Rule suggestions for future ATDs

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It might be helpful to have a thread for this now, while we still have GMs engaged.

Provides a reference point for next year.

Click to read more...

 

[Habsfan18]

I think we need more open discussions like this. There are many who will express feelings privately but then stay in the shadows publicly so they don’t ruffle any feathers.

This is a group exercise, and everyone should have their say. I wish people would “come out of the shadows” a bit. Make your feelings heard.

 

[Habsfan18]

A hidden-voting system where a panel of ex-GM’s who have no idea who built each team would be an interesting concept, just to see the results and how they would differ from the norm. But I don’t think there’s really any proper way to pull something like that off.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

A hidden-voting system where a panel of ex-GM’s who have no idea who built each team would be an interesting concept, just to see the results and how they would differ from the norm. But I don’t think there’s really any proper way to pull something like that off.

The problem with such a system is that nobody could read any arguments.

I'm not thrilled by the idea of a large number of nonparticipants voting, but if it happened, I would be happier about it in the regular season than the playoffs, where the discussion should matter.

 

[Habsfan18]

The problem with such a system is that nobody could read any arguments.

I'm not thrilled by the idea of a large number of nonparticipants voting, but if it happened, I would be happier about it in the regular season than the playoffs, where the discussion should matter.

Yeah that’s true. Unless the panel was JUST for regular season seeding. But then I guess that unnecessarily complicates matters.

 

[Habsfan18]

I just think we need to get away from the same group of people, voting on rosters built but the same group of people, using the same predictable playoff seeding format..every single year. That’s what my issue boils down to.

 

[Habsfan18]

Would nobody be curious at all to see what an outside panel would have come up with in terms of regular season placements? Compared to our typical group voting?

I think it would be interesting to see either how similar or how completely different the two would be.

 

[Dreakmur]

3. Come up with bullshit VsX fancy stats to put your team on a pedastal.

I had nothing to do with the creation of the vs.X system.

If you’re interest (I know you’re not) in learning about how it works, there is a thread totally dedicated to its creation, critical evaluation, and evolution that spans multiple years.

It is certainly the best system we have to measure offensive production.

Seems like quite a lot of us are out going forward unless changes are made.

I’ll try to contain my disappointment.

Outside voters need to come in for next year - that seems non-negotiable at this point. SIHR is certainly a good place to reach out and I'm sure they would even collaborate with such an elaborate historical exercise as the ATD is.

Why would anyone dedicate that much time to something in which they have nothing invested?

 

[Dreakmur]

I’ll try not to take this to heart, coming from someone with 10+ years experience and zero titles to show for it.

And yet you don’t see me complaining and whining every year that the voting is rigged and only the popular kids win their series....

 

[Habsfan18]

And yet you don’t see me complaining and whining every year that the voting is rigged and only the popular kids win their series....

I never said it was rigged, Sean. But you’re lying to yourself if you don’t think there isn’t some favouritism at play here in terms of GM’s voting for people they like, and voting against people they have issues with.

You and I clearly don’t need to continue discussing this further. We obviously don’t see eye to eye on this.

 

[Dreakmur]

I never said it was rigged, Sean. But you’re lying to yourself if you don’t think there isn’t some favouritism at play here in terms of GM’s voting for people they like, and voting against people they have issues with.

You and I clearly don’t need to continue discussing this further. We obviously don’t see eye to eye on this.

It’s not that I disagree... but there isn’t a reasonable solution. Independent voters is a dream.

 

[Habsfan18]

Again, my bad for pointing out yet another year of predictable playoff results. I was WAY out of line.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

3. Come up with bullshit VsX fancy stats to put your team on a pedastal.

Seems like quite a lot of us are out going forward unless changes are made. Outside voters need to come in for next year - that seems non-negotiable at this point. SIHR is certainly a good place to reach out and I'm sure they would even collaborate with such an elaborate historical exercise as the ATD is.

To start off, I just want to point out that I don't think I mentioned vs.X once in my playoff series this year. Here's some thoughts...

- Many complain about vs.X, and it is far from perfect, but I honestly haven't seen a better alternative for evaluating regular season offense. The whole reason it was created was because the methods that were being used before, like raw point totals, scoring finishes (i.e. 8th in scoring), etc. were even worse. If vs.X is "bullshit", it's a lesser degree of bullshit than those just mentioned, and a lesser degree than anything else I've seen proposed.

For those that don't like the stat, is there an alternative stat or method of comparing the offense of players from different eras that you think would be better? I'm all ears.


- Above being said, vs.X can be relied on too much and/or misused. It's important to make sure everyone is educated on the pros and cons of it. I think one of the main turn offs to newcomers is that they come in and in the middle of the draft people suddenly start talking about this stat they've never heard of or don't fully understand.


- In one of the earlier playoff series I remember someone saying that the ATD is just a vs.X competition. For that I would say look to the Florida Sunbursts of this year...

John LeClair • Eric Lindros (A) • Jaromir Jagr
Luc Robitaille • Phil Esposito (C) • Ziggy Palffy

That has to be one of the highest vs.X top 6's in the draft, and this team finished 5th in their division and didn't make it out of the play-in round (not trying to pick on you @tabness just trying to show that it's about more than just vs.X)


- Finally, it is always important to add additional context. I thought @overpass did a great job of that in his series with @ImporterExporter this year, and it seemed others did too as that series went to Game 7 OT.

For me personally, the best arguments a GM can make are on playing style, pointing out the strengths of their own team/weaknesses of their opponents, and how they will expose those. Showing their game plan for handling their opponent's strengths, as well as their plan for limiting/covering up their own team's weaknesses.

Sometimes statistics will need to be used to illustrate the above, but that should only be one piece.

 

[Habsfan18]

It’s not that I disagree... but there isn’t a reasonable solution. Independent voters is a dream.

I never said it was a perfect solution. I brought up an opinion, suggested an idea for the group to consider, and got labeled a whiner.

 

[Dreakmur]

Again, my bad for pointing out yet another year of predictable playoff results. I was WAY out of line.

What were the predictions?

 

[tabness]

Yeah, if past participants aren’t usually voting, even some current participants stop voting once their team is out, and some participants don’t even vote, it seems like a hard sell to get others involved lol

I guess it all boils down to why you’re doing this. If you want to win, then honestly, follow the general blueprint, and make your bets using the currency of the day (so say you have an alternative to VsX, it’s gonna take time for it to sell, so might as well use VsX for a bit before you cut it loose like an old school Jag lol).

For me, I enjoy the draft and team building within some constraints. It was also fun trading. I was quite satisfied with my team, it obviously didn’t do much for the other participants here, but hey, I’m still with it.

 

[Habsfan18]

What were the predictions?

As I said, there are GM’s going into the draft who are considered contenders.

Regular season results come up, and those contenders are mainly the top ranked seeds, and in some cases well deserved of course. I won’t claim otherwise.

From there, you can pencil in the 1st and 2nd place seeds for the final 4 in conference finals. We all know it.

But we go about multiple playoff rounds where the results are predictable.

Fast forward, conference finals are here. And top ranked seeds are in the conference finals.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

You don’t see the predictability there at all?

 

[Habsfan18]

I’m getting all worked up here and I don’t even know why I’m letting it bother me.

I suffer from blood pressure issues so I don’t need to be doing this to myself. I just had to get a few things off my chest.

Enjoy the rest of the process, fellas.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

For those complaining about predictable playoff results, do you find yourself voting differently in the playoffs than your own regular season rankings, and you are upset that other GMs are perhaps not following/considering the series arguments enough and/or are not flexible enough to do the same, or do you just find the playoff series kind of pointless with nothing being said to change your mind from your regular season opinion?

 

[Habsfan18]

For those complaining about predictable playoff results, do you find yourself voting differently in the playoffs than your own regular season rankings, and you are upset that other GMs are perhaps not following/considering the series arguments enough and/or are not flexible enough to do the same, or do you just find the playoff series kind of pointless with nothing being said to change your mind from your regular season opinion?

I personally vote for the best lineups, top to bottom in the regular season. And then during playoff time I go in having an obvious favorite in mind “on paper” based on seeding. Just like in real life. But then I read the debating and I try to imagine just how a underdog could possibly upset the contender. And in rare cases I can see it happening, so if it makes sense and they made a good case for their team I’ll vote for the underdog. But not just for the sake of voting for an underdog. It has to make sense.

But I don’t think enough people do that. I am convinced many simply look at seeding, or a GM vs GM and vote accordingly.

Let’s be honest here for a second guys.

TDMM (not picking on you, just an example) vs a rookie. TDMM is 3rd seed. Rookie is 6th seed.

Who’s winning that series? Why even go on with the voting? Why - based on previous years results - would this rookie think they have a shot in hell in winning that series?

For one, TDMM is the higher seed, and one that was voted as the higher seed days earlier. And for two, he is a well known GM who builds strong clubs. He has the name factor.

What chance does the rookie have?

That’s a part of my issue. Maybe a fresh perspective of voters who aren’t familiar with names would give us a new look, so to speak.

 

[Dreakmur]

As I said, there are GM’s going into the draft who are considered contenders.

Regular season results come up, and those contenders are mainly the top ranked seeds, and in some cases well deserved of course. I won’t claim otherwise.

From there, you can pencil in the 1st and 2nd place seeds for the final 4 in conference finals. We all know it.

But we go about multiple playoff rounds where the results are predictable.

Fast forward, conference finals are here. And top ranked seeds are in the conference finals.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

You don’t see the predictability there at all?

The only GM who consistently makes the final 4 is TDMM. He builds good teams.

 

[Habsfan18]

And that’s not to say in that case TDMM wouldn’t be deserving obviously. But that’s why I say much of the playoffs are utterly pointless.

 

[Dreakmur]

I personally vote for the best lineups, top to bottom in the regular season. And then during playoff time I go in having an obvious favorite in mind “on paper” based on seeding. Just like in real life. But then I read the debating and I try to imagine just how a underdog could possibly upset the contender. And in rare cases I can see it happening, so if it makes sense and they made a good case for their team I’ll vote for the underdog. But not just for the sake of voting for an underdog. It has to make sense.

But I don’t think enough people do that. I am convinced many simply look at seeding, or a GM vs GM and vote accordingly.

Let’s be honest here for a second guys.

TDMM (not picking on you, just an example) vs a rookie. TDMM is 3rd seed. Rookie is 6th seed.

Who’s winning that series? Why even go on with the voting? Why - based on previous years results - would this rookie think they have a shot in hell in winning that series?

For one, TDMM is the higher seed, and one that was voted as the higher seed days earlier. And for two, he is a well known GM who builds strong clubs. He has the name factor.

What chance does the rookie have?

That’s a part of my issue. Maybe a fresh perspective of voters who aren’t familiar with names would give us a new look, so to speak.

The better team should win. The more experienced GM is far more likely to build a better team. I don’t see the problem with him winning.

 

[Habsfan18]

The better team should win. The more experienced GM is far more likely to build a better team. I don’t see the problem with him winning.

Sure, but then why go through with a 16 team playoff when only 4 teams have a shot at winning?

 

[Dreakmur]

And that’s not to say in that case TDMM wouldn’t be deserving obviously. But that’s why I say much of the playoffs are utterly pointless.

I won like 4 series as the lower seed last year...