Admin runling needed...Position changes

[Chuzwazza]

Not sure what was decided last year....have a player who is listed as a LW/RW on Forcaster etc. But in the bio it says he's vesatile enough to play any forward position. So does this enable him to change to a C position? or is it strictly what the listed positions are. I know there's a couple of Gm's in the situation. Centers who's bio's say that can line up at either C or Wing.

Thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[Fan.At]

Not sure what was decided last year....have a player who is listed as a LW/RW on Forcaster etc. But in the bio it says he's vesatile enough to play any forward position. So does this enable him to change to a C position? or is it strictly what the listed positions are. I know there's a couple of Gm's in the situation. Centers who's bio's say that can line up at either C or Wing.

Thoughts?

not sure if that helps, but that always worked for me when forecaster said the player is versatile enough to play both forward positions

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

A good question. Typically we've relied on what they "listed" as, but if there is a reference like that AND perhaps some other recent references to the player playing center as a pro, then that might be enough. At the very least, i think a GM should be able to put some form of formal appeal where they show the collected evidence the player can play the position (center in this case), should they not be listed formally, and a few Admin team members could review it and grant an exception.

As to the two points above, there is a big difference between saying "any' forward position and "both" forward positions, as 'both' could be understood that they can play on either wing.

 

[Hossa]

Just as an example, because I have wondered this too, Mike Sillinger is a LW for me, a C according to Forecaster, but his write-up says the following:

ASSETS: Possesses good two-way instincts and playmaking ability. Does anything asked of him. Excels on face-offs and can line up at all three forward positions.

Would that not be fairly conclusive that Sillinger can in fact play at all three positions. To assume the write-up is out of date but the profile not is at best conveniently presumptuous right?

 

[MatthewFlames]

Would that not be fairly conclusive that Sillinger can in fact play at all three positions. To assume the write-up is out of date but the profile not is at best conveniently presumptuous right?

Last season, when an argument was made as above for Sillinger, I would usually change the position at the request of the GM. There were occasions where I turned down the position change where the evidence wasnt as conclusive as 'can line-up at all three forwards positions'.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

Just to hopefully conclude this, I think it is safe to leave it in Matt K's hands, as per his note on Sillinger above (which would be accepted).

In a case where Matt found the evidence to be inconclusive, he could suggest the GM put together a more formal request with a few more examples for a few Admin team members to review.

Make sense?

 

[Ohio Jones]

A related inquiry, if I may -- if we had signed a player at position X, and he is shown in the new ratings as position Y, should we be able to return him (this time only) to position X, with or without evidence?

I raise this question more for other GMs, as in my case I have evidence: Brian Boyle is widely known to have played both C and D, and although his position on Forecaster is C, the Assets say "A natural center, he's also able to play defense"... he was signed as a defenceman late last season for precisely this reason.

 

[SensGod]

IMHO. A GM should be able to put a player in any position as long as their is a reputable source that "eludes" to that player playing the position.

Keeping it really simple. A forward is a forward. If the situation arises, he may have to play in a non-natural position if there is an injury.

I'm not talking about Luongo playing center...or Chara playing center...or Lecavalier playing goalie here, but if someone who's a natural RW...and you have to flip him to LW due to injuries...that happens in the NHL all the time.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

I'm not talking about Luongo playing center...or Chara playing center...or Lecavalier playing goalie here, but if someone who's a natural RW...and you have to flip him to LW due to injuries...that happens in the NHL all the time.

You're right, it does happen quite often. But when the player is used to playing RW all the time, and they move to the left side, they are often less effective. You see this all the time too. And that is the same in the HFNHL - if the player doesn't typically play the left side. You can still move a highly rated RW over to the left side and they will do a decent job as a short-term stop gap. But yes, there will be a bit of a compromise to their rating and effectivenes, as there should be if they are not used to playing there.

I think the rule should remain the same.

 

[MatthewFlames]

You're right, it does happen quite often. But when the player is used to playing RW all the time, and they move to the left side, they are often less effective. You see this all the time too. And that is the same in the HFNHL - if the player doesn't typically play the left side. You can still move a highly rated RW over to the left side and they will do a decent job as a short-term stop gap. But yes, there will be a bit of a compromise to their rating and effectivenes, as there should be if they are not used to playing there.

I think the rule should remain the same.

And last season some of the most successful GM's often played RW'ers on the left etc. without a formal position change and it didn't seem to affect the player or team performances in the short term so I agree that the present rule should stay in place... with the ability of the GM's to appeal to the Admin in a more formal way if I don't find sufficiant reason to make the change myself on a game day.

 

[Ville Isopaa]

A related inquiry, if I may -- if we had signed a player at position X, and he is shown in the new ratings as position Y, should we be able to return him (this time only) to position X, with or without evidence?

I raise this question more for other GMs, as in my case I have evidence: Brian Boyle is widely known to have played both C and D, and although his position on Forecaster is C, the Assets say "A natural center, he's also able to play defense"... he was signed as a defenceman late last season for precisely this reason.

I think that if you can show that a player has played/been on the roster on a specific position in HFNHL, you should be able to move the player back there.

As for rating the player as a F to D, there's a problem. You could rate a forward as a defenseman and get a very high offensive ratings, as they are not rated the same way, and then move him back to forward. Let's use Fedorov as an example. He is currently listed as a defenseman on the rosters. He has played most of the past 3 seasons as a forward. If he was rated as a defenseman he'd get high offensive ratings. If he was then moved back to forward his ratings would be much higher than if he was rated as a forward at the start of the season. We solved this by rating Fedorov as a forward, as he has played forward for most of the past 3 years. Same should apply for others as well. We might also be able to make the ratings from sesaon to season, for players that have played one season as forwards and two as defensemen, to get a more accurate rating.

As for the Bio's of the players counting as evidence, I don't see why this wouldn't be seen as evidence that the player can play that specific position. Forecaster, etc. changes the positional listings a few times/year.

I had that problem with Bäckström, who I was considering moving to the wing. He was listed as a C/W or C/LW most of last season. When I signed him in the offseason, he had been changed to C only and there was no reference to him playing wing, although he did play on a line with Nylander for the first 15-20 games of the season and has played on the wing for the national team.