Buds Board Keepers League

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLON

inferno31 wroteCOLONI agree with Kyle here, IMO use sportsnet as the default. Then if someone presents TSN to the mods and can back it up, let it be dual eligible.

Neel...What does this accomplish? Almost every single player in question (save for David Steckel) has dual eligibility on TSN, under your proposed method we would be using dual eligibility regardless, solves nothing, but creates holes.

Are you honestly telling me Chris Drury and Brandon Dubinsky (for example) are dual eligbile? How is that even possible given that they play on the same team, lol?

Look at the numbers draws taken/team, and fow, then compare it to each site, the numbers speak for themselves.

The reason I traded for Dubinsky was the LW he played last year. He played a ton of it! He took a ton of FO's too and Torterella's plan is to use him that way again this year! TSN is the best for eligibility, period!!

kyuss wroteCOLON

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLONI was looking over TSN.CA, and comparing it to the FOW stat, as well as draws taken stat, and it became immediately evident that TSN is the worst of all options available.

TSN is actually the best available option:
it's the most reliable source for N.A. hockey as much as eliteprospect is for European hockey (probably overall when it comes to positions and stats).
The fact TSN awards dual eligibility more often than other sites just fits well with the bad (LATE) timing we are addressing this matter.

Whenever there is a position in question TSN almost always gives X player dual eligibility (zetterberg, backes. oshie, park, ott, flash, laich etc), and in certain cases it is just absurd (I.E. Brandon Dubinsky and Chris Drury being listed as C/LW)...

the guys in the first bracket all deserve dual eligibility.
Dury is only a LW on CBS (which shows CBS sucks), and also has dual eligibility on eliteprospects...
Fact is, it's much better to have one player generously given dual eligibility than to have one (actually many!) players wrongly taken away of a deserved position, especially in the situation we are in.
(Besides, as far as we know, Dubisnky could go back to only C on TSN as well in the near future, if due. If you take the updating occurrence into consideration for Zett on sportsnet, i guess we should do the same for Dubinsky on TSN).

I completed this comparative analysis on multiple sites (ESPN, SPNET, TSN, NHL, YAHOO etc.) and BY FAR the most consistent site (scary consistent really) was sportsnet.ca, they appear to be on the ball with regards to position eligibility. Most of the top faceoff specialists on the wing were listed in their correct positions...Center, and vice versa with legit wingers.

A few examples are listed below:

Henrik Zetterberg, C
Dave Steckel, C
Richard Park, C
Steve Ott, C
TJ Oshie, C
David Backes, C/W
Tomas Fleischmann, W
Brooks Laich, W
Craig Adams, W
Brandon Dubinsky, C
Chris Drury, C
Patrick Marleau, W
Claude Giroux, W

even the players you chose to prove your point actually suggest sportsnet would be a bad source for us (not a bad source overall speaking, but a bad source for our purposes); do they even award dual eligibility to anyone?

Backes is only listed as a W on sportsnet, unlike what you reported:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/players/David_Backes# ->wrong
Marleau as well -> wrong
Adams as well -> wrong
same obvious mistake goes for Laich, Oshie, Ott, Adams..
and even more importantly for Zetterberg: it's a bad thing being robbed of legit C eligibility, it's much worse being robbed of legit W eligibility.

We can NOT use all of a sudden (not even with a warning of weeks) a source that doesn't award the W position to a guy like Zett .

And no matter what you say, there is no guarantee he will get the W position assigned later on.

TSN is the simpler and fairer solution available at this time.
Using sportsnet, a committee and a warning period would be better than only using sportsnet, but still would complicate things, make them less fair, and bring back subjectivity (-> controversy) into the process.

i agree with everything mik has just said. solid points man. you've made me change my mind.

i think this is getting out of hand. kyle made a solid point when he said that he would never have traded away marleau if it were not for the fact that zetterberg was dual eligible too. not only that i think tsn is the better source. zetterberg is not just a C. sports net somehow thinks otherwise. maybe they will change it later maybe they wont. but the point is: even if we use our judgment to give zetterberg dual-eligibility like kareem said, we cant use this thing as our go to site because you have to ask yourself: "how often will we have to analyze what sportsnet says?" if we have to break down what it says often, then its not really the go to source is it?

i think tsn is the far better source. dual eligibility SHOULD be awarded like tsn does. players like sharp, marleau, zetterberg, etc, these guys switch back and forth. why would a site give them one position only? keep in mind all of my players were wing eligible on sportsnet for the cynical among you.

and honestly the biggest reason i am against drastic change is this: no one on the planet can make a clear cut 200% argument about whether or not guys like adams, sharp or zetterberg are definite centers. even their very own coaches would confess to them shifting between C and W. Given this fact, let us use Kyles trade as an example: he made a trade he felt really improved his team GIVEN the legitimacy of their positions and stats. drastic change here means GMs may have to make trades when their team is very set by now. youre forcing their hand. and that too when we all decided on a source in TSN <---which by the way is the better site. gming is about trades you choose to make. not ones you are forced to make. and here this debate is about 2-3 players MAX which is why we chose the most reliable site out there. to use those 2-3 players as a reason to change the trade value of players on rosters as well as undo a lot of good gms have done for their respective teams is almost comical. we're talking about 2-3 players! and TSN ADDRESSES those players going forward (i.e. if adams is a C you bet your ass he will be JUST a C on TSN this year at some point in time. at that time we can warn scott that he has 2 weeks to become positionally compliant).

the problem has already been solved. why are we opening this can of worms again?

I am not sold on Sportsnet yet either. I still totally agree with our liberal compromise of TSN which accommodates everyone and eliminates the subjectivity of admins changing based on random sources. Sportsnet has Dustin Byfuglien as defense only yet he hasn't played a game on defense this year and played on the wing the majority of all last season. He is a prime example of a dual eligible player also. The exact same issues exist with Sportsnet as do with other sites. TSN seems to be the most complete and accurate imo. Zetterberg was center alot of last season but he also was a winger. Even at the end of the year. Babcock would still put there big line together in different circumstances even at the end of the season. Ask Shoalzie for his first hand opinion...And if it does come to light that Sportsnet is constantly changing and updating like say weekly, how the hell can we implement that and how can people in a fantasy league try and plan the changing of there rosters that often and comply with positional limitations? It is impossible.

The more i think about this the harder it gets. Sportsnet seems to be basing there positions off of news stories about lines and such. And not based off of the past. That is where TSN is ahead. If a player is known to play various positions in the past say 3 years, they get that dual eligibility to accommodate possible positional changes. There is no way in hell we can be right to the week or month with where a player is and at what position. It is a fantasy league. If we are going to do that we might as well implement the exact birth dates for waiver wire eligibility as well as use the pro-rated cap system. It is equal in its difficulties but this is way more subjective in nature. I am going to email both TSN and Sportsnet to see if i can get some understanding on how there players positions are done and how often they change and what there criteria may be. We are arguing with so little facts in our hands and so close to puck drop that this issue is basically impossible to deal with at this time fairly for everyone.

I would also like to say I agree with the points Mike brought up as well. He has such a liberal view and always states his opinions with the leagues best interest at heart and i do not thing one person in here would disagree with that statement.

There is sooooo many players...Look at Horton. Last year he played right wing, year before that he played both and had close to 400 FOW. What about Jeff Carter? He plays both Center and RW sometimes too. We could go through about 4-5 players on every single active roster and argue there position and still never be right. What about Elias? Havlat? Gagne, Malkin, Hunwick, Begin, Pavelski, both Jokinens, Cammalleri, Ryan, Burns, Vermette, Lapierre, Downie, Hudler, Ennis, Mueller, Oshie, Regin ( I can keep going!) or Datsyuk when he is playing wing while on Zetterbergs line? Because they actually do change up sometimes depending on where the draw is and at what point in the game. Oh and Wolski at LW on Sportsnet and it is known he will center the line.

This discussion has gotten so out of hand that we are trying to legislate forced positions on certain players that actually do play multiple positions more often than not. And much to the some of your arguments there actually is dual eligibility in hockey and always will be. As a coach you have 20 players to choose from on your bench and you are only allowed 5 skaters out at one time. Lines change all the time. LW to RW, RW to Center, Center to LW, etc etc...The only clear cut answer to this is to remove FOW as a stat category and no one wants to do that including me, so we have dual eligible players, as we should. And i would way rather use TSN with them being the most comprehensive source that accounts for all positions a given player is most likely to play at any point in any game. There really isn't a debate to be had, in my opinion. We are now using the best system available. What is being proposed is basically a way to implement even more subjectivity into a subject already fairly simple.

On a side note if we are going to implement a number a FOT as a positional determination why don't we limit the max amount of minutes a player can get SHTOI. I mean not every player kills penalties. Isn't it unfair that a team can specifically target players that have great offense but also great defense? Or what about capping the amount of PP Point players a team can have because it is an advantage to have too many? Yea...the whole thing sounds stupid right....because it is. It is the exact same as removing position eligibility from players when they have a proven track record at those positions. We are trying to be coaches here over something we have no control over. You guys have to review your stances a bit and think of the big picture and what you want to do. I mean starting a review committee and studying lines and changing players positions throughout the season? And implementing this with 2 weeks befor season start.

after reading this ESSAY of a thread heres what I have came up with:

Being total unbiased because i have not looked into either sites this is strictly from profiling all of your posts. There is no clear cut winner with either site or for that matter any site when it comes to eligibility for skaters. So we have two options:

a) Form a committee, come up with a formula to calculate whether or not a skater should be dual eligible and apply it to every skater in the league. (creating our own)

1)Very Time consuming
2)Zero problems because it will be clear cut and we can police it 100%

b) we use CBS which we pay for and go by what they set up no matter what we leave it how they have it set up and build our teams accordingly.

1)Potentially be inaccurate however could build teams around it changing their league value compared to the RL value
2)Zero problems because they have the eligibility assigned to them and we simply follow it

I don't know how this wasn't a bigger problem earlier and im very surprised everyone is so torn about it, by picking certain sites for certain players and selected eligibility for certain players as we go is dangerous, not only is it not fair to those who don't speak up but its not fair to assign positions as we feel fits. With the season fast approaching this matter needs to be dealt with in a timely manner. Please read over this post and comment, if you are in favor of running the BBKL Eligibility committee I have no problem heading it and selecting some volunteers to help me with it. But whatever we do needs to be done ASAP.

Nicely put Mash - personally I'm all in favor of the lazy man approach of just letting cbs take care of everything and letting us take advantage of certain players eligibility. There are already tedious task with adding players and salaries to cbs, why create another task? I come here for fantasy hockey and to bitch about my crappy team ... I already graduated college, I don't want more homework - LoL

Yeah, I initially voted to just use tsn but screw it ... I'm a lazy bastard.

Matt, that is one of the main issues? The eligibility committee? WTF? Your ahead of yourself. No one has agreed to anything except that we have a problem and puck drop is 2 weeks away. CBS sucks and I will dig up the email response i got saying they do not ever change position eligibility. Not every team in the league can or must make trades as much as some of you do. That me be some of your styles but not others. You cannot be changing players positions mid season in a cap system when it is very difficult and time consuming to build the proper team to meet a lot of requirements. Everyone speaks of power and objectivity in this league and it keep happening. There is no way that this shit can be changed at this time. And if it is, I want my trade for Marleau revoked. I feel i made three posts with strong evidence against imposing something as stupid as removing dual eligibility in a fantasy hockey league. When it is a KNOWN FACT that a lot of players play various positions. If we are doing this then i want to propose you cannot have more than 5 penalty killers that get over 100 mins in SHTOI or you cannot have more than say 6 players that play on the power play because it isn't fair to everyone. Yea...Fucking stupid is right...

My 2 cents would be to do what we were doing, remove the C/W designation next year, go with just F and replace FOW with another stat that all skaters can get.

Kezia wroteCOLONMy 2 cents would be to do what we were doing, remove the C/W designation next year, go with just F and replace FOW with another stat that all skaters can get.

Like what? Don't we pretty much have everything already?

Nighthock wroteCOLON

Kezia wroteCOLONMy 2 cents would be to do what we were doing, remove the C/W designation next year, go with just F and replace FOW with another stat that all skaters can get.

Like what? Don't we pretty much have everything already?

I dunno what we could use, I've never seen a regular season game in the league, and I don't see most of the stats accounted for on my page. Get rid of FOW all together with a years notice? It would save some shady attempts to game the system in dual eligibility and make all forwards equal.

Nighthock wroteCOLONNicely put Mash - personally I'm all in favor of the lazy man approach of just letting cbs take care of everything and letting us take advantage of certain players eligibility. There are already tedious task with adding players and salaries to cbs, why create another task? I come here for fantasy hockey and to bitch about my crappy team ... I already graduated college, I don't want more homework - LoL

Yeah, I initially voted to just use tsn but screw it ... I'm a lazy bastard.

i can see why being lazy about having a committee that have to decide positions, but with TSN?
there is only the need to correct the players that got pointed out as wrong, and it's written no where that you will have to implement such corrections yourself..

Kezia wroteCOLONMy 2 cents would be to do what we were doing, remove the C/W designation next year, go with just F and replace FOW with another stat that all skaters can get.

honestly, that would be terrible.. FOW are a big part of the game. Plus, there is no real need to make all forwars being the same position anyway.

its important to keep emotions in check when trying to make decisions for the league. All I am saying is that we need to choose something and stick by it for the whole year to minimize the mistakes and make it so that we can police it throughout the year. It would be great to change it throughout the year as we go but that makes zero sense there has to be a rule set in place before the season starts and then follow it throughout the year.

kyuss wroteCOLON

Kezia wroteCOLONMy 2 cents would be to do what we were doing, remove the C/W designation next year, go with just F and replace FOW with another stat that all skaters can get.

honestly, that would be terrible.. FOW are a big part of the game. Plus, there is no real need to make all forwars being the same position anyway.

agreed, FOW will not be taken out of this league that is certain.

Any changes made will be for next season. This has already been voted on and passed and its 2-3 weeks before the season's to begin. It simply isn't fair to expect GM's to make forced changes this close to the season.

Thank you

Mashley93 wroteCOLONits important to keep emotions in check when trying to make decisions for the league. All I am saying is that we need to choose something and stick by it for the whole year to minimize the mistakes and make it so that we can police it throughout the year. It would be great to change it throughout the year as we go but that makes zero sense there has to be a rule set in place before the season starts and then follow it throughout the year.

Totally agree, which is why when the vote happened in the CC all of the following was being taken into consideration.

1. Proximity to start of season.
2. Effect on GM's with something to gain as well as those with something to lose
3. Using the most comprehensive hockey database we have as a way to implement some objectivity into positional disputes
4. the effect on GM's that made specific trades based on positions and the salary cap implications


Again TSN was chosen for the following reasons:

1. Most comprehensive player database of the major sports sites.
2. Constant updating.
3. Most liberal for a rule change of this magnitude this close to the start of the fantasy season.
4. Because Bob Fucking McKenzie and Darren Fucking Dreger know a hell of a lot more about hockey than cockface Nick Kypreos

Why is there a CC? If people don't think the members have the leagues best interest at heart, step up and state your case. If every judgment made is open to multiple reviews, it is pointless to have the committee. Use the trade review panel as a prime example. That worked fantastic. Either we are going to stand by our mandate and have a Competition Committee that can resolve issues like this in a timely manner without constant backtracking after the fact or we should just get rid of it because it is looking like a joke on a few occasions, including this one.

mr. bruin wroteCOLON

Mashley93 wroteCOLONits important to keep emotions in check when trying to make decisions for the league. All I am saying is that we need to choose something and stick by it for the whole year to minimize the mistakes and make it so that we can police it throughout the year. It would be great to change it throughout the year as we go but that makes zero sense there has to be a rule set in place before the season starts and then follow it throughout the year.

Totally agree, which is why when the vote happened in the CC all of the following was being taken into consideration.

1. Proximity to start of season.
2. Effect on GM's with something to gain as well as those with something to lose
3. Using the most comprehensive hockey database we have as a way to implement some objectivity into positional disputes
4. the effect on GM's that made specific trades based on positions and the salary cap implications


Again TSN was chosen for the following reasons:

1. Most comprehensive player database of the major sports sites.
2. Constant updating.
3. Most liberal for a rule change of this magnitude this close to the start of the fantasy season.
4. Because Bob Fucking McKenzie and Darren Fucking Dreger know a hell of a lot more about hockey than cockface Nick Kypreos

Why is there a CC? If people don't think the members have the leagues best interest at heart, step up and state your case. If every judgment made is open to multiple reviews, it is pointless to have the committee. Use the trade review panel as a prime example. That worked fantastic. Either we are going to stand by our mandate and have a Competition Committee that can resolve issues like this in a timely manner without constant backtracking after the fact or we should just get rid of it because it is looking like a joke on a few occasions, including this one.

Lets not get ahead of ourselves here, Tsn itself wasn't ever voted on. The vote that you are talking about was this "Use one sole source of objective information to resolve any position disputes like TSN". We went with it blindly and then a few members like nick, kareem and myself took the time to look over both sides and saw that despite the reputation, sportsnet was heads and tails above tsn oh so very liberal positions. Tsn is not even close to on the ball, it wouldnt surprise me if roberto luongo has G/W eligability.

[img]Any changes made will be for next season. This has already been voted on and passed and its 2-3 weeks before the season's to begin. It simply isn't fair to expect GM's to make forced changes this close to the season.

Thank you[/img]

don't truely understand how you can just dismiss this so quickly. TSN was suggested as a source and we just ran with it before checking into it (or maybe those who suggested it did.) Mistakes happen, and we made one selecting that source. The people who made that mistake are just trying to fix whats been done. I dont get the out cry here we are still following what we voted on but we have just discovered a more accurate source, I figured everyone would post yeah you are right lets switch. I really didnt see this debate ever happening.

So you`re telling me sportsnet is more accurate then tsn is? That's laughable in and of itself. Tsn>>>>>sportsnet!