Re-rates for review (two options)

[simmer2]

Whichever one we go with, I think it's important to know what to mostly expect from packages moving forward.

As an example, if we think that ratings will be based say 50/50 over 2 years then I'll plan for that.

I largely made a lot of my deals based on this year's performance (80/20). If we go with closer to a 50/50 like package 1, I just would ideally like to know that and be able to plan for it.

Either way, I'm happy with either Package as we are playing a game...just want consistency and clear expectations wherever possible moving forward.

[agulati]

I don't think it is a big deal, but if people are voting based on folks getting high ratings, who actually don't even have a rating in the package (Bishop, Klefbom etc), it might clarify the situation.

For instance Bishop and Klefbom probably don't have ratings in the package option # 1 since they haven't played last year.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by simmer2

Whichever one we go with, I think it's important to know what to mostly expect from packages moving forward.

As an example, if we think that ratings will be based say 50/50 over 2 years then I'll plan for that.

I largely made a lot of my deals based on this year's performance (80/20). If we go with closer to a 50/50 like package 1, I just would ideally like to know that and be able to plan for it.

Either way, I'm happy with either Package as we are playing a game...just want consistency and clear expectations wherever possible moving forward.

Ok sure but how do we do that when we aren’t control of the ratings packages?
If people want consistency in approach they should be voting for package 2

[simmer2]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Ok sure but how do we do that when we aren’t control of the ratings packages?
If people want consistency in approach they should be voting for package 2

Haha I have no idea. That's why we have such smart Commissioners to figure out that problem!!!

[agulati]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Ok sure but how do we do that when we aren’t control of the ratings packages?
If people want consistency in approach they should be voting for package 2

Honestly agreed. Jiri has given us both options.

It is up to us, the GMs, to decide. From what I have seen re-rates can be a crapshoot, hence why I refrained from making too many moves prior to the packages coming out.

Looks to be a dead heat so far.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by savardandjokinen

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

Well no that's not true. It's always been based on full seasons, there has never been half a season before with teams staying within their own division. It bloats some stats and creates anomalies in others.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

Can anyone from the package 1 group explain to me Ty Smith's rating compared to similar rookie D-man?

Trying to understand and make sense of the package, as I figure it will unlock something obvious I'm not seeing

Players that are true rookies seem not to have faired very well in the first package because of the 50/50 split. Smith at 68OVR, I'm guessing if it was a normal year he'd be easily in the 70s. I'm not sure if I see first year D with a better score, although Kaprisov at 76OVR is confusing. Almost as if forwards had a different rule.

[Harry Lime]

I also think that there is consistency in staying with the same company year after year.

As I posted earlier, Nic Petan has 66OVR and Filip Zadina 65OVR in the second package. Nic Petan has brought nothing to the table for two years. It just seemed like a less stable package.

[TurdFerguson]

Is this "partial season" being over-stated? They played 69% (hehe) of a regular season. Not like were talking about a 20 game season here...I think the sample size is adequate for ratings, but I also voted package 2 (my team is better with package 1).

[agulati]

Originally Posted by TurdFerguson

Is this "partial season" being over-stated? They played 69% (hehe) of a regular season. Not like were talking about a 20 game season here...I think the sample size is adequate for ratings, but I also voted package 2 (my team is better with package 1).

More than the partial season, it is the strength of competition as well. Playing in your own division against the same teams will definitely pad or impact your stats.

[TurdFerguson]

I also don't buy the Canadian division ...strength of compition thing. Every year some teams have it easier the others. We've never cared and shouldn't now.

[BagoPucks]

There is no perfect answer. I am okay with whatever the league decides. Glad we got a chance to vote. Especially the injured player ratings from Package 1

[MJK]

Originally Posted by BagoPucks

There is no perfect answer. I am okay with whatever the league decides. Glad we got a chance to vote. Especially the injured player ratings from Package 1

“Glad we got the chance to vote”.

I LOL at this knowing Grant made an epic fail and posted it in our forum instead of the commish forum.

Now look what’s he’s done.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by MJK

“Glad we got the chance to vote”.

I LOL at this knowing Grant made an epic fail and posted it in our forum instead of the commish forum.

Now look what’s he’s done.

Yeah I made a mistake but we've also been increasingly getting league input on things so once I realized that I leaned into it.

EDIT: Dave and I are good

[agulati]

My forwards have a substantial leg up in package 2 and my d have a not as substantial leg up in package 1, so I’m honestly okay either way. I just think Package 1 rates do better justice

Originally Posted by TurdFerguson

I also don't buy the Canadian division ...strength of compition thing. Every year some teams have it easier the others. We've never cared and shouldn't now.

The league has turnover and new GMs might have different ideas from those who were part of the setup earlier on. Never bad idea to take the pulse of what the GM group evolution thinks.
We’ve never cared and shouldn’t now doesn’t hold weight in that situation. Yes, every year some teams have it easier than others, but this year has been stark in that facet.

[Jiri Hrdina]

OK I took a look and in the first option it does indeed look like guys like Kucherov, Toews, Klefbom and Bishop all have ratings.

In the second they don't.
So if that changes anyone's vote they should advise.

[MJK]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

But thanks for the positive support as always.

Huh?

[simmer2]

I have guys I regret trading in both packages haha so I'll be equally happy /disappointed!

[agulati]

Originally Posted by MJK

Huh?

It was negative support. NEGATIVE. Fine MJK his picks this year in retaliation. Thanks

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by savardandjokinen

Detroit St Louis and Philly

Thanks I've PM'd them