ATD 2017 Vote 2 - Hide Seedings

[ResilientBeast]

To help prevent simply picking the higher seeded team to win in the playoffs rmartin suggested hiding the seedings and having a neutral party post the matchups. This will hopefully stimulate arguments since teams don't feel hopeless arguing against a team everyone already said was superior.

Click to read more...

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I'm assuming this has nothing to do with how the seeds are determined, just however it happens to be, they will not be made public.

One question, does this mean that there will be no home-ice advantage or will home-ice still be given so voters know who they higher and lower seeds are but not if it's 1-8, 2-7, 4-5, etc?

 

[ResilientBeast]

I'm assuming this has nothing to do with how the seeds are determined, just however it happens to be, they will not be made public.

One question, does this mean that there will be no home-ice advantage or will home-ice still be given so voters know who they higher and lower seeds are but not if it's 1-8, 2-7, 4-5, etc?

Correct to the first point, and secondly I don't think home ice advantage ever swayed how I've voted before.

 

[jarek]

Home ice probably *should* be a legit consideration as it definitely plays a role in real life, but I seriously doubt many people consider it at all. I certainly don't.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Correct to the first point, and secondly I don't think home ice advantage ever swayed how I've voted before.

Some people use it in their arguments to say that since they have home ice they will be able to control line matchups for more games than their opponent. The answer isn't going to change my vote on this one, but I think we should make it clear so people don't come back later saying, well I didn't realize I would lose home ice.

So from what you said it seems like if seeds are hidden there will be no home-ice, correct?

 

[ResilientBeast]

Some people use it in their arguments to say that since they have home ice they will be able to control line matchups for more games than their opponent. The answer isn't going to change my vote on this one, but I think we should make it clear so people don't come back later saying, well I didn't realize I would lose home ice.

So from what you said it seems like if seeds are hidden there will be no home-ice, correct?

I guess that's how it would have to be, or we just have a neutral party flip a coin and assign home ice that way.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I guess that's how it would have to be, or we just have a neutral party flip a coin and assign home ice that way.

I would rather there be no home-ice than have the wrong team get it.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I would rather there be no home-ice than have the wrong team get it.

Agreed.

 

[seventieslord]

I would rather there be no home-ice than have the wrong team get it.

agreed.

 

[Iceman]

Hide em

 

[Dreakmur]

Voted no.

I don't see hidden seeds accomplishing the desired goal. In fact, I can see there be fewer upsets than before. The top seeds are usually pretty obvious, and the middle seeds get upset because some people want to vote for a lower seed sometimes.

 

[Johnny Engine]

It's worth trying. It should not be done in tandem with probabilistic voting, and of the two, this idea would cause fewer problems.

 

[VanIslander]

Voted no.

I don't see hidden seeds accomplishing the desired goal. In fact, I can see there be fewer upsets than before. The top seeds are usually pretty obvious, and the middle seeds get upset because some people want to vote for a lower seed sometimes.

You and I stand alone.

I don't think the solution is to hide facts. ... ?!.... Instead, how about emphasizing the difference between REGULAR season performance and PLAYOFF performance?

#1 seeds do not usually win the Stanley Cup. That is a fact lost among voters in ATDs. A team built to win easily in October, November and December against bottom-dwelling clubs is at times NOT the best team when the going gets tough, playoff hockey gets tough, closer checking and of higher intensity.

There should be a ban of regular season stats in any playoff series threads!!! (except to point out differences between the two).

 

[ResilientBeast]

You and I stand alone.

I don't think the solution is to hide facts. ... ?!.... Instead, how about emphasizing the difference between REGULAR season performance and PLAYOFF performance?

#1 seeds do not usually win the Stanley Cup. That is a fact lost among voters in ATDs. A team built to win easily in October, November and December against bottom-dwelling clubs is at times NOT the best team when the going gets tough, playoff hockey gets tough, closer checking and of higher intensity.

There should be a ban of regular season stats in any playoff series threads!!! (except to point out differences between the two).

I'm 100% against this

 

[VanIslander]

I'm 100% against this

Well, I hope at least there will be posters who point out that it's the playoffs and not October and November against bottom-dwelling clubs.

(100% really? It may have been overstated, but the point is: regular season performance is continually trotted out in playoff threads and to no surprise playoff voting doesn't waiver from regular season voting, so many GMs clearly see there's no point to it when you ain't one of the top regular season seeds, so playoff threads go neglected and top seeds advance. An ATD tradition not reflective of the NHL.)

 

[ResilientBeast]

Well, I hope at least there will be posters who point out that it's the playoffs and not October and November against bottom-dwelling clubs.

Hiding the seasons to me takes some of the determinism away, I finished 7th in my first ATD in my division, what incentive do I even have to argue if I know my fellow GMs already said I didn't do well?

That's what we're trying to eliminate, behind the scenes the draft is functionally unchanged but maybe the series will be a little closer and the GMs will fight a little harder.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Well, I hope at least there will be posters who point out that it's the playoffs and not October and November against bottom-dwelling clubs.

(100% really? It may have been overstated, but the point is: regular season performance is continually trotted out in playoff threads and to no surprise playoff voting doesn't waiver from regular season voting, so many GMs clearly see there's no point to it when you ain't one of the top regular season seeds, so playoff threads go neglected and top seeds advance. An ATD tradition not reflective of the NHL.)

No the ATD is not reflective of real life because there are no injuries, slumps, hot streaks ect. There is no way of fairly doing those we simply take the player as they are. Playoffs are also a much smaller sample size so the variance is higher. Plenty of players already get dinged for poor playoff performance.

 

[VanIslander]

If one is not seriously going to consider different criteria and different historical performances in making playoff judgements, then why have a playoffs?

Multiple GM's have lamented the lack of difference between regular season and playoff results in the ATDs. Turning a deaf ear to them may not be the best strategy to encourage participation.

In any event, the point of the draft is NOT winning in the playoffs, but profiling all-time great players during the draft itself. To that end, I'm optimistic.

 

[ResilientBeast]

If one is not seriously going to consider different criteria and different historical performances in making playoff judgements, then why have a playoffs?

Multiple GM's have lamented the lack of difference between regular season and playoff results in the ATDs. Turning a deaf ear to them may not be the best strategy to encourage participation.

In any event, the point of the draft is NOT winning in the playoffs, but profiling all-time great players during the draft itself. To that end, I'm optimistic.

I'm not turning a deaf ear to their complaints, I just don't see how using a tiny sample size and saying that's indicative of how a player performed in the playoffs is at all fair?

Also my goal is twofold I want to win and learn.

 

[ResilientBeast]

So, here's a thought....what happens if we have somewhere between 16-32 teams...someone gets a bye.

 

[seventieslord]

So, here's a thought....what happens if we have somewhere between 16-32 teams...someone gets a bye.

I'm usually a "solutions" guy, and I have no solution for this. I mean, I have answers, but they have major, purpose-defeating downsides to them. I'm interested to see what others have to say.

 

[jarek]

Seems simple enough to me. You cut off signups at 32 teams.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

There's a few things we can do, none are perfect...

1. Have a play-in round...This would be a problem as it would tell voters who both the bottom and top teams are.

2. Byes for the top teams...same problem as above.

3. Not all teams make the playoffs...this is the only way to ensure all playoff teams' seeds remain unknown. The sacrifice is some teams will not get to participate in a playoff series at all.

 

[seventieslord]

There's a few things we can do, none are perfect...

1. Have a play-in round...This would be a problem as it would tell voters who both the bottom and top teams are.

2. Byes for the top teams...same problem as above.

3. Not all teams make the playoffs...this is the only way to ensure all playoff teams' seeds remain unknown. The sacrifice is some teams will not get to participate in a playoff series at all.

Yep, those were my answers as well. But they're not solutions!

 

[ResilientBeast]

Seems simple enough to me. You cut off signups at 32 teams.

Being realistic making it 32 might be the larger challenge than surpassing it.

Which is fine by me, more talent