Buds Board Keepers League

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLONCommon sense dictates that 8 games is a statistically meaningless sample size.

I agree. I am referring to the 26 game mark and going back to last season up to trade deadline. Do you agree that using my example there may be a flaw? How can one team logically roll 7 centers? even using our calculation system it doesnt add up. What I am referring to in this case, is that any player that is put up by a GM for review that meets prior trade criteria(that we could define) should be looked at by CC at the 26 game mark. I mean there are special circumstances. By not granting that, it actually hurts the GM's that own these players on the stat sheet and in the trade market.

26 games isn't a big sample size either, a sore wrist or minor injury to another player could sway the stats one way or the other, which is why 26 games is used for players who were borderline last year ala Adam Burish or Brandon McMillan. Someone like Henrik Zetterberg was a legit centerman, and thus warrants a far greater sample size to determine what position he plays. If Hank is indeed a winger than you will benefit as much as you were punished, in other words the review to move him back to center (from winger) would be longer than 26 games. So it works both ways, the system is good.

Zetterberg, fair enough..Respond to my Boston example. Is that not a special case?

Teams can have 5 centers. Hell lines can have 2 ( Dallas loui-ott/Benn) add in a Seguin switch to C...

Now they are a team that will likely be helped by our system as I'm sure there are changes coming - at least according to julien.

I listed 7 centers from one team. My only question was basically, why do we not have a special consideration for review at the 26 gp mark for players who were traded? And still remain with the same team. I know teams have multiple centers. Why is the magical FOR calculation not used in this scenario? Why is the FOW used from the previously traded team? How can numbers from a prior team in a different situation be used to determine a players position on a new team without considering any other variable? Think about it.

mr. bruin wroteCOLONI listed 7 centers from one team. My only question was basically, why do we not have a special consideration for review at the 26 gp mark for players who were traded? And still remain with the same team. I know teams have multiple centers. Why is the magical FOR calculation not used in this scenario? Why is the FOW used from the previously traded team? How can numbers from a prior team in a different situation be used to determine a players position on a new team without considering any other variable? Think about it.

Ugh...just lost a proper response.

FOW is never used, dunno where that comment comes from.


I will revisit later, didn't have time for first post let alone a partial re-type. However please remember you were in on this entire discussion, if you're saying we need an early review for players on new teams (that they did not play for at all during the 2010-2011 season) I'd somewhat agree, but this has never been brought up before, and neither Peverly nor Zetty is an example of this. An example could be Kris Versteeg, Fleischmann, Prospal, Arnott,Park, B.Richards, Seto, Heaters, M.Richards, etc... how to narrow done the list to players worth checking? I have nothing wrong with them all-newly-acquired players to be subject to a positional review at 26gp. If there is others who feel the same way I'll take it to the CC.


So what you described I think, is a player who was traded at the TDD last season (2010-2011) and remains with the same club for the next season (2011-2012); why are his numbers from last season not a good indication? For Peverly he had 23 regular season gp and 25 playoff, and he took more then 330 draws for the bruins...toi around 17min, his season+playoffs(not a consideration, just looking) FOR was .45 or so... clearly taking a large number for draws over a very valid sample size

mr. bruin wroteCOLONZetterberg, fair enough..Respond to my Boston example. Is that not a special case?

There are no special cases, that is the beauty of the system.

Craig Adams, still at 12 FOW ... can I change him back to wing now or what?

obviously not, you troublemaker!

i missed your posts in the other threads though

sharpie and smitty your time is near!

Craig Smith is playing lots of centre now, well last 3 games at least.

Official Patrick Sharp Application:

2010/2011 - 508/1436 = 0.35

0.35 is > .3

- early updates
Two categories of centers are eligible for an early update during the season:
- centers whose FOR was <.4 in the previous season

his FOR this season is .14...he's a fuckin winger.

Yes he qualifies for an early update check with a FOR last year of .35 (<.4)
and yes, with a toi of 476:17 and FOT of 66 his FOR = .138 , meaning after his 26th GP his position changes to winger at Anton's request for review.


Although we do need to wait 1 more GP, it's final as it's essentially impossible for him to become a centre next game, he'd need to take over 90 faceoffs next game to have a FOR of .3

Nick wroteCOLONYes he qualifies for an early update check with a FOR last year of .35 (<.4)
and yes, with a toi of 476:17 and FOT of 66 his FOR = .138 , meaning after his 26th GP his position changes to winger at Anton's request for review.


Although we do need to wait 1 more GP, it's final as it's essentially impossible for him to become a centre next game, he'd need to take over 90 faceoffs next game to have a FOR of .3

this is patrick sharp we're talking about. if he wanted to take 90 faceoffs in a game he would. i told him not to tho.

To be clear he'll be reviewed with the rest of the league @ ASB. but at least for ~26gp here you got a winger on your hands

Official Application:

Tuomo Ruutu (26 GP):

2011/12: 87 FOT / 427.07 TOI = 0.21

incorrect info by me, deleted!

Have we decided if we will be doing early review to convert Wingers to Centers?