2008-09 Ratings Challenges Submission Info

[Dr.Sens(e)]

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.

I just don't get it - of course there is a reason for reducing his rating beceause of the injury. He didn't play at all last year - which again, makes up the majority of the rating - so how do we base his rating purely off of that when we have no recent play to give him any type of elite rating? What about players who had good numbers two years ago, but an off year last year - should they have a lower rating than Sullivan, even though they put in a productive season, and Sullivan was absent? The fact he is now 34 years old now, and he put up those numbers when he was 32 also supports reducing his rating.

The bottom line is he is no longer considered an elite player and this was not just some arbitrary decision on the Admin Team's part. And yes, this is mostly because of the injuries. In fact, I just took a glance at a Top 50 and a Top 100 player ranking from two different publications, and Sullivan is not even in honourable mention for either. Is it your suggestion that publications like the Hockey News arbitrarily put their rankings together as well?

 

[Wildman]

I just don't get it - of course there is a reason for reducing his rating beceause of the injury. He didn't play at all last year - which again, makes up the majority of the rating - so how do we base his rating purely off of that when we have no recent play to give him any type of elite rating? What about players who had good numbers two years ago, but an off year last year - should they have a lower rating than Sullivan, even though they put in a productive season, and Sullivan was absent? The fact he is now 34 years old now, and he put up those numbers when he was 32 also supports reducing his rating.

The bottom line is he is no longer considered an elite player and this was not just some arbitrary decision on the Admin Team's part. And yes, this is mostly because of the injuries. In fact, I just took a glance at a Top 50 and a Top 100 player ranking from two different publications, and Sullivan is not even in honourable mention for either. Is it your suggestion that publications like the Hockey News arbitrarily put their rankings together as well?

So where do we draw a line...an injury of 22 months/12 months - there is nothing in a rule book indicating that a rating would be adjusted because of injury or age. Each rating has its purpose and I can perfectly understand a 20 DU rating but reducing PA, PC and SC due to injury is not justified.

 

[Dryden]

This is funny

 

[Vaive-Alive]

this should be settled over ales

Gentlemen - this little tiff on the boards should be settled over ales. I think a GM meeting should be called...NHL trade deadline is coming up soon anyway...bottoms up - lets pick a date...perhaps the deadline itself...

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

So where do we draw a line...an injury of 22 months/12 months - there is nothing in a rule book indicating that a rating would be adjusted because of injury or age. Each rating has its purpose and I can perfectly understand a 20 DU rating but reducing PA, PC and SC due to injury is not justified.

We're not going to write a up a rule for everything, but in general, if a player has not played a signel game in the NHL the previous season, the ratings are going to take a hit, if we allow the player to stay on the team's roster at all. And this has been applied to players other than Sullivan.

As another Admin member already mentioned, you have already benefited by having us allow Sullivan to play at all, where in past, long-term medical conditions for the likes of Forsberg and Koivu have resulted in the player being removed altogether from the team's roster, and placed on the prospect list until they prove they have been able to resume their playing career. That is typically how we have handled players not playing for a year because of an injury. Why we let you have Sullivan escapes me, other than to say it was likely an oversight. And when those players did come back, they were not given theri "pre-injury" ratings either.

 

[Wildman]

We're not going to write a up a rule for everything, but in general, if a player has not played a signel game in the NHL the previous season, the ratings are going to take a hit, if we allow the player to stay on the team's roster at all. And this has been applied to players other than Sullivan.

As another Admin member already mentioned, you have already benefited by having us allow Sullivan to play at all, where in past, long-term medical conditions for the likes of Forsberg and Koivu have resulted in the player being removed altogether from the team's roster, and placed on the prospect list until they prove they have been able to resume their playing career. That is typically how we have handled players not playing for a year because of an injury. Why we let you have Sullivan escapes me, other than to say it was likely an oversight. And when those players did come back, they were not given theri "pre-injury" ratings either.

I would have been okay if you did not allow Sullivan to play just like we did with Koivu and Forsberg. I had Saku when he had cancer and his rating were never lowered and I was allowed to activate him as soon as he played one game.

 

[Hossa]

We're not going to write a up a rule for everything, but in general, if a player has not played a signel game in the NHL the previous season, the ratings are going to take a hit, if we allow the player to stay on the team's roster at all. And this has been applied to players other than Sullivan.

As another Admin member already mentioned, you have already benefited by having us allow Sullivan to play at all, where in past, long-term medical conditions for the likes of Forsberg and Koivu have resulted in the player being removed altogether from the team's roster, and placed on the prospect list until they prove they have been able to resume their playing career. That is typically how we have handled players not playing for a year because of an injury. Why we let you have Sullivan escapes me, other than to say it was likely an oversight. And when those players did come back, they were not given theri "pre-injury" ratings either.

I alluded to it previously, but is Sullivan's rating treatment then not closer to players who went to Europe and returned, rather than Koivu and Forsberg? He was kept on the roster but considering he missed time in the NHL and how he would play upon his return was hard to predict (and should not simply be predicted), it was similar to how guys like Karel Rachunek for me were rated upon their return. When Rachunek returned, his rating was lower than it had been the two previous years (71 OV vs. 72 and 73). Oleg Tverdovsky went from 82 OV in 2002-03 to 68 OV in 2005-06, with one year in Russia instead of the NHL plus the lock-out year. Now it didn't help that he stunk his last year before that Russian trip, but that's a stunning drop and it wasn't just because of that poor 2002-03 season in the NHL with NJ. It seems like if nothing else, any player who does not play an entire year in the HFNHL loses on their ratings when they do return. That Sullivan was inactive because of a career-threatening injury (with no guaranteed return, let alone insurance that he would be the same player if that did happen) would only seem to lend further validity to a lowered rating, even if allowed to stay on the roster contrary to historical convention with players like Koivu and Forsberg.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

I would have been okay if you did not allow Sullivan to play just like we did with Koivu and Forsberg. I had Saku when he had cancer and his rating were never lowered and I was allowed to activate him as soon as he played one game.

The difference with Koivu is two-fold - (1) it wasn't a hockey related injury, it was more personal leave, and (2) Koivu never missed a full -season, let alone a season and a half (same with Forsberg actually).

And if you are saying Koivu's ratings were the exact same year to year, I'm afraid that's impossible given we adjust ratings EVERY year and Koivu's ratings DID go down following his cancer shortened season.

 

[Wildman]

The difference with Koivu is two-fold - (1) it wasn't a hockey related injury, it was more personal leave, and (2) Koivu never missed a full -season, let alone a season and a half (same with Forsberg actually).

And if you are saying Koivu's ratings were the exact same year to year, I'm afraid that's impossible given we adjust ratings EVERY year and Koivu's ratings DID go down following his cancer shortened season.

I am not going to argue anymore because it is no point. As for Sean's comment regarding Russian players, team has an option of releasing the player or keep them on their prospects. In this cap world, it makes sense if I was given an option of moving Sullivan to prospect list until he comes back. As for your point Nick, I am not saying Koivu's rating were exact same year over year but OV was still very high and if your arguement about rating going down is true than I should see the same for Gaborik next season because he played only 6 games this season (sorry Rich..just making a point here).

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

I am not going to argue anymore because it is no point. As for Sean's comment regarding Russian players, team has an option of releasing the player or keep them on their prospects. In this cap world, it makes sense if I was given an option of moving Sullivan to prospect list until he comes back. As for your point Nick, I am not saying Koivu's rating were exact same year over year but OV was still very high and if your arguement about rating going down is true than I should see the same for Gaborik next season because he played only 6 games this season (sorry Rich..just making a point here).

Actually, you won't see the exact same impact because Gaborik, like Koivu in the above case, has in fact played some games this year (although undoubtedly, his ratings could be impacted in many ways). Similarly, if Sullivan had even played just a handful of games last year, he would have been treated differently (Sullivan was brought up in the ratings period as I recall, because of his unique situation).

And I think that's the thing you keep glossing over - Sullivan missed an entire year. There simply isn't a lot of precedent for that and I think the issue has been handled pretty fairly. But as was stated earlier - you were given the opportunity to challenge ratings and passed. Similarly, if you wanted Sullivan removed to your prospect list, you could have asked for this (even after seeing his ratings), but you chose not to.

But to your point, if and when a guy like Kurtis Foster comes back (missing this entire year at least from what I understand), he will not receive the same ratings as if he the missed time had never happened and his skills were the same as before he was hurt.

That said, it is my hope we'll use a third party set of ratings next year like DVHL. This avoids these types of beefs with the people who literally put in hours trying to come up with ratings so we could run our season. They did a very good job overall, and the time to challenge them has passed. At least with another set of ratings it is less personal, and GM's seem to take it less personally when their guy is rated lower than they'd like by someone they don't know, rather than someone they know.

 

[Wildman]

Fair enough, If I knew I had choice of moving him into prospect list than I would done that. My intention was not to point finger at any one in particular but I chose Brock's message because he indicated in his message that Sullivan was rated lower as there no indication of return date.

As an agent, I have always treated each GM equally that includes my nephew Abbas as you may know from my email to you in regards to Vokuon.

If I have offended Brock or anyone else than please accept my apologies and I will close this chapter. I personally don't know who did the actual rating but I know that Adil was involved with the ratings and I know he did spent quite a number of hours putting together some ratings.

 

[MatthewFlames]

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

Because this kind of thing fires me up I have to respond and clear up what seems to be an insinuation that this cash package exists to bail out 3 particular GM's who leveraged their status on the admin.

There are plenty of teams that were/are in financial trouble whose GM's are not in the admin - and there are admin team members with very healthy bank balances who also debated for and voted for the 'stimulus.'

There was a very healthy (and sometimes heated) debate (one that has been going on for four years or more) that went on for several days and this wasn't a decision taken lightly or just for the good of a few GM's in a position of influence - the opponents of the stimulus had their voices heard (the Republicans obviously ) and reduced the 'tv revenue' component in half - amongst other revisions to some of the debated stimulus instruments.

This was a decision made to buy time until we can find real long term solutions that will solve some of the chronic problems we are facing building a decent and fair financial system that works within our attempt to maximize the realism of the experience.

Those particular GM's in the most trouble, like me, didn't get anything more than a few weeks to sort out some trades to fix the immediate problems while the sim goes on. If you don't believe me just look at the project negative 5 million bank balance for the Flames. If I'd have had my way I'd have given the Flames the entire 700 billion.

 

[Toronto_AGM_Adil]

Actually, you won't see the exact same impact because Gaborik, like Koivu in the above case, has in fact played some games this year (although undoubtedly, his ratings could be impacted in many ways). Similarly, if Sullivan had even played just a handful of games last year, he would have been treated differently (Sullivan was brought up in the ratings period as I recall, because of his unique situation).

If we decide to use our own formula's again (which were modeled heavily on DVHL) Gaborik will recieve a pretty heave reduction in rating... the most recent year has a 50% weight on the rating and if a player has played less then 10 games in a year that chunk of the rating will go down by 75%... we do this so that an AHL call-up who gets 5 points in 5 games doesn't get rated an all-star... So, yes Gaborik will get hit pretty heavily in next years ratings if we follow the same formulas.

The biggest problem with doing your own ratings is that it becomes hard to distinguish a player who has lost games to injury vs. an AHL call-up... now that might sound strange but you're dealing with close to a thousand players and figuring out who was injured vs. who was not isn't an easy task... I believe DVHL has the same problems. The other problem is dealing with completely missed seasons as compared to a player who has only played a few games.

I don't know if you could tell but ratings formula's is one of my favourite topics

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

If I have offended Brock or anyone else than please accept my apologies and I will close this chapter. I personally don't know who did the actual rating but I know that Adil was involved with the ratings and I know he did spent quite a number of hours putting together some ratings.

No worries Hasnain, from my standpoint anyway. We all get screwed one way or another in re-rates and the like. It can be frustrating, in particular in unique situations like Sullivan's.

 

[Wildman]

Because this kind of thing fires me up I have to respond and clear up what seems to be an insinuation that this cash package exists to bail out 3 particular GM's who leveraged their status on the admin.

Matt, trust me that was not what I insinuating, I was just making a point to Brock that if I had anything against him or anyone in the Admin team than I would have voted against the package. However, you have to admit that many of these teams are in this stage because of their own wrong doing and just like in real life we have to make some decision that might not be easy but in the long run may work out for the better.

I for one, had to sell off all my assets because of the cap implementation and I know Ville had to sell off his stars few years back and it worked out for him as he has one of the better teams in the HFNHL and healthy bank balance to go along with the team.

 

[Ohio Jones]

Getting back to Steve Sullivan, I'm not sure I see any cause for changing the ratings, sorry Hasnain. If a player had started the season, and then been seriously injured IRL (like Zednik was last year, or Jiri Fischer the year previous), then in the HFNHL he would have finished the season with full ratings. I just don't see why this should be different -- the beginning of the season is the cut-off for ratings changes, for or against our players.

I'm sure you'd love to have his ratings up so you could get a decent return for him on the trade market (who could blame you?), but this is seems a pretty black-and-white issue to me.

Trust me, I'd love to be able to sign guys like Kulemin or Pacioretty right now, but their ratings won't reflect this season until *next* year. Same with Sullivan.

 

[SPG]

This is funny

Almost as good as an episode of "Dryden and Robb"!

 

[SPG]

So where do we draw a line...an injury of 22 months/12 months - there is nothing in a rule book indicating that a rating would be adjusted because of injury or age. Each rating has its purpose and I can perfectly understand a 20 DU rating but reducing PA, PC and SC due to injury is not justified.

The line is whether a player has missed an ENTIRE season, IMO.

 

[Dryden]

Almost as good as an episode of "Dryden and Robb"!

Hey, we have behaved ourselves for sometime now.

 

[Wildman]

Getting back to Steve Sullivan, I'm not sure I see any cause for changing the ratings, sorry Hasnain. If a player had started the season, and then been seriously injured IRL (like Zednik was last year, or Jiri Fischer the year previous), then in the HFNHL he would have finished the season with full ratings. I just don't see why this should be different -- the beginning of the season is the cut-off for ratings changes, for or against our players.

I'm sure you'd love to have his ratings up so you could get a decent return for him on the trade market (who could blame you?), but this is seems a pretty black-and-white issue to me.

Trust me, I'd love to be able to sign guys like Kulemin or Pacioretty right now, but their ratings won't reflect this season until *next* year. Same with Sullivan.

I think you are missing the point Doug ... I am not asking to change Sullivan ratings but am asking for consistancy. I was told that Sullivan rating were lowered because of his injury and no one expected him to play again.

As for his trade value...what do you think I could have got for him? a 2nd round pick? I have enough prospects to do well without a 2nd rd pick.

 

[MatthewFlames]

Getting back to Steve Sullivan.

What, you've had enough with the 'economic' discussion???

Thanks Hasnain. I do agree with you even though I am one of the guilty

 

[Ohio Jones]

I think you are missing the point Doug ... I am not asking to change Sullivan ratings but am asking for consistancy. I was told that Sullivan rating were lowered because of his injury and no one expected him to play again.

You're right, then I am missing the point, because it sounds like that's *exactly* what you're asking for.

Times like this I'm thankful not to be an admin any more...