Re-rates!

[Jiri Hrdina]

Hey folks
Here are the ratings we are going to use. We evaluated two options, including the one that the other league was kind enough to provide. Ultimately we went with a different package as we have confidence it will be available going forward to us, and it is closer to the current distribution.
The package considers stats from the last 2 years, weighted more to the most recent year.

Remember, there will be good ratings and bad ratings, but on the balance it seems like a fair set. We do not adjust these ratings or take appeals. We take them in its entirety to avoid any application of subjectivity.

Next step will be to release the contract grids in the next week-ish.

https://cphl.calgarypuck.com/pages/s..._Option_2.xlsx

Questions?

[Knut]

They look pretty good to be honest. I did not find too many outliers.

[Swayze11]

Yea, I am actually super happy we went this direction instead of the other option. Saw WAY more outliers with the other option.

[Harry Lime]

Ohhhhh, man. I played this offseason pretty badly overall. In retrospect my trades were not good.

Looks ok, there are some interesting differences. In the old re-rates, players were dinged heavily for the past seasons injuries and in this one, players are dinged heavily for injuries two seasons ago instead. Two players on my team were hurt by that, but an important player benefitted.

[Knut]

The most important thing is consistency going forward. It can not be changing season over season or the economy of the league gets messed up.

[BagoPucks]

Agreed. I think trading 1st Rounders becomes riskier as predictability goes down.

[BagoPucks]

After looking at the ratings, I think they look like a pretty good balance to me

[TheScorpion]

We might be a Cup contender this year.

[JonDuke]

72 games played, 14 goals and 15 assists:
How does Eric Staal have a 0 rating???

I know you don't adjust or take appeals but can you double check that one and see if it was inputted correctly? He didnt play 2 years ago but if this package is weighed more heavily on this most recent year, he should definitely have a pretty decent rating based on the above stats.

[Harry Lime]

Any player who didn't play 2 years ago has a zero weighting.

[JonDuke]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Any player who didn't play 2 years ago has a zero weighting.

Nah. Even Pelletier, with 0 games 2 years ago, has a 62 rating.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by JonDuke

Nah. Even Pelletier, with 0 games 2 years ago, has a 62 rating.

Due to injury or something else. Pelletier played in another league. On my team Sean Walker and John Ludvig both played all year last year, but not the year before... zero rating. I'm guessing that's up and down the league. Ludvig was an AHL player, and still the year out counted towards a zero, so it's pretty consistent.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Guys like that should have ratings. That is something we should correct as it makes no sense
GMs should send any players that’s the case for to cphl trade and we will figure something out

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Any player who didn't play 2 years ago has a zero weighting.

Krejci has a rating. It's stupidly low but it's there.

[Jiri Hrdina]

OK I figured it out. It's players that for some reason are classified as retired. I need to go through and un-retire them. they have individual rating attributes but b/c they are retired they are showing up as a zero rating.
Solvable but might take me until the weekend to fix. Stand by.

[Jiri Hrdina]

For examples:
Sean Walker is a 69
Eric Staal is a 67
Ludvig though just sucks. He's a 58.

[Jiri Hrdina]

If folks can post others that fall under this issue I can fix it.

[agulati]

Shane Pinto
Connor Timmins

Though I don’t mind not getting a rerate lol. Easier to re-sign

[Cambam8]

Tommy Novak
GP 51
PTS 43
0 rating

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by agulati

Shane Pinto
Connor Timmins

Though I don’t mind not getting a rerate lol. Easier to re-sign

Pinto is 67
Timmins is 65