2019/2020 Review 1

[Ottawa (Jordan)]

The 1st positional review is almost upon us. Stats will be taken through Sunday's games so 5 weeks of the NHLDL season.

These changes go into effect one week later (Week 7)

.40 FOR or higher is deemed a C, .39 and lower is a W. Players under 10gp are not eligible for this review and will stay in their current positions.

Players Changed from W to C:
Teddy Blueger
Ryan Carpenter
Tomas Nosek
Chandler Stephenson
Riley Nash
Sam Lafferty
Marcus Johansson
Mathew Barzal
Yanni Gourde
Tyson Jost
Luke Kunin
Nick Schmaltz

Players Changed from C to W:
J.T. Miller
Gabriel Landeskog
Oskar Sundqvist
William Nylander
Pavel Zacha
Jordan Weal
Vladimir Sobotka
Cody Glass
Carter Verhaeghe
Justin Dowling
Nick Suzuki
Jason Dickinson
Elias Pettersson
Carter Rowney
Martin Necas
Emil Bemstrom

Players Changed from D to W:
Luke Witkowski
Brendan Smith

[PG (Dallas Stars)]

How often does this get updated? This screws over my roster, not too happy about it.

[Ottawa (Jordan)]

Nov 4, 2019 12:55:32 GMT -5 PG (Dallas Stars) said:

How often does this get updated? This screws over my roster, not too happy about it.

End of week 10.

[PG (Dallas Stars)]

Thanks. While it's the rules and I can oblige and make something work, I don't think it's fair to determine position changes after 5 weeks of play given the same ratio throughout the year. I understand the rule is in place to avoid cheating, but it can drastically impact roster construction on a small sample size.

I'd like to propose to review the fraction and ratio that is determined for a position review. Alot of forwards have to play Center/Winger due to injuries early on the year, and that ratio may increase/decrease once players return/leave the lineup. I feel as there are more games played, .4 is a good number to determine eligibility, but too small of a sample size to make a player switch eligibility after 6 weeks.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

[casperx22(MTL)]

Nov 4, 2019 13:08:56 GMT -5 PG (Dallas Stars) said:

Thanks. While it's the rules and I can oblige and make something work, I don't think it's fair to determine position changes after 5 weeks of play given the same ratio throughout the year. I understand the rule is in place to avoid cheating, but it can drastically impact roster construction on a small sample size.

I'd like to propose to review the fraction and ratio that is determined for a position review. Alot of forwards have to play Center/Winger due to injuries early on the year, and that ratio may increase/decrease once players return/leave the lineup. I feel as there are more games played, .4 is a good number to determine eligibility, but too small of a sample size to make a player switch eligibility after 6 weeks.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Literally the 3rd league where we have used this and at worst is a mild inconvience.  Why the review is done early to give you notice to make any necessary roster moves.

[PG (Dallas Stars)]

Thanks for belitting my request, I appreciate it.

All I want is our league to have an honest discussion about this; I think it is too small of a sample size this early in the season to make the ratio .4. I get I am biased in this, but if rest of league can discuss in a respectful and honest matter, I am okay with it.

[casperx22(MTL)]

Where in there did I belittle anything you had to say? I simply pointed out this system has worked in other leagues and it's a self correcting system. If you have a solution to improve it I'm sure the RC will take your request into consideration.

[Ottawa (Jordan)]

No matter where the line is drawn there will be someone else that complains regarding where their player falls. In other leagues, we actually used to only have 2 reviews, but added a 3rd one this early to ensure proper balance is in order throughout the whole league. I believe we also used to have the ratio at 0.45, but decreased it to widen the pool of rosterable C. We found that in years 2 and onward, the contending teams all are hoarding 5-6 C (rightfully so) while rebuilding teams are running 3 C. 1 injury to a rebuilding team and they are stuck with a hole in their lineup and risk missing our GP benchmarks. They would have to take a loss on a trade or roll 2 C. These reviews force good teams to maybe help those less rich teams out by moving a C for a W (which is usually a very rare trade).

The idea behind the system is to ensure no one team has a positional advantage in the FOW category by having W that takes draws at the rate of a C. In Gourde's case, he is currently 4th on TB in faceoffs taken. Was that due to injuries? Likely. But if that trend continues you'd have an advantage over the rest of us from Week 7-11 of having a W taking FO. Having these reviews frequently enough allows us to make changes at 3 points in the season to ensure everyone is positioned accordingly.

I'm open to ideas, but changing the ratio I'm not sure is the answer.

[AnaheimGM (Duncan)]

We are happy to consider any requests. This has come up before in other leagues that use a similar rule set, but if there is a better solution when we can definitely consider implementing it for next season. This season, however, we will stick with the current rules.

I agree that 5 weeks may be bit early as teams settle into new systems/new positions, after a whole offseason was used to build a team based on current position eligibility. But what is the right number? 8 weeks? I don't think there's a magic number that will satisfy everyone. That being said, the reverse of what has happened to you is also a big issue where we have true centers that are Wingers in this league, taking quite a bit of faceoffs and providing the owning GMs with a leg up in the FOW category. PG (Dallas Stars) you just need to find a winger by next week, correct? That shouldn't be too hard. I mean I'm sure there are a lot of options out there but on my team, for example, I have Pitlick, Desulariers, Backes, all of whom I rarely play (except this week as Ducks only play twice in real life), and could be had for relatively cheap.

[PG (Dallas Stars)]

You belitted my request by your first sentence. Stating that your other 3 leagues has this rule and its a worst "mild inconveince" is simply putting down my opinion in this matter. This is my first dynasty hockey league and I think sometimes it would be beneficial to hear an outside opinion on this matter. I would appreciate your respect in listening to this. I am not going to put up with someone shooting down or not listening to my opinion based on their own experience; i'd rather have someone be open to a discussion about the rule.

I have two different proposals. One would be to increase the sample size to determine the ratio. 15 games is not enough to determine position eligibility when we've spent an entire offseason crafting our roster around the rules. Alot of weird stuff, injuries, call ups, etc can impact this in 15 games. Later on the season once we get to the second review, there's 30 games and a bigger sample size. I would propose you use the last 25 games from the previous season, therefore having a half of season games worth of information to determine player eligibility after week 5.

If we dont change the 15-16 games (5 weeks), My other proposal would be to increase the FOI for the first 15-16 games to .5 anywhere up to .6. If you are truly a center, you would be taking this many faceoffs anyways. Obviously as they continue to be a center by the next review, that percentage will stay the same, and the sample size will agree with whose a center, winger, defenseman, etc.

What is everyone elses thoughts on this?

[Deleted]

I could see a dual eligibility thing for a guy who toggles back and forth (I have a couple of them on my team), but I think we were given fair warning in my honest opinion. It stinks, but I see the validity and it's something that GMs should be wary of when trading.

[PG (Dallas Stars)]

Nov 4, 2019 13:47:11 GMT -5 Ottawa (Jordan) said:

No matter where the line is drawn there will be someone else that complains regarding where their player falls. In other leagues, we actually used to only have 2 reviews, but added a 3rd one this early to ensure proper balance is in order throughout the whole league. I believe we also used to have the ratio at 0.45, but decreased it to widen the pool of rosterable C. We found that in years 2 and onward, the contending teams all are hoarding 5-6 C (rightfully so) while rebuilding teams are running 3 C. 1 injury to a rebuilding team and they are stuck with a hole in their lineup and risk missing our GP benchmarks. They would have to take a loss on a trade or roll 2 C. These reviews force good teams to maybe help those less rich teams out by moving a C for a W (which is usually a very rare trade).

The idea behind the system is to ensure no one team has a positional advantage in the FOW category by having W that takes draws at the rate of a C. In Gourde's case, he is currently 4th on TB in faceoffs taken. Was that due to injuries? Likely. But if that trend continues you'd have an advantage over the rest of us from Week 7-11 of having a W taking FO. Having these reviews frequently enough allows us to make changes at 3 points in the season to ensure everyone is positioned accordingly.

I'm open to ideas, but changing the ratio I'm not sure is the answer.

Yes, Paquette was injured early in the season, shifting Gourde to Center. Since Paquette has returned, Gourde has shifted back to winger and not taken any faceoffs in last 2 games. Obviously I am hyper sensitive to my own team, which is why I cited injuries and other weird stuff (coaches tinkering with lines, NHL teams salary cap space for call ups, demotions, etc.). I just dont think 15 games is a big enough sample size. Gourde only took faceoffs in 11 out of 13 games, and one of those games were 2 faceoffs.

[PG (Dallas Stars)]

Nov 4, 2019 13:57:00 GMT -5 @tbl said:

I could see a dual eligibility thing for a guy who toggles back and forth (I have a couple of them on my team), but I think we were given fair warning in my honest opinion. It stinks, but I see the validity and it's something that GMs should be wary of when trading.

I respect that. Yes alot of warning and fully read the CBA and rules before the season. I do acknowledge my bias in this situation, which is why I will comply with the rules and make ends meet. I am not asking for immediate change. My apologies for not speaking up about this before. I just simply think we should review this rule and determine if we need to change for later years.

[Ottawa (Jordan)]

Nov 4, 2019 13:53:06 GMT -5 PG (Dallas Stars) said:

If we dont change the 15-16 games (5 weeks), My other proposal would be to increase the FOI for the first 15-16 games to .5 anywhere up to .6. If you are truly a center, you would be taking this many faceoffs anyways. Obviously as they continue to be a center by the next review, that percentage will stay the same, and the sample size will agree with whose a center, winger, defenseman, etc.

McDavid would be a W just because he plays so much, he's currently a .45. As I mentioned previously I think the # is right.

Analyzing the pool of C that have hit the 10 GP mark to be eligible for review, 120 are above the 0.4 mark which makes sense.

However, the number of games played may be a discussion worth having. 

[casperx22(MTL)]

Nov 4, 2019 13:57:00 GMT -5 @tbl said:

I could see a dual eligibility thing for a guy who toggles back and forth (I have a couple of them on my team), but I think we were given fair warning in my honest opinion. It stinks, but I see the validity and it's something that GMs should be wary of when trading.

The reason we don't have dual eligibility is so that teams can't gain a competitive advantage by hoarding centers.  Same reason why the fo ratio is what it is and why we have as many reviews as we do.  15 games may not seem like a large sample, but it is roughly 25% of our season.