Re-rates Are Complete

[Cheese]

Well for all players that had point moves of 3 or more in either a positive or negative direction.
Im sure many of you will be disapointed in the players that werent re-ranked, however based on what was provided there were very few to change...surprisingly.
We took all of the rerates...tossed the low and the high numbers and averaged the remainders. Out of approx 1500 players we changed in the area of 70. We wont rerate players that have OVs 2 or less in points.
I will attempt over the rest of the summer to more accurately rank AHLers that havent been touched yet.

[kermitology]

Pardon my ignorance, but where can we see them?

[Cheese]

Originally posted by kermitology@Jul 29 2004, 01:32 AM
Pardon my ignorance, but where can we see them?
simply download the GM file...Youll have to check your own players.

[kermitology]

:angry: It's a conspiracy against the Flyers!! I demand a recount! :ph34r:

[KevanGuy]

Wow, great work guys thanks.

[Cheese]

The following players were re-rated

Mika Noronen
Tom Kostopoulos
Jeff Cowan
Sebastien Centomo
Cristobal Huet
Jamie Mclennan
Mathieu Garon
Peter Sejna
Scott Hannan
Ales Hemsky
Ilya Kovalchuk
Pavel Datsyuk
Scott Nichol
Arturs Irbe
Bill Houlder
Brad Tapper
Jaromir Jagr
Billy Tibbetts
Sandis Ozolinsh
Claude Lemieux
Petr Buzek
Jamie Storr
Adam Oates
Adam Deadmarsh
Eric Fichaud
Chris Mason
Olivier Michaud
Miikka Kiprusoff
Travis Scott
Rick Nash
Jarret Stoll
Scott Fankhouser
Alexandre Daigle
Jonathan Cheechoo
Chuck Kobasew
Trent Hunter
Martin StLouis
Henrik Zetterberg
Martin Prusek
Fernando Pisani
Brooks Orpik
Mike Ribeiro
Alyn Mccauley
Patrick Sharp
Ron Hainsey
Robyn Regehr
Scottie Upshall
Alexei Ponikarovsky
Konstantin Koltsov
Richard Jackman
Rico Fata
Robert Esche
Shean Donovan
Alexander Svitov
Brad Richards
Brian Holzinger
Martin Cibak
Pierre-Marc Bouchard
Stanislav Chistov
Craig Anderson
Jared Aulin
Peter Schaefer
Rod Brind'Amour
Ron Francis
Todd Bertuzzi
Janne Laukkanen
Owen Nolan
Andrew Cassels
Jason Allison
Al MacInnis
Stephane Richer
Mike Dunham
Pavel Bure
Alexei Kovalev
Robert Svehla
Felix Potvin
Tommy Salo
Brent Johnson
Roman Cechmanek
Andy Delmore
Eric Lindros
Theoren Fleury
Sean Burke

A few players may be missed from this list...but I think this is the majority. Again, if you do not like what you see and feel the need to b!tch or whine to other GMs, Commissioners or post it here then simply quit. This is NOT a democracy and we will not tolerate any BS.

[KevanGuy]

THE Brian Holzinger!!?!!?

YES!

[Hanna Sniper]

I would like to thank the effort put forth by everyone, I truly mean that.. Thank you.

But I am very disappointed that players weren’t corrected even though their OV doesn’t change… I don’t see why players that improved huge in certain parts of his game still have to have a garbage rating in such area’s (DF for me) just because his OV remains the same. Example my defence, sorry to be disappointed but just sinks all I’ve been trying to do for the last four months for nothing, not even 1+. Man I wish I never made those trades now. Oh well

Once again sorry, I do thank you all for the effort. i guess it's time to go to plan b *quick hanna make up a plan b*

[Mccree]

I know the amount of work it takes to re-rate players and all but 70 out of 1500 changed seems a little low. Anyways no one on my team changed at all so I guess that is good ;)

[speeds]

well, I hate to be a compainer, but these re-rates are pretty bad IMO.

Spezza a 70?

Frolov a 70?

How do either of those guys not work up to at least 73's? In what world?

If our re-rates are this incompetent, maybe we should just use Zubial?

[Mango]

Interesting...

[Thunderball]

All the superstars on Columbus, and only Datsyuk got a boost?? jeez...

[Cheese]

Once again to those who dont like what they see. We do what we can...IF you dont like it feel free to find another league that is more perfect....serious!

[Jerry Maguire]

I don't want to step on any toes because I am new, but Good Lord I can't believe the way that some people are complaining because re-rates didn't work out the way that they'd anticipated. If people are VOLUNTEERING and giving the best effort that they can, spending hours trying to give as accurate a representation of these players abilities as they can in order to make this league as good as it can be, I think that all anyone should do is thank them for their time and effort and if things didn't work out the way that you'd hoped just deal with it and move on.

[transplant99]

Agreed Jerry.

The thing about this is....that the rerates were a CONCENSUS of multiple GM's.

Dont know what else could be done other than let all GM's rate their own players. We all know how that would work out.

Good job people....lots of work and you kept it very much consistant.

[Radically Red]

Nice work by everyone.

I was sad to see that 2 players I though would be re-rated were not but then 2 others were so I guess it all worked out.

I know a lot of hard work went into this so a big thanks to everyone that participated.

I shall hope for better luck next year with Ryder and Sarich.

[looooob]

It's a tough situation. as one of the re-rate GMs I know how much work this took.

if you think about it though...when you have 8 GMs rerating a bunch of players, it's actually pretty hard for said player to move up or down the necessary 3 points required for a re-rate(should make it clear, this is not a complaint against the league, simply explaining the situation)

all in all if I look at my team for each guy that I think is a little under-rated I've got another guy who is a little over-rated ...probably true for most teams

well except for one guy on my team who is likely the most under-valued veteran in the entire CPHL :(

[icarus]

It is obviously an inexact science. There are always gonna be quirks and there always have been (except that when ratings used to be disclosed no complained about players be rated too low). I know on my team some guys are overrated and some guys are underrated... it all evens out.

Not complaining, but here are some of the quirks on my roster:
- Scott Gomez is ranked equally with Darcy Tucker and Mike Leclerc
- Gomez has a higher defense rating than offense rating
- Derian Hatcher is the highest rated player on my team (5 OV points above Tanguay)
- Brent Burns is 2 OV points higher than Patrice Bergeron
- Dan Cloutier is rated 13 OV points higher than Mika Noronen

[looooob]

Originally posted by icarus@Jul 29 2004, 09:55 AM
It is obviously an inexact science. There are always gonna be quirks and there always have been (except that when ratings used to be disclosed no complained about players be rated too low). I know on my team some guys are overrated and some guys are underrated... it all evens out.

Not complaining, but here are some of the quirks on my roster:
- Scott Gomez is ranked equally with Darcy Tucker and Mike Leclerc
- Gomez has a higher defense rating than offense rating
- Derian Hatcher is the highest rated player on my team (5 OV points above Tanguay)
- Brent Burns is 2 OV points higher than Patrice Bergeron
- Dan Cloutier is rated 13 OV points higher than Mika Noronen
believe me I tried to drive down Hatcher's value in the rerating...I guess I failed :D

[Shawnski]

My understanding of the rerating process was to look over the last three years for performance issues. If the last two years showed a marked improvement or drop off (or the three years performance was not indicative of the OV rating) then a change may be warranted IF the change is at least 3 points or more.

That said, there were also any special circumstances that might be considered, such as long term injury problems, etc.

Of the 552 players I reviewed, I moved 59 up and 44 down. Before I made a decision to recommend a rerate for any player, I looked at as much information as possible and looked for comparable players and their rankings.

I think that all went well and it was very clinical.

Now, I see I have two people rerated. Cechmanek and MacInnis. Hey, right away, I figured big Al might take a hit with his age and recent injury history. No problem.

But I have to wonder about Cechmanek. Yes, he had a poor season statistically on an LA team that set records for injuries over the season, and still almost made the playoffs.

In BOTH 2002 and 2003 Cechmanek was second in GAA and third in SV%. This year, on the injury riddled LA team, it wasn't so good.

Should he have dropped from an 86 OV? I wouldn't have done that. He fell to an 80.

But that isn't what really stands out.

Looking at his OTHER ratings his Puck Control fell a whopping 17 points, Intensity fell 14 points, Endurance fell 12 points, Skating fell 10 points and of all things his Experience fell 4 points. How do you lose experience? He was only at a 54 before.

Other drops: Durability fell 3 while Discipline fell 8 points.

Bottom line, this guy just got toasted off. Wow, just... wow.

[Thunderball]

I dunno about most people, but I was being sarcastic... once I fix my GM editor issues, I'm sure its more than sufficient.

[icarus]

Originally posted by Shawnski@Jul 29 2004, 04:02 PM
Should he have dropped from an 86 OV? I wouldn't have done that. He fell to an 80.

He should never have been an 86 in the first place, IMO.

[JiriHrdina]

Here's my two cents:

I think given the process that we used it was pretty hard for players to be re-rated. With multiple people re-rating and an average taken of those ratings there would have to be probably around a 3/4 consensus that a player was deserved of a re-rating of 3 or more. Pretty tough for that to happen. I think that's why we see so few players re-rating.

However ultimately I don't think it matters. If you were making a deal based on hoping a player would go up you were taking a risk, just like you are if you are trading for a vet that may go down. Win some...lose some.

However...

What I don't understand is how many GMs are complaining about guys not be re-rating yet we voted down a perfect mechanism to allow for GMs to ask for 3 specific players to be re-rated during the season. This would have an ideal way for you to identify what players you have feel improved on your team and have a pretty good chance of seeing them re-rated as opposed to them being lost in the full player list. If we are collectively not happy with the process (I'm fine with it BTW) then we only have ourselves to blame for not implementing a mechanism that would have had an impact.

Anyhoo, thanks for the re-rates guys...and thanks for not dropping Yashin ;)

[icarus]

Originally posted by JiriHrdina@Jul 29 2004, 05:08 PM
What I don't understand is how many GMs are complaining about guys not be re-rating yet we voted down a perfect mechanism to allow for GMs to ask for 3 specific players to be re-rated during the season. This would have an ideal way for you to identify what players you have feel improved on your team and have a pretty good chance of seeing them re-rated as opposed to them being lost in the full player list. If we are collectively not happy with the process (I'm fine with it BTW) then we only have ourselves to blame for not implementing a mechanism that would have had an impact.
The reason I voted against that is because if 3 players are going to be rerated during the year, they'll probably be the ones most likely to get a raise. I doubt anyone would get his rating dropped. If players are going to be rerated let's go in both directions, not just up.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally posted by icarus+Jul 29 2004, 11:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (icarus @ Jul 29 2004, 11:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JiriHrdina@Jul 29 2004, 05:08 PM
What I don't understand is how many GMs are complaining about guys not be re-rating yet we voted down a perfect mechanism to allow for GMs to ask for 3 specific players to be re-rated during the season. This would have an ideal way for you to identify what players you have feel improved on your team and have a pretty good chance of seeing them re-rated as opposed to them being lost in the full player list. If we are collectively not happy with the process (I'm fine with it BTW) then we only have ourselves to blame for not implementing a mechanism that would have had an impact.
The reason I voted against that is because if 3 players are going to be rerated during the year, they'll probably be the ones most likely to get a raise. I doubt anyone would get his rating dropped. If players are going to be rerated let's go in both directions, not just up. [/b][/quote]
Yeah that's a good point. Maybe there would be a way where for every player you submitted for re-rate the commish or a panel would select a player from your roster to also be re-rated (one that they felt would perhaps go down)?

Puts an element of risk into it and would cause each GM to think carefully about asking for a re-rate.

Just a thought. Again, personally I'm OK with the way we are doing it now.

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by icarus+Jul 29 2004, 10:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (icarus @ Jul 29 2004, 10:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Shawnski@Jul 29 2004, 04:02 PM
Should he have dropped from an 86 OV? I wouldn't have done that. He fell to an 80.

He should never have been an 86 in the first place, IMO. [/b][/quote]
I would offer a different perspective for you, icarus.

If the top forwards and defense are all 85+, and Cechmanek has the third best GAA and 7th best SV% over the last three years, 83 to 86 is reasonable. Considering the numbers he has put up over the last three years (which is the criteria for rankings), he is a top 4 goalie at this point.

Downgrading him to 80 was a little harsh, and drastically slashing the other attributes has totally killed him off. Through a formula I developed based on how the sim uses all player attributes, he was previously ranked 5th for all goalies (reasonable given his numbers). Now he is ranked 23rd.

That sure doesn't seem to jive with his past three year performance now does it?

But hey, luckily we still have Mario Lemieux as the premier player in the league.... he managed to not drop in OV and had no attribute changes. Guess he must have been practicing during those 145 games he missed over the last three years.

/rant

To all that took the time to perform the reratings, thanks. I am ticked at the drastic cuts made to my player, no question, but that does not take anything away from each of your efforts. I know this was a time consuming task. I did it too.

[looooob]

when I scored the other conference I thought the only 2 players over 86 were Jagr and Mario. possibly Lidstrom. (this is pre-re-ranks)

86 is a very high score

[Cheese]

Im open to suggestions at ANY time how things can be done differently, but it REALLY POs me when an idea is followed through AFTER consultation with ALL of the GMs and Crying still happens. IF ANYONE has a better idea that entails less work for me...or better yet, IF that individual wants to spend weeks of their time to do what 29 others want feel free to volunteer now. It took me 2 weeks to update about 70 players...I was fearing what time Id have to spend IF 700 had changed. We wouldve had to change 9/10 of the players if we used changes by 1 or 2 points as well. A decision was made to modify those with bumps of 3 points or more...up or down. 16 GMs were chosen to decide these players after we campaigned hard to get anyone at all to help out. Once we got these re-rates from you the GM, Jeff spent his OWN time making a spreadsheet that took your numbers, dropped the upper and lower number, and balanced the remainder. Jeff then sent this to me and I had to try to figure out to the best of my ability WITHOUT prejudice on MY side how to up or reduce a players rating with only an OV at my disposal. It takes about 15 minutes a player to do this...by adding or deleting numbers to the various ratings. Goalies are VERY tough because they dont have Offence or Defence ratings as all of you can see. Dropping or Raising a Goalie OV is THE most difficult. So from the start of this excersize to now...from early polls, tabulating polls, getting helpers, taking info and then inputting it into the sim, I would say we have spent upwards of a month and a half. This is all time Jeff, Darren, Cam and myself volunteer for free.
IF Anyone has a better idea...or has more time on their hands PLEASE stand forward now or forever hold your peace!

<rant over>

[speeds]

yeah, I can definitely appreciate how long it takes even for a guy to re-rank some players, heck, it took me forever and I only had to do 1 conference.

No matter what you do it won't be perfect, I can definitely agree on that.

I just can't imagine which GM's would seriously look at Spezza and say he's not at least a 73 as a player.

The guy was drafted #2 overall and has that obvious pedigree, just came off his 20 year old season with 55 points, OTT is sold enough on him that they traded Bonk and so Spezza won't really be getting less ice-time any time soon.

just minor quibbles I suppose, hard to ever be totally happy with the ratings.

[icarus]

Originally posted by Shawnski@Jul 29 2004, 07:09 PM
If the top forwards and defense are all 85+, and Cechmanek has the third best GAA and 7th best SV% over the last three years, 83 to 86 is reasonable. Considering the numbers he has put up over the last three years (which is the criteria for rankings), he is a top 4 goalie at this point.
If you truly believe that Cechmanek is one of the top four goalies over the past three years in the NHL, then I can understand why you would be upset that his new rating is no longer 86.

[kermitology]

I only have one beef really.. how, when considering the past 3 years does Todd Bertuzzi go from 86 to 82?

[FlamesFanFromBC]

For the record...

I was had some disappointments with the re-rates as well.

Was hoping some guys that had great seasons would have gotten good boosts on their ratings. For example guys like Zdeno Chara, Wade Redden, Chris Pronger, Paul Martin... all had great season and much better than the previous.

Also a guy like McCauley came off a career year and got a 69 rating. I know it's his first really breakthrough season... and that may have had something to do with it.

But when a guy like Aaron Asham (also on my roster) has a scoring ratings six points higher than McCauley... and only scored 12 goals last year... something is wrong.

Also thought the rating drop on Allison & Deadmarsh was quite severe... I expected a drop... but not by such a large margin.


That said... I appreciate the time spent by the re-raters... and I will respect any decision to use our current ratings or go with 3rd party ratings.

Maybe this should be a subject that is voted on by all GMs?

[Cheese]

Originally posted by FlamesFanFromBC@Jul 30 2004, 01:10 PM
For the record...

I was had some disappointments with the re-rates as well.

Was hoping some guys that had great seasons would have gotten good boosts on their ratings. For example guys like Zdeno Chara, Wade Redden, Chris Pronger, Paul Martin... all had great season and much better than the previous.

Also a guy like McCauley came off a career year and got a 69 rating. I know it's his first really breakthrough season... and that may have had something to do with it.

But when a guy like Aaron Asham (also on my roster) has a scoring ratings six points higher than McCauley... and only scored 12 goals last year... something is wrong.

Also thought the rating drop on Allison & Deadmarsh was quite severe... I expected a drop... but not by such a large margin.


That said... I appreciate the time spent by the re-raters... and I will respect any decision to use our current ratings or go with 3rd party ratings.

Maybe this should be a subject that is voted on by all GMs?
Yep we all have some disapointments...and some surprises....ce la vie. The reason we have disparities now is BECAUSE we went to a 3rd party re-rater last year....Zubial. Zubial also creates another issue in that he doesnt have 1/2 of our players...which makes me input each one that is missing myself. Thats why we have AHLers with 55 ratings.
We are going to live with what we have for this year...sorry its just to much work to change more now. Besides lower ranks will give you more bargaining power with the Player Agents in September.
Next year we are going to scrap this procedure and allow each GM to send us a list of players that he/she thinks are out of whack. The commissioners with perhaps 2 others will then re-rank only those. This is of course if we dont have our own simulator up and running.
So live with it...they arent "that" far out...not so much itll make a difference.