Rule suggestions for future ATDs

[Dreakmur]

In a playoff series though?

But thank you for your honesty.

Anyways, I think I’m done here. I appreciate the fun over the past few years. I just don’t think the overall process how it is currently is for me. And that’s fine. You guys have been doing it longer so I know you like the status quo, and that’s okay too.

All the best guys, you know how to reach me.

I generally like TDMM’s teams. I vote for the rosters I like most. Maybe that’s influenced by the respect I have for a him, but I’m perfectly fine disclosing any of my past votes.

I know I have nothing to hide.

 

[rmartin65]

I personally want all voting to be made public. At the end of each playoff, post every GMs voting record for that season.

This is definitely something that should be decided on before the season. Not that it should matter (I hope people vote for the best team), but it gives me an icky feeling to disclose votes without people consenting to it beforehand.

A couple of quick problems "public" voting could cause

- lack of voting due to people not wanting to step on someone's toes
- lack of honest voting due to people not wanting their votes to seem bad
- retaliatory voting against people who voted against them in the previous round.

Certainly there are downsides to the way we do it now (people voting for friends or to try to get favorable matchups come to mind), but I don't think public voting is a particularly great idea.

 

[Habsfan18]

I generally like TDMM’s teams. I vote for the ones I like most. Maybe that’s influenced by the respect I have for a him, but I’m perfectly fine disclosing any of my past votes.

I know I have nothing to hide.

In the name of full transparency, I’ll admit I have voted for people I like over people I don’t like in the past in certain situations IF it also kinda makes sense from a hockey standpoint. But if sometimes I feel like it’s close enough, there have been times in the past I’ll vote for the guy who isn’t a prick. In full transparency, I didn’t have your team making it this far.

But that’s another issue I have mentioned in the past. We are all pretty much guilty of voting a certain way based on feelings sometimes. And it shouldn’t be that way. I thought maybe an outside panel could help eliminate that.

If anyone here claims they haven’t voted for or against an individual even once...they’re lying.

 

[Dreakmur]

In the name of full transparency, I’ll admit I have voted for people I like over people I don’t like in the past in certain situations IF it makes sense. In full transparency, I didn’t have your team making it this far.

But that’s another issue I have mentioned in the past. We are all pretty much guilty of voting a certain way based on feelings sometimes. And it shouldn’t be that way. I thought maybe an outside panel could help eliminate that.

If we could get that panel, it would work. I just don’t see any way that happens. If someone was interested in this stuff enough to read all the bios, assassinations, playoff threads, and arguments... they’d probably just participate in the draft, right?

I’m not trying to shit on your idea - I’m really not - since I do agree that I’ve been suspicious of other people’s voting patterns too. I know I feel like I have more enemies on here. There are a few people in particular that seem to always just drop into all my playoff series to take shots at my rosters - same few guys, year after year. Obviously they’re not voting for me. It probably all evens out in the end.

At the end of the day though, I don’t really care that much about winning. Sure, I argue for my team, but that’s the part I enjoy.

edit- I voted Halifax over New Jersey in the 2019 ATD. I can look through for HockeyTown, but I’m not even sure I know his team name each year.

 

[Professor What]

I'm hesitant to post anything because I don't want it to be taken the wrong way, and there are already some emotions running kind of high, but I thought that since there has been talk about wanting to get new people involved, maybe the thoughts of a newbie would be helpful. If it's not, not problem, and no offense taken.

First, I'll say that I'm very much up in the air whether this is something I want to keep doing or make it a one-off. With it all in hindsight, I have to say that I very much enjoyed most of it, but I didn't like the playoff debating. That has nothing to do with the outcome of my series. I didn't expect to progress far on my first try, simply because it was my first try. I would have been crazy to expect otherwise. I just didn't like the idea that I felt like I had to make a one-sided argument, and plus, I can get high-strung over things I'm into, and I'm competitive, so it wasn't the greatest combination for me. So, I've got to figure out how that balances against my enjoyment of the rest of the process.

Anyway, getting back to what I actually want to say, I very much like the idea of doing something to shake things up, as even after one year, I can see how things could easily get stale feeling. Upsets were so rare as to feel unrealistic, and I can't really see that changing without something being done. That said, personally, I suspect I'd get bored with it after a few years of that. To give a real-life comparison, I've said a couple of times on this board that I'm lifelong Alabama football fan. I've seen some rough patches with my team, so that only enhances how much I'm enjoying things right now. But, I fully acknowledge that I know why other people who aren't Alabama fans get tired of it. If it were any team but Alabama exerting dominance, I'd be sick of it too. It might not be exactly the same thing here, but seeing a bunch of chalk in the brackets year after year would get old in a hurry. But, if something else is going to be done, don't make it too complicated. This thing has something of a steep learning curve, and while it might not have been quite as steep had I had a co-GM, it still would have been a lot to take in. I suspect that if something complicated was developed, it would only serve to scare people off.

I'll also say that I'd be a little embarrassed for my votes to be released this year, because I really felt in over my head this year, and even though I did my best to cast quality ballots, I suspect I was probably out of step a lot because I don't understand the dynamics. There were some teams that I viewed differently in the regular season and playoffs, simply because I thought they were more suited for one or the other. One in particular struck me as probably being middle of the pack in the regular season, but a beast in the playoffs. I'd like to see that difference accented more too. I don't know how that would be done, but it's pretty realistic. As a Senators fan, I remember well that one year when Ottawa swept Toronto in the regular season, and since Toronto was locked into the seventh seed, I wanted the second seed so that we'd get them in the first round of the playoffs. We got it, and we got swept. The fact was, Ottawa was a much better built team for the regular season, but Toronto was built better for the playoffs. I'd really like to see that sort of thing featured here.

Lastly, and I'm very hesitant to say anything here, but I will, and I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular, but things have gotten kind of snippy at times, and that's just not fun. Very early in my playoff matchup, I sent a PM to @ResilientBeast because I was afraid I was getting to intense, and, especially since he and I have always gotten along well, I didn't want to have things cascade. I know that it's going to happen occasionally, because of the very nature of this thing, but there have been a few times along the way that there have been some barbs fired. Too much of that isn't good for attracting people either.

I hope none of that came out wrong (since I know I don't always express myself particularly well), and I hope none of it upsets anyone, as that's definitely not my intention. But, from the perspective of someone who's new and who very much loves the idea of this, I just thought I'd try to give some thoughts that could be considered to help it grow. Whether or not I continue to participate, I fully intend to continue to keep an eye on it, because it's a fun thing to see play out, and it's very educational. When I joined this board, I did so for two reasons. One, I wanted to interact with people have share my passion for hockey history, and two, I wanted to learn more. The ATD offers both of those, and I want to see it thrive regardless.

 

[RustyRazor]

I had a lot of fun this year and I feel like I'm learning more about players I am not familiar with. I'm glad my team was pretty well received, as I felt pretty good about it. I'd love to eventually get to the level to win one of these things but if arguing for my squad is how I have to do it, then I will just have to be content with having fun with the process. Debating one player vs another is not something I'm interested in and shit talking another guy's team who tried just as hard as I did to put a quality team "on the ice" isn't what I think this process should be about. I'd be interested in the playoff voting being done differently, but I have no idea how to change it or any suggestions to consider. Congrats to the winners of the last round, I liked all of your teams.

 

[Dreakmur]

I had a lot of fun this year and I feel like I'm learning more about players I am not familiar with. I'm glad my team was pretty well received, as I felt pretty good about it. I'd love to eventually get to the level to win one of these things but if arguing for my squad is how I have to do it, then I will just have to be content with having fun with the process. Debating one player vs another is not something I'm interested in and shit talking another guy's team who tried just as hard as I did to put a quality team "on the ice" isn't what I think this process should be about. I'd be interested in the playoff voting being done differently, but I have no idea how to change it or any suggestions to consider. Congrats to the winners of the last round, I liked all of your teams.

You built a quality squad. I sometimes struggle with trashing other teams too. I try to be fair, but if I really think the other team is bad, I tend to lay off.

Perhaps adopting the strategy of just espousing the virtues of your own team. You don’t have to attack an opponent to advocate for your own guys.

Hope to see you back next year.

 

[The Macho King]

The issue is hockey is a random ass sport, but there's no way to introduce randomness I to this process. If you're drafting Roy you are probably wanting to steal a series, but there really isn't a way to show that.

I was thinking when I'm a voter, I may do weighted die rolls or something to come up with results.

 

[Dreakmur]

The issue is hockey is a random ass sport, but there's no way to introduce randomness I to this process. If you're drafting Roy you are probably wanting to steal a series, but there really isn't a way to show that.

I was thinking when I'm a voter, I may do weighted die rolls or something to come up with results.

In general, I think we undervalue goalies. The elite goalies really seem to get discounted. Roy and Hasek are arguably top-10 players of all time. They can easily impact a game as much or more than guys like Maurice Richard and Denis Potvin, but when teams get evaluated, it seems to get ignored.

As a Leaf fan, I know exactly how back-breaking bad goals against are....

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In general, I think we undervalue goalies. The elite goalies really seem to get discounted. Roy and Hasek are arguably top-10 players of all time. They can easily impact a game as much or more than guys like Maurice Richard and Denis Potvin, but when teams get evaluated, it seems to get ignored.

As a Leaf fan, I know exactly how back-breaking bad goals against are....

The "problem" with this is that with only 24 teams, everyone has a top-half HHOF. So even the worst goalies are pretty damn good.

At 40 teams, we actually did have teams with low-end or non-HHOFers in goal

 

[Dreakmur]

The "problem" with this is that with only 24 teams, everyone has a top-half HHOF. So even the worst goalies are pretty damn good.

At 40 teams, we actually did have teams with low-end or non-HHOFers in goal

What’s the gap between the #1 defenseman and the #24? How about #1 centre and the #24 center?

Why is the worst goalie considered close to the best when we don’t treat skaters the same?

 

[tabness]

As we're trending towards the direction, for some introspection on my voting:

• I'm a dissenter to the common opinion in a broad sense, but not as much as I thought I would be. I had one sixth seed first in their division, but hey, I also had one first that made it first.
• I really see all series as close, every one of them ending in six or seven.
  
• Generally I followed my regular season voting for the playoffs, one upset, but they were ranked back to back anyway.
• My biggest thing is what's up with the three star voting basically following the (common notion here of) "best" players? Am I the only one handing out three stars sometimes to depth players (who are still great and very close to the core players in this thing)? It's really those guys that decide the series for me. Jack Walker got some love, so did Anderson and Hawerchuk, LaFontaine got on the stars list twice, the fourth line Sedins turned their series. Whereas I left someone like Orr off the stars once when I felt the opposing team would mitigate him well enough.
  
• Of course, goalies don't make much difference to me, certainly not in the regular season, also not as much as others think in the playoffs. I see that I saw fit to throw Hasek and Dryden a bone each. You guys gotta read what @ChiTownPhilly wrote last draft, using save percentage (which to be fair is a team stat more as well, even if better than other goalie stats) as a case study to show the real lack of difference especially when all the goalies are so good.

In general, being a first time (and probably last even if I join up for future drafts given the consternation resulting, I already feel bad voting teams last or to lose their series) voter, and with the benefit of not really having much history with people here, I try to be impartial, but hey, a ton of bias is subconscious/unconscious so who really knows? I would caution against opening up the voting publicly though...

• Sometimes slights are perceived even when they were not intended
• Sometimes it is best to hide intended slights behind a facade of impartiality rather than let all the dirty laundry out in the open

In terms of how to help change up the voting, why not simply use the number of votes to set odds for a series? For example, votes are 15 to 5, so odds are 3:1 (really odds should be closer to like 55:45 for the most lopsided series in this thing but that's just me)? If you want to add more complexity, add in the series length as a variable.

In terms of where the best discussion happens, with exception of the Pittsburgh/Ottawa series (where the discussion naturally branched off into interesting areas), I haven't really learned too much from the other series discussions. Mostly it's a line by line/position by position ranking (which of course follows the general rankings here). The draft thread and bios are far more interesting, I'd say.

 

[BenchBrawl]

In the name of full transparency, I’ll admit I have voted for people I like over people I don’t like in the past in certain situations IF it also kinda makes sense from a hockey standpoint. But if sometimes I feel like it’s close enough, there have been times in the past I’ll vote for the guy who isn’t a prick. In full transparency, I didn’t have your team making it this far.

But that’s another issue I have mentioned in the past. We are all pretty much guilty of voting a certain way based on feelings sometimes. And it shouldn’t be that way. I thought maybe an outside panel could help eliminate that.

If anyone here claims they haven’t voted for or against an individual even once...they’re lying.

Wow really?! Not because you do this, that you can assume everyone is. I have never done this, and have voted for GMs I disliked as recently as this year.

If you disrespect the process, at least don't come and complain about it. Start by yourself.

 

[Dreakmur]

Of course, goalies don't make much difference to me, certainly not in the regular season, also not as much as others think in the playoffs. I see that I saw fit to throw Hasek and Dryden a bone each. You guys gotta read what @ChiTownPhilly wrote last draft, using save percentage (which to be fair is a team stat more as well, even if better than other goalie stats) as a case study to show the real lack of difference especially when all the goalies are so good.

Simply comparing save percentages is no different than using scoring placements to compare offensive players. It just tells you so little that it’s almost useless.

Even if you think the difference is small between the goalies, it’s the most important position. A small edge at a position that plays the whole game is really impactful.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Reputation matters more in the RS voting, where you have to rank 6 teams against each other. This is hard to do, so subconscious bias is more likely to occur.

I was the highest seed in my series and got eliminated.

 

[tabness]

Simply comparing save percentages is no different than using scoring placements to compare offensive players. It just tells you so little that it’s almost useless.

Even if you think the difference is small between the goalies, it’s the most important position. A small edge at a position that plays the whole game is really impactful.

Serge Savard dissented and said goaltenders are the least important position. In any case, they are certainly the most team dependent position. Everyone in this thing has some pretty great defense cores too...

For some reason I am really enjoying and engaged with the draft meta discussion more so than even the draft lol

 

[MadArcand]

I don't look at anything but the rosters when ranking/voting. Easier to generally rank teams with evident massive strengths or weaknesses than well-rounded teams. GMs don't factor into it at all. I can just post my rankings/votes here right now for all I care.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I don't look at anything but the rosters when ranking/voting. Easier to generally rank teams with evident massive strengths or weaknesses than well-rounded teams. GMs don't factor into it at all. I can just post my rankings/votes here right now for all I care.

That's the fair way to do it. This is at the heart of the process.

 

[Theokritos]

Playoff votings feeling stale and mostly like a mere repetition of regular season votings is an issue that has indeed been brought up for several years now. Remember we once even tried to counter it with hidden seeds (regular season results were not published before the end of the playoffs)?

A proposal I made a few years ago that would mix up things: cut down on the playoffs and do extensive round-robin votes in the regular season instead. The regular season would be viewed as a sequence of intra-divisional series, each of which would be voted on. The counter-argument was that this would potentially make the process even longer, which is true – but only if you stick with playoff voting altogether. What if the process was turned upside down? Several votings for the regular season (which you now do for the playoffs), only one voting for the playoffs (which you now do for the regular season).

Here's what it would have looked like in ATD 2021:

Jim Robson Division: Arizona Coyotes, Chicago Shamrocks, Gallifrey TARDIS, Montreal Maroons, Ottawa Senators, Pittsburgh AC
Foster Hewitt Division: Hartford Whalers, Orillia Terriers, Philadelphia Phantoms, Portland Penguins, Toronto Maple Leafs, Verafin Huskies
Bob Cole Division: Cleveland Spiders, Minnesota North Stars, Montreal Canadiens, New Jersey Swamp Devils, New York Americans, Team Canada
Rene Lecavalier Division: Brampton Beavers, Corpus Christi Ice Rays, Elmira Jackals, Florida Sunbursts, Guelph Platers, Vegas Knights

Round 1 (discussion, then voting – like in the playoffs now):
Arizona Coyotes vs Chicago Shamrocks, Gallifrey TARDIS vs Montreal Maroons, Ottawa Senators vs Pittsburgh AC
Hartford Whalers vs Orillia Terriers, Philadelphia Phantoms vs Portland Penguins, Toronto Maple Leafs vs Verafin Huskies
Cleveland Spiders vs Minnesota North Stars, Montreal Canadiens vs New Jersey Swamp Devils, New York Americans vs Team Canada
Brampton Beavers vs Corpus Christi Ice Rays, Elmira Jackals vs Florida Sunbursts, Guelph Platers vs Vegas Knights

Round 2 (discussion, then voting):
Arizona Coyotes vs Montreal Maroons, Gallifrey TARDIS vs Ottawa Senators, Chicago Shamrocks vs Pittsburgh AC
Hartford Whalers vs Portland Penguins, Philadelphia Phantoms vs Toronto Maple Leafs, Orillia Terriers vs Verafin Huskies
Cleveland Spiders vs New Jersey Swamp Devils, Montreal Canadiens vs New York Americans, Minnesota North Stars vs Team Canada
Brampton Beavers vs Florida Sunbursts, Elmira Jackals vs Guelph Platers, Corpus Christ Ice Rays vs Vegas Knights

Rounds 3-5:
same pattern

Ballots would look like this:

Round 1:
Robson Division: Arizona Coyotes vs Chicago Shamrocks 3-1, Gallifrey TARDIS vs Montreal Maroons 2-2, Ottawa Senators vs Pittsburgh AC 0-4
Hewitt Division: own division, can't vote
Cole Division: Cleveland Spiders vs Minnesota North Stars 2-2, Montreal Canadiens vs New Jersey Swamp 2-2, New York Americans vs Team Canada 1-3
Lecavalier Division: Brampton Beavers vs Florida Sunbursts 4-0, Elmira Jackals vs Guelph Platers 2-2, Corpus Christ Ice Rays vs Vegas Knights 2-2

Standing after Round 1 (in reality, this would of course be based on many ballots, not just on one as here in the example):
Robson Division: Pittsburgh 4, Arizona 3, Gillifrey 2, Montreal 2, Chicago 1, Ottawa 0
etc

Five rounds of voting (the same number of votes as in this year's playoffs) determine the regular season.

Instead of playoffs, there would be a Championship Division that the four division winners advance to. Based on this year's regular season voting:
Championship Division: Pittsburgh AC, Orillia Terriers, New Jersey Swamp Devils, Guelph Platers

Each of the GMs in the Championship Division could make his case: "Here's why my team would top Orillia. Here's why my team would top New Jersey. Here's why my team would top Guelph." A single voting (like in the regular season now) determines the outcome of the Championship Division.

Of course, the voters remain the same and the overall outcome might not change at all, but the way to get there is what is different. It would mix things up without adding more rounds of voting. Every participant would get to play in several series and the repetitive character of the playoffs would be avoided altogether. Now, TDMM said the playoffs are the part of the ATD where he learns the most. I assume that's mostly due to the head-to-head character. With regular season series, you get much of the same.
Downside: A weaker team could go through the frustrating process of losing several regular season votes in a row.

 

[Habsfan18]

Wow really?! Not because you do this, that you can assume everyone is. I have never done this, and have voted for GMs I disliked as recently as this year.

If you disrespect the process, at least don't come and complain about it. Start by yourself.

Notice how I said if it also kinda makes sense from a hockey standpoint, and if it was close enough to go either way. One guy is a prick, one isn’t. There’s a higher chance the non-prick gets my vote in that above scenario. Doesn’t mean I’ll always vote for a guy “just because.” Only in some cases in the past. We were talking about full transparency so I brought it.

And someone can get off their high horse if they think I’m the ONLY one that has done that in a particular situation in the past. That’s ridiculous. I guarantee pretty much every single person here has voted for or against someone at least once. Not saying it’s right of course.

I don’t want people to misinterpret what I stated. I’m talking about once or twice, possibly voting based on feelings if it were close enough to go either way anyway. I’ve never voted against an obvious winner, JUST for the sake of voting against him, because I didn’t like him.

What I have described above is something I’m sure many voters can relate to at least once or twice in their past voting experiences.

 

[VanIslander]

Two GMs have told me in PM's this would be their last ATD due in part to the standings reflecting "buddies" and a "clique". Several in past drafts have noted it, too.

Even more have expressed concern over the playoff stale repeat results of regular season ranking.

I have myself questioned why the same criteria is trotted out for playoff analysis. 7-year vs.x is about the regular season. Playoff warriors should get their due appreciation in the playoffs. We should cite playoff performances, Conn Smythes instead of Harts, big game international tourneys, and playoff experience!

Certainly, some interesting ideas have come up, like a panel. Instead of a voting panel, how about an ADVISORY panel (who can vote but also are expected to ask probbing questions of each team in a series). GMs would be expected to address the questions on the thread. Outsiders would bring a fresh perspective and, given they can also vote along with ATDers, the GMs would be motivated to take their questions seriously. They would clearly be persuadable, since they have no preformed opinions on teams or GMs.

 

[Habsfan18]

Reputation matters more in the RS voting, where you have to rank 6 teams against each other. This is hard to do, so subconscious bias is more likely to occur.

I was the highest seed in my series and got eliminated.

Once again, my issue isn’t about the close seeds matching up. Anything can happen in that scenario. My issue is with for example a 3rd seed playing a 6th seed days after the entire group of voters came came up with those seeds. Why even play that series then the winner has already essentially been determined beforehand?

 

[VanIslander]

How about the vote tally administrator keeping the rankings SECRET UNTIL AFTER the playoffs. PLUS have cross-divisional playoff match-ups.

So, the 2nd of one division could meet the 5th of another division but no one would know it when considering voting.

It would be intriguing to see how playoffs turn out and interesting to wait to see regular season rankings.

 

[Theokritos]

How about the vote tally administrator keeping the rankings SECRET UNTIL AFTER the playoffs.

We did that a few years ago and I didn't change anything. However, it was intra-divisional, if I recall. Doing extra-divisional playoffs as you suggest would indeed add a new touch.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I find all this outrage rather funny, considering the activity in the playoff debates is at its highest it's been in many years.