Buds Board Keepers League

I'm actually pretty done explaining this one lol. its beating a dead horse now. It's been summed up, if you disagree then you disagree but there really isn't anything more to add to this argument lol.

I will put one last bid and then I wont talk about this again. What is my argument? I doubt you trade Hamonic for Suter even if cap was not an issue. that is my problem and where I see it as an issue. The fact that Hamonic is better in bbkl then Suter despite the point difference is a problem. Basically points aren't enough to make a player worth having on the back end. There were 95 players with at least 50 points in the last full season and since defensemen hit periphs harder than forwards, it makes sense that you would try to use forwards for points and dmen for periphs. If you look around, this is exactly the path most contenders go down and is why point getting dmen are undervalued. Well that and the fact that point getting dmen tend to hit less and pk less. While trying to value depth players properly, which was and is still a good thing for this league, we accidently erased the finesse dman market. That is why I suggested a cat change.

None of the proposed cat changes would revolutionize our scoring. It would only be one cat potentially changing but it would help give value to a group we have been neglecting all along.

re-read that, if it sounded condescending or as if I was irritated towards you, that was not my intention. It was written light heartedly lol.

just wanted to make sure you didn't think I was being a dick to you lol

bcool wroteCOLONNot sure I get the argument so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I think there is already a ton of value with owning an offensive defenceman. Shook, you mentioned it yourself. There were only 19 defenceman who had more than 40 points last year..that makes them a relatively rare commodity. You compare that to 50+ point forwards..which are way more abundant. If you are getting 50-60pts from a defenceman, you don't need the 80+ point forwards to do well in the points categories. You can get away with having forwards who max out at 50 points for example and still be competitive in the points categories. On the otherhand, if you just role with periph defenceman who max out at 20 points as your starting 6 defenceman, you would need 80-90 pt forwards to stay competitive in the points categories week to week. Having offensive defenceman on your team allows you to spend your resources on forwards who get periphs rather than points and your team could still be competitive offensively.

Not sure if I explained it as clearly as I could..haha

agreed and nicely done

hong57 wroteCOLON

bcool wroteCOLONNot sure I get the argument so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I think there is already a ton of value with owning an offensive defenceman. Shook, you mentioned it yourself. There were only 19 defenceman who had more than 40 points last year..that makes them a relatively rare commodity. You compare that to 50+ point forwards..which are way more abundant. If you are getting 50-60pts from a defenceman, you don't need the 80+ point forwards to do well in the points categories. You can get away with having forwards who max out at 50 points for example and still be competitive in the points categories. On the otherhand, if you just role with periph defenceman who max out at 20 points as your starting 6 defenceman, you would need 80-90 pt forwards to stay competitive in the points categories week to week. Having offensive defenceman on your team allows you to spend your resources on forwards who get periphs rather than points and your team could still be competitive offensively.

Not sure if I explained it as clearly as I could..haha

agreed and nicely done

really? I definitely applaud his argument as it is the only one that has been brought forth so far that was well thought out and made sense. I just think he over estimates the worth of defensive points. For example out of MIN, LAK, PIT, TOR, TBL, BOS, CBJ (off the top of my head contenders I thought of) they have a combined 3 of those 19 40+ point getting defensemen from the last full season. If it paid to go that route, at least one of them would have gone that way.

for reference, the bottom 7 teams in the league had a combined 9. Just saying it is a pattern I have noticed that we could help fix without changing much at all. Also at quick count, 13 of those 19 are owned by none playoff teams. I could be off one or two either way as not everyones pages are up to date but I am close there. Anyways that truly is my last comment on this matter. I know it wouldn't hurt if a stat was changed at all, but it could end up helping. It doesn't have to be the stat I suggested, but something needs to be done.

As someone who is on the outside looking in, who would be unaffected by the rule change here's my opinion. I do think that cat is better than SO or +- but if I already had a team I would be against adding a cat that would affect how bluelines are built and that favours one team over another. In hindsight it would change trade values of players and make some trades look lopsided that were fair at the time. If it wasn't implemented until 14-15 it would help alleviate concerns, but it still punishes GMs who don't hold offensive D and is kind of unfair to them since it would have been a perfectly fine strategy for the current rules in place.

I am in a fantasy league with near identical scoring and my defence is

Schenn - Beauchemin
Barrie - Orpik
Oleksy - Stone
Grossmann

I built that d-corps to rack up peripheral stats with Barrie thrown in to keep cost down and add in a little offence. If the rules were changed all of a sudden Barrie would become one of the more valuable D in the league on a cheap deal as the PP QB of a young Avs team he probably puts up 40pts if healthy. Schenn, Beauch, Orpik, Oleksy and Grossmann would all see their value take a hit since they don't really provide offence. I don't know how many teams have similar D, but I would be annoyed if I was told

"I know your defence is good under the current rules, but we are changing them now and 6 of your D will have their value drop and other teams will have 4 of their D's value increase quite a bit and now have a better chance of beating you in a week since we have changed the rules to favour them."

I know that's a bit dramatic and exaggerated. I do think D pts is a good cat and if it was there from the beginning it would have been a positive, but I see where people would be upset if they constructed their D in a certain way and it was now deemed less valuable since it wasn't offensive enough.

We have been down this road before. We used to allow a ton of faceoffs to be taken from the Wing till two years ago. Then common sense kicked in and the league is better for it. There was enough notice given for that move as well.

It definitely can be justified and taking away FOs from duals is a good comparison since it would have reduced their value as well. I would just sympathize with a team with no offensive defenceman since there was less of an incentive to own them with the current rules.

Bruyns wroteCOLONIt definitely can be justified and taking away FOs from duals is a good comparison since it would have reduced their value as well. I would just sympathize with a team with no offensive defenceman since there was less of an incentive to own them with the current rules.

I currently own Giordano, Orpik, Beauchemin, Klein, Alzner, Gunnarsson, Franson. This rule would lower the values of many of those players. But they will still be competitive in the same categories that make them H2H monsters at the moment. TOI may be a category I lose but that doesn't mean every other category's value disappears lol

bcool wroteCOLONNot sure I get the argument so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I think there is already a ton of value with owning an offensive defenceman. Shook, you mentioned it yourself. There were only 19 defenceman who had more than 40 points last year..that makes them a relatively rare commodity. You compare that to 50+ point forwards..which are way more abundant. If you are getting 50-60pts from a defenceman, you don't need the 80+ point forwards to do well in the points categories. You can get away with having forwards who max out at 50 points for example and still be competitive in the points categories. On the otherhand, if you just role with periph defenceman who max out at 20 points as your starting 6 defenceman, you would need 80-90 pt forwards to stay competitive in the points categories week to week. Having offensive defenceman on your team allows you to spend your resources on forwards who get periphs rather than points and your team could still be competitive offensively.

Not sure if I explained it as clearly as I could..haha

well said. With regards to the 19 dmen thats what i was mentioning in my previous post about how this new rule cat would only really effect a smaaaaaaaaaallllllllllll amount of dmen. Just not needed...

SuperMario wroteCOLONWe have been down this road before. We used to allow a ton of faceoffs to be taken from the Wing till two years ago. Then common sense kicked in and the league is better for it. There was enough notice given for that move as well.

ummmmm totally different situation. That was unfair and needed change because you had certain teams running with like 8 or 9 centremen...

this is not even CLOSE to the same situation lol.


Anyways a new cat wouldn't be the end of the world but don't see why this one needs to be used. Only has a significant barring on a handful of the top offensive d who are too defensively inept and soft to put up good periph numbers.

KapG wroteCOLONOnly has a significant barring on a handful of the top offensive d who are too defensively inept and soft to put up good periph numbers.

Wow...

Nick Lidstrom would have fallen into your definition lol. Except he didn't need to hit and was far from defensively inept lol. Scott Niedermayer is another one. There are countless examples. Teams with those d-men deserve to have their values. This isn't about your team or my team. The league will be better for it the closer we value players to their real life values.

I think it will be a great failure of this league if in 10 years (hoping it lasts that long) players similar to Lidstrom/Niedermayer were never valued to their real life NHL value.

And we're not even proposing sweeping change. Just 1 category put in for SOs lol. This thread is becoming a joke.

Why not just add the one category and leave SO's? Does it come the the issue of goalies counting for TOI again?

SuperMario wroteCOLON

KapG wroteCOLONOnly has a significant barring on a handful of the top offensive d who are too defensively inept and soft to put up good periph numbers.

Wow...

Nick Lidstrom would have fallen into your definition lol. Except he didn't need to hit and was far from defensively inept lol. Scott Niedermayer is another one. There are countless examples. Teams with those d-men deserve to have their values. This isn't about your team or my team. The league will be better for it the closer we value players to their real life values.

I think it will be a great failure of this league if in 10 years (hoping it lasts that long) players similar to Lidstrom/Niedermayer were never valued to their real life NHL value.

And we're not even proposing sweeping change. Just 1 category put in for SOs lol. This thread is becoming a joke.

you noticed the inept defensively part i wrote there too right?? Cause lindstrom was most certainly not inept on the defensive side of things. Suppose I should have added an or after the and.

same thing for Niedermayer. I mean seriously, nice names to try and use on me lol. Guys like Yandle and Campbell don't get shtoi because they don't deserve it.

If you want to put in another category how bout you pick one that isn't only gong to really benefit the 18 or so guys who scored over 40 points from the back end last year. PRetty small percentage of players since you have around 210+ starting dmen in this league.

I think that's the point Kyle, there are elite players (i.e. a group of 18 or 20 guys) who are considered elite in the NHL and are paid accordingly, who are not considered elite in the BBKL because points from defensemen are not valued as they are in the NHL. Yandle, and Campbell are not bad D-men, neither is J-Bouw, Karlsson or any number of other offensively talented defensemen.

D-men who do not hit or block shots but rather use their sticks and strong positioning should not have less value in a league such as this (which strives for realism), hence the examples Shiv gave. For example, Nick Grossmann on my team who logs a lot of SHTOI and BS should not be a more valuable player than guys like Yandle/Campbell but with our current cat's their value is very similar. Shook and Shiv are simply trying to balance real life value with BBKL value, and as I've said before I'm fine with either route the league takes but this is definitely a discussion worth having.

KapG wroteCOLON

SuperMario wroteCOLON

KapG wroteCOLONOnly has a significant barring on a handful of the top offensive d who are too defensively inept and soft to put up good periph numbers.

Wow...

Nick Lidstrom would have fallen into your definition lol. Except he didn't need to hit and was far from defensively inept lol. Scott Niedermayer is another one. There are countless examples. Teams with those d-men deserve to have their values. This isn't about your team or my team. The league will be better for it the closer we value players to their real life values.

I think it will be a great failure of this league if in 10 years (hoping it lasts that long) players similar to Lidstrom/Niedermayer were never valued to their real life NHL value.

And we're not even proposing sweeping change. Just 1 category put in for SOs lol. This thread is becoming a joke.

you noticed the inept defensively part i wrote there too right?? Cause lindstrom was most certainly not inept on the defensive side of things. Suppose I should have added an or after the and.

same thing for Niedermayer. I mean seriously, nice names to try and use on me lol. Guys like Yandle and Campbell don't get shtoi because they don't deserve it.

If you want to put in another category how bout you pick one that isn't only gong to really benefit the 18 or so guys who scored over 40 points from the back end last year. PRetty small percentage of players since you have around 210+ starting dmen in this league.

Okay I'm going to spell this out for you:

Nick Lidstrom - Sucked at Hits, PIMS, even Blocks/SHTOI compared to some of our h2h stars. He was also always 6+M. He should have been worth more considering he had multiple 50 point seasons + even a couple of 60 point seasons. Yet in this league, having a Kevin Klein may be smarter/comparable for the value at 2.9M.

Same applies for Niedermayer. Getting "some" SHTOI is not the issue. Kronwall got more SHTOI on DET than Lidstrom did even during the years Lidstrom had 60 points I believe. Kronwall is a force now but back then Kronwall should not have been the better asset to own.

On Ottawa: Cowen vs Karlsson - who helps more in BBKL when cap is factored in?
On St. Louis: Pietrangelo (once he gets a contract) vs Shattenkirk?
LA: Doughty vs Matt Greene
Vancouver: Edler vs Bieksa
Philadelphia: Coburn vs Timonen
Pittsburgh: Paul Martin vs Scuderi
San Jose: Dan Boyle vs Brad Stuart
Nashville: Weber vs Klein

I can keep going. I repeat: It will be a great failure of this league in 10 years if players like Subban, Doughty, Weber, Pietrangelo, Karlsson, Suter, Edler etc are not the best H2H pieces on their NHL teams in BBKL terms - this is once Subban gets his 6-7M contract as well.

We do not need to drastically change anything. You take out SO add TOI or DefPTS. Still 16 cats. Still need Blks, Hits, PIMS, SHTOI to win. Brad Stuart will still hit those categories for example. But we can add some value to the 6M+ stud d-men category.

Sensfanjosh wroteCOLONI think that's the point Kyle, there are elite players (i.e. a group of 18 or 20 guys) who are considered elite in the NHL and are paid accordingly, who are not considered elite in the BBKL because points from defensemen are not valued as they are in the NHL. Yandle, and Campbell are not bad D-men, neither is J-Bouw, Karlsson or any number of other offensively talented defensemen.

D-men who do not hit or block shots but rather use their sticks and strong positioning should not have less value in a league such as this (which strives for realism), hence the examples Shiv gave. For example, Nick Grossmann on my team who logs a lot of SHTOI and BS should not be a more valuable player than guys like Yandle/Campbell but with our current cat's their value is very similar. Shook and Shiv are simply trying to balance real life value with BBKL value, and as I've said before I'm fine with either route the league takes but this is definitely a discussion worth having.

yandle has limited value in the real NHL and so does Campbell because of their contracts and because both are liabilities...well, perhaps thats a bit much....but both are noo considered to be above average defensively in my books. Neither of them use their sticks and strong positioning to help their teams defensively, if they did, you'd likely see them on the PK. Alas...you don't...

If you value grossman more than a guy like yandle and campbell thats not my problem but yours. I mean, the guy had 4 fucking points last year lol. For me I would be using him as a 6 or 7 dman. Kind of like I do with brad stuart/Z Michalek and Fistric.

With regards to Jaybo, he most certainly is valued fairly in this league, just look at what he's been traded for a few times. He, unlike yandle and campbell actually PKs though. Karlsson may not PK too much but he is far and away the best offensive dman in this league. His value also reflects this fact. Just look at what some people have paid to acquire him through out the years in here.

I think you are under the impression that once DefPTS are added, the value of a player like Campbell will skyrocket lol. It will not.

If anything, they will see a small value bump in terms of stats and trade value. That's it. The rest will be small adjustments.

shiv , go look at lindstroms SHTOI numbers going back to 02/03/. He most certainly DID pk like a lot of the elite PK dmen in our league.

Why the fuck are you comparing Karlsson to Cowen? Obviously Karlsson is the more valuable asset to any team in this league. If you're a GM who thinks Cowen is more valuable, then your just a fucking moron. Same goes for Matt Greene and Doughty LOL. Who the fuck thinks greene is more valuable? Go look at what some people paid for Doughty vs whats been paid for Greene..

Subban, Doughty, Weber, Pietrangelo, Karlsson, Suter, Edler these are all some of the best H2H pieces in our leagues. They need more value why??? Yah, it's gonna be a "great failure" if these guys aren't more highly valued than they already are...

Is there such a thing as a defensive multiplier on offensive cats coming from a Defense-man? Like a point from a dman is worth 1.1...etc...

KapG wroteCOLONshiv , go look at lindstroms SHTOI numbers going back to 02/03/. He most certainly DID pk like a lot of the elite PK dmen in our league.

Why the fuck are you comparing Karlsson to Cowen? Obviously Karlsson is the more valuable asset to any team in this league. If you're a GM who thinks Cowen is more valuable, then your just a fucking moron. Same goes for Matt Greene and Doughty LOL. Who the fuck thinks greene is more valuable? Go look at what some people paid for Doughty vs whats been paid for Greene..

Subban, Doughty, Weber, Pietrangelo, Karlsson, Suter, Edler these are all some of the best H2H pieces in our leagues. They need more value why??? Yah, it's gonna be a "great failure" if these guys aren't more highly valued than they already are...

1. Not talking about Lidstrom in 02/03. Go look between 07/08 till when he retired.
2. You are a fool if you do not think Cowen/Hamonic's ability to contribute to a winner is not CLOSE to Karlsson. Trade value wise sure Karlsson is worth more. But let's see Pete try to get Hamonic + + for Karlsson. Or Cowen + +
3. You seemed to have missed the point of the discussion despite multiple people trying to explain this to you.
4. You are way too emotional to have such a discussion with which is probably a good reason why you're not in the CC, who I am hoping ultimately has a discussion about this.

Not responding to your emotional rants any longer.