Planning your team around the assumption that they will stay healthy and perform to their career rates is not the best case scenario, it is the most likely scenario, there is a difference. What you are proposing on the other hand is just as extreme, the only difference is that it is on the other end of the spectrum (planning for the worst as opposed to the best case scenario).Nick wroteCOLONYour what-if scenarios are best (or improving) case. Planning for the best is flawed logic, you plan for the worst, hope for the best. Worst case your started goes down, then what?
You increase those odds with a strong backup with a statistically significant history of success; strength of team and defense plays into that evaluation as well.Nick wroteCOLONor
What if the back-up behind your starter gets hot ?
Anytime your starter goes down it is a complete disaster, a mediocre backup does not change that. Which is precisely why I build my teams with the assumption that I will lose all three goalie categories. The position is more unpredictable and volatile than any other, and for that reason cannot be relied on consistently.Nick wroteCOLONThe tandem system has backups in place for negative scenarios regarding your starter. No they are not likely to add huge value to your team, but they are there to save a complete disaster.
Realistically if you encounter any worst case scenarios in the playoffs you are already dead, there is really no way around it (especially if it occurs mid week).Nick wroteCOLONIt's actually incredible the number of times you encounter the most obvious of errors, being unaccounted for. That is your own starter going down IMO.
