|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Apr 22, 2014 11:03:42 GMT -5
that makes sense for sure Sealsy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 11:44:12 GMT -5
We could change FOwins to FO% and +/- to GA/TA ratio Another idea could be to replace +/- with FO% (thus maintaining the same number of categories). Rationale: if you change FOwins to FO%, then that is a major downgrade to many of the existing C/W'ers in the league. These guys have a premium since they can get FOWs from the W position. Changing that to FO% means they'd only have value if they were 50% or better in the dot. So it could have a big impact on the value of dual eligible players. Alternatively, if FOW and FO% were both categories, the impact would be much less on the existing league. Such a change would go a long way to addressing the C/W issue, without making really drastic changes. Intellectually, I understand why "GA/TA ratio" is a good category. But I just can't see myself trying to scout for such an obscure category. All that said, I'm content with the current set up. Just bouncing stuff around as a means of staying active in here. Not much else one can do to stay active in the off-season... |
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Apr 22, 2014 12:04:55 GMT -5
Not a fan of GA/TA either for the reasons Sabres mentioned and it there is variance with how different arenas score GA and TA and most of the top Dmen lead the league in GAs diminishing their value.
I have no problem with +-. It isn't a good stat for judging a players value in the NHL, but for fantasy purposes it places more values on players from good teams and less value on players from bad teams.
I would prefer keeping position flexibility since some players do play both C and W and like Kelowna had mentioned certain players were targeted for that reason in the draft. Switching to FO% is a compromise that takes away the advantage the teams with Ws who take FOs has, but still gives them roster flexibilty.
I prefer leaving the FOs the way they are since everyone had the opportunity to draft C/Ws and GMs might not have drafted them as highly if they were going to their dual eligibility stripped, but if it in the interest of fairness I can see why people want to come up with a way to limit GMs ability to dress Ws who take lots of FOs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 12:27:31 GMT -5
I agree with Matt.
The purpose of this thread was to encourage honestly with player positions. Sure the player was a C/W when drafted. But if the player played C all year, then the change should be made going forward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 12:36:15 GMT -5
I think you are asking for trouble if you are asking people to self-report changes to dual eligibility, unless there is a very strict and defined criteria for what qualifies and what does not.
Right now, we have a VERY specific rule. Positions are determined by Fantrax. There is no confusion about that.
Changing it to something soft and subjective, based on self-reporting, does not seem like a very good idea to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 12:40:41 GMT -5
You may not be aware Sabres GM; the IFFHL admins can change player positions upon request.
I don't see the trouble in correcting a Fantrax error. They need to sort out thousands of player positions; there will be a few mistakes inevitably.
Just set a baseline. For example, a C/W with over 300 FOW is considered a C. change made next season. Or a winger with over 100 FOW is considered a C/W.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone (Kelowna) on Apr 22, 2014 12:42:12 GMT -5
Probably no problem with some of the obvious ones, but there is a grey area there for certain players, and this can raise an issue where some complain more loudly than others for changes here and there which can rouse up some controversy. Preferred the fantrax route as that was the initially decided route to go and an impartial source which is utilized by thousands of leagues already.
Again, if you want to negate the FOW advantage for C/W, just make FOW count for C starters only (checked and Fantrax does allow this..) This should even the playing field as then everybody only has four players who can get FOW.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 12:54:14 GMT -5
Not a fan of GA/TA either for the reasons Sabres mentioned and it there is variance with how different arenas score GA and TA That is true of most stats. Hits, F/O, etc. You can't get uniformity that way no matter how you try. I have no problem with +-. It isn't a good stat for judging a players value in the NHL, but for fantasy purposes it places more values on players from good teams and less value on players from bad teams. I would prefer keeping position flexibility since some players do play both C and W and like Kelowna had mentioned certain players were targeted for that reason in the draft. Switching to FO% is a compromise that takes away the advantage the teams with Ws who take FOs has, but still gives them roster flexibilty. I prefer leaving the FOs the way they are since everyone had the opportunity to draft C/Ws and GMs might not have drafted them as highly if they were going to their dual eligibility stripped, but if it in the interest of fairness I can see why people want to come up with a way to limit GMs ability to dress Ws who take lots of FOs. I didn't draft my team, but I have a dog in the race. I wouldn't vote for switching F/O wins for F/O% but adding F/O% could work. It seems with G and A calculating, also having a points stat seems redundant. There is probably some rationale behind it that I am missing. When I joined this league I was immediately confused by the TOI-SH stat but having been here a month or so, I totally got it and wondered why I had never thought of suggesting it in any of my other leagues. Good debate, losing F/O wins would skew the league quite a lot IMO. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 12:59:34 GMT -5
forecaster.thehockeynews.com/hockeynews/hockey/playerindex.cgithis is the standard I have used for years with regards to player eligibility. It is uniform, it is updated regularly and it is not subjective. subjectivity are the quickest way to lose GM trust with Admins, imo. make something a standard and there is no question marks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 13:03:39 GMT -5
I prefer adding Take away then to add the face off %. I feel the take away will create more a challenge.
Hopefully I'll have some supporter for this specific stat.
I would suggest that we make a pool for such a change.
Here's the option
1) keep it as it is
2) switching the +/- for Take away
3) switching the +/- for Face off %
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2014 5:53:41 GMT -5
Just a question but if I had two or three wingers who took 1 or 2 draws a game and won wouldn't this greatly inflate my FO%? Just looking for the potential for exploits. Depends whether Fantrax looks to all FOT among all players before creating a percentage or if it just takes all the players percentages and calculates based off that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on May 10, 2014 10:11:39 GMT -5
Just a question but if I had two or three wingers who took 1 or 2 draws a game and won wouldn't this greatly inflate my FO%? Just looking for the potential for exploits. Depends whether Fantrax looks to all FOT among all players before creating a percentage or if it just takes all the players percentages and calculates based off that. We explored potential rule changes, but each poll was in favour of keeping the different stats as is. We won't be using FO% it is just FOW so having a W that takes some faceoffs does give him a little extra value. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2014 19:10:48 GMT -5
Just a question but if I had two or three wingers who took 1 or 2 draws a game and won wouldn't this greatly inflate my FO%? Just looking for the potential for exploits. Depends whether Fantrax looks to all FOT among all players before creating a percentage or if it just takes all the players percentages and calculates based off that. Just FYI: not really. Fantrax would calculate FO% as total FOW divided by total face offs taken. You're centers will take a ton of draws. So having wingers take a few draws really won't change the percentage that much. Right now, there are so many centers with W eligibility that it is ridiculous. That's why there was a discussion on this issue. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2014 19:17:45 GMT -5
Just a question but if I had two or three wingers who took 1 or 2 draws a game and won wouldn't this greatly inflate my FO%? Just looking for the potential for exploits. Depends whether Fantrax looks to all FOT among all players before creating a percentage or if it just takes all the players percentages and calculates based off that. Just FYI: not really. Fantrax would calculate FO% as total FOW divided by total face offs taken. You're centers will take a ton of draws. So having wingers take a few draws really won't change the percentage that much. Right now, there are so many centers with W eligibility that it is ridiculous. That's why there was a discussion on this issue. Like you said that we are discussion but I think will go with the upcoming season with the same rules. We shouldn't change anything or go too drastic like the option we are discussion atm. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2014 20:39:18 GMT -5
Just a question but if I had two or three wingers who took 1 or 2 draws a game and won wouldn't this greatly inflate my FO%? Just looking for the potential for exploits. Depends whether Fantrax looks to all FOT among all players before creating a percentage or if it just takes all the players percentages and calculates based off that. Just FYI: not really. Fantrax would calculate FO% as total FOW divided by total face offs taken. You're centers will take a ton of draws. So having wingers take a few draws really won't change the percentage that much. Right now, there are so many centers with W eligibility that it is ridiculous. That's why there was a discussion on this issue. This. It takes the FOW vs FOL for all players accumulated for that day/week and creates the percentage, it doesn't take each players percentage and create an average for that day/week. |
|
