BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,672
Idea for ATD2019
- Thread starter BenchBrawl
- Start date
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Could be a nice change.
My only concern with this is that the smaller the draft, the more the draft is just based on the HOH lists. So many of the arguments during the last draft were just "well, my guy is ranked 2 spots higher than your guy on HOH, so he's better."
My only concern with this is that the smaller the draft, the more the draft is just based on the HOH lists. So many of the arguments during the last draft were just "well, my guy is ranked 2 spots higher than your guy on HOH, so he's better."
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,672
Isn't this concern somewhat outdated? In the sense that almost all regular GMs have enough knowledge by now to have their own opinions, doubts and rankings (in general)? I'm not sure.Edit: If this happened last year well yeah, probably not outdated.Might still be worth trying.
The argument by authority, where the authority is a HOH list, is a farce.
Last edited:
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I guess that if we can somehow get over 30 teams again, I'd rather just do a normal draft, so we actually have players not on the HOH lists playing key roles. If we get another 20-25 team draft, then I'm all for mixing things up however we do it. That said, I'm not strongly against your idea even for a bigger draft.
Maybe put it to a vote once we have sign ups.
Maybe put it to a vote once we have sign ups.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I still like the idea of allowing GMs to run 2 teams each, one in each Conference. Would only work with no trading allowed though and wouldn't work if we had much more than 20 GMs. Probably a pipe dream.
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
With two separate drafts?
That would be interesting, I would stop being at all productive at work but would love every second
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
My original idea was for it to be one big draft, to vastly expand the pool of players.
But 2 separate drafts could work too.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,672
Johnny Engine
Moderator
- Jul 29, 2009
- 4,979
- 2,361
I don’t think the issue is knowledge, but rather of convenience. HOH list placements aren’t good arguments, but they’re easy arguments, and when you’re on the clock and realize you haven’t done any actual prep work, just taking the next available LW can be tempting. Both the ATD and HOH sections have accumulated a lot of good work over the years, and if you’re more competition oriented than research oriented, curtailing that behaviour is easier said than done.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
How about we completely skip the ATD and move on to a 20-24 participant MLD (based on the draft list of last draft). You say the same old players in the same old order are just not interesting, and then you go and pick them again and again...
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,672
I'm not interested by the MLD at all anymore to be honest.But if people are enthousiastic about this MLD proposal I'll be glad, as enthousiasm is what this section needs right now.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,672
I guess I just don't think it's a big deal if some GMs follow the lists.That makes them predictable, and then you can operate based on that.
For me pimping your player because he finished in 7th place in a project is not even an ''argument''.If I used this in the past, then I apologize to Zeus himself right now!
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I couldn't be more interested in an MLD. I love them. I'd come out of semi-retirement for one, no questions asked, assuming it's got strong participation.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,672
Then let's see what people think.I have no problem with people prefering an MLD.My priority is the survival of the section.
My main reason for not having any interest in the MLD is because I can't be bothered to spend a lot of time researching players of this caliber.So much left to research among the best ever.
Johnny Engine
Moderator
- Jul 29, 2009
- 4,979
- 2,361
I have a fairly radical idea for playoff series voting that, if successful, could change the way we present and reward arguments and information.
Right now, playoffs are decided by secret ballots detailing a simple narrative for the series. That definitely helps assuage any hurt feelings that might come up, but they don't give us any clear idea of why teams actually win, and they don't seem to reward participation or good debating. Any political benefit to keeping the ballots secret is getting chipped away by GMs getting annoyed that they lost a series for reasons they don't understand.
What if each GM was required to make 3 posts on specified topics (say, Forward Breakdown, Defense and Goaltending Breakdown, Coaching and Special Team Breakdown), and we count up the Likes on those posts? GMs could continue to litigate the points made in those posts for as long as they want, but the first 3 required posts would be where they lay out the case for their team and open it up to scrutiny.
As a voter, you'd be expected to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each aspect of the teams, and the arguments supporting them, and Like accordingly. So maybe if TDDM and Seventieslord are in a series, I Like TDMMs defense but Seventies' forwards, and the guy with the better coach gets the plurality of my 3 votes. Or maybe those guys are behaving like jerks and I don't give them any votes (I kid). Or if it's an exceptionally well argued and close series maybe I spread the Likes around a little more, but unfortunately Seventies brought a Lumley to a Roy fight, so I only leave his Defense/Goalie post unliked.
Such a system would provide direct personal feedback on what works and what doesn't in a series. And it punishes GMs who can't be bothered to write 3 posts in a series.
It'd be very different, but it might work.
Right now, playoffs are decided by secret ballots detailing a simple narrative for the series. That definitely helps assuage any hurt feelings that might come up, but they don't give us any clear idea of why teams actually win, and they don't seem to reward participation or good debating. Any political benefit to keeping the ballots secret is getting chipped away by GMs getting annoyed that they lost a series for reasons they don't understand.
What if each GM was required to make 3 posts on specified topics (say, Forward Breakdown, Defense and Goaltending Breakdown, Coaching and Special Team Breakdown), and we count up the Likes on those posts? GMs could continue to litigate the points made in those posts for as long as they want, but the first 3 required posts would be where they lay out the case for their team and open it up to scrutiny.
As a voter, you'd be expected to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each aspect of the teams, and the arguments supporting them, and Like accordingly. So maybe if TDDM and Seventieslord are in a series, I Like TDMMs defense but Seventies' forwards, and the guy with the better coach gets the plurality of my 3 votes. Or maybe those guys are behaving like jerks and I don't give them any votes (I kid). Or if it's an exceptionally well argued and close series maybe I spread the Likes around a little more, but unfortunately Seventies brought a Lumley to a Roy fight, so I only leave his Defense/Goalie post unliked.
Such a system would provide direct personal feedback on what works and what doesn't in a series. And it punishes GMs who can't be bothered to write 3 posts in a series.
It'd be very different, but it might work.
Johnny Engine
Moderator
- Jul 29, 2009
- 4,979
- 2,361
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,672
I disagree with forcing a structure on the debates.The freedom to take the debate where you want, and the same freedom for your opponent, is what made some great series in the past.Also, this feels a bit like obligatory homework.
OTOH, meaning no disrespect to anyone, but last year was the first time I saw some very strange and puzzling results.From 2011 to 2017, generally almost all the top teams ended up on top, deep in the bracket (unless they clashed with another top team before), with a few exceptions here and there.This might be a good time to put the vote public.But putting the vote public might lead to group-think and peer pressure.Nothing is perfect.
Last edited:
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,672
Oh I didn't think you were accusing me of doing it.I just can't rule out that I did it in the past
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,672
I erased this part of my post because I felt it was inappropriate, but too late I guess.
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
I deleted it, I don't want to be too petty
Complaining about losing in a hobby isn't a good look
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,672
Sorry for the double quoting, but just to comment on your ''likes'' idea, where it might indicate what works or not in a series, don't you think the natural ''likes'' that will occur as the series evolve will give such indications anyway?
Also another point, personally I already punish GMs that don't show up (to some extent).I assumed everybody did it.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Last year was the first draft when I felt that the playoff discussion generally didn't influence voting and that includes non-participation.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,672
So we have a few proposals already:
- Split the league in two; make two separate drafts, then the champion of both halves meet in a super ATD Final.
- Each GM manage two teams (not mutually exclusive with the first proposal)
- Skip the ATD, do an MLD
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Let's wait until after the holidays to decide anything.
Interest usually surges the first and second week of January.
There's no hurry, is there?
Interest usually surges the first and second week of January.
There's no hurry, is there?
