General Message Board
Here is what I just emailed to Yahoo. Please show your support if you agree...
This is absurd.
I'm not sure what goes into account when the person in charge of position eligibility makes changes, but seriously who the hell is Mike Duco and why would he get another position before someone like Zetterberg who has been listed as LW in Research since October, and has been playing that position since that time too? Are we going to give more positions to the 500 other no-names of the league before him? What about Backes, who is listed as C and plays C put still only has RW.
I find it absolutely absurd that these random players are being given position eligibility; most of them have ownership rates of 0-2%. How does that make any sort of sense? Your system is absolutely ridiculous and I want to know exactly what this position eligibility person is thinking, and how they go about making these calls.
Mike Duco? Joe Kalinsky? Really? Who the hell cares about them? Give us position eligibility for players that matter (preferably those with ownership rates higher than 0%), not these plugs that spend a game in the NHL before being sent back to god know where.
Snap to it. Get to the real deal here, half the season has been played and you people make those schmucks over at ESPN look like geniuses.
That's so funny. In one of my posts yesterday I said they would probably add C eligibility to Jeff Skinner because of his whopping 448 faceoffs the entire season.... and guess what... sometime last night they added C to Jeff Skinner.
That actually makes him much more valuable....Still Backes (521 faceoffs), Giroux (over 400), Briere (over 400) still haven't been changed. Surely the evidence suggests they are more deserving?
I watched the Rangers play last night and Dubinsky was on LW with Drury, so they should probably upgrade him too. One game makes a left winger, but 80 games, doesnt....
Finally, I read a post where somebody lauded the data provider for working hard to give free services... I agree with that.... I suppose it's easy to be critical but if they are working for free, I applaud that. However, it would take very little research to figure out Backes....
The best one is if you go to a penguins game (or have in the last 3 years) Malkin is listed as...RW. He only plays as a center what, 5% of the time and when he plays in the olympics every 4 years for team Russia?
Forgive me if I repeat some of the comments by other posters... I have not yet had the opportunity to review those posts.
That said, I have been campaigning for a Backes position eligibility update (to Center) for the better part of the last half-year. Backes took over 500 faceoffs last season. He has taken 521 thus far this year and is 32nd in the league. Of course, his value is dramatically increased as a C/RW and not just a RW. The evidence clearly demonstrates he should be updated.
Other players like Eberle, Ennis et al have been updated notwithstanding they have taken almost no faceoffs or spent time at center. Zetterberg was properly updated, but Backes, Giroux and Briere -- who have done more faceoff work than Henrik are still not properly updated. Other players, like Dubinsky, who plays a mix of LW and C done get the nod for an update (admittedly tougher to make the case for Dubinsky), but other players have been given multi-positionality on limited evidence.....
- 1 Reply to muttenus
Hey Jay you're slacking off.
Post a summary of the complaint and the URL of this thread in the comments sections of the Yahoo FH columns e.g. the Skinny and Big Board.
Yahoo columnists who write those are in the Yahoo Friends and Family League -- they play fantasy hockey. Romig, Pianowski, Behrens. I would suppose they face the same position eligibility restrictions.
Let's get this fixed. It's not right that Yahoo gives position eligibility control to the "data provider," which obviously doesn't care and screws up info in all Yahoo fantasy sports.
I agree 100%...I own David Backes myself and i've been wondering the exact same thing. I don't understand what the criteria is, and how they can give position eligibility to random kids who aren't even in the NHL. Its really frustrating because if Backes had dual eligibility around midseason after he'd already played maybe 30 games at Center, I would have gotten a few more man games that could have made the difference between one or two points.
- 1 Reply to The Natural
Whoever the data provider is they don't really care who plays what position. I was listening to Hitchcock the Columbus coach talking about the Olympics and how Rick Nash will most likely be playing LW for Canada. He went on to say that would be a bit of an adjustment for him because he's been playing RW with the jackets for the last 3 YEARS. Whereas some players play one shift at another position and they're duel.
Another example is Alex Burrows who has been a RW for far less only 1 year I guess if he continues to play RW for a couple more seasons he might get listed as one.
- View More Messages
Expert Fantasy Advice
As the fantasy draft season ramps up, here's a look under the hood of a long-standing Yahoo experts league. … More »
Another year, another Super Bowl contender in New England. We have a few new faces in town, so let's preview. … More »
Brian Hoyer is Cleveland's starting quarterback, but for how long? Time for a price check on Johnny Football. … More »
There's an extreme difference when it comes to drafting and auctioning based on your league's format. … More »