Buds Board Keepers League

mr. bruin wroteCOLONHappy Holidays Honger, you're the best guy in here!

hong57 wroteCOLONThis.. I think everyone's a doughebag but I still stay

Nick wroteCOLONGoing to make an honest go at talking through this Chris, I feel like it's a rather silly thing to lose a member over.

Chris wroteCOLON I'm asking to publish it so everyone can see it.

As I told you the first time you mentioned this idea to me, i don't have ability to do that, and I'm not going to copy/paste a 7+ page topic discussion, which has missing gaps filled in via conversations, MSN, and other threads.

Chris wroteCOLON My biggest issue with the FOR policy was the 26 games threshold. For whatever reason, it's considered proportionate to a 25 weeks BBKL season, and I don't really understand why. I have asked repeatedly about it and got the same evasive answers.

Really? I've messaged you several times on MSN offering to talk through it; this early-review was spawned by the league on a whole, and is publicly viewable if you care to look for it (sorry if that message wasn't understood when I first said it), and we talked through this one eventually, which resulted in you saying all you actually wanted to do, was to get Mik mad in response to a poor trade offer.

Just to reiterate -> 26-29GP, was believed to be the smallest reliable measure, Not 100% confident this was the original train of thought, but something like-> 20GP was the original target (1/4 of a season), but the first 8 games of a new NHL season, team lines are not a good indicator (rookies up, fresh training camp ideas, etc.) that would have resulted in 28gp, but once again we wanted some play in GP for change, hence 26-29 (once again, this was a league wide, open discussion that you can find if you care as much as you seem to).

Chris wroteCOLON If Yahoo! can make players dually eligible for positions, then why not do the same for the BBKL? These are simple questions that should be answered on the spot if asked and I've been waiting for weeks for a clear explanation.

This makes me feel like you've not been listening or are simply trolling; I recall this question and the answer was simple -> it was a problem for us. It's a loophole/excuse to dress a bunch of C when we restrict # of C and have a FOW category; it's circumvention of our roster regulations, and a departure from reality. Honestly Chris this topic is extremely well covered and based on extensive previous league experiences. For the dual eligible case (which as you'll recall we used for our first two seasons): it doesn't make good sense in our league, and turns into a loop-hole where teams dress 5 real centres, and then multiple centres who are dual eligible as wingers (this isn't versatility), IIRC this was the original issue, the FOW category was a farce. I'm not sure of the actual timeline, but somewhere in there we went 3-5C to give some leeway there, subjectively deciding centres/duals, and it fixed nothing, just a few games at wing and anyone was dual, kinda became a 'who do you know who is an admin' game.

Cue long and in depth conversations spread over 6+months. I believe it started with Billy, Scott, Shoalzie, Kyle and myself... CC changes through this term, as does the thread and direction of the alternative options. We started with what we need: objective, predictable, applicable for our league purposes. Add in time required and look through everything measured that we could use to help make the most accurate decisions. Once Mik got involved the process was streamlined and we got to actually working through the stats and details of how to decide. Literally did the 'comprehensive' system, made use of as many reliable indicators as we could. Rank on real NHL team, total FOT, and FOT/TOI -> then we get into setting the # and honestly I know this isn't the answer you want - but it was a long set of comparisons looking at total # of centres under these rules, what it takes to change, how long is a reliable sample? etc. We really did have a large number of GMs working through this. And the toughest thing about our positional listings, is taking the time to read and understand it.


We looked at the 'dynamic shift' positional rankings, where guys would be changing as their jumped around the dividing variable (not set in stone lots of talk here about whats a reliable dynamic variable), and talked about having anyone able to call out for a shift, as a method of honesty -> but that removes predictability of changes, and really fucks with team planning -> not every GM likes trading their players weekly, perhaps they don't have time each week or just like watching their players developed, but FORCING consistent change is not something we wanted to do, it's something we believe would have been bad for the league. We then we to a twice a year review, once at ASB, once in the offseason. Now some # you wanted to know; if i recall correctly the .29 (original FOR proposed cut) resulted in 135 "Centres" in the BBKL (something like 4.5C per team X 30 teams, 2009-2010 data iirc) we danced through the names, consulted lots of other GMs, looked at injuries/trades/situations on teams to see which 'issue' players we were dealing with (beginning to believe me that this was a long conversation and very in depth work done by multiple BBKL members). I'm not sure then if we set the .3 variable at this stage.

Some of the examples I could recall talking through (please do not take this as the complete list, literally one post I found, little embarassed I even bothered to look -> but a series of searches found it for me) this was based on FOT/(avg toi x gp):

examples:

Drury: 225/12x24 = .78 > 0.3 => C * injury example

Bouchard: 43/59x15.5 = 0.04 < 0.3 => W (last season played)

Regin: 316/55x13 = 0.44 > 0.3 => C

Sestito: 253/36x10.5 = 0.67 > 0.3 => C

Abdelkader: 430/74x12 = 0.48 > 0.3 => C

Seguin: 303/74x12 = 0.34 > 0.3 => C * Rookie* Will be reviewed

Kelly 190/24x15 = 0.53 > 0.3 => C

IIRC this list was for players outside top 4 on team, and under the FOT line... making the rule accurate and based on the most recent information we had available.

Sorry if this is dis-jointed... really thinking on a couple of topics (others more 'real' then this).

Chris wroteCOLON It's only been recently that I've finally had enough.

I think when you look back you'll find that this is a very small issue, and also one that has been completely beat to death before you were here. I cannot help that you weren't here for the previous 3 years as our rules evolved; but dude you gotta stop acting like it's some secret thing we're hiding from you.It's simply very time consuming and not easy to respond to your outbursts.

Please take the time to message me on MSN or xbox live if you have further concerns, big paragraph (well..LOL at anything grammatically accurate here...but) forum posts are just a difficult way to communicate... and I've spent more then enough of my time on the matter.

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLONI don't see why you wouldn't be allowed to take your team back...

Tony wroteCOLONgive him a crappier team ...