Buds Board Keepers League

I understand it clearly. I still think the premise falls short of being useful.

Chris wroteCOLONI understand it clearly. I still think the penis falls short of being useful.

Keep your personal life out of this..

oh, so that's what makes you sad, fair enough.

APPLICATION FOR C -> W
Name: Craig Adams
Category: He's a fucking winger
11/12 GP: 33
11/12 FOR: 0.29 < 0.3 (104 FOT/355 TOI)
Link: http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.htm? ... layerStats

... and now he's injured. Fuck my luck.

Boom

Tony wroteCOLONAPPLICATION FOR C -> W
Name: Craig Adams
Category: He's a fucking winger
11/12 GP: 33
11/12 FOR: 0.29 < 0.3 (104 FOT/355 TOI)
Link: http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.htm? ... layerStats

Tony I don't mean to be rude... but obviously this switch isn't being made. If you'd like to discuss it please take the time to message me on MSN and I'm more then willing to talk through it with you.

If it's about the GP thing, you know he's been without internet for like, a month..

Shep wroteCOLONIf it's about the GP thing, you know he's been without internet for like, a month..

if i'm not mistaken Craig Adams is not eligible for early update; not that you can tell that by the "fucking winger" category..

part of the goal here is the predictability of changes... you can see who could change and when it would happen -> in the name of team planning. Time required to look through changes was also considered, and that can (I think) be seen in this case, 82gp vet with a high FOR is not up for early review, why would 26gp be a better indication then the previous entire season, don't want to be reviewing every player 3 times a year, so in this case, Adams will be reviewed at the ASB with the entire league.

Oh ok.

fine, fuck you all ...

Question regarding FOR. If a player's FOR is .40, but stands 6th on his team's depth chart on faceoffs taken, at what point is he going to be considered a winger?

Wait, I'm not allowed to question the methodology used here. Whoops. Disappearing back under my bridge.

Please read the rules on positional listings. Rank, total taken and FOR are all considered.

So we've gone from a centre who had 888 FOTs last year, to a winger with 148 this year, even though he's now 6th on his team's depth chart, and more than half the total away from the 4th FOT teammate. So still a centre? I can't be bothered to read through all that tripe of rules without asking myself "WTF" for b and c.

I also find it darkly ironic that McMillan gets sent down on the eve of his 26th game.

I'm not sure if you are just ruffling feathers or if you are you missing the logic behind FOR? It's literally a direct measure of how often the player is lining up at centre for his time on ice. Which is of direct importance in a fantasy league which controls number of centres and measures FOW. Team rank is a nice easy indication, top 4 is extremely valid, however not-top 4 = W is a leap of logic and a fallacy. How often do they play? Injuries? Some switching? All very concerning.

Not claiming perfection; welcome the dialogue, but it must be in good nature and for the purpose of improving our glorious league

Chris you continue to post seemingly angry and emotional without valid reasoning, nor thorough thought or respect for the work that's been put in on the matter.

I assume you're talking about Brassard, who's positioning this year has been all over the place. Injuries, trades, teammates injuries, benched?, some C, some W,...but only consistent trend is low TOI. Over the previous season (nice 74gp sample) he was a solid centre. But you knew this when you traded for him, right? 146FOT/360TOI >.4 -- but if you're for lack of better word, anger, is correct and he's now primarily a Winger the next 20 games will easily get the FOR <.4

Similar to call ups, TOI, special team-TOI, we cannot control changes in positioning, especially when it's back and forth, - but we can be reasonable and have a predictable formula, which allows us to track and plan changes.

I do laugh at the assumption that I'm angry. I told someone earlier last week that a lot of my behaviour in this thread is for the laughs -- if I'm coming off angry because I just found out that Brassard isn't a winger, then I might as well quit if I'm not going to take positional eligibility into consideration. Stop making assumptions. You're terrible at it.

So where's the validity in using <.3 for FOR? I still haven't seen anything that substantiates it other than your claim that a bunch of you went back a few years to check out TOI of fourth line centres, cherry-picked a percentage and now we're all stuck with this 'unbreakable' policy. How about you boys quit being disingenuous and make that FOR development thread public so I, and others, can read the logic used?

In regards to making all the logic used public, it has been spread out and shown over many threads, also you'll recall (well maybe not ) that "most of the rule talks go on over msn or Xbox live " where the message is not lost in the medium (or at least less distorted). Which allow us to get through issues and concerns with rules in a more timely manner.

I didn't say that you were angry, I said seemingly angry which is shown by your swearing, emphasis ( !!!!) , and lack of logic on the topic. Didn't make an assumption as i've learned time and time again that the forum medium of messaging is a very difficult one to read tone, intent as well as comprehend where a conversation is actually at.

Fully open to talks regarding our cutoff lines - not going to do all your, bitching based, homework for you (see you complain about workload enough on twitter,hahaha)- but these won't be changed this year, whether or not you were bothered to read the guidelines they were set well in advance and allowed GM's to plan for the roster restrictions. Tweaking when logical is fully encouraged!


Sorry for disjointed reply. Was in-between cooking a roast and preparing for a meeting. However I think your comments towards those working on league rules (same people who invite you) are out of place and beginning to be tiresome.