Buds Board Keepers League

Sensfanjosh wroteCOLONI understand well enough Mik, but thank you for being concerned about my comprehension. My concern is this though, and not saying this is taking place, but if for example you are knocked out this round and at some point in the future a deal is made between you and your opponent providing you with a win in value, might we not look back to your dressing Darling over Bob with a bit of suscpision.

This is however a different issue.
For that matter, you could have the same concern over a lot of lineups dressed during the season by GMs who had other options among their available skaters. Did they dress a worse lineup on purpose? unless that's pretty obvious it becomes pointless to argue over that. (And if it's not obvious, even if they tried to lose they may end up getting better results by mistake).
The only way you could take care of the possible problem you're bringing up is by giving CC the chance to veto one-sided trades. That's something I've always been in favour of, but admins and the rest of CC never felt like going that route (which wouldn't be in fact an easy route btw. Think of Lee getting a trade of his vetoed lol).

Sensfanjosh wroteCOLON I can see what you're saying and understand it, but as Lee is (unsuccessfully) trying to point out I think that the justification you've provided is opening pandora's box as far as setting a precedent. If next season I am "rebuilding" and decide to sit my starter because my backup has provided good stats in limited work would I be allowed to sit Halak for Neuvirth and not be subject to questioning? Hopefully that is clear, I'm just worried that being able to reasonably defend a judgement is not being applied as slippery as it is here in all cases.

If Neuvirth was expected to get at least a start I doubt the CC would feel the need to edit your lineup, and if they did you could try to convince them of why you think dressing only Neuvirth gives you the best chance to win that week.

The justification I've provided is not making that rule any different than it's always been.
- If CC feels it's obvious you're dressing a worse lineup on purpose it gets fixed
- if you think that's not the case you can explain why, in order to get your original lineup restored
- if the CC is persuaded by your reasoning, you get your original lineup restored.

Lee wroteCOLON How do you know what I was thinking?

What you were doing was assuming.

what the CC was doing was assuming, yes, which is what it is expected to do with this rule in cases where the assumption is very easy to make, like it was in your case.

How do we know that your intent is not to tank the series for a future payoff in a deal? I formally accuse you of such.

first of all, you're talking like my lineup was worse with Darling in it instead of CLB's Gs, which is very debatable at least.

Second, see above, to address that possible problem you'd need vetoing trade, not fixing all lineups where it's up for debate if they are the best possible lineup or not.

kyuss wroteCOLON

Lee wroteCOLON How do you know what I was thinking?

What you were doing was assuming.

what the CC was doing was assuming, yes, which is what it is expected to do with this rule in cases where the assumption is very easy to make, like it was in your case.

How do we know that your intent is not to tank the series for a future payoff in a deal? I formally accuse you of such.

first of all, you're talking like my lineup was worse with Darling in it instead of CLB's Gs, which is very debatable at least.

Second, see above, to address that possible problem you'd need vetoing trade, not fixing all lineups where it's up for debate if they are the best possible lineup or not.

Was my lineup considerably worse with Khudo, who put up a 0.92 GAA and .950 save percentage, over Ward, who put up a 1.69 GAA and a .938 sv percentage the first week I put Mc in?And yet, the CC still felt it necessary to create a rule on my behalf.

Lee wroteCOLONWas my lineup considerably worse with Khudo, who put up a 0.92 GAA and .950 save percentage, over Ward, who put up a 1.69 GAA and a .938 sv percentage the first week I put Mc in?And yet, the CC still felt it necessary to create a rule on my behalf.

LOL, like previously you didn't provide more blatant cases that made the need for such ruling obvious. You should be happy it didn't come much earlier allowing you to get an advantage (and screwing other teams' standings in the process).

I'd be happier if there weren't different rules for different people.

you can be happy then, as the rule is the same for everyone.

Apparently not, considering you can dress a goalie with one game in the last month with no repercussions.

Come on Lee. Kyuss is clearly trying to win, he is not tanking. There is nothing blatant about his decision to dress Darling. I believe he can honestly say he is not tanking.



Whereas in your goalie dressing habits, it was not hard to see the minimization points earned.

This is about having a healthy league that operates fairly.

Nick wroteCOLONCome on Lee. Kyuss is clearly trying to win, he is not tanking. There is nothing blatant about his decision to dress Darling. I believe he can honestly say he is not tanking.



Whereas in your goalie dressing habits, it was not hard to see the minimization points earned.

This is about having a healthy league that operates fairly.

Maybe you will answer my question since Mik avoided it:

Was my lineup considerably worse with Khudo, who put up a 0.92 GAA and .950 save percentage, over Ward, who put up a 1.69 GAA and a .938 sv percentage the first week I put Mc in?

I mean.... I could see and agree with the rule if the only goalie I dress was Drew McIntyre. He was in the AHL at the time. The problem is that I dressed a legitimate NHL goaltender in Anton Khudobin.

the time to advocate Khudo instead of Ward would have given you a better chance to win was back then, when you were entitled to do that by the rule.

I don't think you can expect us to remember now what exactly made it look like obvious tanking back then, 3 months ago.

And actually, the CC didn't even fix your lineup, I think it was simply said the CC would look into it, and you dressed both goalies as a result.
So there wasn't even a discussion needed over those specifics you're bringing up now.

It was because Khudobin played 5 games in the month previous.

Darling has played 1 in the same amount of time.

I was never given a chance to advocate.

The rule was created and I was singled out as the cause. I dressed Cam Ward because I was forced to.

Lee wroteCOLONI was never given a chance to advocate.

... I dressed Cam Ward because I was forced to.

not exactly, see above.

Not to mention no one could have forced you to dress both.

This is really your fucking argument, Mik?

There would have been sanctions had I not edited my lineup.

Sanctions that don't apply to you.

I'm so fucking done with this argument. You are a self serving fucktard, Mik.

Lee,

we don't judge it after the fact. Because Khub had good # that week doesn't mean that dressing him at the time, and NOT dressing Ward, wasn't intended with all available information to win a few points as possible.


Mik has explained his decision on Darling. It's a little risky, but I can tell you that I wish I had used that theory last week when I dressed Howard and Mrazek -> and lost the week because of Mrazek;s stats.

Nice thread. This is what I run into after taking 48 hour bbkl vacation

Nick wroteCOLONLee,

we don't judge it after the fact. Because Khub had good # that week doesn't mean that dressing him at the time, and NOT dressing Ward, wasn't intended with all available information to win a few points as possible.


Mik has explained his decision on Darling. It's a little risky, but I can tell you that I wish I had used that theory last week when I dressed Howard and Mrazek -> and lost the week because of Mrazek;s stats.

Except in the case of Mik's you'd have sat Howard for Mrazek because he would have played the easier or more limited minutes, I still believe Lee is in the right here. The rule shouldn't change because of the playoff context.

Edit. Just to add, if Darling really presents the best lineup for Mik why is it he has been dressing Bob and or Mch and or Darling the last few weeks, its fairly hard for me to honestly believe that Mik is not trying to expose a loophole himself and believes that Darling represents the best and fairest lineup.

Lee wroteCOLONThis is really your fucking argument, Mik?

There would have been sanctions had I not edited my lineup.

you seem so sure that it would have been assessed as blatant tanking even after your possible explanations that it suggests you agree it was in fact yet another blatant attempt at tanking of yours.

Sanctions that don't apply to you.

why should they when the two situations are completely different.

I'm so fucking done with this argument.

better late than ever, as they say. Not sure why you felt the need to keep this ludicrous argument going till now.

You are a self serving fucktard, Mik.

lol, the irony, this coming from you after this thread.

Sensfanjosh wroteCOLONThe rule shouldn't change because of the playoff context.

it's not like it is strictly because of the playoff context,
This lineup of mine would have been perfectly legit during the regular season as well.

And the rule is not changing at all.
The rule always said it's the CC making the call.
Depending on the situation the call made can be different, obviously.