|
Post by nordiques on Feb 12, 2013 9:50:58 GMT -5
Just noticed, Conacher is currently eligible at center w. zero face off attempts
|
|
|
Post by simonpeter2 on Feb 12, 2013 12:06:56 GMT -5
To the positional eligibility conversation, I've noticed that Fantrax, as with Yahoo and I'd imagine other leagues, goofs positions. They've had centers solely set on a wing, wingers eligible at center with 2 hand fulls of face off's. They eventually fixed it, reluctantly. They did mention the commissioner tools they offer provide leagues the ability to make these changes. The fact they've created that option is admission of oversights though they refute in email lol. There is a lot to track, mistakes are understandable, why deny it lol It doesn't appear some thing that will be an issue, its typically accurate but again we have some very good abilities to reason things through here. I was going to say some thing else but I forgot lol Ya, this is the same no matter where you host your dynasty league, the C and W always come up for debate cuz it is never perfect, but yes, in every league there is always a dedicated method to request the commish for a correction to be made. But it's a good point with the draft coming up we should get our protocol for this into the rules somewhere. During the draft if fantrax has someone listed at C but he usually only plays half his games there and has very low FOW it would greatly devalue him if there was no way to fix his position, something a person would need to know at draft time..... The method that seems to work the best is avg FOW per game, somewhere around 5 or 6 FOW per game, if less he qualifies for a W position, but that varies from league to league, and usually there is a wait period at the start of the season, like no requests until 12 games in or something along that line, again varies league to league ...
|
|
|
Post by simonpeter2 on Feb 12, 2013 12:32:50 GMT -5
Actually, thinking about it further I'm not sure the position thing is an issue, I forgot this is a straight points league, so even even if your center gets zero FOW it in theory should be irrelevant if his fantasy points are still good based on all his other stats .. or am I wrong ..?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2013 12:36:12 GMT -5
Actually, thinking about it further I'm not sure the position thing is an issue, I forgot this is a straight points league, so even even if your center gets zero FOW it in theory should be irrelevant if his fantasy points are still good based on all his other stats .. or am I wrong ..? faceoffs counts only for centers. Not sure how that will be implemented on Fantrax though
|
|
|
Post by simonpeter2 on Feb 12, 2013 18:07:32 GMT -5
Actually, thinking about it further I'm not sure the position thing is an issue, I forgot this is a straight points league, so even even if your center gets zero FOW it in theory should be irrelevant if his fantasy points are still good based on all his other stats .. or am I wrong ..? faceoffs counts only for centers. Not sure how that will be implemented on Fantrax though I'm sure fantrax has it as part of their options, but it what I mean is it doesn't really matter, FOW just give C a little extra value. But in the end if you have a guy listed at C by fantrax with zero FOW and he is averaging 3.5 fantasy points a game with all his other stats it is the exact same thing as having a C that gets you 10 FOW a game but still is only averaging 3.5 fantasy points a game because of his overall stats ... basically whether a W is listed at C doesn't really matter in a points per player based league, bottom line is how many points he is getting you .. now if during the off season fantrax takes 2 of your centers and makes them W only then that would be a different matter ...
|
|
|
Post by leafsgm on Feb 12, 2013 19:09:47 GMT -5
The easy thing is just have FOW as a category. Set it up as a point value and move on. In my fantrax leagues, that's how I have it set. Then W or C. I just let fantrax run with it, that's why they get paid to host a site. As a commish of 3 dynasty keeper leagues, I have enough to worry about.
It seems when a commish has more day to day items to follow up on, he can get burnt out. If you set it up for fantrax to track, no one can argue.
|
|
|
Post by simonpeter2 on Feb 12, 2013 19:28:40 GMT -5
Does anyone know how fantrax scores multiposition players if there is a custom scoring for one position? For example currently our league only gives points for FOW to Centres, if a guy could also play wing and we use him on wing would he still get points for FOW because he has dual listing or only if we actually use him a C on the active roster? Not sure how fantrax handles that ...
The above might be the only thing that could cause problems for some one down the road, if your guy is getting points for his FOW because he has dual listing and fantrax moves him to wing only in the off-season if would be a negative for sure since now you've lost any points he was getting for FOW ...
|
|
|
Post by leafsgm on Feb 12, 2013 22:54:03 GMT -5
How fantrax works is one of two ways. You can make FOW a category and a point value. Then any forward that has FOW gets the points. The other way is, you have to do a custom scoring category for just C and the point value for FOW. So, if you have say Patrick Kane who is a C/RW, you only get point for him, if you have him playing C on that particular night.
So as you say, it can pose problems down the road for the players with dual elgibility. For this reason, IMO, it's much easier to just have FOW for all forwards. The non-centers don't usually have many FOW, so we aren't talking about many points.
|
|
|
Post by Commish/habsgm on Feb 13, 2013 0:02:16 GMT -5
i agree with you guys, i think we will end up changing it so that all forwards get the points for FOW
Have to talk it over with the other commish but this is the way i am leaning, thanks for the insight boys.
|
|
|
Post by nordiques on Feb 13, 2013 9:56:11 GMT -5
Faceoffs for wingers as a whole stink cause most wingers stink on the dot though they take hundreds of them. Centers only face offs intrigued me a lot but that is a subjective view. Fantasy should reflect real life, if some one, any one takes a face off it should be accounted for in the stats as a matter of genuity (sp).
The question I have in regard eligibility, is Fantrax' problem keeping positions straight. If a player is listed as a centerman and hasn't taken a single faceoff, that's a problem. If a center is also eligible as a winger and doesn't skate on the wing, that's a problem Fantrax also has had a few times. Dave Backes is a player who is legitimately dual eligible, Jeff Skinner is not. Skinner has 7 total face offs attempted and Fantrax STILL has him eligible at center. I went back n forth with Fantrax about this over 2 seasons.
|
|
|
Post by devils on Feb 13, 2013 12:20:14 GMT -5
Faceoffs for wingers as a whole stink cause most wingers stink on the dot though they take hundreds of them. Centers only face offs intrigued me a lot but that is a subjective view. Fantasy should reflect real life, if some one, any one takes a face off it should be accounted for in the stats as a matter of genuity (sp). The question I have in regard eligibility, is Fantrax' problem keeping positions straight. If a player is listed as a centerman and hasn't taken a single faceoff, that's a problem. If a center is also eligible as a winger and doesn't skate on the wing, that's a problem Fantrax also has had a few times. Dave Backes is a player who is legitimately dual eligible, Jeff Skinner is not. Skinner has 7 total face offs attempted and Fantrax STILL has him eligible at center. I went back n forth with Fantrax about this over 2 seasons. We could just shift all forwards to F and not worry about positional eligibility...
|
|
|
Post by hamhocks on Feb 13, 2013 13:00:45 GMT -5
Wow, we are taking this topic on a wild ride. Fun stuff, I guess I will chime in with an opinion. While yes, in a perfect world, Fantrax or whoever, we would wish would have perfect eligibility in place. The fact is for the most part, they are very close. There are only a handful of players that are head scratchers. Assuming we just blanket every position with FOW and FOL for the moment. Other than multiply position flexibility there is no change in value if a true winger inappropriately gains center eligibility(ala Jeff Skinner). The real damage is done if a true center gets eligibility at winger. That is a tremendous benefit, especially with FOW at .25pts(if Crosby suddenly become LW eligible for instance). Those extremes are less frequent and I guess as long as that status is maintained, a very lucky break for that owner. To piggy back on WPG owner comments, you just can’t fight everything. We have not drafted yet and owners should use the multiple position as a factor, or ignore, each owners choice. Fantrax does update the eligibility in the offseason for sure, and a player may get stripped or added a position. That is just the breaks either way in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by simonpeter2 on Feb 13, 2013 15:09:30 GMT -5
Wow, we are taking this topic on a wild ride. Fun stuff, I guess I will chime in with an opinion. While yes, in a perfect world, Fantrax or whoever, we would wish would have perfect eligibility in place. The fact is for the most part, they are very close. There are only a handful of players that are head scratchers. Assuming we just blanket every position with FOW and FOL for the moment. Other than multiply position flexibility there is no change in value if a true winger inappropriately gains center eligibility(ala Jeff Skinner). The real damage is done if a true center gets eligibility at winger. That is a tremendous benefit, especially with FOW at .25pts(if Crosby suddenly become LW eligible for instance). Those extremes are less frequent and I guess as long as that status is maintained, a very lucky break for that owner. To piggy back on WPG owner comments, you just can’t fight everything. We have not drafted yet and owners should use the multiple position as a factor, or ignore, each owners choice. Fantrax does update the eligibility in the offseason for sure, and a player may get stripped or added a position. That is just the breaks either way in my opinion. Well said, I like to commishes idea of just adding the fow to all positions and move forward, and then like you said draft accordingly. And really if FOW is added to score at all positions it reduces most risk anyways, that way Skinner will still score 3.5ppg regardless is gets moved to wing or stays just centre or gets both, you might just have to make a trade or pick up an fa to fill a wing or C position, but Skinners value doesn't change (as far as scoring goes) .. I don't like the idea of all forwards, not enough of a challenge then, I'm in one league that does this, i have like 8 centers, gets a bit boring, a lot less strategy involved ...
|
|
|
Post by nordiques on Feb 13, 2013 21:57:24 GMT -5
I must have been lost cause I didn't realize we were discussing faceoff scoring for all forwards as opposed to just centers lol.
Fantrax or whom ever the host is will never be perfect, they're run by humans and we're all ways flawed. HOWEVER having a player with zero face offs attempted eligible at center is just either moronic or grossly incompetent. It's the most important responsibility other wise he'd just be a winger. I realize some guys suck and shift from the wing to center after a face off but even in those situations those C's do attempt face offs. Conacher with zero, Skinner with 7 total = nonsense. Those are unearned positional eligibilities.
|
|
|
Post by Commish on Feb 14, 2013 8:01:50 GMT -5
I like center only because some players get Center eligibility for playing one game at center but they are not centers. I agree with Nords. We are going to stick with centers only. It is up to you to know which players can give you faceoffs. We will do it atleast for one fuill year, if we find problems with it it will be put up to discussion
|
|