Gang,
The final re-rates are now up.
I appreciate the input everyone game on us. Some GMs did a tremendous job - others not so much - but its not something many people have experience with so I'm not faulting anyone.
Some comments.
- Overall ratings were too high. Most teams will see a number of players lowered in order to give us a better spread.
- The ratings package we used as the basis didn't include players with 0 NHL/AHL games last year so guys that went to Europe or didn't play weren't re-rated down as they should have been. We've adjusted that.
- Dmen had very high DF ratings across the board and very low offensive ratings. We've tried to fix that as well. You'll find defensive specialists may have higher DF ratings than dmen with better overall games.
- Some rookie ratings were way too high, We've lowered those as well. Keep in mind track record is vital to our ratings. The longer the track record of good performance - the better the rating. So a one year guy won't get high 60s no matter how good that rookie season was (unless they are at the level of a Crosby/AO after their rookie campaigns).
- The RFA/UFA grids will stay the same - with the exception that we've added a goalie column (see the rules page on our site). Basically goalies get the same ratings/$$$ except they are all 10 points higher. Check out the grid on the rules page- it will make sense.
We've also organized the ratings into 3 spreadsheet by position (goalies, forwards, dmen) and then sorted them by rating. I'm hoping this demonstrates that players are generally grouped with similar players.
You can download the 3 spreadsheets:
http://cphl.calgarypuck.com/pages/simupload/CPHL1-Forwards.xls
http://cphl.calgarypuck.com/pages/simupload/CPHL1-Goalies.xls
http://cphl.calgarypuck.com/pages/simupload/CPHL-Dmen.xls
I ask that you look at your players with a critical eye. It's easy to argue for a higher rating by focusing on whatever stats paint your guy in the best light. But I think if you try to be objective you'll see that similar players are all rated about the same.
Now - if you see something that is still way out of wack - you may PM me. However I want to stress this is NOT a chance to lobby for a higher rating - rather it is a chance to point out clear mistakes and/or omissions. Frankly I expect very few if any of these PMs.
Next steps will be RFA re-signing. A post will go up on that hopefully later today.
Questions?
Final re-rates posted
