SPG
Registered User
That sums it all up right there. Just use your challenges wisely when the time comes, people.
Ratings File Uploaded to Yahoo
- Thread starter HFNHL Commish
- Start date
That sums it all up right there. Just use your challenges wisely when the time comes, people.
Brock
Registered User
Do we still get only 5 challenges or is there going to be an exception this year? Also, regarding the challenges, what's the deadline and who do we send them to?
As atleast the PA and SC ratings are directly based on the stats from last season, or atleast the ranking is the same, is there a possibility to challenge them, or is it just a waste of time to look for an argument that the guy has been a consistent scorer/passer for a few years to lift his rating?
Ohio Jones
Game on...
Not a waste of time. Reasonable, thorough, well-substantiated arguments will always get a fair shot.
The Admin team is reviewing the number of challenges this year, in light of the known issues with the ratings. It won't be a LOT more than in past years, but a few more ratings among a few more players is likely. More to follow, including process and timings.
So, if I understand it correctly, the final SC/PA ratings will in some cases, where a rating is challenged, be based on multiple seasons and in the rest of the cases it will be a 1-year rating?
Ohio Jones
Game on...
Not going to happen. Sorry. There's plenty of ratings here for people to get well within the OV requirements.
Ohio Jones
Game on...
True enough. More to the point, it means that the ratings are what they are, and each team will have the same number of opportunities to challenge them. What teams do with those oportunities is up to them. If they want to challenge offensive ratings, and can make a good case for the challenge, that's fine. Same for IT, DF, whatever. The onus is on the GM to do their research and come up with a well-reasoned rationale.
Okay, some quick but imporatnt points folks ...
First and foremost the OV's listed are not completely correct. As I've been keying the ratings I have found the OV's coming out slighly higher (1 or 2 points) for about 10% of players.
Second, comparing different players based on OV is meaningless. ST and IT have a dispreportionate weighting in the OV so you can have a goon with poor DF, poor skating, and useless OF skills come out with an equal or higher OV than a moderate skill player.
Third, while everyone is harping about the couple of ratings that are low they are conviently ignoring all the other ratings that are well above average. If fact, despite our best attempts to mitigate this, we will have ...
(i) a record number of 80+ OV players, almost 300% higher than we have ever had
(ii) the majority of fringe players that usually are down in the 64/65 range are coming out in the high 60's and low 70's
(iii) rookies from last year (even those that only played a few games) have been given much higher ratings than are usually seen in this league.
(iv) As I've been over keying the old ratings with the new I have seem many cases where a player coming off a bad 2005/06 season actually has higher ratings this year than last.
All told the minimum 68 OV rule will be a non factor since it would be nearly impossible to have a team below that (Atlanta may prove me wrong). The bigger concern IMO is that teams may assume this will continue in future years and anyone being overly aggressive in rebuilding may find themselves coming up short next year.
First and foremost the OV's listed are not completely correct. As I've been keying the ratings I have found the OV's coming out slighly higher (1 or 2 points) for about 10% of players.
Second, comparing different players based on OV is meaningless. ST and IT have a dispreportionate weighting in the OV so you can have a goon with poor DF, poor skating, and useless OF skills come out with an equal or higher OV than a moderate skill player.
Third, while everyone is harping about the couple of ratings that are low they are conviently ignoring all the other ratings that are well above average. If fact, despite our best attempts to mitigate this, we will have ...
(i) a record number of 80+ OV players, almost 300% higher than we have ever had
(ii) the majority of fringe players that usually are down in the 64/65 range are coming out in the high 60's and low 70's
(iii) rookies from last year (even those that only played a few games) have been given much higher ratings than are usually seen in this league.
(iv) As I've been over keying the old ratings with the new I have seem many cases where a player coming off a bad 2005/06 season actually has higher ratings this year than last.
All told the minimum 68 OV rule will be a non factor since it would be nearly impossible to have a team below that (Atlanta may prove me wrong). The bigger concern IMO is that teams may assume this will continue in future years and anyone being overly aggressive in rebuilding may find themselves coming up short next year.
Drew...thanks for putting it all in a nutshell.
Stop focusing on the negative, boys. GMs will probably be afforded 8-10 rating challenges this year, so you'll have plenty of opportunity to correct any injustices.
In the end, we all recognize that the ratings are imperfect, just as they are every year. Well-reasoned arguments for increasing certain ratings will always win the day.
Stop focusing on the negative, boys. GMs will probably be afforded 8-10 rating challenges this year, so you'll have plenty of opportunity to correct any injustices.
In the end, we all recognize that the ratings are imperfect, just as they are every year. Well-reasoned arguments for increasing certain ratings will always win the day.
Ohio Jones
Game on...
Goalie rerates are with the admin team for review, and should be posted soon.
FYI, Columbus is away from December 11th to 18th inclusive, scouting prospects on the beaches of Mexico. (At least that's what I'll tell my wife I'm doing... not starting at the bikini-clad hotties at all!).
FYI, Columbus is away from December 11th to 18th inclusive, scouting prospects on the beaches of Mexico. (At least that's what I'll tell my wife I'm doing... not starting at the bikini-clad hotties at all!).
Ohio Jones
Game on...
Doug, I think you mis-spelt staring...
That's sad - I can't even cheat on my wife in my sub-conscious!
Ohio Jones
Game on...
OK, the goalie ratings file is up for your review. OV is just approximate until they're entered in the sim. Some points:
The ratings are based on weighted three-year performance. That's what we would have done with the skaters, too, if we'd had the time, but for now it means a) the goalie ratings are (or should be) a little more realistic, and b) that veterans have an advantage over rookies and minor pro players. That doesnt' mean younger players can't be useful - many players with good records in minor pro and a little NHL experience have higher ratings than veterans with poor records, but you'll find the top goalies - the probable starters for most of you - are all goalies with at least 2 years of NHL experience.
These can be challenged just as skaters can; more on challenges shortly.
Here you go - ***** away!
http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/wDR6RS...POOEEBv6qB6y/2006 HFNHL Ratings - Goalies.xls
The ratings are based on weighted three-year performance. That's what we would have done with the skaters, too, if we'd had the time, but for now it means a) the goalie ratings are (or should be) a little more realistic, and b) that veterans have an advantage over rookies and minor pro players. That doesnt' mean younger players can't be useful - many players with good records in minor pro and a little NHL experience have higher ratings than veterans with poor records, but you'll find the top goalies - the probable starters for most of you - are all goalies with at least 2 years of NHL experience.
These can be challenged just as skaters can; more on challenges shortly.
Here you go - ***** away!
http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/wDR6RS...POOEEBv6qB6y/2006 HFNHL Ratings - Goalies.xls
I would like to get Mike Wall, Wade Flaherty,Johan Holmqvist and Fred Brathwaite also rated. They are all part of the Tampa Bay goalie miracle.
Last edited:
Martin - Wall does not qualify for ratings as he has not played in the NHL prior to this season and prior to this season Holmqvist had only played 1 NHL game 4 years ago so will be fairly lowly rated.
See my other post on the subject of unrated players (coming in a few minutes) and let us know if you still want Holmqvist rated.
SPG
Registered User
Wall had the default 50's for individual ratings and a 48OV last season... as Drew mentioned, because he has not played a single game in the NHL (prior to 06-07), he's not eligible to be rated.
I think you might be confusing Wall with someone else. Last years ratings are still up and Wall is all 50's and just to be sure I checked last years ratings file to confirm he was never rated.
As per the other thread we ask you use discretion in who you need ratings for so we don't waste unnecessary work in creating and keying ratings for players that will never be used.
You have Joseph and Caron as your top 2 and I can see having Flaherty and/or Braithwaite rated to address injuries but why Holmqvist too?
Example I have Tenkrat who technically is eligible to be rated but since the chances of me needing him are low I am not requesting ratings.
The reason I am asking is why should I pay a players salary if he is not rated? I can accept that Mike Wall goes back to my prospect list and I dont have to pay him anything this season, is that an option? If I have to pay I insist that he gets rated.
SPG
Registered User
You're paying 50k for each prospect on your list that has not been drafted within the past two years anyway. Wall's salary is $450,000 (He's listed at 400k, but that should be bumped up to $450,000 to reflect the new league minimum), so you're paying him 45k if you leave him in the minors. He'd actually be costing you more on your prospect list even if moving him there was allowed. You must have offered him that contract at some point, meaning you signed him and he can't be on your prospect list. Only players who have been drafted but never signed to a contract or players that have left for Europe are eligible for the prospect list. That's the way it has always been in this league - it's nothing new. Guys like Dave Caruso, Yutaka Fukufuji, Gabe Gauthier, and Drew Miller from my team are in the same boat. Now that Wall has made his NHL debut, he'll be eligible to be rated for the 2007-08 season.
I'm confused by your question about why you should pay if they are unrated. In the case of Wall he has not played in the NHL prior to this year and it has been our policy for years not to create ratings for these type of players. At any given time there's nearly 100 of these guys. This is not new.
While moving him to your prospect list is not an option he in fact will earn less at $40k in the minors than the prospect fee that would be charged.
Keep in mind the money is fictional but the use of our time to generate ratings that would never be useful anways is not fictional. Please take that into consideration.
