2008-09 Ratings Challenges Submission Info

[The old geezer]

Question

Question: For goalies which rating(s) are most influenced by sav%?

 

[Brock]

Question: For goalies which rating(s) are most influenced by sav%?

Definitely a question for Ville as the goalie ratings were his brain child. But I believe that SV% ranking heavily influenced, IT and PC.

 

[Chuzwazza]

note to matt....changed a challenge...please confirm you recieved part 2

 

[Ville Isopaa]

Due to lack of time in the end when doing the goalie ratings, the ratio of the ratings is based somewhat on previous years ratings. As there's no real stat that will give a great IT, SP, SK and PC rating, these were created using a mix of a bunch of stats (Games played, Sv%, GAA, SO's, Vezina votes, team strenght, backup/starter, etc.). These then formed a ranking of the goalies and the ratings of the goalies were then adjusted to fit their ranking as a goalie in the league. I will work on this more for next season to give the different stats different weight on different ratings.

 

[Dryden]

I'm confused about something and perhaps Ville can clear this up for me. If Kolzig has been a starter all his career and a backup from the trade deadline in 08, on does that make him a backup in the eyes of ratings? Or does he still get viewed as a starter because of the 3 year average? I expected his ratings to take a dip but what he was rated as is ridiculous. If I had any clue as to how to even challenge a goalies ratings I would have done so but I have no clue. Anyways I'll play the cards that have been dealt.

Good work guys and thanks for taking the time to do it and make this league enjoyable!

 

[Ville Isopaa]

I'm confused about something and perhaps Ville can clear this up for me. If Kolzig has been a starter all his career and a backup from the trade deadline in 08, on does that make him a backup in the eyes of ratings? Or does he still get viewed as a starter because of the 3 year average? I expected his ratings to take a dip but what he was rated as is ridiculous. If I had any clue as to how to even challenge a goalies ratings I would have done so but I have no clue. Anyways I'll play the cards that have been dealt.

Good work guys and thanks for taking the time to do it and make this league enjoyable!

It's still the 3 year average of games played that counts. Starters and backups are rated together. Only goalies with less than an average of 10 games in the NHL have been rated seperatly as depth goalies, since otherwise we'd have Brian Elliot as the top goalie in the league with his 1 game played..

Basicly the starter/backup has only a marginal weight in the rankings/ratings and is a +/- for the backup/starter outplaying the starter/backup. Stats prior to the 05-06 season don't count.

As for Kolzig, he has an average of about 55 games, he ranked 44th in GAA, 48th in SV%, 47th in SO's among the 59 starters/backups in the league. Thanks to poor team quality and games played, he ranks 43rd among goalies. Ty Conklin on the other hand Ranked 21st in SV%, 29th in GAA, 43rd in SV%.

 

[Dryden]

Thank you. Much clearer and I now understand better.

 

[chump06]

Hey fellas, I sent in my challenges for Ottawa, yesterday afternoon (Perth time.) Can you confirm Ville?

Cheers,

Cohen

 

[Ville Isopaa]

Hey fellas, I sent in my challenges for Ottawa, yesterday afternoon (Perth time.) Can you confirm Ville?

Cheers,

Cohen

I have them. I also recieved challenges from ATL, FLA, MTL and TOR. I'll be forwarding them to Matt G tomorrow at the latest.

 

[chump06]

Excellent! Thanks mate...

 

[Brock]

Ville and Matt G, when you guys come up with your final rulings, can you send them to me at [email protected]

Just so I can update the sim with the new ratings.

 

[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.

Now that Steve Sullivan is back and playing well ...don`t you think he should re rated for his SC and DU. If not, I hope you are going to do the same for guys like Goborik and many others who have played minimum number of games this season.

 

[Hossa]

Now that Steve Sullivan is back and playing well ...don`t you think he should re rated for his SC and DU. If not, I hope you are going to do the same for guys like Goborik and many others who have played minimum number of games this season.

I won't answer the original question, but wouldn't Gaborik still not be relevant considering he did play this year and has definate plans to return to the NHL when he recovers from surgery? Sullivan did not play a single game in the 2007-08 season and had no planned return date or insurance that he would ever play again. A guy like Chad Kilger on my team (or Yanic! at the Disco Perrault) is a more relevant comparison I would think.

 

[Wildman]

I won't answer the original question, but wouldn't Gaborik still not be relevant considering he did play this year and has definate plans to return to the NHL when he recovers from surgery? Sullivan did not play a single game in the 2007-08 season and had no planned return date or insurance that he would ever play again. A guy like Chad Kilger on my team (or Yanic! at the Disco Perrault) is a more relevant comparison I would think.

Is Chad Kilger or Yanic Perrault out due to injury and had surgery? Do you know for certain that Gaborik will return and are you sure that Gaborik will recover fully and perform like he did before his surgery. As far I am concern, S. Sullivan was rated 80 before his surgery and lower rating was given because there was assumption made that he will not return to the NHL.

I know in the past I had Saku Koivu and we didn't take his rating away because he had cancer and there was no definate date of his return. We took the player off the roster and I was able to use him once he returned to the ice. We did same with Lindros as well so why are we treating Sullivan differently?

All I am asking for is consistancy...if we are treating one player this way than it should be for all the player regardless of star status.

 

[Wildman]

I won't answer the original question, but wouldn't Gaborik still not be relevant considering he did play this year and has definate plans to return to the NHL when he recovers from surgery? Sullivan did not play a single game in the 2007-08 season and had no planned return date or insurance that he would ever play again. A guy like Chad Kilger on my team (or Yanic! at the Disco Perrault) is a more relevant comparison I would think.

If you want compare Kilger...how can you justify a DU of 90 when he played only 56 games and there no definate date of his return.

 

[Hossa]

Is Chad Kilger or Yanic Perrault out due to injury and had surgery? Do you know for certain that Gaborik will return and are you sure that Gaborik will recover fully and perform like he did before his surgery. As far I am concern, S. Sullivan was rated 80 before his surgery and lower rating was given because there was assumption made that he will not return to the NHL.

I know in the past I had Saku Koivu and we didn't take his rating away because he had cancer and there was no definate date of his return. We took the player off the roster and I was able to use him once he returned to the ice. We did same with Lindros as well so why are we treating Sullivan differently?

All I am asking for is consistancy...if we are treating one player this way than it should be for all the player regardless of star status.

I understand your concern and sympathize with your frustration. When Karel Rachunek returned to my team from Russia, his ratings were nowhere near what they would have been before (and he was never a stud either), but he was still being paid like he would have been before. And as I remember those who came up with the ratings had a hard time figuring out what to do with the Jeff O'Neill, Jason Allison, Steve Sullivan types. But the fact remains if you're talking about consistency, then you can only compare Sullivan to players who did not play in the NHL this year, right? Even if Gaborik only plays 6 games this year, he still played NHL hockey this year, and therefore there is something on which to base his ratings for 2008-09. If there is a player in the NHL who is slated to miss the entire 2008-09 season due to injury with an unknown return date, then you have a comparable, and can fire away if that player does not receive the same treatment.

Anyways, not my battle I guess.

And as for Kilger's rating last year, I really have no idea how that's relevant to the discussion, but if I remember correctly I somewhat successfully challenged his DU rating because while he played 56 games, only two or three of those were because of injury. THe rest were personal leave unrelated to injury, which is what continues to keep him out. What that reason was I don't know, but it didn't reflect on his ability durability, which he has a long history of being as an NHLer. I have no idea what his rating will be next year, I'm not re-signing him anyways.

 

[Wildman]

I am just using Gaborik as an example here. If Sullivan was playing from day 1 of this season than his rating woudn't have been what it is now. I understand why he was given DU of 20 although I disagree but I can live with it. However, there was no justification in lowering his other rating just because he was out for awhile.

The reason I was given was that the rating team did not anticipate his return but now he is back and should rated back where he should have been. The players you indicated above are out because they don't have a contract or were released by the respective teams and non of them were out due to injury so you can't campare them here.

 

[Brock]

Now that Steve Sullivan is back and playing well ...don`t you think he should re rated for his SC and DU. If not, I hope you are going to do the same for guys like Goborik and many others who have played minimum number of games this season.

For one Hasnain, I'm not sure why you always pick on my posts and make it seem like the Sullivan decision was strictly mine. When creating the ratings, we debated about what to do with Sullivan, O'Neill, Allison, among others and we came to the consensus that lowering their DU and offensive ratings was the right choice. Sullivan was tough because he hadn't played for a year and a half, and when we were deciding upon ratings at the beginning of the season, all articles pointed to the fact that Sullivan had still not skated and was nowhere near a possible return to the ice. Obviously, this factored largely into our decision, as you have stated. To be honest, his return to the ice came on rather out of nowhere and appears to be almost miraculous.

Honestly, and for this I apologize Hasnain, this entire argument over the Sullivan issue, I've been thinking one thing to myself. That is, "If Hasnain truly had a problem with the way we did the Sullivan rating, as an admin member, why on earth didn't he speak up in that entire month we debated it?" But recently I realized that you are actually not part of the admin board, when I assumed you were because of being a player agent (and still think you should be). So for that assumption I apologize. In fact, if you were on the admin board, simply removing Sullivan from your roster would have definitely been a better approach, however it was not mentioned or thought of by any of us, and thus not considered.

Bottom line is this, I see what you are saying now that Sullivan is playing again, he no longer fits the bill of the other players whose ratings we lowered (Allison, O'Neill, etc). So obviously an inconsistency has developed there. However, at this point in the season, I'm not sure we can just go about raising his ratings with a third of the season in the bag.

However, I can tell you that I'll bring it up on the admin board on your behalf and we'll talk about a possible solution, sound like a good compromise?

 

[Vaive-Alive]

Now that Steve Sullivan is back and playing well ...don`t you think he should re rated for his SC and DU. If not, I hope you are going to do the same for guys like Goborik and many others who have played minimum number of games this season.

Hasnain - did you challenge his ratings before the season started?

GM Kruegs

 

[Wildman]

Hasnain - did you challenge his ratings before the season started?

GM Kruegs

No I did not challenge his rating nor did I challenge anyone else. I was so upset about the whole thing regarding Sullivan that I decided not to challenge at all. I am not asking for the admin team to change the rating but there should be a rule in place that when this kind of thing happens in the future with a star player or any other player than they will take the same action.

I don't think you can justify changing SC rating when you have no basis for it. I can understand the DU rating and because of the DU Sullivan has only played 2 games whole season on my team.

We had cases in the past where players were out due to injury or illness and we never penalized them.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

No I did not challenge his rating nor did I challenge anyone else. I was so upset about the whole thing regarding Sullivan that I decided not to challenge at all. I am not asking for the admin team to change the rating but there should be a rule in place that when this kind of thing happens in the future with a star player or any other player than they will take the same action.

I don't think you can justify changing SC rating when you have no basis for it. I can understand the DU rating and because of the DU Sullivan has only played 2 games whole season on my team.

We had cases in the past where players were out due to injury or illness and we never penalized them.

I have to say, I'm surprised this is even an issue. Sullivan is a guy who missed the entire season last year (which remember, makes up the MAJORITY of our ratings) and half the season before, with no foreseeable or predicted time he would ever return to the NHL.

Meanwhile, Gaborik played 77 games last year and more than half a season before that.

You are comparing these two guys? If so, you should look for a comparison else where, because it undermines any argument you might have.

I personally think DU of 20 was fair, if not too high. While guys like Allison are healthy enough to play and sat on the sidelines because lack of interest, Sullivan basically has gone 2 full years without being able to play a game. He is uniquely positioned to have basically as low a DU as we will go. He should basically be the barometer for the worst DU in the league.

As to re-rating his SC rating, we never do this based on the current season, but if we did, Sullivan's SC should go down. The only games he's played in the last two years (the 5 games in the last two weeks) he has yet to score a goal, so I'm not sure how this adds to your argument is too low. Hell, it's too high!

I can understand you being upset - if I had a guy on my roster that hadn't played in the NHL for two years because of injuries, I'd be mad too. But I'd be mad at THE PLAYER, not at the ratings for accounting for the fact he hasn't played in so long.

 

[Vaive-Alive]

No I did not challenge his rating nor did I challenge anyone else. I was so upset about the whole thing regarding Sullivan that I decided not to challenge at all. I am not asking for the admin team to change the rating but there should be a rule in place that when this kind of thing happens in the future with a star player or any other player than they will take the same action.

I don't think you can justify changing SC rating when you have no basis for it. I can understand the DU rating and because of the DU Sullivan has only played 2 games whole season on my team.

We had cases in the past where players were out due to injury or illness and we never penalized them.

I can understand why you might be a little miffed at how the ratings for him were determined, but you had an opportunity along with all other GMs with similarily affected players to challenge the new crop of ratings. I won't speak on behalf of all in the league here - but I personally don't think we should be opening up player ratings mid-season, particularely when a GM had an opportunity to challenge that player's rating before the season started and chose not to. No matter what your intentions are Hasnain i.e. to improve his play for your team, or to improve his trade value - the opportunity to change his ratings has passed IMO.

2-cents Kruegs

 

[Wildman]

I can understand why you might be a little miffed at how the ratings for him were determined, but you had an opportunity along with all other GMs with similarily affected players to challenge the new crop of ratings. I won't speak on behalf of all in the league here - but I personally don't think we should be opening up player ratings mid-season, particularely when a GM had an opportunity to challenge that player's rating before the season started and chose not to. No matter what your intentions are Hasnain i.e. to improve his play for your team, or to improve his trade value - the opportunity to change his ratings has passed IMO.

2-cents Kruegs

I am not asking for the Admin team to change the rating but giving arbitrary rating just because someone felt that he is not an elite player anymore is no justification. All I am saying here is that there should be a rule in place and all players/team should be treated the same way.

 

[Brock]

I am not asking for the Admin team to change the rating but giving arbitrary rating just because someone felt that he is not an elite player anymore is no justification.

If that's a nice little attempt at a backhanded stab at me, then quite frankly I don't appreciate it.

It wasn't that we felt Sullivan wasn't an elite player anymore. It was that he hadn't played in 22 months and had no return in sight. It's not like we sat there and we thought of a way to screw Hasnain and lower Steve Sullivan's rating. It was because we all identified players who we couldn't rate accurately using our new formulas, and who hadn't seen any rating changes in recent seasons because they hadn't played. Sullivan was identified as one of those players and we went from there. This wasn't subjective, it was done objectively.

So sure, we can input a new rule that says we'll do the same thing to other players, if you show us a player who hadn't played for 22 months. Maybe Sean can add the following new rule to the rulebook for us, "Any player who does not play a single game in the NHL for 22 months and longer, will be subject to a rating decrease of 10% and the lowest possible DU rating."

Thanks for making my vote on the issue that much easier, as you've swayed me as a possible supporter of you to someone who's completely against it with the way you're handling yourself here and with the way you seem to continue to attack me.

So consider my vote and opinion the same as Rob and Nick's.

 

[Wildman]

If that's a nice little attempt at a backhanded stab at me, then quite frankly I don't appreciate it.

It wasn't that we felt Sullivan wasn't an elite player anymore. It was that he hadn't played in 22 months and had no return in sight. It's not like we sat there and we thought of a way to screw Hasnain and lower Steve Sullivan's rating. It was because we all identified players who we couldn't rate accurately using our new formulas, and who hadn't seen any rating changes in recent seasons because they hadn't played. Sullivan was identified as one of those players and we went from there. This wasn't subjective, it was done objectively.

So sure, we can input a new rule that says we'll do the same thing to other players, if you show us a player who hadn't played for 22 months. Maybe Sean can add the following new rule to the rulebook for us, "Any player who does not play a single game in the NHL for 22 months and longer, will be subject to a rating decrease of 10% and the lowest possible DU rating."

Thanks for making my vote on the issue that much easier, as you've swayed me as a possible supporter of you to someone who's completely against it with the way you're handling yourself here and with the way you seem to continue to attack me.

So consider my vote and opinion the same as Rob and Nick's.

I am not stabbing you nor is it intention to stab anyone else. I think I am too old for stabbing anyone here. All I am doing here is making a point that there was no justification of reducing his rating because of injury.

If I was planning to get even with you or any other Admin team members than I wouldn't vote for cash package. I supported it for the good of the game knowing full well that 3 of teams that were in trouble were admin team and the GMs knew full well what they were getting into when they started signing UFA's and paying in excess of $4M for endorsement packages and that includes you who went to sign Shanahan and signing $4.5M in endorsement deal.