Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2019 14:07:03 GMT -5
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. Yeah I agree with you that maybe doing it 3 times a year instead of every 15 days might help with the accuracy, or just having dual eligibility haha...I feel ya tho...I was hoping all last week that Tyler Johnson didn't take a faceoff all week, and he JUST barely sneaked under the limit haha |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2019 14:07:45 GMT -5
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. Yeah that actually makes a lot of sense (sincerely) |
|
|
|
Post by PG (Dallas Stars) on Nov 4, 2019 14:20:12 GMT -5
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. Yeah that actually makes a lot of sense (sincerely) Agreed we don't need rule eligibility, and I 'plead the fifth' on hoarding the centers, given my overall strategy. I do respect 15-ish games is 25% of our regular season. I just think think it's a small sample size, given in the NHL regular season a lot can happen from their roster construction and how they play, unfortunately can influence/impact our league's rules/roster construction. Especially when these 15 games are in october and november, and more changes happen in NHL lineups and/or lines. I think broadening the sample size will help maintain roster integrity and player position requirements without owners having to adjust accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by casperx22(MTL) on Nov 4, 2019 14:28:33 GMT -5
Yeah that actually makes a lot of sense (sincerely) Agreed we don't need rule eligibility, and I 'plead the fifth' on hoarding the centers, given my overall strategy. I do respect 15-ish games is 25% of our regular season. I just think think it's a small sample size, given in the NHL regular season a lot can happen from their roster construction and how they play, unfortunately can influence/impact our league's rules/roster construction. Especially when these 15 games are in october and november, and more changes happen in NHL lineups and/or lines. I think broadening the sample size will help maintain roster integrity and player position requirements without owners having to adjust accordingly. Would also like to point out that at least in part rookies played a role in the 3rd review being added. Rookies that are often listed as centers on fantrax do to being centers throughout their junior career. Many of these players that come up aren't trusted with center responsibilities early in their careers. It's not the only reason, but keep in mind it's part of the reason a 3rd review was added. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh (Philly) on Nov 4, 2019 14:29:05 GMT -5
The best proposal I've seen so far (but not implemented anywhere) is to change from C to W midseason you must be under .35, and from C to W you must be over .45. So some added leeway to positional changes to try to prevent players right on that .40 all year from switching every time.
But as Jordan mentioned first no one will ever be happy all the time with the threshold regardless of what is it at.
|
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM (Matt) on Nov 4, 2019 14:31:25 GMT -5
I had two bubble guys in Jost and Barbashev that are .43 and .44, Jost never took FOs when the team was fully healthy and I could end up with a C who doesn't take any draws which is annoying. I also have Pettersson who was taking draws and now has pretty much stopped and an injury could change that situation too. As others have pointed out it's been a contentious issue in other leagues and outside of removing FOW as a stat and dressing F and D I don't think there is an easy solution.
It also can benefit teams too, in your case you have an imbalance now but imagine a team with only 3Cs and 2Ws taking lots of draws. That team now has added flexibility and can dress 3-5Cs depending on who they want to play whereas before they were stuck dressing the same 3Cs.
Another example of why it's important and why I don't believe changing positions week 7 is too early, consider a C who has been moved to the W and stopped taking draws. Since I'm more familiar with my team I'll use Pettersson who has taken 4 FOs in his last 5 games and is clearly not being utilized as a C. Why should I have to keep Pettersson as a C until week 10 or whatever week to increase the sample size when I know he isn't a C after 5 weeks and it is causing roster problems and not letting me dress a player like Kamenev in my minors who is also a C despite not having a FOR >.4 because he didn't meet the required number of GP to be considered for the review.
There are going to be instances where it helps teams and when it hurts teams, but the point is the league is trying to ensure players are being dressed in the proper position and the number of players affected is relatively low and there's a week buffer for teams if they really need to make changes. Luckily it's easier to trade a C for a W since if all your Cs became Ws it might be more difficult to make trades.
|
|
|
|
Post by PG (Dallas Stars) on Nov 4, 2019 14:36:57 GMT -5
Agreed Caspar. Which is why having 15-ish games as a sample size is too small, even for rookies to determine their position eligibility. While there isn't a bigger sample size to choose from; it creates massive changes in roster construction based on their usage in our leagues, which is out of our control. This would be the biggest flaw in my proposal for broadening the sample size to bigger than 15 games for the first review.
My point going back to a bigger sample size gives a good representation of what their FOI is, not given a 15 game sample size in the start of the year. Gourde was .22 FOI last year, and given he played 80 games, that's a much better representation of his FOI, rather than a 15 game window to start the year. Earlier McDavid was brought up, last year he was .52 over the course of 78 games. I understand players can switch positions to change a year; which is why I think we need to include last 25 games to start the season. And then once the second review hits, that will have a bigger sample size to determine whether they are a W or a C for that year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2019 14:38:43 GMT -5
Okay this is probably beating a dead horse, but for the argument that people had about the beginning of the season "experimentation", what about reserving the first positional review for the halfway point of the season and then doing reviews every 15 games after that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ottawa (Jordan) on Nov 4, 2019 14:40:35 GMT -5
Okay this is probably beating a dead horse, but for the argument that people had about the beginning of the season "experimentation", what about reserving the first positional review for the halfway point of the season and then doing reviews every 15 games after that? See Matt's post above. You're stuck with guys at a position they aren't playing for too long. |
|
|
|
Post by PG (Dallas Stars) on Nov 4, 2019 14:43:04 GMT -5
I had two bubble guys in Jost and Barbashev that are .43 and .44, Jost never took FOs when the team was fully healthy and I could end up with a C who doesn't take any draws which is annoying. I also have Pettersson who was taking draws and now has pretty much stopped and an injury could change that situation too. As others have pointed out it's been a contentious issue in other leagues and outside of removing FOW as a stat and dressing F and D I don't think there is an easy solution. It also can benefit teams too, in your case you have an imbalance now but imagine a team with only 3Cs and 2Ws taking lots of draws. That team now has added flexibility and can dress 3-5Cs depending on who they want to play whereas before they were stuck dressing the same 3Cs. Another example of why it's important and why I don't believe changing positions week 7 is too early, consider a C who has been moved to the W and stopped taking draws. Since I'm more familiar with my team I'll use Pettersson who has taken 4 FOs in his last 5 games and is clearly not being utilized as a C. Why should I have to keep Pettersson as a C until week 10 or whatever week to increase the sample size when I know he isn't a C after 5 weeks and it is causing roster problems and not letting me dress a player like Kamenev in my minors who is also a C despite not having a FOR >.4 because he didn't meet the required number of GP to be considered for the review. There are going to be instances where it helps teams and when it hurts teams, but the point is the league is trying to ensure players are being dressed in the proper position and the number of players affected is relatively low and there's a week buffer for teams if they really need to make changes. Luckily it's easier to trade a C for a W since if all your Cs became Ws it might be more difficult to make trades. thanks for your input. I agree with alot of what you said, and your input on roster construction. It does suck that it can work both ways. I do think Pettersson's sample size from last year determined he was a center in this league. As mentioned earlier players can change position from year to year, which is why it should be more than a 15 game sample size. I would counter and say why should I have Gourde be a C from weeks 7-11 when I know he is not being utilized as a center in real life; therefore having to bench someone like Paquette or Gourde because we can only start 5 centers, and having to start a winger that is not dressed up. Both scenarios are not fun for either team (yours with Pettersson/Kamenev). This is my own opinion, and looks like I'm in the minority and there's no great answer. I think the easiest way to determine eligibility after 5 weeks would just be increase sample size. By the second review period, the sample size is already there to determine what position a player is. |
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM (Matt) on Nov 4, 2019 14:50:43 GMT -5
One last point from me on this...
Also remember when it comes to sample size that playoffs in this league are paramount and by the third review the sample size is larger so it should be pretty clear who are the Cs for when the matchups matter most. You get some weird stuff going on in the first review, but generally it's a minor inconvenience and might force 2 or 3 trades. It comes down to is there enough value added to have the early review and correct the obvious wrong positions and have a few guys maybe out of position due to injuries who will then change back to the proper position when the sample size is increased if they truly were only out of position due to injury. Personally I feel it's worth having players listed at the wrong position changed after week 7, but when it screw up your roster I get the frustration.
|
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM (Matt) on Nov 4, 2019 14:55:25 GMT -5
I had two bubble guys in Jost and Barbashev that are .43 and .44, Jost never took FOs when the team was fully healthy and I could end up with a C who doesn't take any draws which is annoying. I also have Pettersson who was taking draws and now has pretty much stopped and an injury could change that situation too. As others have pointed out it's been a contentious issue in other leagues and outside of removing FOW as a stat and dressing F and D I don't think there is an easy solution. It also can benefit teams too, in your case you have an imbalance now but imagine a team with only 3Cs and 2Ws taking lots of draws. That team now has added flexibility and can dress 3-5Cs depending on who they want to play whereas before they were stuck dressing the same 3Cs. Another example of why it's important and why I don't believe changing positions week 7 is too early, consider a C who has been moved to the W and stopped taking draws. Since I'm more familiar with my team I'll use Pettersson who has taken 4 FOs in his last 5 games and is clearly not being utilized as a C. Why should I have to keep Pettersson as a C until week 10 or whatever week to increase the sample size when I know he isn't a C after 5 weeks and it is causing roster problems and not letting me dress a player like Kamenev in my minors who is also a C despite not having a FOR >.4 because he didn't meet the required number of GP to be considered for the review. There are going to be instances where it helps teams and when it hurts teams, but the point is the league is trying to ensure players are being dressed in the proper position and the number of players affected is relatively low and there's a week buffer for teams if they really need to make changes. Luckily it's easier to trade a C for a W since if all your Cs became Ws it might be more difficult to make trades. thanks for your input. I agree with alot of what you said, and your input on roster construction. It does suck that it can work both ways. I do think Pettersson's sample size from last year determined he was a center in this league. As mentioned earlier players can change position from year to year, which is why it should be more than a 15 game sample size. I would counter and say why should I have Gourde be a C from weeks 7-11 when I know he is not being utilized as a center in real life; therefore having to bench someone like Paquette or Gourde because we can only start 5 centers, and having to start a winger that is not dressed up. Both scenarios are not fun for either team (yours with Pettersson/Kamenev). This is my own opinion, and looks like I'm in the minority and there's no great answer. I think the easiest way to determine eligibility after 5 weeks would just be increase sample size. By the second review period, the sample size is already there to determine what position a player is. So a player who started the year as W and now averages 15FOs a game shouldn't be switched to C week 7 because the sample size is too small? I know that is an extreme example, but it's just as valid as Gourde/Pettersson in that they are playing at the wrong position based on past games. If Gourde continues to play W he will switch back again next review. It's an inherently flawed system and I'm not trying to say it's great, but I think there are flaws with pushing the review into the future as well. |
|
|
|
Post by PG (Dallas Stars) on Nov 4, 2019 15:01:42 GMT -5
Agreed, I don’t think we should push the review at all. I think it’s fine. I just would propose to increase the sample size/games played for the first review. Gourde would become a W by week 11 again, but then causes more roster changes. The second and third reviews have legitimate sample sizes and makes position changes unlikely.
Like I said, I’m totally biased here and understand it works both ways for teams. I just wanted a discussion about the rule and if I’m in the minority, I’m okay with that. This would be going forward for next year. I will still make it work for next week, and make the necessary roster decisions. This rule just forces me to hoard another center and bench one of my centers who is consistently playing. I can always stash Hintz in the minors, if necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ottawa (Jordan) on Nov 4, 2019 15:05:38 GMT -5
Agreed, I don’t think we should push the review at all. I think it’s fine. I just would propose to increase the sample size/games played for the first review. Gourde would become a W by week 11 again, but then causes more roster changes. The second and third reviews have legitimate sample sizes and makes position changes unlikely. How do you increase the sample size without pushing the review? |
|
|
|
Post by PG (Dallas Stars) on Nov 4, 2019 15:07:29 GMT -5
Agreed, I don’t think we should push the review at all. I think it’s fine. I just would propose to increase the sample size/games played for the first review. Gourde would become a W by week 11 again, but then causes more roster changes. The second and third reviews have legitimate sample sizes and makes position changes unlikely. How do you increase the sample size without pushing the review? Use the last 15-25 games from the previous season. the players positions were determined going into this season from last season results. Why should 15 games determine whether someone is going to get switched positions? The only problem, as stated above, is the rookie issue. |
|
