ATD 2018 Rules Discussion

[BenchBrawl]

Finding revelations is not a matter of efforts, but of luck + efforts (and also, material available to you).You said trading made GMs lazy, which is complete nonesense.

 

[Dreakmur]

Finding revelations is not a matter of efforts, but of luck + efforts (and also, material available to you).You said trading made GMs lazy, which is complete nonesense.

Trading absolutely has allowed some GMs to be lazy.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Yeah, I don't like that trades can be used to create competitive imbalance - like they very clearly did last year - but that's secondary.

BTW, this is wrong, and I've shown why last year.You saying it 100 times doesn't make it more true.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Trading absolutely has allowed some GMs to be lazy.

Like who?

 

[Dreakmur]

Like who?

You, me, everyone.

 

[BenchBrawl]

You, me, everyone.

Trading didn't make me lazy.I wasn't lazy last year, and though I doubt you were, it's up to you to judge yourself.

When I say I wasn't lazy, I'm considering the amount of time I spent doing biographies and digging for new information.I doubt more efforts would have resulted in anything more substantial given the tools I was working with.Maybe spending more money would have though, as in money to buy more books.But that's another subject.

 

[jarek]

The google news search being gutted has made it hard to do research. Otherwise, just about every hockey book worth reading has already been stripped of all valuable information for the most part, I would imagine. I also don't believe there's too many people writing about older players (the ones who could use more fleshing out), and even if they are, they aren't likely finding out anything we don't already know.

New research not being presented, as far as I'm concerned, is more a factor of there being a rather finite amount of information to actually uncover about older players, a limit which we seem to have come quite close to hitting. Beyond that, coming up with anything conclusive has become a very exhausting endeavor as well. For example, finding out just how much defense Mohns played in his one big season took days of very tedious work. It's almost gotten to the point where it isn't even worth it anymore.

I think there are still some interesting players that might be worth looking more into. Marty Walsh was one of them, though I don't expect anyone to go to the lengths I did to make that bio. Joe Malone's defensive game is something that could significantly affect his reputation among us if more was discovered. Tommy Smith is another who could use a lot more fleshing out. If any further good information could be discovered about the all around games of guys like Tommy Dunderdale, Gordon Roberts, Dick Irvin, Sr., etc., there is some potential for some significant discoveries. There are also, of course, the complete unknowns, like Jack Laviolette. All of these, however, especially with the google news search being shot, are significant and exhausting endeavors, but are probably at this point the more interesting guys left to look into. Pretty much all the low hanging fruit has already been picked.

@TheDevilMadeMe I don't really know anything about the divisional assassinations that were attempted in the past, but in my proposal, where only the division winners actually make it to the playoffs, I think people would take it a lot more seriously. Increase the stakes, and you'll see the effort put in increase as well, I think. I'm not a big fan of the round robin idea because it seems like it would be a fairly convoluted process. I would say my proposal is the best of all worlds.. gives every team a legitimate shot at making the playoffs (read: before any teams are even ranked), while keeping the playoffs very short in order to avoid voter fatigue.

 

[seventieslord]

If we go forward with yet another format where every team makes the playoffs, count me out.

I really wish people wouldn't draw lines in the sand where if the majority chooses one way, they are so far against it that they'll just drop out.

 

[jarek]

I really wish people wouldn't draw lines in the sand where if the majority chooses one way, they are so far against it that they'll just drop out.

People drawing lines in the sand is what causes the status quo to shift.

 

[seventieslord]

People drawing lines in the sand is what causes the status quo to shift.

You really think positive change comes from people saying "it has to be this way or I quit"?

 

[BenchBrawl]

I agree with seventieslord.For me, no trading is a dealbreaker this year because I'm not even sure I'll participate even if trading is allowed, due to lack of time.But if I had time, I would participate regardless, like I did in 2014 and 2015, where trading was not allowed (which ironically made me give a half-assed effort, contradicting dreakmur's comments at least in my case).But in general, we shouldn't draw such a line.If half the people draw the line somewhere, and the other half are drawing another line, then we lose half the people.I don't see how this is necessary to break the status quo.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Yeah the no trading drafts were less interesting for me, the draft as a "game" is maximizing value per pick and if you can't do that by being forced to make sub optimal decisions due to no trading it really makes it difficult to execute a plan

 

[rmartin65]

I have to agree with those speaking out against posters trying to force their way by saying "it has to be my way, or I won't play"; it is a childish move.

Trades- I can see both sides of the issue. I think that people can game the system, but I also think a draft that has no trades whatsoever can result in someone getting screwed by positional runs. I think a very solid compromise is having draft pick only trades that are approved by a committee. I also like the idea of limiting the amount of trades (as well as assets moved per trade) so as to mitigate a series of minor wins causing an unfair advantage.

Randomness- I hate, hate, hate it. Some of you would really enjoy an undeserved victory? I know I couldn't/wouldn't. If you want to go further in the playoffs, the answer is easy- build a better team or make better arguments. I think the hidden rankings experiment last year showed that people are not just blindly voting for the higher ranked teams.

Changing the playoff format- I am interested, for sure. I like the expedited playoff idea, especially if after the assassination period we have a, for lack of a better term, regular season thread for each division, wherein each GM details why his/her team would beat the other teams in the conference or division more often than not, and should thus be voted the best team. After this period we have the voting, then the playoffs at whatever size is decided.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I like the trading we had 2 years back I believe it was.

We had a maximum limit of trades each GM could make. Trades had to get a certain # of yes votes to have it confirmed although I think a small trade commission could handle it as I've mentioned. 3 members, 2 or 3 yes votes and the trade is confirmed. 1 or none and it's vetoed. I'd want somebody who is around a lot and has done at least 3+ ATD's at a minimum to have a seat on the commission.

Randomness is out. It's intriguing to me in theory but there is no way to do it that would satisfy the majority.

Which makes altering the playoff format key IMO. That is where we're at as far as big progressions go. It really is a waste of time debating 1 seeds vs a 6 or 8. The post draft process is too long and that turns off some people. Either we go with a round robin style or split the brackets into 1 and 2 seeds vs each with the remaining teams in a consolation type tournament.

 

[ResilientBeast]

The consolation tournament like we had attempted last year had even more apathy than a 1 seed v 8 seed matchup

 

[jarek]

The consolation tournament like we had attempted last year had even more apathy than a 1 seed v 8 seed matchup

Yep.

 

[Theokritos]

It really is a waste of time debating 1 seeds vs a 6 or 8.

The consolation tournament like we had attempted last year had even more apathy than a 1 seed v 8 seed matchup

GMs in the consolation tournament are out of the competition they primarily signed up for. It's understandable many of them consider it rather meaningless.

#6/7/8 seeds participating in the playoffs are still in the competition, but they know their chance to win is negligible. The only way to effectively improve their odds would involve randomness, which – also understandably – is a no-go for many GMs.

The main benefit of the round-robin system is that it offers every GM several meaningful series (=in the main competition) against other teams.

Sure, some details would have to be ironed out – as is always the case with every system. I will try to outline the scenario of an round-robin ATD later today (or tomorrow) so that we can look into those details and the potential issues that need to be addressed in advance.

 

[Johnny Engine]

GMs in the consolation tournament are out of the competition they primarily signed up for. It's understandable many of them consider it rather meaningless.

Absolutely true.

#6/7/8 seeds participating in the playoffs are still in the competition, but they know their chance to win is negligible. The only way to effectively improve their odds would involve randomness, which – also understandably – is a no-go for many GMs.

I remember bringing this up several years ago, and to my knowledge it was the first time anyone brought up the element of chance in the ATD. It wasn't meant to be an actual suggestion to implement, but rather to make a point about the difference between a real-life playoff series (where one team is clearly better, but that team doesn't always win; and a voted-upon ATD series. Some GMs were complaining that voters didn't just choose upsets, but how in the world would you institute that? Especially when the seedings were already chosen by the same pool of voters - in order for most voters to choose upsets, an appreciable number have to change their minds about which teams are better.

The main benefit of the round-robin system is that it offers every GM several meaningful series (=in the main competition) against other teams.
Sure, some details would have to be ironed out – as is always the case with every system. I will try to outline the scenario of an round-robin ATD later today (or tomorrow) so that we can look into those details and the potential issues that need to be addressed in advance.

I agree with all this, and I'd submit this for consideration: Since we're looking to speed up what's kind of a slogging playoff process, how about have divisions of 4, and we treat the round robin as a single, quick process where GMs vote on all games at once?
So let's say division A has the Penguins, the Senators, the Predators, and the Ducks. The volunteer in charge of creating the series thread would post all 4 rosters and specifically direct voters to vote on the following, and provide game scores:
Penguins vs. Senators
Predators vs. Ducks
Penguins vs. Predators
Senators vs. Ducks
Senators vs. Predators
Ducks vs. Penguins
And then perhaps a top-5 stars of the round robin, from all 4 teams, taking into account the six games played. Only one winner moves on.
That takes care of 2 playoff rounds in 1. Wild card rules or divisions of 5 or 6 teams could be considered based on league size.

I think this would be a superior, simpler solution to having copious numbers of threads for all possible matchups.

 

[jarek]

Absolutely true.

I remember bringing this up several years ago, and to my knowledge it was the first time anyone brought up the element of chance in the ATD. It wasn't meant to be an actual suggestion to implement, but rather to make a point about the difference between a real-life playoff series (where one team is clearly better, but that team doesn't always win; and a voted-upon ATD series. Some GMs were complaining that voters didn't just choose upsets, but how in the world would you institute that? Especially when the seedings were already chosen by the same pool of voters - in order for most voters to choose upsets, an appreciable number have to change their minds about which teams are better.

I agree with all this, and I'd submit this for consideration: Since we're looking to speed up what's kind of a slogging playoff process, how about have divisions of 4, and we treat the round robin as a single, quick process where GMs vote on all games at once?
So let's say division A has the Penguins, the Senators, the Predators, and the Ducks. The volunteer in charge of creating the series thread would post all 4 rosters and specifically direct voters to vote on the following, and provide game scores:
Penguins vs. Senators
Predators vs. Ducks
Penguins vs. Predators
Senators vs. Ducks
Senators vs. Predators
Ducks vs. Penguins
And then perhaps a top-5 stars of the round robin, from all 4 teams, taking into account the six games played. Only one winner moves on.
That takes care of 2 playoff rounds in 1. Wild card rules or divisions of 5 or 6 teams could be considered based on league size.

I think this would be a superior, simpler solution to having copious numbers of threads for all possible matchups.

Gonna be honest, I feel like a single vote on each division winner for the regular season accomplishes the same thing, but keeps things a lot more simple for voters and admins.

 

[BenchBrawl]

For a 7th/8th seed to cause an upset, the GM needs to make a very strong case in the series, either by revealing new information about his players or by making a really compelling case that the regular season votings were off.Does this happen often?

I know that if I was the 8th seed I would like an opportunity to argue my case, but I'm competitive by nature.

Edit: I'm against having only one team per division make the playoffs, due to the possibility of having two powerhouses in the same division.It's unacceptable that a powerhouse would have no opportunity to play one series.

 

[jarek]

For a 7th/8th seed to cause an upset, the GM needs to make a very strong case in the series, either by revealing new information about his players or by making a really compelling case that the regular season votings were off.Does this happen often?

I know that if I was the 8th seed I would like an opportunity to argue my case, but I'm competitive by nature.

Edit: I'm against having only one team per division make the playoffs, due to the possibility of having two powerhouses in the same division.It's unacceptable that a powerhouse would have no opportunity to play one series.

As I said before, the division winners would first have to be decided. That is the one chance every team has to make their case. You could call that the first round of the playoffs if you want.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Let's say we have 24 teams, we make 4 divisions of 6 teams, 2 teams make the playoffs in each and we have a neat 8 teams bracket.What's wrong with that?

Edit: Maybe if we have 8 divisions of 3 teams, then we can have a round robin, and the odds that two powerhouses are in the same division are lessened, especially if we implement a sort of "triage" at the beginning to ensure that, to give an example, TheDevilMadeMe is not in the same division as seventieslord.

 

[BenchBrawl]

(see my edit in the post above for something related to round robin)

I'm not strongly against a round robin, but it sounds like a logistic nightmare, and I'm not sure it will save time in practice.Maybe I'm wrong.

Another point about the round robin is that as far as I understand it, you will play more opponents than you usually do, and maybe in less time too.That mkes it difficult to get to know your opponent's team better, which is essential in a playoff series.

Those are just on top of my head concerns.I'm open to try it, though I'm also open for many other options.

 

[rmartin65]

I agree with all this, and I'd submit this for consideration: Since we're looking to speed up what's kind of a slogging playoff process, how about have divisions of 4, and we treat the round robin as a single, quick process where GMs vote on all games at once?
So let's say division A has the Penguins, the Senators, the Predators, and the Ducks. The volunteer in charge of creating the series thread would post all 4 rosters and specifically direct voters to vote on the following, and provide game scores:
Penguins vs. Senators
Predators vs. Ducks
Penguins vs. Predators
Senators vs. Ducks
Senators vs. Predators
Ducks vs. Penguins
And then perhaps a top-5 stars of the round robin, from all 4 teams, taking into account the six games played. Only one winner moves on.
That takes care of 2 playoff rounds in 1. Wild card rules or divisions of 5 or 6 teams could be considered based on league size.

I think this would be a superior, simpler solution to having copious numbers of threads for all possible matchups.

I like this idea a lot. Instead of individual game scores we can even make it a home-and-home situation- you give two scores for each matchup. That way two teams that are evenly matched can split a series, with perhaps goal differential being a tie-breaker, while good teams can beat worse teams twice. It should offer us more separation between the best teams and those that a merely good/average, and hopefully ensure the true best teams advance. Furthermore, it allows voters to take home-ice advantage into consideration. All with marginally more effort than just a single game.

The only other thing I would like to add/augment is that I think it should be the top 2 teams from each division advancing. While the 1st seeds do have the advantage, I think the second place teams deserve a chance at a true series back and forth.

 

[jarek]

I'm surprised the round robin idea is getting any traction. That one round of voting will be very time consuming. You guys do realize that, right?