Re-rates for review (two options)

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Regardless of how the 2nd package looks, basing our leagues ratings on a shortened NHL season is not something we should aspire to. The 1st set is better.

It isn't perfect for sure. But no matter what we will be dealing with imperfect solutions to imperfect situations.
Next year hopefully things normalize a bit.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

It isn't perfect for sure. But no matter what we will be dealing with imperfect solutions to imperfect situations.
Next year hopefully things normalize a bit.

Exactly, so If we play a full season against every division the only stats that make sense are the first set.

[Swayze11]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Rask as a 73 vs Smith as an 80 is an outlier based purely on a shortened NHL seaason where Smith was playing in a weaker northern division. These types of ratings are not what we should base our league on considering we play a full sched agaisnt every team.

I’m not sure why the division should play a factor in here. We have always been told to look at the grouping of players versus the OVR rating which is what I wanted to highlight in my previous post. Smith and Rask fit perfectly into their group based off an 80/20 rule

[SportsJunky]

Another reason I think option #2 works better is Endurance and Durability.

Look at a guy like Malkin for example.
Option #1 has him as the 15th best forward with EN 90 and DU 79.
Option #2 has him rated as the 81st best F with EN 76 and DU 69.
Now if I have Malkin on my team then I want option #1 but option #2 seems more accurate based on last year and isn't that the type of rating that we've become accustomed to?

It is just one example of many if you want to look for yourselves. The EN and DU ratings are facked in option #1.

[Swayze11]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

Another reason I think option #2 works better is Endurance and Durability.

Look at a guy like Malkin for example.
Option #1 has him as the 15th best forward with EN 90 and DU 79.
Option #2 has him rated as the 81st best F with EN 76 and DU 69.
Now if I have Malkin on my team then I want option #1 but option #2 seems more accurate based on last year and isn't that the type of rating that we've become accustomed to?

It is just one example of many if you want to look for yourselves. The EN and DU ratings are facked in option #1.

Well, since Malkin is a pending UFA I would want Option #2 to re-sign him cheap but your analysis still applies.

[BagoPucks]

Looks like it will be close but if we can get it to 15 to a side and move on that would be nice.

[TurdFerguson]

Willing to cross the aisle for cap or futures

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

Well, since Malkin is a pending UFA I would want Option #2 to re-sign him cheap but your analysis still applies.

I picked a UFA player so as not to piss off a GM that owns the player

[Cheese]

Still 7 GMs that haven't chimed in.. Vacation?

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

LOL at the sudden realization that my goaltending sucks when I notice that neither of my goalies made alist


I feel shame



edited: yes I found one, but let's not let facts get in the way of ;laughing at my team

[Tilley]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Still 7 GMs that haven't chimed in.. Vacation?

As one of the 7 that hasn't chimed in, it doesn't matter to me which ratings we use. I get concerns from those that find ratings out of whack, but I have always found there to be a number of unusual ratings each season. Regardless of the package selected there will be oddities and outliers.


I'm fine with whichever package the masses select. As a GM it's my job to adapt and overcome.

[Cambam8]

We got business to get down to......get those votes in

[savardandjokinen]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Regardless of how the 2nd package looks, basing our leagues ratings on a shortened NHL season is not something we should aspire to. The 1st set is better.

I disagree with this. Last year was technically a shortened season and there were no issues. We were never told it would be based on 50/50. GMs made moves that were contingent on it always being as it is which is 80/20. It’s not ideal but it’s consistent on how this league has always worked

[Goffie]

My issue with Goaltending is as follows:

2018: Top goalie 89 #30 ranked goalie 80 = difference of 9
2019: Top goalie 91 #30 ranked goalie 84 = difference of 5
2020: Top goalie 89 #30 ranked goalie 83 = difference of 6

Package 1 Top goalie 91 #30 ranked goalie 84 = difference of 7
Package 2: Top goalie 83 #30 ranked goalie 70 = difference of 13

I see that the gap in goalies is much higher in package 2 than any of the recent packages we used. The goalies are also much lower rated in general than past packages.

[SportsJunky]

I don't like that we split the newfie vote. Goffie, get over there with the rest of them!

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by Goffie

My issue with Goaltending is as follows:

2018: Top goalie 89 #30 ranked goalie 80 = difference of 9
2019: Top goalie 91 #30 ranked goalie 84 = difference of 5
2020: Top goalie 89 #30 ranked goalie 83 = difference of 6

Package 1 Top goalie 91 #30 ranked goalie 84 = difference of 7
Package 2: Top goalie 83 #30 ranked goalie 70 = difference of 13

I see that the gap in goalies is much higher in package 2 than any of the recent packages we used. The goalies are also much lower rated in general than past packages.

I can see how having a bigger difference between the 30th ranked goalie and the 1st makes sense. Puts more importance on goaltending which this league has zero value on currently

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

LOL at the sudden realization that my goaltending sucks when I notice that neither of my goalies made alist


I feel shame



edited: yes I found one, but let's not let facts get in the way of ;laughing at my team

My goalies are upside down for what I expected (in the 2nd package)
I would have ranked.
Gibson
Shesterkin
Sorokin

In reality apparently Sorokin in my starter now, Shesterkin is my backup and Gibson is not even an NHLer.

And let's not even speak of Carter Hart.

I think in some cases good goalies get punished for being on bad NHL teams. Gibson is a legit starter in the NHL but has a rating WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY below that in the second package.

That being said I still voted #2 because it is more in the spirit of what we said ratings would be - primarily focused on the last season. While I've also always stated teams making move pre re-rates are ALWAYS taking a risk, it feels not right to me to use a package that overtly is using a different methodology than we typically use. Again unexpected given it's the same package - that just did a total u-turn in their own approach.

[Knut]

I voted package 1. I think 50-50 is better for the shortened weird season. Also for maximum chaos in order to increase the chances of a split vote 50-50

[MJK]

Goffie gonna get on the phone to bribe Quigz to vote option 1

[Quigz17]

Package #1.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk