Buds Board Keepers League

kimmer wroteCOLON

foofnik wroteCOLONAnother option to throw in:
You want to hoard centers, fine, but you only get FOW from 5 of them. You're tanking, fine put wingers there and punt the category.

that's interesting actually
however I wudnt encourage the latter, as it directly conflicts with the anti-tanking measures we have in place. if u don't want stats in, people usually secretly bench them as its done already.

Malette18 wroteCOLONI’ve put this forward in another league that the formula makes sense but having 3C minimum doesn’t really. Rebuilders are forced to pay for the most expensive position that normally goes against their rebuild just to meet a standard level of competitiveness in FOW. That standard doesn’t exist for any other category and we don’t force teams to dress a min number of PKers or whatever.

Contenders will always have the incentive to hold 5C + bench + exempt but rebuilders shouldn’t have to worry if they are flirting with this arbitrary line we decide. Now, I’m sure there’s some balance here that there’s more scoring W’s out there and punting FOW in favour of scoring cats may make sense and contenders would dress 0C. Haven’t really considered the impact this would have on roster composition at a macro level. Lowering the min to 2C could just be the enough flexibility needed to allow for injuries and variance in the positional changes to make roster management less of a hassle.

Spitballing an alternative to debating 0.45/0.4/0.35.

Da_Hawks wroteCOLON Could you not use the FOR to establish a list of candidates eligible for a position switch and then move over the obvious candidates instead of everyone?

kyuss wroteCOLON

Da_Hawks wroteCOLON Could you not use the FOR to establish a list of candidates eligible for a position switch and then move over the obvious candidates instead of everyone?

absolutely not. That would erase any progress we made on the subject (there is no objectively "obvious")

Da_Hawks wroteCOLON

Matthew wroteCOLONThe entirety of Fantasy hockey is about projections. If a positional update is a curveball, then why bother having positions at all, or bother having entry drafts, or games where we cannot predict the winner? Learn to project, and prepare for when you miss your projection.

Projections should be about points and statistics, not positions. Come on. If I screw up a draft pick or a trade, that`s on me. But there is no way of knowing that my players, who were centers all last year, are suddenly going to become wingers. I mean, if you can do that, then that`s some high level jedi shit right there.

Matthew wroteCOLON

Da_Hawks wroteCOLON

Matthew wroteCOLONThe entirety of Fantasy hockey is about projections. If a positional update is a curveball, then why bother having positions at all, or bother having entry drafts, or games where we cannot predict the winner? Learn to project, and prepare for when you miss your projection.

Projections should be about points and statistics, not positions. Come on. If I screw up a draft pick or a trade, that`s on me. But there is no way of knowing that my players, who were centers all last year, are suddenly going to become wingers. I mean, if you can do that, then that`s some high level jedi shit right there.

Greg McKegg? I definitely wouldn't bet money he would be staying a C and would have had a backup. You could probably trade him for a center who is of little consequence.

Matthew wroteCOLONHe hasn't been taking many faceoffs per minutes played tho. It's a mathematical equation...soo

Da_Hawks wroteCOLON

Matthew wroteCOLONHe hasn't been taking many faceoffs per minutes played tho. It's a mathematical equation...soo

And that should disqualify him as a center? The Rags 4th line as a while is awful. That does not mean he's not a center.

Matthew wroteCOLON

Da_Hawks wroteCOLON

Matthew wroteCOLONHe hasn't been taking many faceoffs per minutes played tho. It's a mathematical equation...soo

And that should disqualify him as a center? The Rags 4th line as a while is awful. That does not mean he's not a center.

Yes, absolutely. If he isn't taking faceoffs he shouldn't be considered a center. Lol.

Da_Hawks wroteCOLON

Matthew wroteCOLON

Da_Hawks wroteCOLON

Matthew wroteCOLONHe hasn't been taking many faceoffs per minutes played tho. It's a mathematical equation...soo

And that should disqualify him as a center? The Rags 4th line as a while is awful. That does not mean he's not a center.

Yes, absolutely. If he isn't taking faceoffs he shouldn't be considered a center. Lol.

But he's playing center...

Da_Hawks wroteCOLON

Matthew wroteCOLONHe hasn't been taking many faceoffs per minutes played tho. It's a mathematical equation...soo

And that should disqualify him as a center? The Rags 4th line as a while is awful. That does not mean he's not a center.

Matthew wroteCOLON

Da_Hawks wroteCOLON

Matthew wroteCOLON

Da_Hawks wroteCOLON

Matthew wroteCOLONHe hasn't been taking many faceoffs per minutes played tho. It's a mathematical equation...soo

And that should disqualify him as a center? The Rags 4th line as a while is awful. That does not mean he's not a center.

Yes, absolutely. If he isn't taking faceoffs he shouldn't be considered a center. Lol.

But he's playing center...

Our positional definition is based on faceoffs. He doesn't take many per time he is on the ice. Im sorry you want us to be subjective, but that is far too messy. Basing the position on an objective formula is far clearer and easier.

Matthew wroteCOLONI think the majority of people would prefer to have it applied more than the 2 seasonal updates, rather than fewer.

Matthew wroteCOLONI think the majority of people would prefer to have it applied more than the 2 seasonal updates, rather than fewer.