Finalized Ratings coming soon...

SPG

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,018
12
Utica, NY
Visit site
Exactly, you will never be able to please 30 GM plus 30 AGM and those teams trying to maintain 70 OV:sarcasm:

It is best in my opinion to stick with DVHL rating. At least no one can argue about the rating system.

I really think our ratings now are much better than they were before they were adjusted. So despite a few people not being happy about a few things here and there, I think we're much better off. Thanks again to Brock and those involved in reviewing these. It became really apparent how big the improvement was while I was keying in the adjustments. LD was just brutal.
 

Wildman

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,942
35
Toronto
I really think our ratings now are much better than they were before they were adjusted. So despite a few people not being happy about a few things here and there, I think we're much better off. Thanks again to Brock and those involved in reviewing these. It became really apparent how big the improvement was while I was keying in the adjustments. LD was just brutal.


Thanks Brock and Tony, Lets get the puck rolling. For all those GM looking to upgrade their rating can certainly trade their poor DF rated players to Islanders. I am sure we can accomodate these players on my rosters.:yo:
 

Ohio Jones

Game on...
Feb 28, 2002
8,257
201
Great White North
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!

An interesting and admirable approach, Dry. If we could gain a consensus on this from the rest of the GMs, we could just get going.

I know for my part I was horrified :eek: at some of my forwards' DF ratings, but then it seems I'm in good company. If everyone across the board feels the same way about their own ratings, then that's a pretty good sign that they're atpretty consistent, which at the end of the day is all that matters.

So what say you, gentlemen: we have a motion on the floor to dispense with ratings challenges altogether this year. Any takers?
 

Wildman

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,942
35
Toronto
An interesting and admirable approach, Dry. If we could gain a consensus on this from the rest of the GMs, we could just get going.

I know for my part I was horrified :eek: at some of my forwards' DF ratings, but then it seems I'm in good company. If everyone across the board feels the same way about their own ratings, then that's a pretty good sign that they're atpretty consistent, which at the end of the day is all that matters.

So what say you, gentlemen: we have a motion on the floor to dispense with ratings challenges altogether this year. Any takers?

I am all for it. I think I am okay for 70OV:teach:
 

Toronto_AGM_Adil

Registered User
Apr 9, 2006
337
9
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

DVHL is a formula based on NHL statistics... if we don't like their formula(for example +/- ratings) then we should just make our own formula. I think most GM's would prefer the new ratings over the DVHL ratings since they look much better, however I think doing our own formula is better then just using the DVHL ratings next year.

That being said, I think that we should do our own statistical analysis next year rather then use the DVHL ones. Then we can put those ratings through the review process followed by the challenge process just like we normally do. If everyone knows how the DF formula is created and has a chance to comment on it then you'll get a lot fewer complaints. If you're worried about the extra work, Abbas and I would be happy to take the statistical analysis part since that's our strongest asset. Also, if we did our own ratings we wouldn't have to wait for DVHL master and the rerate process could begin sooner.

BTW, no one is questioning the hardwork put in by the reviewers or the admin team, this is just a healthy discussion that needs to be had. All of the 30 GM's and miscellaneous AGM's put in a lot of their personal time into this league and have a vested interest in these ratings. I am personally very happy with the ratings for the Leafs, and I know any disparities can be addressed using our challenges. The point of this discussion is to talk about improvement, not to critisize or disregard hard work put in by individuals who we all respect.

I agree with Ohio that there's no point in trying to change things this late (and we're all itching to get the season started), however we should keep this discussion in mind for next season...
 

Hossa

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
9,649
274
Abroad
Visit site
DVHL is a formula based on NHL statistics... if we don't like their formula(for example +/- ratings) then we should just make our own formula. I think most GM's would prefer the new ratings over the DVHL ratings since they look much better, however I think doing our own formula is better then just using the DVHL ratings next year.

That being said, I think that we should do our own statistical analysis next year rather then use the DVHL ones. Then we can put those ratings through the review process followed by the challenge process just like we normally do. If everyone knows how the DF formula is created and has a chance to comment on it then you'll get a lot fewer complaints. If you're worried about the extra work, Abbas and I would be happy to take the statistical analysis part since that's our strongest asset. Also, if we did our own ratings we wouldn't have to wait for DVHL master and the rerate process could begin sooner.

BTW, no one is questioning the hardwork put in by the reviewers or the admin team, this is just a healthy discussion that needs to be had. All of the 30 GM's and miscellaneous AGM's put in a lot of their personal time into this league and have a vested interest in these ratings. I am personally very happy with the ratings for the Leafs, and I know any disparities can be addressed using our challenges. The point of this discussion is to talk about improvement, not to critisize or disregard hard work put in by individuals who we all respect.

I agree with Ohio that there's no point in trying to change things this late (and we're all itching to get the season started), however we should keep this discussion in mind for next season...

I really don't think statistical analysis is the answer to ratings like DF. You can use statistics perhaps for things like SC or PA, or even IT...but not DF. For example, plus/minus as a crude statistic, has little value, of that there is no dispute. Hits is not an indicator of defensive ability since defence is positional, and blocked shots is certainly not enough on its own. Statistics can't evaluate a player's defensive ability, and while subjectivity will always be questioned, I think at the end of the day it balances out.

On the subject of abandoning ratings challenges for the season, I think perhaps the compromise is to only allow a small number. I think GMs who really feel a certain player's rating is questionable and feel slighted should have the opportunity to try and correct that. Like personally, I really think Brad Lukowich's DF should be higher than 69, and I feel there are many examples of inferior defensive players rated higher. But we don't need 10 each...3 could suffice. While it still sets us back a little, 3 each makes the review process easier, and we can all come up with 3 challenges quickly. Set the submission deadline soon, and allow a smaller number than usual. That's my 0.02$.
 

Toronto_AGM_Adil

Registered User
Apr 9, 2006
337
9
I really don't think statistical analysis is the answer to ratings like DF. You can use statistics perhaps for things like SC or PA, or even IT...but not DF. For example, plus/minus as a crude statistic, has little value, of that there is no dispute. Hits is not an indicator of defensive ability since defence is positional, and blocked shots is certainly not enough on its own. Statistics can't evaluate a player's defensive ability, and while subjectivity will always be questioned, I think at the end of the day it balances out.

I agree that individuals reviewing ratings is the best solution, however why do we base the reviewing process on DVHL when everyone clearly disagrees with their DF formula. If we're going to bse the review process on an initial statistical analysis, then arn't we better doing that analysis ourselves?

On the subject of abandoning ratings challenges for the season, I think perhaps the compromise is to only allow a small number. I think GMs who really feel a certain player's rating is questionable and feel slighted should have the opportunity to try and correct that. Like personally, I really think Brad Lukowich's DF should be higher than 69, and I feel there are many examples of inferior defensive players rated higher. But we don't need 10 each...3 could suffice. While it still sets us back a little, 3 each makes the review process easier, and we can all come up with 3 challenges quickly. Set the submission deadline soon, and allow a smaller number than usual. That's my 0.02$.

Rating challenges are for more then just DF ratings. A lot of regular season stats are impacted by other factors such as injuries, coach/system changes, etc... There also other subjective stats like SK, SP or PC which can be questioned. Challenges are the only way a GM has to defend how his players are rated and considering that many GM's trade with the understanding that challenges are available removing them at this point would be unfair.
 

Brock

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,196
3,628
The GTA
ohlprospects.blogspot.com
On the subject of abandoning ratings challenges for the season, I think perhaps the compromise is to only allow a small number. I think GMs who really feel a certain player's rating is questionable and feel slighted should have the opportunity to try and correct that. Like personally, I really think Brad Lukowich's DF should be higher than 69, and I feel there are many examples of inferior defensive players rated higher. But we don't need 10 each...3 could suffice. While it still sets us back a little, 3 each makes the review process easier, and we can all come up with 3 challenges quickly. Set the submission deadline soon, and allow a smaller number than usual. That's my 0.02$.

I'd agree with this motion, to have ratings challenges maxed out at 3-5, with the submission deadline being set relatively soon, so that the ball can get rolling.
 

Mandaou

Registered User
Mar 6, 2002
436
0
Ottawa
Visit site
Admin Poll

For what its worth, I say lets get the season rolling without reviews. There's a lot of players and you're going to have some disagreements on ratings. I know I do for my team but I'm sure everyone does.

As I'm not part of the admin team I would suggest a quick poll and let the democratic system take course. There will still be GM's who are not fully satisfied but at least everyone will know they had a voice.

Suggest poll:

1. Season begins with current ratings.
2. Season begins after rating challenges as previous years.
3. Season begins with rating challenges and counters.


PS If the season starts within the next couple of weeks, I'll be travelling in Europe so my participation level starting this Friday will be pretty low.

Good luck to all and let's see what all those trades and draft picks result in.
 

Dr.Sens(e)

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,014
1
Ottawa
Visit site
That being said, I think that we should do our own statistical analysis next year rather then use the DVHL ones. Then we can put those ratings through the review process followed by the challenge process just like we normally do. If everyone knows how the DF formula is created and has a chance to comment on it then you'll get a lot fewer complaints. If you're worried about the extra work, Abbas and I would be happy to take the statistical analysis part since that's our strongest asset. Also, if we did our own ratings we wouldn't have to wait for DVHL master and the rerate process could begin sooner.

Believe me - the formula for DEF has been tried, and it simply never compares to some objective adjustment that we did. Most recently, Abbas completed a defensive formula to be considered for this year and the logic behind it was extremely sound. The problem was, it used stats like giveaways, takeaways, blockshots and hits, which are so inconsistently applied and not comparable based on a number of factors, that the end result had Zdeno Chara and Adam Foote the same defensive rating as Josh Gorges in the middle of hte pack, while a player like Tom Poti was rated as one of the top 25 defensive d-men, Mike Komisarek top 10 and Greg Zanon of all people top 5.

There may be a secret sauce to a formula I have yet to see, but until I do, I doubt DEF can ever be generated via a formula.
 

kasper11

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,674
13
New York
Visit site
Believe me - the formula for DEF has been tried, and it simply never compares to some objective adjustment that we did. Most recently, Abbas completed a defensive formula to be considered for this year and the logic behind it was extremely sound. The problem was, it used stats like giveaways, takeaways, blockshots and hits, which are so inconsistently applied and not comparable based on a number of factors, that the end result had Zdeno Chara and Adam Foote the same defensive rating as Josh Gorges in the middle of hte pack, while a player like Tom Poti was rated as one of the top 25 defensive d-men, Mike Komisarek top 10 and Greg Zanon of all people top 5.

There may be a secret sauce to a formula I have yet to see, but until I do, I doubt DEF can ever be generated via a formula.

Hey....as the owner of one Greg Zanon, I find that formula to be mathematically and fundamentally sound and that it should be immediately adopted. Unless it would ruin the ratings of my other defensemen in which case it is not reliable at all. Except in the case of Zanon.
 
I have just two questions....

1). what was the rating that was used to represent the everage foward's DF rating, from which all players were assessed? I'm guessing somewhere in the mid 60's but it would be nice to know.

2). How does a guy like Kris Beech get a 53? I understand ratings challenges, but you're basically trying to tell me he is so bad defensively that he isn't even at an AHL level in that department? yikes! there are a few other guys i'm going to have challenge now, but that was one that really stood out to me. the guy was low in the old ratings and i was gonna challenge, but now he gets bashed another 10? eeek! :amazed:
 

Dr.Sens(e)

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,014
1
Ottawa
Visit site
I have just two questions....

1). what was the rating that was used to represent the everage foward's DF rating, from which all players were assessed? I'm guessing somewhere in the mid 60's but it would be nice to know.

2). How does a guy like Kris Beech get a 53? I understand ratings challenges, but you're basically trying to tell me he is so bad defensively that he isn't even at an AHL level in that department? yikes! there are a few other guys i'm going to have challenge now, but that was one that really stood out to me. the guy was low in the old ratings and i was gonna challenge, but now he gets bashed another 10? eeek! :amazed:

The DVHL ratings are on-line somewhere - easy enough to find them to get an idea what we were working with. These have been posted before on this board, but I don't have the link handy.

In terms of Beech, he is just one of many of the lower tier guys were likely missed. Keep in mind EVERY players individual ratings across multiple categories were reviewed by a grand total of three people. And while each rating got a look from at least two sets of eyes, there simply isn't enough free hours in our days for any of us to really dig into every individual rating, so it amounted to a quick look, and if it basically didn't "feel" wrong based on this quick glance, it was left alone (at least that was my process for the ratings originally adjusted by Tony and Brock). I actually only found a handful in each section, but based on my process, obviously I wasn't going to catch every miss (just some very obvious ones, which are taken care of). Of course, I saw all my rating adjustments (or non adjustments) on the defensive side, but couldn't really adjust those already vetted by someone else. As such, I have two immediate defensive challenges I would use in a heart beat.

In terms of challenges, I opt for still allowing some, but making it a smaller list (i.e. 3 or less).
 

Toronto_AGM_Adil

Registered User
Apr 9, 2006
337
9
The DVHL ratings are on-line somewhere - easy enough to find them to get an idea what we were working with. These have been posted before on this board, but I don't have the link handy.

In terms of Beech, he is just one of many of the lower tier guys were likely missed. Keep in mind EVERY players individual ratings across multiple categories were reviewed by a grand total of three people. And while each rating got a look from at least two sets of eyes, there simply isn't enough free hours in our days for any of us to really dig into every individual rating, so it amounted to a quick look, and if it basically didn't "feel" wrong based on this quick glance, it was left alone (at least that was my process for the ratings originally adjusted by Tony and Brock).

This is exactly my point regarding the DVHL DF ratings. At the end of the day, there will be quite a few ratings based on the DVHL DF ratings and that's on a formula that none of us seem to appreciate. I know the ratings that Abbas and I made had some glaring oddities (such as Zanon) however the spreadsheet itself was customizable and the formula we developed could have been changed to better reflect. I realize that there's no real way to characterize DF by purly using statistics, however we can at least have a set of statistics ready before DVHL and have a set of initial DF ratings that we're all more comfortable with that the reviewers can work from.
 
I'm still in favour of challenges. I'm happy to assess some if needed. If the ratings are that good, then a lot of people will either struggle to find fair arguments or they'll get knocked back anyway. (eg. i'd love to challenge Zajac's DF or Pitkanen's IT but they're not so far off that its worth challenging...or at best i gain 2-3 points). but there are enough IMO in the SP, IT and one or two other categories to leave some ratings challenges. I know that makes a little more workload for those prepared to look at these things, but to me its important that everyone has a fair chance to get as accurate ratings as possible. if one team only gets 2-3 ratings really out while another team has 6 or 7 its not really fair to the team who happens to have an underrated player. I'd rather take an extra 2-3 challenges from GM's for 2 points to make sure those that have 5+ point issues get properly looked at. Just my opinion.

I'd prefer say 7 challenges. or maybe 5 with another 2 for those who feel that the DF ratings were especially harsh on one or two players?
 

Ville Isopaa

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
2,253
10
Helsinki, Finland
Visit site
I'm still in favour of challenges. I'm happy to assess some if needed. If the ratings are that good, then a lot of people will either struggle to find fair arguments or they'll get knocked back anyway. (eg. i'd love to challenge Zajac's DF or Pitkanen's IT but they're not so far off that its worth challenging...or at best i gain 2-3 points). but there are enough IMO in the SP, IT and one or two other categories to leave some ratings challenges. I know that makes a little more workload for those prepared to look at these things, but to me its important that everyone has a fair chance to get as accurate ratings as possible. if one team only gets 2-3 ratings really out while another team has 6 or 7 its not really fair to the team who happens to have an underrated player. I'd rather take an extra 2-3 challenges from GM's for 2 points to make sure those that have 5+ point issues get properly looked at. Just my opinion.

I'd prefer say 7 challenges. or maybe 5 with another 2 for those who feel that the DF ratings were especially harsh on one or two players?

I am also in favour of challenges. I'd suggest atleast 7-10 individual ratings on 5-6 guys. And, I have no problem with reviewing a bunch of challenges if needed.
 
From the looks of things...forwards on average are about 5 points lower than D-men. so a middle of the road defensive forward is going to be about the 65 mark. 70 is quite strong actually tony. Sure there are a handful of 75+ guys but those are few and far between. I myself have only 2 guys that are over that magic 70 mark.
 
Mar 1, 2002
66,104
12,072
I would say a max of three ratings to contest. The admins have put up SO much time and effort. If we see 25 teams contesting 7 players, it will take forever.
 

Hossa

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
9,649
274
Abroad
Visit site
I would say a max of three ratings to contest. The admins have put up SO much time and effort. If we see 25 teams contesting 7 players, it will take forever.

I think this was my idea originally anyways, but I want to re-iterate again this is what I think is best. While I can certainly see why some want 7-10 challenges (and I know I could easily come up with that many for myself), I think 3 is an adequate number for us to challenge any that we feel are horribly inaccurate or will really affect our team.

The turn-around can be easy, and it should be the major mistakes we're trying to correct. We're all going to have another 4 or 7 or 10 guys with ratings we feel are 2-3 points below what we want them to be at. Let's just focus on each challenging the ones we *really* want to get straight, do it quickly, and get playing.
 

Brock

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,196
3,628
The GTA
ohlprospects.blogspot.com
I think this was my idea originally anyways, but I want to re-iterate again this is what I think is best. While I can certainly see why some want 7-10 challenges (and I know I could easily come up with that many for myself), I think 3 is an adequate number for us to challenge any that we feel are horribly inaccurate or will really affect our team.

The turn-around can be easy, and it should be the major mistakes we're trying to correct. We're all going to have another 4 or 7 or 10 guys with ratings we feel are 2-3 points below what we want them to be at. Let's just focus on each challenging the ones we *really* want to get straight, do it quickly, and get playing.

I agree, I think we need to cap challenges at 3-5, with a maximum of 2 per player. Whatever gets us to the start of the seasonthe fastest.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->