ATD 2018 Rules Discussion
- Thread starter ResilientBeast
- Start date
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
I know some people are against trading, and I think the lack of a clear trade arbiter/committee last year was a serious problem thoughts?
Should we have a formal committee outlined before the draft and how should that be done?
Should we have a formal committee outlined before the draft and how should that be done?
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Wasn't in last year but the previous few so here are my observations.
1. PLAYOFFS. This absolutely needs to be reworked. 1 seeds win almost every year. It's a fact, nobody can argue it. IIWII, but really it takes the fun and mystery out of the post draft process. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. If we're not willing to add an element of chance, no matter how small, we need to break up the post draft process into 2 tournaments. 1 seeds vs 2 seeds (or something along those lines) and the 3 through whatever seed vs each other in a separate bracket. There really is no point in having weeks/months of debates between a 1 seed and a 6 or 4. GM's essentially vote for who the best 4 teams are right after the draft. Why would they then vote to see one of those 4 teams beaten somewhere by a team they put lower in the standings? We always see a drop off in participation and I think this is a HUGE part of why. We've never altered a system that is rather blah and void of any suspense.
1. Trading should be allowed. Players and picks. But there should be a review board of 3 long term members who are online more than they aren't. 2 or more say yes, the trade goes through. 2 or more say no, the trade is canceled and a deal must be reworked. I don't really care how many trades a GM makes or doesn't either.
2. 1 team per GM. We're seeing new members coming in which is great and if we get the bulk of the regulars back, shouldn't need to put a greater burden on people by taking on a 2nd team.
1. PLAYOFFS. This absolutely needs to be reworked. 1 seeds win almost every year. It's a fact, nobody can argue it. IIWII, but really it takes the fun and mystery out of the post draft process. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. If we're not willing to add an element of chance, no matter how small, we need to break up the post draft process into 2 tournaments. 1 seeds vs 2 seeds (or something along those lines) and the 3 through whatever seed vs each other in a separate bracket. There really is no point in having weeks/months of debates between a 1 seed and a 6 or 4. GM's essentially vote for who the best 4 teams are right after the draft. Why would they then vote to see one of those 4 teams beaten somewhere by a team they put lower in the standings? We always see a drop off in participation and I think this is a HUGE part of why. We've never altered a system that is rather blah and void of any suspense.
1. Trading should be allowed. Players and picks. But there should be a review board of 3 long term members who are online more than they aren't. 2 or more say yes, the trade goes through. 2 or more say no, the trade is canceled and a deal must be reworked. I don't really care how many trades a GM makes or doesn't either.
2. 1 team per GM. We're seeing new members coming in which is great and if we get the bulk of the regulars back, shouldn't need to put a greater burden on people by taking on a 2nd team.
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
Unfortunately no one liked us only having the top 4 seeds make the playoffs last year so I doubt we'll get much traction with that.
Matchups need to be where that change, for a lower seed the burden of proof is on them to show how their team is superior when considering matchups. I guess that's the best way to do it.
Personally I would like the entire regular season voting schedule reworked. I think hockeyoutsider or theokritos proposed something similar last year
Teams in your division you play 7 games
Teams in your conference you play 5 games
Teams in outside of conference you play 3
Team A and B 4v3
Team A and C 4v1
Team A and D 3v0
Team A Record 11-4
Then the voters give tallies on that, and we have a winloss record that would muddle up standings a smidge I think
Organizing that would be tough but doable IMO with like an anonymous poll or something similar
The voting process would take longer but I'm sure we could find a way to streamline it.
Matchups need to be where that change, for a lower seed the burden of proof is on them to show how their team is superior when considering matchups. I guess that's the best way to do it.
Personally I would like the entire regular season voting schedule reworked. I think hockeyoutsider or theokritos proposed something similar last year
Teams in your division you play 7 games
Teams in your conference you play 5 games
Teams in outside of conference you play 3
Team A and B 4v3
Team A and C 4v1
Team A and D 3v0
Team A Record 11-4
Then the voters give tallies on that, and we have a winloss record that would muddle up standings a smidge I think
Organizing that would be tough but doable IMO with like an anonymous poll or something similar
The voting process would take longer but I'm sure we could find a way to streamline it.
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,543
- 4,949
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
It's tough regardless. I get what Theo is trying to do. It makes some sense in theory but at the end of the day I still think you'll end up having #1 seeded teams dominating the tournament. There is no tangible way to make it work where the top seeded teams in the division rankings aren't winning the entire thing, each and every time, which of course we know doesn't happen very often in real life. If that were the case the Washington Captials would be a dynasty haha. Plenty of "experts" "vote" them the best team at the beginning/end of the regular season and yet that means little once playoff hockey starts.....which leads me to....
I do also think postseason resumes tend to be overbooked when doing the evaluating. We focus so much on regular season accomplishments because the sample size is much larger and its subjective GM to GM but I've personally seen a fair share of higher seeded teams win against squads that IMO were built better in terms of cohesiveness and had a clear edge in players and postseason performance. Talent might have been better on the higher seeded team (not by a wide margin mind you) but talent is only part of the equation.
To be honest I love the drafting and team building the most. That and the research of new players. I've more or less accepted that the playoff portion of this thing comes down to perception and voting right off the bat and not as you go along, match up to match up.
I do also think postseason resumes tend to be overbooked when doing the evaluating. We focus so much on regular season accomplishments because the sample size is much larger and its subjective GM to GM but I've personally seen a fair share of higher seeded teams win against squads that IMO were built better in terms of cohesiveness and had a clear edge in players and postseason performance. Talent might have been better on the higher seeded team (not by a wide margin mind you) but talent is only part of the equation.
To be honest I love the drafting and team building the most. That and the research of new players. I've more or less accepted that the playoff portion of this thing comes down to perception and voting right off the bat and not as you go along, match up to match up.
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
The issue I would guess is that tacks on a lot more time and we already have spotty response rate.
I would be curious to see what more regulars think of my thing or yours
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,543
- 4,949
IMO it mostly depends on how many teams you want to make the playoffs. The fewer teams in the playoff, the fewer voting rounds. But as you have already mentioned, the idea of having only the 4 division winners in the playoffs didn't seem to be very popular when it was last disucced. Although I would like to ask: Why is that? Consider this:
The top teams of the regular season end up determining the overall winner anyway. What's the point in giving everyone else a chance to argue their case in the playoffs when they almost never succeed anyway? Reducing the playoffs would actually give ALL involved GMs the chance to argue their case against several individual opponent in their group. Let's assume each division has 6 teams (A, B, C, D, E, F). Team A is managed by ImporterExporter. What you get is this:
Round 1: ImporterExporter vs Opponent B; C vs D; E vs F
Round 2: Importer Exporter vs Opponent C; B vs E; D vs F
Round 3: ImporterExporter vs Opponent D; B vs F; C vs E
Round 4: ImporterExporter vs Opponent E; B vs D; C vs F
Round 5: ImporterExporter vs Opponent F; B vs C; D vs E
Five individual series against different opponents.
The overall record gives you the final result for the group. The following playoff section will be shorter as only the group winner (or the winners and the #2 teams) advance from the regular season.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,895
- 13,697
Initial thoughts:
1) The draft should end earlier than last year.The Finals being played in mid-June is way too late, and people are less likely to sign in on hfboards at this time of the year.
2) Trades should be allowed (dealbreaker for me if they aren't).But yeah, let's try to avoid last year's unpleasant situation.
3) Every team should make the (real) playoffs.
4) No luck in play (so no use of probabilities to determine the winners).
5) If the #1 seeds are winning the draft everytime, it's probably because the best teams in the league are consistently ranked 1st in their division (ignoring divisions with two or more very strong teams).I see people want the ATD playoffs to look more like the NHL playoffs, but the two games are different.If we look at the ATD lineups as objectively as possible, only around 1-4 teams should have a real chance at winning in any given year (unless the parity gets even crazier than last year).This is the nature of the beast.Wasn't it TheDevilMadeMe who correctly predicted the winner in like 4 consecutive drafts? This is just to show, in this game, there's always 1-4 teams where the stars align and the GM doesn't screw it up, and one of those will win the draft.
6) Maybe we should get rid of both divisions and regular season rankings, and just do totally random playoffs series.Basically, we're whining that there's too much structure, but we're scared of stripping away constraints like divisions.
7) Warn GMs that there's a reward (and punishment) for voting in EACH playoff rounds (or not voting).I suggested that at the beginning of each draft, we separate GMs in groups: those who, the year prior, voted in 4 rounds, 3 rounds , 2 rounds , one round and zero round.Those who voted in the most rounds should have priority in where they pick in the next draft.Newbies can be put in group 3 or 2, or can be randomized at the beginning.This system should be stated at the beginning of ATD2018.Of course, it shouldn't be implemented before 2019.
1) The draft should end earlier than last year.The Finals being played in mid-June is way too late, and people are less likely to sign in on hfboards at this time of the year.
2) Trades should be allowed (dealbreaker for me if they aren't).But yeah, let's try to avoid last year's unpleasant situation.
3) Every team should make the (real) playoffs.
4) No luck in play (so no use of probabilities to determine the winners).
5) If the #1 seeds are winning the draft everytime, it's probably because the best teams in the league are consistently ranked 1st in their division (ignoring divisions with two or more very strong teams).I see people want the ATD playoffs to look more like the NHL playoffs, but the two games are different.If we look at the ATD lineups as objectively as possible, only around 1-4 teams should have a real chance at winning in any given year (unless the parity gets even crazier than last year).This is the nature of the beast.Wasn't it TheDevilMadeMe who correctly predicted the winner in like 4 consecutive drafts? This is just to show, in this game, there's always 1-4 teams where the stars align and the GM doesn't screw it up, and one of those will win the draft.
6) Maybe we should get rid of both divisions and regular season rankings, and just do totally random playoffs series.Basically, we're whining that there's too much structure, but we're scared of stripping away constraints like divisions.
7) Warn GMs that there's a reward (and punishment) for voting in EACH playoff rounds (or not voting).I suggested that at the beginning of each draft, we separate GMs in groups: those who, the year prior, voted in 4 rounds, 3 rounds , 2 rounds , one round and zero round.Those who voted in the most rounds should have priority in where they pick in the next draft.Newbies can be put in group 3 or 2, or can be randomized at the beginning.This system should be stated at the beginning of ATD2018.Of course, it shouldn't be implemented before 2019.
Last edited:
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,895
- 13,697
I see what you mean.Debatable.
At some point, we need enough votes.It was really borderline last year, but maybe point #1 will help on that front.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,895
- 13,697
Fair enough, nevermind the "every team makes the playoffs" point I made.I thought specifically of you last year when I said that.If you don't care of all people, then screw this.
jarek
Registered User
- Aug 15, 2009
- 10,004
- 238
You must have missed the whole discussion in the "Preliminary ATD Discussion Thread".
What I would like to see is a format where we take much more time to do regular season discussion, and each division winner (assuming 4 divisions) makes the playoffs.
My proposal would see regular season discussion becoming 4 division threads, where each team gets to have their say about why they should win the division (this replaces the assassinations that we usually do). If you want, you can call this the "first round" of the playoffs.. only we eliminate almost every single team after this "round".
The theory is that, if a #1 seed is almost always going to win the whole ATD regardless, then let's just cut right down to the chase and eliminate all the needless middle rounds. It takes up so much time to come to a conclusion that just about everyone could have already come up with on their own.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,895
- 13,697
I don't mind this, except I would make the Top-2 in each division make the playoffs (as opposed to just one), assuming 4 divisions.Divisions should have around 6-7 teams, so 2 making the playoffs is reasonable to me.
Then we have 8 teams in the playoffs and 3 rounds, but we make the #1 seeds play a #2 seed of another division.
My only problem with your proposal is that divisions will be uneven, and the 2nd best team in the draft might not make the playoffs.
Then we have 8 teams in the playoffs and 3 rounds, but we make the #1 seeds play a #2 seed of another division.
My only problem with your proposal is that divisions will be uneven, and the 2nd best team in the draft might not make the playoffs.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Jarek understands it. Hopefully others do as well.
There is no point in having a debate between 1 vs 6/7/8 seeded teams. Almost everybody ranked that 1 seed at or near the top directly after the draft is finished, hence why they are a 1. We drag out the "playoffs" as BB pointed out with, in all reality, pointless early round match ups that very few participate in anyway. And why? Because we already know who will advance.
I keep on saying we need to get more outsiders involved in voting. Not just any Joe from the main boards, but trusted HoH types who would be willing to participate as voters based on their knowledge and frequency on the sub forums like HoH. It has seemed like voting #'s diminish slightly each year as well, which doesn't help in terms of getting a wider audience for this project. I don't think we should obstruct legit, knowledgeable hockey historians from voting on our rosters. It gives a different perspective, which would be a nice change of pace.
There is no point in having a debate between 1 vs 6/7/8 seeded teams. Almost everybody ranked that 1 seed at or near the top directly after the draft is finished, hence why they are a 1. We drag out the "playoffs" as BB pointed out with, in all reality, pointless early round match ups that very few participate in anyway. And why? Because we already know who will advance.
I keep on saying we need to get more outsiders involved in voting. Not just any Joe from the main boards, but trusted HoH types who would be willing to participate as voters based on their knowledge and frequency on the sub forums like HoH. It has seemed like voting #'s diminish slightly each year as well, which doesn't help in terms of getting a wider audience for this project. I don't think we should obstruct legit, knowledgeable hockey historians from voting on our rosters. It gives a different perspective, which would be a nice change of pace.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,895
- 13,697
^Sure, I'm fine with HOH regulars voting if they want to.But they must be regulars.If guys like Killion, Canadiens1958, Big Phil, The Panther, Theokritos and many others want to vote, more power to them and to us.
Last edited:
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Exactly. Hence why I mentioned HoH regulars and you mentioned names that would make my personal list. And again, it would have to be voluntary on their part. But I want to see an increased number of people participating in the post draft process. That could be huge for us.
jarek
Registered User
- Aug 15, 2009
- 10,004
- 238
Having the top-2 in each division make the main playoffs is probably a fair compromise. I just don't want to see everyone make the playoffs anymore. It is completely pointless and wastes a lot of time. It would be one thing if we got MASSIVE participation throughout the entirety of the playoffs. If that was the reality we lived in, I wouldn't change anything. Sadly, that isn't the case.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Regarding the trade issue: what if trading already drafted players (rather than just picks) was banned - either for good, or at least until every player is drafted. Would that satisfy Dreakmur's* problem with the way last draft went down while also satisfying those who still want the option of trading?
*and I'm using Dreakmur by name, just because he's been the most vocal.
Regarding playoffs: I think that every team should have a chance to defend themselves vs other teams, but I see the point that it's been something like 8 years since a 7/8 seed actually won a round. Perhaps theo's idea has merit: replace the bulk of the divisional playoffs with a round-robin type thing between all the teams in the division. Maybe followed by a playaoff between the top 2 teams from the division. The downside is that it's somewhat reminiscent of when we did lineup assassinations by division, and that wasn't the greatest success. But maybe framing it as a round-robin rather than an assassination will encourage good discussion without the hostility.
On that note, maybe we should replace the straight up assassination threads with a round-robin type competition, where other GMs could give their reviews of course, if they wish.
*and I'm using Dreakmur by name, just because he's been the most vocal.
Regarding playoffs: I think that every team should have a chance to defend themselves vs other teams, but I see the point that it's been something like 8 years since a 7/8 seed actually won a round. Perhaps theo's idea has merit: replace the bulk of the divisional playoffs with a round-robin type thing between all the teams in the division. Maybe followed by a playaoff between the top 2 teams from the division. The downside is that it's somewhat reminiscent of when we did lineup assassinations by division, and that wasn't the greatest success. But maybe framing it as a round-robin rather than an assassination will encourage good discussion without the hostility.
On that note, maybe we should replace the straight up assassination threads with a round-robin type competition, where other GMs could give their reviews of course, if they wish.
Dreakmur
Registered User
Yeah, I don't like that trades can be used to create competitive imbalance - like they very clearly did last year - but that's secondary.
My main issue with trading is just one more way this draft is getting away from the actual "learning history" part of this draft.
I've never really cared a whole lot if I win or lose. Yes, I absolutely do try to draft a good team - though I usually try to do something new and interesting each year. Yes, I absolutely make strong arguments for my team. Yes, I do try to win, but there's a lot more to it for me. I enjoy the research part of it. I enjoy making biographies for the players. I enjoy changing the cannon. I am proud that I think I changed the popular opinion about Howie Morenz. I am proud of the biographies I put together on older players like Hod Stuart, Harvey Pulford, Dubbie Bowie, and Paddy Moran, etc. I'd be lying if I said I didn't smile to myself every time I see my old research copied and pasted into new biographies.
Trading allows people to be lazy in their research, and I think that hurts the draft. Maybe it's the by-product of how much research was done by some of the GMs that no longer participate, but I'm somewhat annoyed by watching teams win the ATD without actually offering up anything new.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,895
- 13,697
I see your point, but it's demonstrably wrong.I don't want to restart a war with you, but the recent facts are contradicting your sentiment.
Here's the number of trades each GM made in ATD2017:
EdmontonExpress + Yosemite Samm 8
ResilientBeast 7
BenchBrawl 6
jarek 4
Hawkey Town 18 4
seventieslord 3
Dreakmur 3
JFA87-66-99 3
rmartin65 3
tonyd 2
King Forsberg 2
chaosrevolver 1
tinyzombies 1
Sprague Cleghorn 1
monsterbertuzzi 1
Cyborgs 1
Voight 1
markrander/stoneberg 1
Now the function to check who made the most posts in the Bio thread seems broken or I don't understand how it works anymore, but I remember that you, seventieslord, jarek, ResilientBeast, Hawkey Town 18 and myself made the overwhelming majority of the biographies (sorry if I forgot someone, but it wouldn't change my point anyway).
So clearly, the GMs who are trading the most are also producing the most amount of research, at least in 2017.
Now not all biographies are created equal, but consolidation of all the material for each player into one biography is also a useful effort (as long as due credit is given).Besides, every GM I mentioned above produced some original research, which like you highlighted is harder to do than in the past.
As for a team winning the ATD while offering nothing new, who would that be? I won in 2017 and I made a lot of biographies (including original research).Rob won the two drafts prior, and he made a lot of biographies from what I recall.Before that it was TDMM.Before that it was me and Sturminator, and before that it was Arrbez, and before that it was seventieslord, and before that it was TDMM again.So who the hell are you talking about?
Truth seems to be that the most involved GMs are both trading more and producing more research.
Last edited:
Dreakmur
Registered User
There's a big difference between piling all the currently available information into a biography and actually uncovering something new.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,895
- 13,697
Yes, but both are useful.Besides, even considering this, the GMs who traded the most are still the ones doing the most "original research" (meaning uncovering something new).Also, uncovering something new is getting extremely difficult, especially if you don't have a library of books at home.
Dreakmur
Registered User
I like learning something new, which hasn't happened very much the last few drafts.
What are the new revelations this draft?
Ad
Upcoming events
-
2024 NHL Draft Lottery Team that wins #1 pick - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 23Staked: $26,012.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Stanley Cup 2024 Stanley Cup Champion - ONLY BET ONE TEAMWagers: 13Staked: $59,839.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 2 Carolina Hurricanes @ NY Rangers - NYR leads 1-0Wagers: 10Staked: $20,975.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
-
