Finalized Ratings coming soon...
- Thread starter SPG
- Start date
As I said, I've done ratings and keying them in for years in other leagues I've been in, so I know the amount of work and how they never are perfect. And, I have said I can help out several times during my years in the league.
Now, I take it there will be no changes to these ratings before the challenges, so I guess the guidelines for what stats, etc. can be used to argue for a challenge have to be set and GM's need to be informed about these. Or rather, what stats, etc. has been used to base the current ratings on, so these can be properly challenged.
Last edited:
MatthewFlames
Registered User
actually i was pretty scared when i saw where the DF of my forwards ended upso lets bring on the challenges
And in all honesty - if the DF ratings in the league are all conducted the same throughout the league (which they are) - then every team is in the same boat. So if there is parity amongst the ratings there is no problem, even if we think the ratings look too low or are lower than the DVHL ratings. I do like that the elite defensive forwards have elite ratings. They are valuable commodities and should have ratings that reflect that - even if poor defensive forwards have low ratings due to their cherry picking days in the OHL
SPG
Registered User
actually i was pretty scared when i saw where the DF of my forwards ended up
Thats the right attitude to have right now. Not everyone is going to be happy with some of the changes, but when you have so many players to go through, that stuff happens. That's the whole point of having challenges. Everyone is in the same boat here. If someone really has a problem with a rating on another team being too high, challenge it if you believe you have valid points and can argue a case.
I believe Ville did volunteer and I did so myself as well. Actually, I had compiled all the stats for defencemen, compiled them in a spreadsheet, tried to make a DF formula with adjustable weights and supplied them to the admin team to help them with developing the ratings. I also offered to modify the formula if the admin team didn't like how I came up with it. Additionally, I offered to do the same for forwards and to compile the three year stats as well...
I think that qualifies for volunteering and I think that gives me the right to voice my opinion...
Hossa
Registered User
I see no reason arguing about the rating as all of us will get the opportunity to challenge the ratings. However, it would be great if each team is given an opportunity to challenge other teams ratings as this will resolve any issue over rated players.
My suggestion would be that each Easter Division should have an opportunity to challenge at least 3 rating of Western Division and vice versa. This way, a team would have an opportunity to challenge Alfie rating if they feel it is over rated and Nick should have an opportunity to defend the challenge.
My suggestion would be that each Easter Division should have an opportunity to challenge at least 3 rating of Western Division and vice versa. This way, a team would have an opportunity to challenge Alfie rating if they feel it is over rated and Nick should have an opportunity to defend the challenge.
SPG
Registered User
Don't get me wrong, all the points brought up are valid points, I just question the timing. Hopefully you can understand my frustration... and to be fair, I do realize that since this is the first you guys are seeing these.
Gather your arguments for challenges. That will be the time to dispute questionable ratings.
Hossa
Registered User
There are a number of problems with this:
1) Time - Do we really want to delay the start of the season a few weeks for this?
2) Nick didn't rate Alfie an 80. I don't think he should have to defend something he did not do.
3) Strategy - While maybe the overall goal in the end is equity and fairness, you know in the end that the top teams are going to be targeted.
spintheblackcircle
incoming!!!
- Mar 1, 2002
- 66,226
- 12,184
These are all very good points... some possible solutions...
1) Give GM's only a limited number of counter challenges... I'm sure we can get some more GM's to volunteer in reviewing counter challenges
2) Allow GM's a counter argument
3) Counter challenges would only be allowed for opposing conferences and would be manditory...
A couple of things to point out...
First off, the stat references for Alfie were simply supportive of the recognition he has already received - he is regarded as an excellent defensive forward - elite by most in the Northeast division. When you combine his two-way play in the Stanley cup playoffs (let's face it, he was considered for the Conn Smyth despite Ottawa losing the cup) and there is ample justification beyond stats to put him in the top 20 in the league in def rating. The stats just validate and perhaps amplify his movement up the defenisve charts to top 10. Yes, he plays on a great line, but he is the defensive aspect of that line and his +/- dwarfs that of his linemates (i.e. Heater and Spezza don't do nearly as well in terms of goals for against than without Alfredsson, further validating his rating). Putting him top 5 is perhaps debatable, but worst case you're talking about dropping him to a 77 or 78.
As to challenges, remember that teams need to provide objective OPINION from reputable sources to succeed. While Alfredsson is regarded as an excellent defensive forward and sources like Forecaster regard him as a two-way winger than never takes a shift off and has impeccable work ethic, guys like Vanek and Huselius don't have this type of profile and usually categorized as lazy at the defensive end and often taking shifts off. As such, govern your challenges accordingly. Even for a player like Sullivan, be sure to read up his forecaster description (or others) before challenging, because he is not referred to as a good defensive player in any way, other than to say he is easy to knock off the puck.
And if we do get into challenging other teams ratings and we have the volunteers to run with it, the format I would suggest is as follows - You can challenge an individual rating on another team HOWEVER, if you do so, the other team gets to automatically challenge an extra player back on the team who made the challenge. This will ensure fairness in that teams making challenges had better be sure they don't have any weak ratings, because the counter challenge coming back is only going to make their team weaker. In the case of Alfredsson, as you can tell from this discussion, I'm only too happy to wade into a debate and provide no less than a dozen expert quotes on his defensive ability and counter back with a few challenges of my own, especially for a few of the teams chiming in on this board !!) For instance, Bertuzzi's DI of 99 is obviously a joke as I can provide 20 sources that should help bring this down to a 50 and (a few minor penalties a game) while Forsberg's speed is now about 60, not 72, which puts him on par speed-wise with guys like Patrick Marleau (not in Peter's best day). Vokoun's DU is also much too high given his chronic injury status over the last few years, however this was likely missed given the DU doesn't account for lack of availability, but rather just games played. He should likely be a 55 or 60, which will mean he'll be good to play 40 games this yaer, not 65.
As to takeaways and giveaways, it is generally considered amongst the worst tracked stats in the league, which is why no league I know of uses it to calculate anything. Offensive players who handle the puck a lot and play aggresively in their playmaking and in terms of going to the net will always have more giveaways, but this has nothing to do with being good or bad defensively - it's about calculated risks, which are not tracked obviously. Meanwhile a sniper who never back-checks, but also rarely handles the puck other than to shoot, will have nominal giveaways despite the fact he is considered one of the worst defenders on the team. It's useless unless some interpretation is included, but even then, every team's official scorer treats it differently, which even make comparables useless.
First off, the stat references for Alfie were simply supportive of the recognition he has already received - he is regarded as an excellent defensive forward - elite by most in the Northeast division. When you combine his two-way play in the Stanley cup playoffs (let's face it, he was considered for the Conn Smyth despite Ottawa losing the cup) and there is ample justification beyond stats to put him in the top 20 in the league in def rating. The stats just validate and perhaps amplify his movement up the defenisve charts to top 10. Yes, he plays on a great line, but he is the defensive aspect of that line and his +/- dwarfs that of his linemates (i.e. Heater and Spezza don't do nearly as well in terms of goals for against than without Alfredsson, further validating his rating). Putting him top 5 is perhaps debatable, but worst case you're talking about dropping him to a 77 or 78.
As to challenges, remember that teams need to provide objective OPINION from reputable sources to succeed. While Alfredsson is regarded as an excellent defensive forward and sources like Forecaster regard him as a two-way winger than never takes a shift off and has impeccable work ethic, guys like Vanek and Huselius don't have this type of profile and usually categorized as lazy at the defensive end and often taking shifts off. As such, govern your challenges accordingly. Even for a player like Sullivan, be sure to read up his forecaster description (or others) before challenging, because he is not referred to as a good defensive player in any way, other than to say he is easy to knock off the puck.
And if we do get into challenging other teams ratings and we have the volunteers to run with it, the format I would suggest is as follows - You can challenge an individual rating on another team HOWEVER, if you do so, the other team gets to automatically challenge an extra player back on the team who made the challenge. This will ensure fairness in that teams making challenges had better be sure they don't have any weak ratings, because the counter challenge coming back is only going to make their team weaker. In the case of Alfredsson, as you can tell from this discussion, I'm only too happy to wade into a debate and provide no less than a dozen expert quotes on his defensive ability and counter back with a few challenges of my own, especially for a few of the teams chiming in on this board !!
) For instance, Bertuzzi's DI of 99 is obviously a joke as I can provide 20 sources that should help bring this down to a 50 and (a few minor penalties a game) while Forsberg's speed is now about 60, not 72, which puts him on par speed-wise with guys like Patrick Marleau (not in Peter's best day). Vokoun's DU is also much too high given his chronic injury status over the last few years, however this was likely missed given the DU doesn't account for lack of availability, but rather just games played. He should likely be a 55 or 60, which will mean he'll be good to play 40 games this yaer, not 65.As to takeaways and giveaways, it is generally considered amongst the worst tracked stats in the league, which is why no league I know of uses it to calculate anything. Offensive players who handle the puck a lot and play aggresively in their playmaking and in terms of going to the net will always have more giveaways, but this has nothing to do with being good or bad defensively - it's about calculated risks, which are not tracked obviously. Meanwhile a sniper who never back-checks, but also rarely handles the puck other than to shoot, will have nominal giveaways despite the fact he is considered one of the worst defenders on the team. It's useless unless some interpretation is included, but even then, every team's official scorer treats it differently, which even make comparables useless.
Brock
Registered User
The basis of the ratings was based upon the given DVHL rating, the rating used last year in the HFNHL, ratings in other sim leagues (MXFHL), as well as subjectivity (my opinion of where players slotted defensively and whether some of these ratings were too low/high), and then also stats such as PK time, +/-, blocked shots, SH points, and then finally scouting reports from TSN/Waymoresports.
If you are comparing Alfie to Huselius in defensive ability, you are crazy, and if you use that as part of your challenge, I would hope the admin team rejects this challenge. IMO Alfie is close to an elite offensive defender, and since I was part of the ratings redeveloping team, and no one else changed his rating or argued it was unjust, I'd assume that they would agree with me in his defensive abilities (since several other of the initial ratings I put forth were indeed changed or altered).
The reality is that ratings come down to opinion, and everyone is going to have a different one. I think Alfie is an elite defensive forward. Somebody else may not. These ratings will never be perfect because we have 30 individuals cooperating together to form a hockey league and each one of these 30 individuals has a different opinion.
I think this is a very good idea... however you may get an exponentially increasing number of counter-counter-challenges... Still the idea is sound and would promote fairness and good judgement. At the end of the day though challenges would be reviewed anyways so it's not likely teams can arbitrarily reduce other players ratings just to be mean.
I hate bringing Alfredson up again since I don't think he should be unfairly targeted, however as an example: if someone had decided to target alfredson you would still be provided the opportunity to counter argument and finally a third individual would objectively review both arguments... as long as one team isn't overly targeted then the counter-challenge system would be fair
Brock
Registered User
Exactly. I honestly think this idea is ludicrous. I personally just want to get the season started and adding yet another process which will be complicated and time consuming, will only delay start time even more. While in theory it is potentially productive, the reality is, where do you draw the line. Someone challenges one of your players, you challenge it right back, challenge another, than challenge back, etc, and it will become a see-saw battle without an ending.
Everyone is in the same boat with these ratings, and adding yet another process to the long offseason would be incredibly counterproductive, in my humble opinion.
The Hawks will not be making any ratings challenges as they trust that the admin team have done a satisfactory job and have enough on their plate already to get a season started. The team would also like to extend their gratitude to the admin team and those involved in developing the ratings. Let's get this party started!
SPG
Registered User
I know where you're coming from, Brock. With all the time that has already been put into this, I'm ready to move forward and get our season rolling rather than nitpick about the ratings.
Brock
Registered User
It's not just that, but what will this counter challenge system really accomplish? It would probably take up to 3 weeks to go through, if you break it down as one week for challenges to be sent in, one week for rebuttle, one week for decision making. And thats the bare minimum amount of time that it would take. Then we'd have actual ratings challenges which would probably take another 2-3 weeks and we would be delaying the start of the season to about a month from now!
For what?, the ability to change Daniel Alfredsson's DF rating from an 80 to a 78, or to change some other rating by maybe 2-3 points. Besides, Alfredsson's rating is the only rating of the entire ratings set that I'm hearing some people claim is too high. I just don't feel it's necessary or worth the time. Not to mention all the potential hostility it could bring down if one team is singled out (such as Nick's powerhouse Blues, or Rich's young Devils).
As with most suggestions put forth, while they make sense from a theoretical perspective, logistically, we likely don't have the resources to put forth in reviewing all of this and also forcing GM's into the extra work (on top of endorsements, lines, previews, trades etc.). Every time we add something that burdens both the admin team or other volunteers (reviewing all these new challenges and counters) with the additional burden on the GM's at large (countering challenges to ratings they had nothing to do with putting together in the first place), leads to problems in terms of slowing things down and creating additional GM frustration.
We used DVHL ratings as a basis (obviously objective) and then had a group of three reviewers go through and re-rates of several individual ratings - by no means a perfect process, but we would argue, has probably given us as good a ratings as you will find (DVHL's original ratings are the highest used anywhere now). As with most things of this nature, we won't get some people to agree with the ratings, but in the end, each team received some favourable and unfavourable ratings. The unfavourable ones you can challenge, and to be honest, it really is really easier to just let the few favourable ones stand on each team. If the majority of GM's disagree, then it should be easy enough to form a committee with new volunteers to help see the outside challenge idea put forth, but it will really need to be a groundswell of interest in seeing this happen versus and few GM's who think it is a good idea.
SPG
Registered User
Even if we did go down that road, there would still be ratings people wouldn't be happy about. It seems like an awful lot of time to spend with little or no gain.
Brock
Registered User
Exactly. Then someone's rating gets changed and that particular GM gets angry that his player's rating is lowered. Such as if Alfie's DF is attacked, and those making up the committee decide his DF rating is a 74, than Nick would likely be very angry (as he should be if Alfie's rating were to get lowered that far), and it would just be a vicious cycle of anger and frustration which would likely escalate to getting no or little absolute gain out of the process.
It's damn near impossible to please everyone, especially with something as subjective as ratings.
Than why do we change the DVHL rating in the first place? At least the question such as this will be answered and no one can argue about it.
Brock
Registered User
I was told that we were changing some of the DVHL ratings because we felt that there was some minor holes in the rating system. And I agreed, that some of the ratings were very poorly done and didn't reflect some of the previous ratings the league has used, such as DF, SK, LD, etc.
But maybe thats our lesson here, is that we shouldnt have changed the DVHL ratings in the first place because even after we did, everyone is complaining. The moral of the story being that you can't please everyone
Exactly, you will never be able to please 30 GM plus 30 AGM and those teams trying to maintain 70 OV
It is best in my opinion to stick with DVHL rating. At least no one can argue about the rating system.
Ad
Latest posts
-
Proposal: Free agency edition Trade Rumours/Proposals [MOD - Stay on Topic] 5- Latest: Gil Gunderson
Upcoming events
-
-
Game 2 New Orleans Pelicans @ Oklahoma City ThunderWagers: 8Staked: $7,166.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 2 Los Angeles Kings @ Edmonton Oilers - Edmonton Oilers leads series 1-0Wagers: 18Staked: $44,815.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-