Changing Positions

[Deleted]

Hey GM's

I am asking for next season we all implement a "honour system" rule for player positions. For example if a player is listed as C/W and players centre all most the entire season, please ask Dave to make the position change to C.

I don't think this needs to be enforced. Just go on honour to give the opportunity for GMs to be honest about it.

Good idea or no?

[Dave (PLK)]

We will be going over positions over the summer and changing W and C as needed.

I would like to implement a factor for face offs taken.

[Tbone (Kelowna)]

First off, as a holder of 3 of the top 4 ranked C/W this year, think obviously I am the most impacted by any change to this rule. I've made my opinion clearly known about this previously already, as I specifically valued C/W players higher in the inaugural draft given the initial rules that were set (didn't think I should be penalized for recognizing the extra value that they provided). But even in spite of this, not going to raise too big a stink about it if changes are made here if it makes the league more competitive and serves to strengthen it long term.

The one thing I've been quite vocal to our Admins about was being careful about making changes specifically that that can have a competitive impact, as motivation can easily be brought into the equation and didn't want put them into a position to be questioned.

If FOW is the key factor here, perhaps we can explore other options like only counting FOW for players started as C, and keep whatever position is assigned by Fantrax to ensure impartiality? This would seem to address that issue and yet not bring into question any fairness of whether certain players should be assigned only C or W status.

Another thing to consider is the relatively low trade activity in this league, think you'd have to be a bit careful about doing changes to this specific one as teams with low depth can be caught in a bind and not necessarily be able to easily trade out of it to fit their roster, unlike some other active-trading leagues.

[Dave (PLK)]

....our rules state position eligibility as listed in Fantrax. I believe Fantrax updates them from time to time.

[Deleted]

Apr 16, 2014 21:44:56 GMT -5 Dave (PLK) said:

....our rules state position eligibility as listed in Fantrax. I believe Fantrax updates them from time to time.

yep.  Though admins can adjust position eligibility whenever they like.

I would support a system that utilized one resource as the law, I would suggest 'The Sports Forecaster' that is hosted primarily by 'The Hockey News'

it keeps up to date information on players with regards to eligibility pretty accurately.

Any forward can legitimately take a face/off.  does that make them C eligible?  IMO we need to set a standard resource as the main decider, this way there are no arguments.

[Deleted]

If the rules state position is determined by Fantrax, isn't that good enough as a standard resource?

And FWIW, I've never really understood why most leagues reward a FOW but do not penalize a FOL; the only reason the C/W position is all wacky is because there is no penalty for having a terrible face-off centre that is slotted on the wing. A C/W that takes a ton of draws, at 40%, is still a huge fantasy asset, even though that translates into a crappy NHL performance. This advantage goes away if FOL or FO% were also a category.

Just thinking out loud, really. I certainly know there will be no desire to add a category.

[Dave (PLK)]

Apr 21, 2014 11:33:22 GMT -5 @alsrevenge said:

If the rules state position is determined by Fantrax, isn't that good enough as a standard resource?

And FWIW, I've never really understood why most leagues reward a FOW but do not penalize a FOL; the only reason the C/W position is all wacky is because there is no penalty for having a terrible face-off centre that is slotted on the wing. A C/W that takes a ton of draws, at 40%, is still a huge fantasy asset, even though that translates into a crappy NHL performance. This advantage goes away if FOL or FO% were also a category.

Just thinking out loud, really. I certainly know there will be no desire to add a category.

never - say never

[Deleted]

The only CAT I would change is +/-. such a useless CAT. Would rather have a takeaway/giveaway ratio

[Dave (PLK)]

yeah...I have ALWAYS hated +/-....especially when it is EQUAL to a goal or assist.

[Deleted]

+/- is useless, and everyone knows it.

I still think FOL or FO% is a better option than other categories, as it solves the problem of C/W eligibility. Adding FOL or FO% means that C/W designation is only valuable if the player is actually good at taking face offs. So a C/W that wins 2 out of 10 draws isn't seen as a huge fantasy asset. It would force people to look at players that are actually good at taking faceoffs, as oppose to just trying to collect players that take a lot of them (whether they are good at them or not).

Again, I only raise this because the topic is C/W eligibility. I don't expect this to have any traction

[Deleted]

I agree with Sabres regarding Faceoffs. I would much prefer faceoff% as opposed to having it be a 'counting' stat. And it's not like we're the kind of league where we can bench our centres on the last day of the week when we *really* need to win the category.

And regarding +/-; can we replace it with Corsi?

[Bruyns (Barrie)]

I like the FO% option since it allows GMs to keep their C/Ws for position flexibility, we would need to check if Fantrax gives the ability to use that stat though.

[Deleted]

Fantrax has FOW, FOL, and FO%.

[Dave (PLK)]

We could change FOwins to FO%

and +/- to GA/TA ratio

[Golden Seals]

I think we should have a date set for any stat/league/rule changes; maybe before any drafts. It sucks to draft/trade players based on certain stats and then have those stats devalued or what not.

Not sure when our drafts will be taking place but if we had July 1 as a deadline for any rule changes for the upcoming season, it would be helpful.