Positional Change

[Vancouver Canucks]

Dave has stated that we can change player position if needed but I think we should agree on a rationale prior to making any changes.

One suggestion is that any player with C/W keep the status if Fantrax has assigned it (this would probably be easier to maintain) and then fix players that should be wingers or center.

Other suggestion would be to fix all forwards to either a center or winger. I prefer the above option.

[Vancouver Canucks]

I found the thread where this is discussed. Some good ideas in here iffhl.proboards.com/thread/926/wingers-centers

[Deleted]

Fantrax stated last year that they wanted to lower the amount of dual eligible players. They mostly rely on Stats Inc for positions (and stats) but have said if you email them with link proof, they will look into specific players and make adjustments.

[Deleted]

Has there been any complaints this past year regarding position eligibility?

[Vancouver Canucks]

Jun 21, 2016 20:29:33 GMT -5 @eric said:

Has there been any complaints this past year regarding position eligibility?

It was discussed in length last summer and Fantrax just made a number of changes

[Vancouver Canucks]

Here is my suggestion.

We do not review or change all players. Owners make a request to Admin to change a player(s) position and it is done based on the set parameters. Owners make a request prior to the beginning of the season and no changes are made during the season. This would limit the need for changes. Dave has already stated that Admin can make the positional changes in Fanrax.

An example for my team. Fantrax just changed Pirri from W to C yet in 15/16 he took 143 faceoffs in 61 games or 2.3 per game. That sounds like a winger that takes a faceoff whenever the center gets thrown out. If the parameter is 5 faceoffs taken per game them the change is allowed. We would need to set the parameter.

This process would not penalize teams that have drafted or traded for players that played a specific position according to Fantrax.

To be clear, I am not in favour of changing players to C/W, it would only be from C to W or W to C.

[Deleted]

Yea the metrics of total face offs and face offs per game fall short in distinguishing dual positions.

My definition of a dual is not a player who takes face offs when the centre is waived out. It is a player who sometimes plays wing, sometimes plays centre, or sometimes plays defense.

This is determined by reviewing the game log in fantrax. It takes an actual person to analyze the data and make a judgement call.

I also think reviews should be made once per season as suggested by Canucks GM. And the review results should be posted publicly.

[WillyBilly (Tire Fires)]

I'm down for a set of parameters.

[Golden Seals]

Jun 21, 2016 23:53:40 GMT -5 Vancouver Canucks said:

Here is my suggestion.

We do not review or change all players. Owners make a request to Admin to change a player(s) position and it is done based on the set parameters. Owners make a request prior to the beginning of the season and no changes are made during the season. This would limit the need for changes. Dave has already stated that Admin can make the positional changes in Fanrax.

An example for my team. Fantrax just changed Pirri from W to C yet in 15/16 he took 143 faceoffs in 61 games or 2.3 per game. That sounds like a winger that takes a faceoff whenever the center gets thrown out. If the parameter is 5 faceoffs taken per game them the change is allowed. We would need to set the parameter.

This process would not penalize teams that have drafted or traded for players that played a specific position according to Fantrax.

To be clear, I am not in favour of changing players to C/W, it would only be from C to W or W to C.

This gets my vote but i thought that we had already agreed on it, I didn't find anything in the posted link but I recall Dave saying if you wanted a players position changed, he'd make the change if it made sense.

To have someone like Garbutt with 1 fow at centre, although funny, isn't right.

[Dave (PLK)]

Position Eligibility

-determined by Fantrax (can be manually changed by commish upon request, with backup info provided)



this is directly from the rules


so, yes, we can do things.

[Vancouver Canucks]

Jun 22, 2016 10:53:07 GMT -5 Dave (PLK) said:

Position Eligibility

-determined by Fantrax (can be manually changed by commish upon request, with backup info provided)



this is directly from the rules


so, yes, we can do things.

Good to know that we can do things but we should have parameters in place so that Admin have something to base the decision on. For the most part, the positional allocations by Fantrax are appropriate but we should not make changes willy nilly.

[Dave (PLK)]

for sure.

I take a few things into consideration.

# of face offs taken - depth charts from a couple sites - that type of thing.

[Dave (PLK)]

for the most part though, we will go with Fantrax positions.

[Deleted]

I can live with whatever, but I have the feeling that a willy-nilly approach is going to open a can of worms. Do we only make changes that benefit teams (i.e. moving a "C" to "W", or also changes that hurt teams (i.e., moving a "W" to "C", or removing C/W status on O'Rielly, Zibby, etc.)? And how long does a player have to play at a position to warrant a change? 5 games? 10 games? Or is it just based on last season?

Part of me wonders if there is any merit in just moving to a 12F, 6D, 1G format, which essentially eliminates the positional thing entirely. Firstly, we don't distinguee between LD and RD, or RW and LW, so do we need to distinguish F from W? Second, I know one argument is that in 12F someone could hypothetically dress 12 C for the FOWs. But as data provided by Dave L last year showed, C's tend to due noticeably worse in other areas, such as hits. Moving to 12F would probably cause a small market correction (i.e. there appears to be a premium on C's due to FOW), and that wouldn't bother me.

And as you can tell, I'm largely just 'thinking out loud', because I am quite torn. I get that some players are not listed correctly, but I've also seen the shenanigans that go on with overriding fantrax settings.

Would be nice to hear more thoughts.

[Deleted]

I wouldn't change to 12 F as its too late in the game. As I have seen with my suggestions involving some sort of change, generally the GM's here who have top end centres would dispute losing value in their centres.

The 12 F does make alot of sense though. Logically speaking I like the idea.

The one downside to the current approach is it is a one way street. Positional changes that favour a GM will be requested. I have to think no one is PMing Dave and saying "please remove my dual position for player X".