ATD 2021 Draft Thread IV

[ResilientBeast]

RED FISCHER CONFERENCE FINALS

Pittsburgh AC (1) v. Orillia Terriers (2)

JIM COLEMAN CONFERENCE FINALS

New Jersey Swamp Devils (1) v. Guelph Platers (2)

Threads posted

 

[ImporterExporter]

Congrats to @ImporterExporter good luck against @Dreakmur

Thanks sir! Appreciate the debates as usual.

 

[nabby12]

Love how 3 of the losers have 2 of the 3 series stars lol

Love that it's the same three guys in the semifinals every year. Nice old boys club you got going here.

Might be time to change how things are done for next year or risk losing some GM's.

 

[The Macho King]

For reference - seeding was based on regular season point totals.

 

[The Macho King]

Also I want to apologize because the last two weeks I got hung up at work in the mornings and I was slower to post the results as usual. Generally my mornings are fairly quiet but apparently some dumbass thought I was good at my job and now they're making me do more shit than I normally do and even talking about paying me more money to do it. So I will endeavor once again to get them done ASAP next week but I appreciate the patience all the same.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Gretzky vs. Orr, the top 2 picks in the draft, facing off. Off the top of my head, I can't remember this happening

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Love that it's the same three guys in the semifinals every year. Nice old boys club you got going here.

Might be time to change how things are done for next year or risk losing some GM's.

I'm sure IE loves to hear that he's part of the "old boys club" now

At this point, IE and Dreakmur are the two GMs who have come closest to winning the most times recently without fully pulling it off. I'm not at all surprised to see them get this far.

 

[Habsfan18]

To switch it up and to make the playoff process less predictable, I’ve stated multiple times I think it would be interesting to have a panel of judges vote rather than the GM’s involved in the process.

Not sure what others would think. I’m pretty sure the last time I brought it up it got crapped on.

My issue is mainly how you can essentially predict the final 4 within seconds of seeing the regular season standings. And I mean, it’s not all that surprising since the top seeds are obviously the ones viewed as the strongest. But in this format it just makes it so obvious and predictable. Not even sure a panel would change much, but surely a change in the process can’t hurt? Either that or lower the amount of teams making the playoffs. At this point there should only be maybe 8 teams making it. Nobody else would stand a chance, let’s be honest.

 

[ResilientBeast]

To switch it up and to make the playoff process less predictable, I’ve stated multiple times I think it would be interesting to have a panel of judges vote rather than the GM’s involved in the process.

Not sure what others would think. I’m pretty sure the last time I brought it up it got crapped on.

My issue is mainly how you can essentially predict the final 4 within seconds of seeing the regular season standings. And I mean, it’s not all that surprising since the top seeds are obviously the ones viewed as the strongest. But in this format it just makes it so obvious and predictable. Not even sure a panel would change much, but surely a change in the process can’t hurt? Either that or lower the amount of teams making the playoffs. At this point there should only be maybe 8 teams making it. Nobody else would stand a chance, let’s be honest.

I've always thought it would make more sense (I understand this would be a pain to do but could be sped up somewhat)

- Your team plays 8 games against each team in your division
- Your teams plays 4 games against each other team in your conference

And have the voters for RS voting give you a "season record" which could've spiced things up a little bit. Voters thought it was close between @Professor What and I in round 1 but giving our seedings of 3v6 that was not readily apparent. Add a smidge of randomness like in real hockey and boom we have standings that look like real hockey and have an idea of how close we all view the teams

Then the playoffs all teams know the aggregated records and would provide the debaters something to debate besides the voters ranked me higher since we will have considered the matchups already. For example if @Professor What and I's RS record was close I can explain why things will be different in the playoffs.

 

[MadArcand]

Heh, another year of "I must be out of whack when evaluating the teams" for me. Only one of the final four that I even rated top half of their division (#1 , to be fair).

 

[Habsfan18]

I've always thought it would make more sense (I understand this would be a pain to do but could be sped up somewhat)

- Your team plays 8 games against each team in your division
- Your teams plays 4 games against each other team in your conference

And have the voters for RS voting give you a "season record" which could've spiced things up a little bit. Voters thought it was close between @Professor What and I in round 1 but giving our seedings of 3v6 that was not readily apparent. Add a smidge of randomness like in real hockey and boom we have standings that look like real hockey and have an idea of how close we all view the teams

Then the playoffs all teams know the aggregated records and would provide the debaters something to debate besides the voters ranked me higher since we will have considered the matchups already. For example if @Professor What and I's RS record was close I can explain why things will be different in the playoffs.

That’s a great idea and I would be all for that, especially if it were a panel of outside judges. Could be reputable HoH members. Hell, could even have SIHR members vote if they would be interested.

I think - and agree, that many of the issues stem from the seeding process. I don’t care what anyone says, but when someone sees for example a 2nd seed vs a 4th seed, subconsciously they’re already about to vote for the 4th seed before even reading any debate. Sure, they’ll still read it. But we all know who’s winning that series 19 times out of 20. In real life hockey, we see upsets. In the ATD..we just don’t. A 3rd seed vs a 6th seed? When you lay it out like that, what chance in hell does the 6th seed have? Let’s be honest with ourselves here guys.

I also think GM reputation plays a big part in the voting process, but that’s opening another big can of worms that I’d rather not get into too much in public here. But I think having an outside panel voting, with no car in the race, and using your ideas above would be a hugely welcomed addition.

 

[Dreakmur]

Heh, another year of "I must be out of whack when evaluating the teams" for me. Only one of the final four that I even rated top half of their division (#1 , to be fair).

That’s why we have so many voters. Opinions vary, so the average end up being as close to the “right” answer as we’re going to get.

 

[tabness]

How much would the panel really change things though? I guess if the panel wasn't comprised of like minded people than sure, but the majority of participants in this thing obviously have a very particular historiography and evaluation methods for players and teams, quite in line with the parent history forum. The way players are evaluated follows a pretty clear methodology (to make it easy on yourself, just run the HHOF Monitor from @pnep and you get very close, add to that other international leagues - following a similar statistical and awards voting model of course - and maybe a little more refinement for the earliest eras of hockey). What constitutes a good team is a little more open ended but there are still some very clear patterns to use.

I really don't see too much of an "old boys club" type of thing going on in the actual sense of the phrase. Well, given human nature, I'm sure there's a little bit of it, as sort of seen by the way the Bob Cole division was considered "tough" before the draft even began, but even that can be chalked up to certain people having success following the typical blueprint.

I do feel you guys on the problem this presents for continuing interest in the post draft process for players who don't rank highly though. Incentives for voting in next drafts are an obvious sign of that.

For this draft unlike last, I have forced myself to vote in everything and read all the threads and what not, as @overpass nicely called out in one of the predraft threads, this is part of the process, and so I feel it would be selfish of me to just completely ignore it. I can't say I particular think this is really worth my time lol, but hey, work is boring too so...

 

[Habsfan18]

The idea behind an outside panel would be mainly to add a fresh perspective, by those who have no car in the race. No friends voting for friends, no voting against those you don’t see eye to eye with, and hopefully no voting based on reputation.

We all know these things happen. Not everyone will admit it.

 

[Dreakmur]

I also think GM reputation plays a big part in the voting process, but that’s opening another big can of worms that I’d rather not get into too much in public here. But I think having an outside panel voting, with no car in the race, and using your ideas above would be a hugely welcomed addition.

You say that like the final 4 guys here have universally positive reputations. There are probably just as many people who vote against GMs as there are who would vote for.

Maybe I’m weird, but when my team loses, I reflect on what I could have done better. I don’t look for somebody to blame.

 

[Habsfan18]

You say that like the final 4 guys here have universally positive reputations. There are probably just as many people who vote against GMs as there are who would vote for.

Maybe I’m weird, but when my team loses, I reflect on what I could have done better. I don’t look for somebody to blame.

I’m not blaming anyone in particular. I’m pointing out some flaws in this exercise, and the fact that it is predictable and stale. I’m far from the only one who feels this way. I’ve spoken to multiple GM’s in confidence who feel the same way I do. You’d be surprised. And I’m not making it up.

Change should always be welcomed.

And you’re right about voting against certain posters. That’s another issue in the voting process that hopefully a panel would eliminate.

 

[Dreakmur]

The idea behind an outside panel would be mainly to add a fresh perspective, by those who have no car in the race. No friends voting for friends, no voting against those you don’t see eye to eye with, and hopefully no voting based on reputation.

We all know these things happen. Not everyone will admit it.

Who would you bring in?

I’m going to put on my elitist hat here and say that there are not many people I would trust to judge these outside current and former participants. We’ve done so much work over the last dozen years that it would be a disservice to the process to bring in less educated panelists.

 

[Habsfan18]

I mean, how many people would want to do this exact same process, with the exact same predictable seeding playoff setup, every single year with no changes, and NOT feel it’s stale?

 

[Dreakmur]

I’m not blaming anyone in particular. I’m pointing out some flaws in this exercise, and the fact that it is predictable and stale. I’m far from the only one who feels this way. I’ve spoken to multiple GM’s in confidence who feel the same way I do. You’d be surprised. And I’m not making it up.

Change should always be welcomed.

And you’re right about voting against certain posters. That’s another issue in the voting process that hopefully a panel would eliminate.

Change for the sake of change. Different results aren’t necessarily better results.

How does a panel make the results better?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Let's not forget that just last year, Dreakmur's team won its division based almost entirely on playoff discussions, after not many people gave him a chance in regular season voting.

To the extent that this thing is predictable, IMO, it's because we already know too much about the players involved.

 

[Dreakmur]

I mean, how many people would want to do this exact same process, with the exact same predictable seeding playoff setup, every single year with no changes, and NOT feel it’s stale?

If you want your team to do better, you have two options:
1. Draft a better team.
2. Make better arguments for your team.

 

[Habsfan18]

Who would you bring in?

I’m going to put on my elitist hat here and say that there are not many people I would trust to judge these outside current and former participants. We’ve done so much work over the last dozen years that it would be a disservice to the process to bring in less educated panelists.

That IS an elitist way of thinking. Sure, we’re the hardcores, but we don’t hold an exclusive license in having vast knowledge on the history of the game. Surely, as a group, we could find a panel of reputable HoH members who we would trust to compare and rank our clubs. If not on here, maybe SIHR members could vote?

It may not be a perfect idea, but I’m suggesting we try something to switch it up.

 

[Dreakmur]

That IS an elitist way of thinking. Sure, we’re the hardcores, but we don’t hold an exclusive license in having vast knowledge on the history of the game. Surely, as a group, we could find a panel of reputable HoH members who we would trust to compare and rank our clubs. If not on here, maybe SIHR members could vote?

It may not be a perfect idea, but I’m suggesting we try something to switch it up.

You’re suggesting things with the goal of creating different result. That’s a flawed premise.

 

[Habsfan18]

You’re suggesting things with the goal of creating different result. That’s a flawed premise.

I’m “suggesting things” with the intent of hopefully making some changes to a stale formula.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I trust the knowledge base of SIHR members, but I don't necessarily trust that they'll actually follow the ATD for months and read all the discussions, because why would they?