2011 Rule Changes (1,199 views)

[eric]

All players are now locked in at their current positions. No position changes.

Asterisks go away.

No more CG or F profiles.

All current upgrade caps and rules apply to the positions as written now.

C can play C or PF
PF can play PF or C
SF can play C, PF, or SF or SG if under 6'9"
SG can play C, PF, SF, or SG
PG can play any position

There is no longer a handling requirement for playing the PG position as a backup or starter.

[TimPig]

And CAMPS ARE BACK BABY

[Norman Dale]

The only selfish caveat I would like or hope would get consideration is a player like Livio Jean-Charles. He was made as a F in draft profile and made in game as a PF with the caveat if any upgrades where used to an extent, he would lose his SF eligibility. That caveat was honored to keep his SF eligibility and now he is no longer SF eligible with this new rule. I think a fair thing to do with this significant of a change to a face of roster eligibility is to move players that qualify under the specifications honored to be allowed to be moved to keep their position eligibility.

Eric, I know we have discussed this in private but since this is being passed as a rule with a 6-5 vote, I thought this could be discussed a little to find a common ground. Thanks in advance as always.

[TimPig]

Dec 28, 2018 23:44:52 GMT Norman Dale said:

The only selfish caveat I would like or hope would get consideration is a player like Livio Jean-Charles. He was made as a F in draft profile and made in game as a PF with the caveat if any upgrades where used to an extent, he would lose his SF eligibility. That caveat was honored to keep his SF eligibility and now he is no longer SF eligible with this new rule. I think a fair thing to do with this significant of a change to a face of roster eligibility is to move players that qualify under the specifications honored to be allowed to be moved to keep their position eligibility.

Eric, I know we have discussed this in private but since this is being passed as a rule with a 6-5 vote, I thought this could be discussed a little to find a common ground. Thanks in advance as always.

His upgrades were in strength and inside, neither of which lock him into playing power forward (only 3-pointer or shot-blocking upgrades would have done that).

He had the ability to have his display position changed, per this rule:

Sept 17, 2018 20:02:11 GMT eric said:

F
can play C or PF
can play SF if they have NEVER received Shot Blocking or Three Point Shot upgrades while at PF
can move freely between PF and SF assuming they are eligible to play both positions

Every other position except combo guard explicitly states that display position cannot be changed.

If I were to vote, I'd say go ahead and let folks move forward and combo guard positions throughout the rest of the offseason, but to be honest, you (and everyone) could've done that at any point prior to the draft beginning (and after eric confirmed the rule change) and didn't.

If eric decides to lock him in at PF and you're unhappy with his upgrades (which were in two valuable categories), you can pay 10k of your 66k and reset them.

[Norman Dale]

Dec 28, 2018 23:54:40 GMT TimPig said:

Dec 28, 2018 23:44:52 GMT Norman Dale said:

The only selfish caveat I would like or hope would get consideration is a player like Livio Jean-Charles. He was made as a F in draft profile and made in game as a PF with the caveat if any upgrades where used to an extent, he would lose his SF eligibility. That caveat was honored to keep his SF eligibility and now he is no longer SF eligible with this new rule. I think a fair thing to do with this significant of a change to a face of roster eligibility is to move players that qualify under the specifications honored to be allowed to be moved to keep their position eligibility.

Eric, I know we have discussed this in private but since this is being passed as a rule with a 6-5 vote, I thought this could be discussed a little to find a common ground. Thanks in advance as always.

His upgrades were in strength and inside, neither of which lock him into playing power forward (only 3-pointer or shot-blocking upgrades would have done that).

He had the ability to have his display position changed, per this rule:

Sept 17, 2018 20:02:11 GMT eric said:

F
can play C or PF
can play SF if they have NEVER received Shot Blocking or Three Point Shot upgrades while at PF
can move freely between PF and SF assuming they are eligible to play both positions

Every other position except combo guard explicitly states that display position cannot be changed.

If I were to vote, I'd say go ahead and let folks move forward and combo guard positions throughout the rest of the offseason, but to be honest, you (and everyone) could've done that at any point prior to the draft beginning (and after eric confirmed the rule change) and didn't.

If eric decides to lock him in at PF and you're unhappy with his upgrades (which were in two valuable categories), you can pay 10k of your 66k and reset them.

When I spoke with Eric, I was never told position changes was a possibility or I would have done so last season. I was under the impression and not sure who told me this but players are locked into their listed positions.

[TimPig]

I agree that the ability to change positions has been somewhat unclear, despite being implicitly stated in the rules.

For what it's worth (probably nothing), I changed Jamison's position after one season from PF to SF (he was a F in his draft profile), because I wanted him to get one TC as a big to hopefully boost his rebounding.

Up to eric, I guess, how flexible he wants to be.

[Norman Dale]

Dec 29, 2018 0:03:16 GMT TimPig said:

I agree that the ability to change positions has been somewhat unclear, despite being implicitly stated in the rules.

For what it's worth (probably nothing), I changed Jamison's position after one season from PF to SF (he was a F in his draft profile), because I wanted him to get one TC as a big to hopefully boost his rebounding.

Up to eric, I guess, how flexible he wants to be.

I spoke with Eric on Wednesday 12/19.

[Mike]

Too fucking annoyed that I wasn't allowed to play livio at SF and now he can, I got rid of him for that.

[Norman Dale]

Dec 29, 2018 0:25:32 GMT Mike said:

Too fucking annoyed that I wasn't allowed to play livio at SF and now he can, I got rid of him for that.

Why were you not allowed to?

[TimPig]

Dec 29, 2018 0:25:32 GMT Mike said:

Too fucking annoyed that I wasn't allowed to play livio at SF and now he can, I got rid of him for that.

I’m trying to remember why this was a thing. Didn’t make any sense to me.

[TimPig]

Those texts with Eric make it seem pretty clear position changes weren’t allowed even at that point. Not sure why that was the case.

[eric]

tmbsl5.proboards.com/thread/2250/2009-rule-changes this is the post where no position changes was announced

i can't speak to what mike heard or didn't hear

i agree that livio jean-charles has not received any upgrades that would have precluded his SF eligibility under the old rules

now we have new rules. our only choices are to let the livio jean-charleses of the world benefit from seven PF TCs that SFs otherwise cannot receive, or to put everyone on a level playing field.

i can't see why a level playing field isn't the fairest way, so i am proceeding with that.

[TimPig]

Yeah I forgot about that part of that rules post.

Moving forward, can we ensure these types of changes are added to the master Rules post?

[Norman Dale]

Dec 29, 2018 2:43:41 GMT eric said:

tmbsl5.proboards.com/thread/2250/2009-rule-changes this is the post where no position changes was announced

i can't speak to what mike heard or didn't hear

i agree that livio jean-charles has not received any upgrades that would have precluded his SF eligibility under the old rules

now we have new rules. our only choices are to let the livio jean-charleses of the world benefit from seven PF TCs that SFs otherwise cannot receive, or to put everyone on a level playing field.

i can't see why a level playing field isn't the fairest way, so i am proceeding with that.

He was 8th in win shares at SF, I don’t think any unfair advantage was gained with this individual? Can we review this on an individual basis based off the status of the player? 

[Admin]

Druce made livio amd he disnt do combo piaitions

Hth

[eric]

Dec 29, 2018 2:47:26 GMT TimPig said:

Yeah I forgot about that part of that rules post.

Moving forward, can we ensure these types of changes are added to the master Rules post?

i feel like the removal of the position change ability portion of the rules post, in addition to the explicit announcement that position changes were no longer allowed, was sufficient to determine that the vestigal position change portions were no longer allowed. but thank you for bringing them to my attention, they will be fully adjusted tomorrow to reflect the new rules.

Dec 29, 2018 2:49:19 GMT Norman Dale said:

Dec 29, 2018 2:43:41 GMT eric said:

tmbsl5.proboards.com/thread/2250/2009-rule-changes this is the post where no position changes was announced

i can't speak to what mike heard or didn't hear

i agree that livio jean-charles has not received any upgrades that would have precluded his SF eligibility under the old rules

now we have new rules. our only choices are to let the livio jean-charleses of the world benefit from seven PF TCs that SFs otherwise cannot receive, or to put everyone on a level playing field.

i can't see why a level playing field isn't the fairest way, so i am proceeding with that.

He was 8th in win shares at SF, I don’t think any unfair advantage was gained with this individual? Can we review this on an individual basis based off the status of the player? 

i am not going to review by individual

but if i was, it's not clear to me how a player being top 10 at their otherwise illegal position would be evidence they SHOULD be allowed to continue

if livio was a terrible SF, THAT i could get as grandfathering evidence

[Norman Dale]

Dec 29, 2018 3:23:54 GMT eric said:

Dec 29, 2018 2:47:26 GMT TimPig said:

Yeah I forgot about that part of that rules post.

Moving forward, can we ensure these types of changes are added to the master Rules post?

i feel like the removal of the position change ability portion of the rules post, in addition to the explicit announcement that position changes were no longer allowed, was sufficient to determine that the vestigal position change portions were no longer allowed. but thank you for bringing them to my attention, they will be fully adjusted tomorrow to reflect the new rules.

Dec 29, 2018 2:49:19 GMT Norman Dale said:

He was 8th in win shares at SF, I don’t think any unfair advantage was gained with this individual? Can we review this on an individual basis based off the status of the player? 

i am not going to review by individual

but if i was, it's not clear to me how a player being top 10 at their otherwise illegal position would be evidence they SHOULD be allowed to continue

if livio was a terrible SF, THAT i could get as grandfathering evidence

My point is he is not a dominant player but slightly above average player at the position. 

[TimPig]

Dec 29, 2018 3:23:45 GMT Admin said:

Druce made livio amd he disnt do combo piaitions

Hth

That sounds right. 

[jhb]

I have no feedback to offer

[Deleted]

i am bk and i am dumb

[skrouse]

Players created and drafted seasons ago that are eligible to play a smaller position should be moved to that position to maintain their eligibility prior to this change. A rule change that forces a player out of a position they've been eligible to play their entire career is a bad move imo.

Not saying you have to change all players, but guys in SPL's situation are being screwed for what purpose exactly? Simplicity? If so, I agree with SPL, his position should be adjusted to SF, as should any others specifically requested.

If this rule is intended to prevent said players from playing their smaller position, then I side with locking everyone in their current positions.

[IanBoyd]

i am not bk and bk is dumb

[Norman Dale]

Dec 29, 2018 4:02:06 GMT skrouse said:

Players created and drafted seasons ago that are eligible to play a smaller position should be moved to that position to maintain their eligibility prior to this change. A rule change that forces a player out of a position they've been eligible to play their entire career is a bad move imo.

Not saying you have to change all players, but guys in SPL's situation are being screwed for what purpose exactly? Simplicity? If so, I agree with SPL, his position should be adjusted to SF, as should any others specifically requested.

If this rule is intended to prevent said players from playing their smaller position, then I side with locking everyone in their current positions.

I agree with this

[Norman Dale]

Dec 29, 2018 3:23:54 GMT eric said:

Dec 29, 2018 2:47:26 GMT TimPig said:

Yeah I forgot about that part of that rules post.

Moving forward, can we ensure these types of changes are added to the master Rules post?

i feel like the removal of the position change ability portion of the rules post, in addition to the explicit announcement that position changes were no longer allowed, was sufficient to determine that the vestigal position change portions were no longer allowed. but thank you for bringing them to my attention, they will be fully adjusted tomorrow to reflect the new rules.

Dec 29, 2018 2:49:19 GMT Norman Dale said:

He was 8th in win shares at SF, I don’t think any unfair advantage was gained with this individual? Can we review this on an individual basis based off the status of the player? 

i am not going to review by individual

but if i was, it's not clear to me how a player being top 10 at their otherwise illegal position would be evidence they SHOULD be allowed to continue

if livio was a terrible SF, THAT i could get as grandfathering evidence

A couple things with this Eric. Sorry that I am covering stuff already known but I am hoping we can maybe see some logic in this if I put it down together in a timeline.

first here is his draft profile that was in the 2004 draft

tmbsl5.proboards.com/thread/1140/livio-jean-charles

He was made as a F

here is the post of position eligibility that pertains to the time he was created 

tmbsl5.proboards.com/thread/45/position-eligibility

Under this rule his position could be changed as long as the caveats were honored and they were per your admission 

In 2009 you made this change 

tmbsl5.proboards.com/thread/2250/2009-rule-changes

No more position changes but you still honored his SF eligibility through the end of the 2010 season and I traded for him in the off-season between 2009 and 2010. If I would have known that future changes were to occur, I would have made a position change.

during the 2010 season this was proposed 

tmbsl5.proboards.com/thread/2452/new-position-eligibility-proposal

The voting was 6-4-1 not an overwhelming majority, to me, I was under the impression that the rule would not change based off feed and voting. In concern that this could become a rule, I reached out to you to try and change his position during the 2010 season and was denied because of your prior rule change.

I recognize it is your prerogative as our commissioner to make rule changes like others have done in the past. I will add that you were asking for feedback on people’s stances in the thread and the rule change never seemed concrete or finalized in any way.

my thought on this is there should have been a moment where players like this were given a chance to change their eligible positions in the long term and that was not allowed because of your preemptive move on position changes. I am failing to see the detriment in allowing a window from now to TC to allow position changes to the eligible players then after that window there are no further position changes allowed. I don’t feel there are a massive amount of players influenced by this and if they are they are not going to be game changing players that are cheesing the system. However this will have to make a team like mine make a tough roster choice and move players around most likely through trades, thus changing the make up of the team and getting less value in return.

I understand your point that he has been listed as a PF and benefited from prior TC but you are changing a rule after the fact with no warning of change or allowing any changes being made when there was a hint of ineligibility. This would be the equivalent of the rules of a game or law of the land changing in the future and not allowing for any preparation of those changes and punishing for prior situations when individuals adhered to the rules in place.

[skrouse]

Dec 29, 2018 11:37:34 GMT Norman Dale said:

during the 2010 season this was proposed 

tmbsl5.proboards.com/thread/2452/new-position-eligibility-proposal

Is it possible to have clarity on what this rule change is accomplishing?

I took it to be for simplification. In which case GMs should not be punished, as stated in my stance above.

[eric]

Norman Dale i don't understand how you're reading the proposal thread. i feel like tmbsl5.proboards.com/post/22600/thread states unambiguously that i was going to do this, and even references this specific scenario as something to plan for.

Dec 29, 2018 4:02:06 GMT skrouse said:

Players created and drafted seasons ago that are eligible to play a smaller position should be moved to that position to maintain their eligibility prior to this change. A rule change that forces a player out of a position they've been eligible to play their entire career is a bad move imo.

Not saying you have to change all players, but guys in SPL's situation are being screwed for what purpose exactly? Simplicity? If so, I agree with SPL, his position should be adjusted to SF, as should any others specifically requested.

If this rule is intended to prevent said players from playing their smaller position, then I side with locking everyone in their current positions.

livio benefits from many years of power forward training camps, which offer significant advantages over small forward training camps. i can't go back and re-run his training camps at SF, so my only choices are to let him have an advantage that no other SF can obtain going forward or force him to play the position at which he got TCs.

when we first implemented the Larry Krystkowiak rule way back in 4.0 (centers ineligible to play small forward), the specific criterion was going through a TC as a center for the same reason. there's nothing about being listed as PF or C that helps a player, in fact it can only hurt them by imposing a hard cap on certain attributes. it's the TC that gives an advantage, and livio's had seven.

i also challenge the contention that spl is in any way screwed. elite teams have three good bigs, with this change the lakers will have three good bigs when before they had only two. additionally, this change lets spl start Flip Murray at point guard when he would otherwise be ineligible due to only a B handling grade.

[Norman Dale]

Dec 29, 2018 17:46:50 GMT eric said:

Norman Dale i don't understand how you're reading the proposal thread. i feel like tmbsl5.proboards.com/post/22600/thread states unambiguously that i was going to do this, and even references this specific scenario as something to plan for.

Dec 29, 2018 4:02:06 GMT skrouse said:

Players created and drafted seasons ago that are eligible to play a smaller position should be moved to that position to maintain their eligibility prior to this change. A rule change that forces a player out of a position they've been eligible to play their entire career is a bad move imo.

Not saying you have to change all players, but guys in SPL's situation are being screwed for what purpose exactly? Simplicity? If so, I agree with SPL, his position should be adjusted to SF, as should any others specifically requested.

If this rule is intended to prevent said players from playing their smaller position, then I side with locking everyone in their current positions.

livio benefits from many years of power forward training camps, which offer significant advantages over small forward training camps. i can't go back and re-run his training camps at SF, so my only choices are to let him have an advantage that no other SF can obtain going forward or force him to play the position at which he got TCs.

when we first implemented the Larry Krystkowiak rule way back in 4.0 (centers ineligible to play small forward), the specific criterion was going through a TC as a center for the same reason. there's nothing about being listed as PF or C that helps a player, in fact it can only hurt them by imposing a hard cap on certain attributes. it's the TC that gives an advantage, and livio's had seven.

i also challenge the contention that spl is in any way screwed. elite teams have three good bigs, with this change the lakers will have three good bigs when before they had only two. additionally, this change lets spl start Flip Murray at point guard when he would otherwise be ineligible due to only a B handling grade.

Your first post stated “if we did this”

Eric, I have a ton of respect for you and I hope you do not think I am being argumentative or an ass about this. With that said you are seeing this in a perspective of black and white and I don’t feel that is the case. If the rule changes being made now were in effect when he was created we would have the player created as a 3 (in your words). If this new rule would have come earlier in his career, I think anyone with common sense would have changed him to a 3. However, that is not the case the rule was made 7 years into his creation.

With that said, I can understand your perspective on him receiving PF instead of SF tc’s but how much has this individual benefited from it? Is he an elite SF? Is he an elite rebounder at SF? I don’t think so and the win shares support that. He is a good SF but his PF tcs does not move the needle to him being elite. The other point with this rule change, how many players are affected? So far it looks like a small pool and you are digging your heals seeing it as black and white with no grey area or room of compromise.

[eric]

Norman Dale my first post said that, yes, but after we discussed it more the post i linked to made it clear what was coming:

"overall this seems like a pretty good and well-supported proposal. unless i see anything else big, i will implement it for next year. without grandfathering every former cg/f will be treated as if their profile position was their current position, so plan accordingly."

how good he is isn't the issue for me, it's just an issue of a level playing field. that's why i don't think there can be compromise, it's either level or it's slanted in someone's favor. the position eligibility changes don't apply to just the Lakers, every team is getting the same treatment.

to the specific point of not being an elite rebounder, as near as i can tell livio giannis beahm and watford are all right around 10 per 36 and whoever is the best in any given year comes down to random noise (or playing PF).

[Admin]

Livio was a druce. Druce didnt do combo positions. Livio has never been SF eligible. If he was played there it was illegal.

[ahebrewtoo]

We shouldn't need legal counsel to advise us of impending rule changes and their impact on our rosters.

We should be given a heads up for the rule, its effective date, and an opportunity to make legal positions changes to finalize a player's eligibility prior to the transition.

Signed,

A neutral good GM