as a permanent rule.

#3:
in this case, this would mean removing all Lehto's stats

#4:
this seems odd, especially when one gets 5th and the other a 6th

#5:
in this case it would be unclear which goalie received unexpected starts. Lindback certainly did, so you would take his stats away, but as I said myself above, an argument could be made that Lehtonen starting the 1st game of this week was not necessarily the most probable scenario.


There may also be the argument that since during the RS I think some team already had more than 4 and nothing happened, the same should apply here. But even if I'm not sure and I couldn't find quick evidence of that, I seem to remember at some point in the past we made a separation between the cases of RS and PO.

One thing for sure, in that CC 4yrs old thread the one thing clear was that teams would not be allowed to keep stats from more than 4 G games.
That probably changed for the RS later on, but I don't remember that to be changed for playoffs.