Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2016 13:12:52 GMT -5
Yeah, maybe that's true. For what it's worth, I have 10 NHL C's (Couture, Couturier, Krejci, Soderberg, Staal, Zibanejad, Lehtera, MacKenzie, Spalling and Gionta) and I'd be fine if C's took a hit, if it meant a simple solution to the positions issue. My incentive here is not to gain an advantage for me team.
And I'm absolutely baffled how Ryan O'Reilly and Mike Zibanejad escaped the C/W purge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Jun 22, 2016 14:34:08 GMT -5
This is why I think it is important that we set parameters. I do not have the stats on my work computer but the 120th (30 x 4) centerman in 14/15 averages 6.8 faceoffs per game. Let say the 150th (30 x 5) centerman averages 5.5. We could say only players under 6.8 get changed from a C to W and players over 5.5 get changed from W to C.
Also include the stipulation that the changes only get made in September. The rest of the time we live with the Fantrax position listing. It seems the simplest way to ensure integrity.
Note I could only find 14/15 stats when I ran the report last night though I would think that it would not change much from year to year.
I would not have traded Byfuglien had I known that both Carter and Garbutt were going to lose their W status. I can live with Carter being a center as that makes sence but the changes to Garbutt and Pirri are ridiculous. For what it matters, NHL.com has both Garbutt and Pirri listed as C. I think any changes should be made on faceoffs taken as then it is measureable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2016 15:04:58 GMT -5
Just our of curiosity, would you have a strong negative reaction to 12F, 6D, 1G? Then we never have to worry about Fantrax or the arbitrary nature in which players are assigned positions.
I'm not saying I couldn't live with your proposal, as I can. I've just never understood the distinction between C and W, given that LW and RW is not separated out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Jun 22, 2016 15:12:51 GMT -5
I feel changing to 12F, 6D, 1G is fairly drastic at this stage. If we were to agree, it is something that I wouldn't want to do until 18/19 (two years notice).
I think my solution deals with the current issue. I have no problems discussing a permanent solution such as yours.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2016 16:40:26 GMT -5
That sucks Nick you lost the duals on Carter and Garbutt.
I lost dual on Nick Foligno right after I traded away Brassard.
It's a stupid thing Fantrax does without notice to us.
We are all in the same boat if that is any consolation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Jun 23, 2016 9:21:49 GMT -5
I now have no duals on my team and I used to have a bunch. Even Marleau and Stamkos who legitimately should be duals aren't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Jun 23, 2016 10:54:20 GMT -5
Faceoffs taken in 2015 # of players (taken from www.sportingcharts.com/nhl/stats/player-faceoff-statistics/2015/ ) 500-1978 - 117 players (only 6 of these are not listed as Centres) 300-499 - 38 Players 100-299 - 57 players from this, I would say anyone 500 and above should be considered a centre anything below, a winger. thoughts? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2016 11:30:05 GMT -5
I will adjust to anything, but can't say I'm a fan of just picking 500 FOW for this year. I think I lost 4 C/Ws (to C's), and the rule above would kill another 3 on my end. Losing that many eligibles in one off-season is a lot to overcome, particularly given existing rule is to go with Fantrax settings as a baseline.
I still think 12 F makes more sense, as then any goofing around Fantrax does with positions will have no impact on any team, as essentially all forwards become dual eligible.
Also food for thought: one earlier concern with C/W's, I believe, is that this allows centers to be stacked on the wing to give a huge advantage in the FOW category. I just had a peek in fantrax, and while FOW% is a premium stat, FOL is a "free" one. I've always wondered why we reward teams who take a lot of faceoffs, as opposed to teams who are good at winning them.
All this said, I'll adjust to whatever...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Jun 23, 2016 14:32:03 GMT -5
I feel changing to 12F, 6D, 1G is fairly drastic at this stage. If we were to agree, it is something that I wouldn't want to do until 18/19 (two years notice). I think my solution deals with the current issue. I have no problems discussing a permanent solution such as yours. why do you think this is drastic? I'm not sure how it really affects anyone negatively. I actually like the idea, as then whenever Fantrax changes C to W or W to C it doesn't affect us at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Jun 23, 2016 15:26:23 GMT -5
Faceoffs taken in 2015 # of players (taken from www.sportingcharts.com/nhl/stats/player-faceoff-statistics/2015/ ) 500-1978 - 117 players (only 6 of these are not listed as Centres) 300-499 - 38 Players 100-299 - 57 players from this, I would say anyone 500 and above should be considered a centre anything below, a winger. thoughts? I prefer faceoffs per game to account for missed games but as long as that is taken into account, this would work for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Jun 23, 2016 15:33:10 GMT -5
I feel changing to 12F, 6D, 1G is fairly drastic at this stage. If we were to agree, it is something that I wouldn't want to do until 18/19 (two years notice). I think my solution deals with the current issue. I have no problems discussing a permanent solution such as yours. why do you think this is drastic? I'm not sure how it really affects anyone negatively. I actually like the idea, as then whenever Fantrax changes C to W or W to C it doesn't affect us at all. The league was created on having Centers and Wingers and all strategy has been based on that. Changing to all forwards will change that fundamental strategy. I have no issues with going to all forwards but feel it should be phased in over a two year period. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2016 16:38:40 GMT -5
Faceoffs taken in 2015 # of players (taken from www.sportingcharts.com/nhl/stats/player-faceoff-statistics/2015/ ) 500-1978 - 117 players (only 6 of these are not listed as Centres) 300-499 - 38 Players 100-299 - 57 players from this, I would say anyone 500 and above should be considered a centre anything below, a winger. thoughts? Then how do we deal with injured centres causing their stats to fall below 500 FOW? Do we make exceptions to the rule for this? |
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Jun 23, 2016 16:45:18 GMT -5
Faceoffs taken in 2015 # of players (taken from www.sportingcharts.com/nhl/stats/player-faceoff-statistics/2015/ ) 500-1978 - 117 players (only 6 of these are not listed as Centres) 300-499 - 38 Players 100-299 - 57 players from this, I would say anyone 500 and above should be considered a centre anything below, a winger. thoughts? Then how do we deal with injured centres causing their stats to fall below 500 FOW? Do we make exceptions to the rule for this? Hence my rationale for faceoffs/game. 500/82 = 6.1/game |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2016 17:12:57 GMT -5
So what is the range for duals?
6.0 FOT/game to xxx FOT/game ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Jun 23, 2016 17:21:52 GMT -5
So what is the range for duals?
6.0 FOT/game to xxx FOT/game ?
No changing to duals  read the thread! |
|
read the thread!