2008-09 Ratings Challenges Submission Info

[Brock]

With the release of the new ratings, it's that time of the year for you to challenge the ratings you disagree with.

The whole process has changed a bit, as we the admin team are bringing to you a new look rating challenge system.

Here's how the system works. Each Conference has two Ratings Challenge markers. But it's working more like an actual court room judgment, as opposed to more of the appeal that it has been in years past. One Conference marker will serve as the person you will send your challenges into. He will then rebuttal your challenge. Both your challenge and his rebuttal will then be sent to the other Conference marker who will look at the evidence from both sides and make a ruling based on this. We've developed this process in order to make the ratings challenge ruling slightly more consistent and more democratic.

So here are your instructions:

Each team is going to get a maximum of 6 ratings challenges on a maximum of 5 players. OV can not be challenged. Also, teams will get an additional 3 challenges to challenge DU and ONLY DU. There were some slight problems with our DU calculation and its consistency so we are going to allow you to challenge 3 DU ratings on top of your max 6 others.

Please make your ratings challenges well researched and worthwhile. I can tell you right now one challenge basis that will NOT work. If you compare a players rating this year to last year and claim by that merit, said player's rating should increase, your rating will not be successful. The ratings this year were compiled using completely new formulas and can no way be compared to last season's or any previous season's ratings. A successful ratings challenge is likely to be built around stats or scouting reports.

Your ratings challenge submission format should appear as follows"

Email Title: "HFNHL Ratings Challenge - Team Name"

1. Player Name
2. Rating being challenged
3. Current Rating
4. Suggested Rating
5. Reasoning or Argument for challenge (aka your proof)

The submission deadline for these challenges is going to be next Wednesday, November 26 at 11:59pm

Please see the below list to figure out who you will be sending your challenges to.

For the Eastern Conference, would the following teams send their ratings challenges to Ville Isopaa at [email protected]

Atlanta Thrashers
Florida Panthers
Washington Capitals
Tampa Bay Lightning
Carolina Hurricanes
Toronto Maple Leafs
Montreal Canadiens
Ottawa Senators

For the Eastern Conference, would the following teams send their ratings challenges to Matt Gledhill at [email protected]

Buffalo Sabres
Boston Bruins
Pittsburgh Penguins
Philadelphia Flyers
New York Rangers
New York Islanders
New Jersey Devils

For the Western Conference, would the following teams send their ratings challenges to myself at [email protected]

Vancouver Canucks
Calgary Flames
Minnesota Wild
Edmonton Oilers
Colorado Avalanche
San Jose Sharks
Phoenix Coyotes
Dallas Stars

For the Western Conference, would the following teams send their ratings challenges to Rob Kreuger at [email protected]

Los Angeles Kings
Anaheim Ducks
Chicago Blackhawks
Columbus Blue Jackets
St. Louis Blues
Detroit Red Wings
Nashville Predators

Thank you gentleman.

Click to read more...

 

[Wildman]

Before I submit my rating challenges, I just have couple of questions:

Who did the DF rating? what was the criteria used to determined DF rating - I just find that many of my players are rated very low compared what they should be.

I am also surprised at Steve Sullivan Offensive rating-The guy has averaged point a game for last three season he has played. Last season he was out for the whole year - I don't think his offensive number should impacted because he was injured - In the past we only lowered his DU rating.

Thanks

 

[HFNHL Commish]

Before I submit my rating challenges, I just have couple of questions:

Who did the DF rating? what was the criteria used to determined DF rating - I just find that many of my players are rated very low compared what they should be.

I am also surprised at Steve Sullivan Offensive rating-The guy has averaged point a game for last three season he has played. Last season he was out for the whole year - I don't think his offensive number should impacted because he was injured - In the past we only lowered his DU rating.

Thanks

The criteria for DF, as always, was a bit subjective, but that's the nature of the beast. Some weight, I believe, was given to guys who play a lot on the PK, but for the most part, it's always going to be a subjective rating.

This year, we did give Sullivan (along with a few other players who had missed significant time over the past several seasons) a bit of a haircut on their PA, PC, and SC ratings. Simply put, this year we put a little more emphasis in the ratings on what the player did in the most recent season. For players who didn't play at all last year, they got dinged a bit.

 

[Brock]

Before I submit my rating challenges, I just have couple of questions:

Who did the DF rating? what was the criteria used to determined DF rating - I just find that many of my players are rated very low compared what they should be.

I am also surprised at Steve Sullivan Offensive rating-The guy has averaged point a game for last three season he has played. Last season he was out for the whole year - I don't think his offensive number should impacted because he was injured - In the past we only lowered his DU rating.

Thanks

DF rating, as Matt said was mostly compiled using PK time on ice, especially for defenseman. For forwards, Selke votes were used a lot as well. Some of the things that were used, but only less and in situations where the rating looked off in comparison to last year's DF rating (for veterans), and in comparison with another league's DF rating, the MXFHL (which uses PK time on ice, blocked shots and +/- as their building block). This was mostly +/-.

We went on a primarily stat based DF in order to try and eliminate some of the subjectivity that is usually involved in creating DF. At least this way, it was a consistent system. And if there is something that is missed, it can be taken care of using ratings challenges. And while you can say the process of selecting stats or criteria that should go towards DF is subjective in itself, in the end, as Matt said, there is no perfect way of doing it and it's always been the one rating that has given us trouble in creating it.

As for Sullivan, he last played an NHL game on Feb. 22, 2007. So it's not like he's a case of Patrice Bergeron (whose rating did also go down). We felt like his rating should not continue to keep him as an elite offensive player in the HFNHL, which he was, having some of the best PA, SC, and PC ratings among forwards. But you can feel free to challenge two of his SC, PA, or PC ratings if you want and can make a good case.

 

[Default101]

Do you think instead of 3, we can challenge players with a Durability under 50 becasue i have several players who had no injuries last year rated with 25, 30 DU

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

Do you think instead of 3, we can challenge players with a Durability under 50 becasue i have several players who had no injuries last year rated with 25, 30 DU

Three extra were given specifically for DU (for the cases you mention), but you can use additional challenges for other DU cases as required. Your call.

 

[Wildman]

The criteria for DF, as always, was a bit subjective, but that's the nature of the beast. Some weight, I believe, was given to guys who play a lot on the PK, but for the most part, it's always going to be a subjective rating.

This year, we did give Sullivan (along with a few other players who had missed significant time over the past several seasons) a bit of a haircut on their PA, PC, and SC ratings. Simply put, this year we put a little more emphasis in the ratings on what the player did in the most recent season. For players who didn't play at all last year, they got dinged a bit.

Personally, I don't thing a player should be penalized just because a guy is injured for the year. We have a separate category called durabilty where injuries applies. How can we be so subjective about Sulllivan's performance. The guy has has proven over number of years and should not be at 71 SC. However, if we have decided to go along with this than I hope we don't change our opinion next time when a high profile player is out for the season.

 

[Wildman]

DF rating, as Matt said was mostly compiled using PK time on ice, especially for defenseman. For forwards, Selke votes were used a lot as well. Some of the things that were used, but only less and in situations where the rating looked off in comparison to last year's DF rating (for veterans), and in comparison with another league's DF rating, the MXFHL (which uses PK time on ice, blocked shots and +/- as their building block). This was mostly +/-.

We went on a primarily stat based DF in order to try and eliminate some of the subjectivity that is usually involved in creating DF. At least this way, it was a consistent system. And if there is something that is missed, it can be taken care of using ratings challenges. And while you can say the process of selecting stats or criteria that should go towards DF is subjective in itself, in the end, as Matt said, there is no perfect way of doing it and it's always been the one rating that has given us trouble in creating it.

As for Sullivan, he last played an NHL game on Feb. 22, 2007. So it's not like he's a case of Patrice Bergeron (whose rating did also go down). We felt like his rating should not continue to keep him as an elite offensive player in the HFNHL, which he was, having some of the best PA, SC, and PC ratings among forwards. But you can feel free to challenge two of his SC, PA, or PC ratings if you want and can make a good case.

Brock, the guy is injured and is still considered a 1st line player when healthy. The low DU will take care of how many games he plays this season in HFNHL. We have seen Lindros in the past where he has missed substantial number of games due to low durability. We also saw Bertuzzi missing almost half the season due to the same reason. I don't think it is fair that player like Sullivan get penalized on both end. I hope the admin team will be consistant when a player like Crosby is out for the season. (sorry ville no offence)

 

[Brock]

Brock, the guy is injured and is still considered a 1st line player when healthy. The low DU will take care of how many games he plays this season in HFNHL. We have seen Lindros in the past where he has missed substantial number of games due to low durability. We also saw Bertuzzi missing almost half the season due to the same reason. I don't think it is fair that player like Sullivan get penalized on both end. I hope the admin team will be consistant when a player like Crosby is out for the season. (sorry ville no offence)

Well the thing with Sullivan is that he's never going to play in the NHL again from all the reports I've read and according to the Predators board here. Apparently the back surgeries he has had have not restored the movement he needs to be a professional athlete.

With Sullivan, this wasn't just my ruling. It was something we discussed on the admin board, along with guys like Jason Allison, Jeff O'Neill, Steve Rucchin, etc. And we came to this conclusion to lower the ratings of these guys collectively.

 

[Wildman]

Well the thing with Sullivan is that he's never going to play in the NHL again from all the reports I've read and according to the Predators board here. Apparently the back surgeries he has had have not restored the movement he needs to be a professional athlete.

With Sullivan, this wasn't just my ruling. It was something we discussed on the admin board, along with guys like Jason Allison, Jeff O'Neill, Steve Rucchin, etc. And we came to this conclusion to lower the ratings of these guys collectively.

Brock the other three players you mentioned were all in the tryout camp but were released which is not the case with Sullivan. He is injured and still has a contract with Nashville. If he retires due to injuries before the end of the season than I will lose him from next season but lowering his scoring abilities due to injuries is not fair. I just hope that next time around you remember this well cause it could be one of the top NHL players and I hope the admin team does raise a sting when I bring this back to the table.

 

[Ville Isopaa]

Brock the other three players you mentioned were all in the tryout camp but were released which is not the case with Sullivan. He is injured and still has a contract with Nashville. If he retires due to injuries before the end of the season than I will lose him from next season but lowering his scoring abilities due to injuries is not fair. I just hope that next time around you remember this well cause it could be one of the top NHL players and I hope the admin team does raise a sting when I bring this back to the table.

just a slight correction. Allison and Rucchin were not in try out camps this year. Only O'Neill was.

 

[HFNHL Commish]

Brock the other three players you mentioned were all in the tryout camp but were released which is not the case with Sullivan. He is injured and still has a contract with Nashville. If he retires due to injuries before the end of the season than I will lose him from next season but lowering his scoring abilities due to injuries is not fair. I just hope that next time around you remember this well cause it could be one of the top NHL players and I hope the admin team does raise a sting when I bring this back to the table.

Hasnain - I think we've shown that we're applying standards fairly when we just required Jason Allison to be removed from Tampa Bay's roster, a player I'm sure Martin was counting on having, since I think he's short on centers.

The fact is, how is Steve Sullivan any different from Mike Rathje? Both are under contract with their respective teams, both would like to return to hockey, and both last played during the 2006-07 NHL season. Sure, they possess different skill sets, but there's no denying that Rathje was at least a 76-78 DF guy before his injury. Now he's a 70 DF. So his key ratings have been affected just like Sullivan's.

 

[Ohio Jones]

Also important to point out that while many ratings (including DF) are somewhat lower than we were used to in previous ratings sets, the only thing that actually matters is whether they're consistent from player to player, team to team. I'm convinced that, outside a few notable anomalies, they are. So while a GM may think their player should have a higher rating for X, they need to carefully examine where X fits within the ratings for that stat with other, comparable players.

For example, I was going to make a case for Philippe Boucher's 72 SC rating to be bumped up - not based on last year's injury-ravaged season (which is reflected in his DU), but from the two previous seasons where he was top-3 and top-7 in goals form a defenceman. At face value, 72 didn't seem like a good enough rating.

But I looked around the league and - lo and behold! - the 72 SC put him in the right ballpark. Too bad - I'd have loved to bump him up to an 80 OV - but i I was going to be objective, I had to admit the rating was fair and reasonable, in the context of the rest of the league.

Something for GMs to keep in mind when preparing their challenges - might save everyone a lot of time.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

i also think is a safe assumption that an aging offensive player will have seen his skill level diminish with so much time off.

 

[Hossa]

Also important to point out that while many ratings (including DF) are somewhat lower than we were used to in previous ratings sets, the only thing that actually matters is whether they're consistent from player to player, team to team. I'm convinced that, outside a few notable anomalies, they are. So while a GM may think their player should have a higher rating for X, they need to carefully examine where X fits within the ratings for that stat with other, comparable players.

For example, I was going to make a case for Philippe Boucher's 72 SC rating to be bumped up - not based on last year's injury-ravaged season (which is reflected in his DU), but from the two previous seasons where he was top-3 and top-7 in goals form a defenceman. At face value, 72 didn't seem like a good enough rating.

But I looked around the league and - lo and behold! - the 72 SC put him in the right ballpark. Too bad - I'd have loved to bump him up to an 80 OV - but i I was going to be objective, I had to admit the rating was fair and reasonable, in the context of the rest of the league.

Something for GMs to keep in mind when preparing their challenges - might save everyone a lot of time.

Very good point about relativity, with Boucher as your example. I considered challenging Tomas Kaberle's PC rating but realized his was top 5 in the league already.

I will say this much, from looking over my ratings and others around the league, the core ratings are very well done. Anomalies and oversights are inevitable, but that is the purpose of the rating system.

 

[Dryden]

Ok. In all the years i've been in this league I don't think I have ever made 1 rating challenge. This year I will do so.

I need somethings cleared up for me first though.

1) Are the ratings done based on the averages of the past 3 years for a player?
2) Also if a player has a decent year and posts better stats then he has in the in the two years previous why would his numbers go down?

Makes no sense to me. And don't give me that the player is on the downside of his career and his potential going forward is taken into account because then I would clearly argue that Mike Green should clearly have better rating numbers then he does. I'm looking at both the seasons Conklin and Kolzig had last year and don't understand their ratings.

I'll prove my argument in my challenges but just want some clarity on the two questions above.

 

[Wildman]

I was also puzzle with Jovo having a 69 rating. I looked around other defenceman and I am convinced that this subjective DF rating is clearly not working for me. In my opinion Jove had one of his offensive season and is not a defensive liability. I see Jovo much better defensive defenseman than Brian Campbell who is rated 74.

I am not saying Campbell is not rated correctly but I think Jovo should have rated much higher than what he is rated. I know I can challenge this but such a blunder is costing me one a rating challenge and I need all of them.

 

[HFNHL Commish]

Ok. In all the years i've been in this league I don't think I have ever made 1 rating challenge. This year I will do so.

I need somethings cleared up for me first though.

1) Are the ratings done based on the averages of the past 3 years for a player?
2) Also if a player has a decent year and posts better stats then he has in the in the two years previous why would his numbers go down?

Makes no sense to me. And don't give me that the player is on the downside of his career and his potential going forward is taken into account because then I would clearly argue that Mike Green should clearly have better rating numbers then he does. I'm looking at both the seasons Conklin and Kolzig had last year and don't understand their ratings.

I'll prove my argument in my challenges but just want some clarity on the two questions above.

To answer question #1, we used a weighted average where a bit more weight was given to Year 1 than in years past...someone else can tell you the exact ratio.

To answer question #2, it has been said previously that this year's ratings can not and should not be evaluated against previous years' ratings, because the methodology used in formulating them was concocted from scratch. That's right, the HFNHL now has it's own recipe book. So you're only going to be spinning your wheels comparing Mike Green's SC rating from one year to the next.

As Douglas alluded to earlier, your best bet is to see if your player is fairly rated within his peer group.

 

[HFNHL Commish]

I was also puzzle with Jovo having a 69 rating. I looked around other defenceman and I am convinced that this subjective DF rating is clearly not working for me. In my opinion Jove had one of his offensive season and is not a defensive liability. I see Jovo much better defensive defenseman than Brian Campbell who is rated 74.

I am not saying Campbell is not rated correctly but I think Jovo should have rated much higher than what he is rated. I know I can challenge this but such a blunder is costing me one a rating challenge and I need all of them.

This puzzle is an easy one to solve...

Brock and I both mentioned that some consideration was given to the amount of time a player spent on the PK, the theory being that time on the PK should be at least some measure of defensive prowess (as much as any stat can claim to be, anyhow).

Ed Jovanovski played 22:32 per game last year...a fair amount of minutes. How much did the coach trust him to play on the PK? 38 seconds per game. That ranks 215th out of 286 defensemen who played in 2007-08. Campbell, by the way, played 2:36 per game on the PK.

Now, I may not know much, but when your coach only trusts you to play 38 seconds/game on the PK, you just might be a defensive liability. Rethink calling this particular rating a blunder, and save your challenge, Hasnain.

 

[Brock]

Ok. In all the years i've been in this league I don't think I have ever made 1 rating challenge. This year I will do so.

I need somethings cleared up for me first though.

1) Are the ratings done based on the averages of the past 3 years for a player?
2) Also if a player has a decent year and posts better stats then he has in the in the two years previous why would his numbers go down?

Makes no sense to me. And don't give me that the player is on the downside of his career and his potential going forward is taken into account because then I would clearly argue that Mike Green should clearly have better rating numbers then he does. I'm looking at both the seasons Conklin and Kolzig had last year and don't understand their ratings.

I'll prove my argument in my challenges but just want some clarity on the two questions above.

Dryden, just be thankful that I fought hard for the three year average to be balanced, so that for younger players (such as Green), the three year average is balanced more towards the most recent season to reward breakouts. Before this was done, Green's rating was even lower.

Just to answer any questions anyone has...

For players aged 25 and under, the three year average is as follows:
2007-08 - 60%
2006-07 - 30%
2005-06 - 10%

For players aged 30 and over, the three year average is as follows:
2007-08 - 50%
2006-07 - 30%
2005-06 - 20%

For those falling in between, the percentages shift in the 2007-08 and 2005-06 seasons, with the 2006-07 always being 30%.

So with players like Mike Green or my own Brent Burns, they are hurt by poorer seasons before there breakout campaigns. I agree that it can be frustrating to not see your young stars receive those breakout ratings (just ask the admin team on my thoughts there), but the process and ratings are very consistent in this area.

And Matt has answered the question about ratings going down. We've created our own rating recipe, which of course means the ratings last year, using old formulas, will not be consistent with this seasons.

 

[Brock]

This puzzle is an easy one to solve...

Brock and I both mentioned that some consideration was given to the amount of time a player spent on the PK, the theory being that time on the PK should be at least some measure of defensive prowess (as much as any stat can claim to be, anyhow).

Ed Jovanovski played 22:32 per game last year...a fair amount of minutes. How much did the coach trust him to play on the PK? 38 seconds per game. That ranks 215th out of 286 defensemen who played in 2007-08. Campbell, by the way, played 2:36 per game on the PK.

Now, I may not know much, but when your coach only trusts you to play 38 seconds/game on the PK, you just might be a defensive liability. Rethink calling this particular rating a blunder, and save your challenge, Hasnain.

Pretty much sums up my response Matt.

With Jovonovski, I actually think subjectivity saves his rating from being much lower defensively. In terms of his PK time on ice, he's the sixth ranked defenseman on his team, and he was dead last in +/- at -13. Realistically, these type of stats probably should have put his DF even lower than it is currently, but because his reputation has him being at least an all star caliber player, he was given a little bit of a boost to 69. Just as an example, in my other league, the MXFHL (whom we altered some formulas from), he's a 60 DF.

In comparison, Campbell was tied for second on his team in SH ice time among defenseman, and was 3rd on his team among defenseman in +/-. Just to show you, ME Vlasic was first on the Sharks in those categories and is rated a 76 DF. Campbell in comparison is a 73 DF.

 

[Wildman]

Pretty much sums up my response Matt.

With Jovonovski, I actually think subjectivity saves his rating from being much lower defensively. In terms of his PK time on ice, he's the sixth ranked defenseman on his team, and he was dead last in +/- at -13. Realistically, these type of stats probably should have put his DF even lower than it is currently, but because his reputation has him being at least an all star caliber player, he was given a little bit of a boost to 69. Just as an example, in my other league, the MXFHL (whom we altered some formulas from), he's a 60 DF.

In comparison, Campbell was tied for second on his team in SH ice time among defenseman, and was 3rd on his team among defenseman in +/-. Just to show you, ME Vlasic was first on the Sharks in those categories and is rated a 76 DF. Campbell in comparison is a 73 DF.

First of all, if plus/minus was the case than Chara should had been rated below 60 last season cause he was one of the worst plaus minus rated defenceman in Bruins. As for Jovo, maybe Gretzky wanted to use Jovo in PP unit and thought he was better served as offensive defenseman. If he was defensive liability than he would have not logged in 22 minutes per game.

 

[Brock]

Just a reminder, ratings challenges are due in tonight!

 

[SensGod]

Just a reminder, ratings challenges are due in tonight!

Just submitted the ones for the Stars

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

PIT sent to Matt Gledhill