BBKL policy for Centers and Wingers

[CAM]

I respect your opinion on the matter but i believe my statements also have merit. Do most NHL teams have 4 lines? Do most NHL teams have at least 4 centerman? Am i not making a valid assumption that a player who has the 4th most time on ice and also has taken the 4th most faceoffs on the team should be considered a center? Is that picking and choosing? Im just asking for consideration for such an example. I dont think i am reaching using those numbers. The rule is a good invention and for the most part works but there will always be a case that doesnt fit the mould and i am requesting it be looked at.

[Matthew]

I respect your opinion on the matter but i believe my statements also have merit. Do most NHL teams have 4 lines? Do most NHL teams have at least 4 centerman? Am i not making a valid assumption that a player who has the 4th most time on ice and also has taken the 4th most faceoffs on the team should be considered a center? Is that picking and choosing? Im just asking for consideration for such an example. I dont think i am reaching using those numbers. The rule is a good invention and for the most part works but there will always be a case that doesnt fit the mould and i am requesting it be looked at.

Your request was made into a thread in cc because many people's opinions vary. Hopefully for your sake they side with your thought process.

Having more ice time does not work in a players favour. For example, a team that has a great 1st line that sees 25 minutes a night could very well have the 3 players on that line all top 4 in its teams face offs taken, despite two of those players playing wing the majority of the time. While a 4th line that sees only 5 minutes a night could have a centerman who takes all that lines faceoffs and has a FOR of .8 not being in the teams top 4 centers in Faceoffs taken, despite him obviously being a centerman.

That being said, I'd invite you to bring forth other examples of players in this situation, and possibly this can be changed now and moving forward if the CC members, and rest of the league feel there is a need for a rule changegiven the example you've brought forth. I could see it happening.

[CAM]

Yea, im not blaming anyone or slamming anyone that disagrees. Just like to open up the discussion. I respect other peoples opinions whether i agree/disagree. The FOR formula attempts to emulate what we think a center should be and for the most part it works. If anything id like to remember why we went against using duals? Was it to eliminate ppl using obvious centers in a winger role? I can understand that.

Would it be possible to consider those fringe players that are say 0.3 to 0.44 FOR as dual eligible at position change? I am not asking for centers to be considered wingers. I am asking for part time wingers to be considered centers. It is my own disadvantage to play such a player at center.

[Matthew]

CC votes 5-0 to have Pavelski remain a Winger.

[CAM]

Of course they do. Is it too much to ask for such a drastic change that makes someones roster illegal more than 2.5 days notice? At least one roster lock? I had 5 centers and now i have 2. And no, i dont keep track of FOR for all my players. I set my roster and check the score. I dont have the drive or time i used to.

[CAM]

The positional changes were announced Friday. They should take affect the following roster lock. Not the monday immediately after. Not everyone has the depth to deal with this type of situation or the time or resources to pull off a forced trade in such short notice.

[Matthew]

Updated as per current requests for tonight's lock:

W -->C

JT Miller
B.Schenn
McKegg
Nylander
Drouin
Sheahan
Larkin
N.Schmaltz
C.Wagner
Ja.Benn
R.Strome
N.Foligno


C --> W

S.Bennett
Galchenyuk
Gourde
sobotka
Keller
Iafallo
Couture
Helm
Pavelski
Girgensons
Jost
Bjugstad
D.Rasmussen
Martinook
Nosek
O.Lindberg

This is from last Monday, the 4th. And you had 4 centers before the change, as Foligno was a winger who became a center due to this positional change.

[Arian The Insider]

Of course they do. Is it too much to ask for such a drastic change that makes someones roster illegal more than 2.5 days notice? At least one roster lock? I had 5 centers and now i have 2. And no, i dont keep track of FOR for all my players. I set my roster and check the score. I dont have the drive or time i used to.

So the league should make exceptions for you as a result?

[hong57]

actually.. im just wondering.. are there any benefits at all for dressing a W as a C.. they have one category less to give value.. otherwise everything being the same.. but of coz dressing an obvious W with monster stats as a C doesn't sound right to me.. is there anyway in the offseason.. well i'd suggest something like if X player has been C for X amount of years and followed with other conditions (i duno.. maybe kyle can quote more examples.. like the one he had that the said player is still top 4 in FOW or FOT in their team, i think the condition should be strict as this should be the exception rather than the rule..).. like if he is on the top line and still taking the occasional faceoffs.. i have to say not your everyday wingers can do that..

not siding with anyone but just my thoughts

[kyuss]

This is from last Monday, the 4th. And you had 4 centers before the change, as Foligno was a winger who became a center due to this positional change.

to be fair, on Monday only those immediately updated upon requests were posted in that list. I saved the editing I was doing during the week on that post when I had to reboot, and didn't delete the names I added on that list once I published the new complete list in a new post. So his guys you bolded were not on the list on Monday.

Still, that Monday list was another obvious proof the update was underway, and under the same standards we have been using for years, like clarified more than one month ago: http://bbkl.ca/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3663 ... 00#p281548

[kyuss]

Of course they do. Is it too much to ask for such a drastic change that makes someones roster illegal more than 2.5 days notice? At least one roster lock?

I had 5 centers and now i have 2.

just to set the record straight:
the update was completed and announced on Friday ET morning, that left GMs basically with 4 full days to adjust (almost entire Friday, Saturday, Sunday, almost entire Monday). I believe that is the biggest leeway we had in recent updates. Besides, in this case the update was supposed to apply to the previous week already, but to leave more room to adjust we postponed it to this week for those who didn't want the switch to happen for week #9 already.
If you had concerns with the timeframe, it's odd (obviously it actually is not) you didn't bring this up one of the several times we left less time to adjust than this time around.

Btw, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe 3 of your centers were moved to wing (Couture, Pavelski, Helm, all 3 usual suspects in terms of FOR C-eligibility btw) while 1 of your wingers was moved to C (Nick Foligno). So unless I'm missing someone your total number of centers actually dropped from 4 to 2. Not like this makes a difference, but again, correct me if I'm wrong.

And no, i dont keep track of FOR for all my players. I set my roster and check the score. I dont have the drive or time i used to.

in the past we had Mike's FOR list to rely on, making it easier to check out FOR just before the update would occur. Mike stopped doing that list cause after moving to fantrax it was apparently not possible anymore to generate a complete, inclusive list. For the future I can find a way to post a FOR list the week before the update to help on this, but it's not like you needed to make any calculations to realize Couture, Pavelski & Helm C-eligibility may at least be in question. All you needed to do was caring about it, and ask me if you didn't have any time to waste over it and wanted to know about it more in advance.

You talk of this as "such a drastic change" but actually all it does in a rare situation like this where you didn't pay enough attention to realize you were losing 2 centers to wing is forcing you to dress a minor league player, it's not like your lineup will be deemed illegal.
You should look at this unfortunate situation like this: it's like you dressed a full lineup and had news of an injury to one your centers coming out on Tuesday. It happens.

As a former long time CC chief, you should realize making an exception when the are no exceptional reasons demanding for it (like facts that weren't considered when implementing the rule) would put us in a tough spot, exposing us to all sorts of requests for exceptions from other GMs, possibly making our life as CC members miserable.
The fact you ask for this exception (albeit with a different, more respectful tone) and mention some sort of lack of drive reminds me of the Nick's disappointing situation.
I really hope this won't lead to a similar outcome.

[CAM]

You are correct, i gained with Foligno (thank god). That would be appreciated in the future a weeks notice and i do recognize this is an exception and i know it was completely foolish to think there would be consideration for a change that benefits absolutely no one. You are correct in the assumption that i dont have the time to study my team and I was away all weekend. So i actually didnt have 4 full days. I had Sunday evening. Have you ever tried to calculate a players FOR on a mobile device? Try it? Try to go to NHL.com stats and run those reports. There is not even a choice to switch to desktop view anymore in a browser. I am over the vote outcome but i think i brought very valid points to the table with respect to having dual eligibility on players with FOR from 0.3 to 0.44 and im not asking for those types of players who can be snuck in as winger to take advantage of FOW. I am asking for those players who are wingers that obviously take alot of faceoffs and should be given the option to play center if i so choose. What fucking advantage is it other than asking the CC to look at an individual case? There may be 4 or 5 cases a year. It creates absolutely zero advantage to anyone and a disadvantage to me because teams now know that i have to make a trade to have a legal roster and all the fucking lowballs start rolling in. Yes I am ranting and yes i still think i have a valid point. I get nothing is gonna change this year but it is still fantasy hockey and some common sense in a league where the initial design was to emulate the NHL as much as possible should be considered. The FOR system works but for the 99% that it works for there is 1% that it doesnt. I recognize that you don't design a program to suit the 1% but when a fix as simple as i propose is available to have 100% success, it should be considered.

[Lee]

cool novels bro's

[kimmer]

CAR Julian??

[kyuss]

You are correct, i gained with Foligno (thank god). That would be appreciated in the future a weeks notice

hate to be pedant, but the announcement is over a month old, and actually we postponed the actual update by one week, so there was definitely a 'weeks notice' (even if we changed nothing from last year).
*edit: unless you mean a notice of players' FOR value (see below)

and i do recognize this is an exception and i know it was completely foolish to think there would be consideration for a change that benefits absolutely no one. You are correct in the assumption that i dont have the time to study my team and I was away all weekend. So i actually didnt have 4 full days. I had Sunday evening.

obviously I meant every GM had 4 days available, if you only had 1 eve out of those 4 it's unfortunate but again it doesn't seem the end of the world to me being forced to dress a minor league player to cover the hole for one week under out of ordinary circumstances.

Have you ever tried to calculate a players FOR on a mobile device? Try it?

No I didn't and have no interest in trying.
You actually didn't need to, you could have just asked me or someone else to tell you the FOR of the couple of players you were concerned with. I don't think this system is supposed to force anyone to calculate players' FOR on mobile. There are many weeks leading to the update where GMs can take a look to get a sense of where their players stand, or they can just ask others.
But as mentioned, what I think we should do to make it easier for busy GMs to realize their players' FOR is going back to post the full FOR list like two weeks before the update.

What fucking advantage is it other than asking the CC to look at an individual case? There may be 4 or 5 cases a year.

you seem to have missed the point, so I'll just copy & paste from above:
"you should realize making an exception when the are no exceptional reasons demanding for it (like facts that weren't considered when implementing the rule) would put us in a tough spot, exposing us to all sorts of requests for exceptions from other GMs”

I am over the vote outcome but i think i brought very valid points to the table with respect to having dual eligibility on players with FOR from 0.3 to 0.44 and im not asking for those types of players who can be snuck in as winger to take advantage of FOW. I am asking for those players who are wingers that obviously take alot of faceoffs and should be given the option to play center if i so choose.
...
It creates absolutely zero advantage to anyone and a disadvantage to me because teams now know that i have to make a trade to have a legal roster and all the fucking lowballs start rolling in. Yes I am ranting and yes i still think i have a valid point. I get nothing is gonna change this year but it is still fantasy hockey and some common sense in a league where the initial design was to emulate the NHL as much as possible should be considered. The FOR system works but for the 99% that it works for there is 1% that it doesnt. I recognize that you don't design a program to suit the 1% but when a fix as simple as i propose is available to have 100% success, it should be considered.

again, obviously the system doesn't work well for 100% of the cases, and we can discuss making changes for next year to further improve it. In the past I volunteered to make at least one more update during the season but that was turned down by CC majority. My main concern was (and is) with the odd situation like R.Strome now: just became a BBKL center and was just moved back to wing in real life, that means fraser might have to dress as C a player that won't take faceoffs till the final (pre-trade-deadline) update which is months away.
I personally don't think your situation is that concerning instead, cause GMs can easily see it coming, especially if we go back publishing a full FOR list in advance. If they don't address it in advance they're forced to address it later, but unlike fraser's case they have the chance to prevent it. And they actually end up with an advantage in the faceoffs department.

I agree that being allowed to dress wingers as centers (by being listed W/C) wouldn't provide a competitiveness advantage, so I'm not really against it, but it just doesn't seem needed to me because of what I stated above.
And I think the main consequence would be lowering GMs' need for trades, going against league activity as a result.

[Lee]

I'd suggest lowering FO requirements due to GMs hoarding players but the people in charge of making and enforcing the rules are the ones hording players so I don't see that happening.

[Matthew]

1 player hordeing who is part of a group. You're exaggerating.

[Bruyns]

I have 0 players with 10GP in my minors this season.

[Arian The Insider]

I'd suggest lowering FO requirements due to GMs hoarding players but the people in charge of making and enforcing the rules are the ones hording players so I don't see that happening.

How many full-time Cs do we roughly have? We have 5 C spots so we need to be careful of having too many, although I have no idea how many we really have. If you're worried about hoarding then a better option might be to lower the GP required to become waiver eligible? I personally feel that we should look into that.

[Matthew]

I'd suggest lowering FO requirements due to GMs hoarding players but the people in charge of making and enforcing the rules are the ones hording players so I don't see that happening.

How many full-time Cs do we roughly have? We have 5 C spots so we need to be careful of having too many, although I have no idea how many we really have. If you're worried about hoarding then a better option might be to lower the GP required to become waiver eligible? I personally feel that we should look into that.

I agree with this. Been thinking it for a while.