A_K

Let'sGoBlues | v3GM
Member Since
Jun 30, 2016
Forum Posts
3398
Posts per Day
3.51
Forum Threads
252
Forum: Armchair-GM6 hours ago
Forum: GM Game 2018-19Thu at 9:49 pm
Forum: GM Game 2018-19Thu at 5:26 pm
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>rangersandislesfan</b></div><div>So what's all the discussion about unfair voting for? If teams with 1sts from that team can't vote, i think that solves the problem. I don't think the 2nds, 3rds, etc will cause unfair voting. Also, just to confirm, it's only if another team owns their 2019 1st that they can't vote, right? (Example: Dallas owns Tampa Bay's 2020 1st round pick. Tampa Bay is playing Columbus in the playoffs. Tampa Bay and Columbus each still have their own 1st round picks in 2019. Am i correct that Dallas could vote on the series?)</div></div>

Yeah, the discussion triggered some of these changes. I think voting transparency should help too, if you have to defend your decisions. And yes, only the 2019 1sts are implicated.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>rangersandislesfan</b></div><div>What if we have 2 forward categories but no "offence" category? Just an idea, but that could work if we go "top 9 forwards" and "depth forwards". On defence we could do "top 4 defence" and "defence depth". Just throwing an idea out there.</div></div>

Interesting, but I think using an overall category for offense and defense might get people to think about these same things while also accounting for forwards that excel on defense and offensive d-men.

One thing we've been discussing is using the final standings (which rank Forwards and Defensemen) to define a sort of "pre-matchup advantage". Would be similar to home-ice advantage but something that we can directly quantify thanks to our standings...
Forum: GM Game 2018-19Thu at 2:30 pm
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>ricochetii</b></div><div><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quote:</div>AK: good idea, I will send the ballots via email which means I should receive the responses per GM, and I can publish those ballots after each matchup. Will we have any way to handle after-the-fact disputes, though? To keep schedule, we might have 1-2 days after a matchup before we move on to the next round. If we publish the ballots and there is obvious tampering, is that enough time to halt everything and intervene? If so, do you think this might cause too much drama?</div>

We don't need to necessarily do anything with it, except for maybe count it on a GM's reputation/record. If we can manage to discuss reasoning civilly, it might be something to talk about for the week, but I'm not interested in drama. If someone is significantly differing in their evaluation from everyone else (aka: suspicious), the BOG could "flag" that ballot, not count it, and then explain their reasoning when they reveal the ballots. Anything else would be too late or disruptive.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quote:</div>AK: I disagree, I think you need equal parts depth and star players. Let's try to get some more feedback on those categories to be democratic. We can definitely consider increasing the pts for those categories but I think they are a sort of yin and yang. </div>

Connor McDavid isn't making the playoffs. Laine hasn't scored in 20+ games. It took Ovechkin 10(?) tries to win a cup. Star power sells tickets. It only wins games because they contribute to the team's offense and defense. You're already accounting for their contributions to the stat line, their name value doesn't matter.

The rest I can't comment on until you guys have figured it out, so once we get mock ups of the sheets we can look through them. :)</div></div>

The recent winners though... Crosby/Malkin, Kane/Toews, Kopitar/Doughty, Ovi/Kuznetsov
Forum: GM Game 2018-19Thu at 1:16 pm
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>ricochetii</b></div><div><a href="/users/A_K" target="_blank">@A_K</a>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quote:</div>I'm looking for some input as to how we can make the voting fair/unbiased/logical.</div>

Transparency for starters. Your credibility and integrity as a GM among your peers is the only real deterrent we have. Anonymous voting is open to campaigning and indefensible choices being made because you don't have to defend your stance to anybody. At least a reason to think twice and attempt to <em>appear</em> unbiased might prevent people from just giving all the points to the person that campaigns the best on twitter. Voting can be private until the series is decided, so people aren't influenced and following others' choices, but ballots should be made public after the fact.

AK: good idea, I will send the ballots via email which means I should receive the responses per GM, and I can publish those ballots after each matchup. Will we have any way to handle after-the-fact disputes, though? To keep schedule, we might have 1-2 days after a matchup before we move on to the next round. If we publish the ballots and there is obvious tampering, is that enough time to halt everything and intervene? If so, do you think this might cause too much drama?

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quote:</div>Offense - 3 pts
Defense - 3 pts
Starting Goaltending - 3 pts
Star Power - 2 pts
Depth (including backup G) - 2 pts
Team Chemistry/Identity/Character - 2 pts
Pick a color, red, black, or white - 2 pts</div>

Star Power should be removed. That already overlaps into the Offense/Defense/Goal categories. If anything, I would say experience is a more significant factor, but that would also overlap in similar fashion.
Depth in the playoffs is just as important as any other category. At least 3 points in this system. I might even suggest higher.

AK: I disagree, I think you need equal parts depth and star players. Let's try to get some more feedback on those categories to be democratic. We can definitely consider increasing the pts for those categories but I think they are a sort of yin and yang.

Backup goalie should be included in the Goaltending, not the depth, maybe even it's own separate thing. People are going to put too much weight towards the goalie in relation to the depth of the lineup. They'll do 50/50 for skater/G, when it's probably more like 90/10 (or less). Basically, they'll deduct a point for a poor backup goaltender regardless of how deep your lineup is. If you are running a star goalie and mediocre backup or rookie, that's full value and typical of IRL. If you are running a decent quality tandem, that's also full value. If you have a star goaltender and also a strong backup, that's just bonus points. If you lose your starter for the rest of the post-season, 9 times out of 10 you've lost your post-season anyway.

AK: My thinking was that for a short time, like a playoff series, the starter is much more important, but you have a good point about the backup goalie skewing the "depth" rankings. I will change "goaltending" to encompass the tandem, not just the starter. Depth will be skaters only.

Team chemistry can be a bonus consideration for having a good mix of youth, vets, speed, skill, toughness, etc. I'll call this "Composition".

AK: Nice, that's what I was getting at. Something that combines character and players/lines with identities. Composition is good, I'll use that and try to define it clearly in the primer that goes out before voting.

Luck seems silly at first glance, but it keeps things interesting and is actually a factor in real life. Not just puck luck, but injury luck, penalty luck, etc. So it makes sense to have some sort of "X-factor".

I'd suggest a factor for home ice advantage as well. Obviously a set value, nothing too significant, but last change and home crowd can be the difference in close games.

AK: <a href="/users/TMLSage" target="_blank"><a href="/users/TMLSage" target="_blank">@TMLSage</a></a> is putting together a sheet to tally the votes, and I think he is devising some sort of home-ice advantage. Stay tuned.

This would all work better if each game was done individually, but due to time and effort constraints, we'll have to settle for a series vs. game-by-game setup. We should all take into account that this is actually a (potential) 7 game series and vote accordingly however. If you're thinking of voting overwhelmingly in favor of one team, you're basically saying it's a series sweep. There have been 2 of those per year at most over the last several seasons, only 1 a couple of times, and in one year there were 0.

AK: This is also part of <a href="/users/TMLSage" target="_blank"><a href="/users/TMLSage" target="_blank">@TMLSage</a></a> 's sheet, it randomizes the luck game-by-game and spits out a result for each game.

Perhaps the total points percentage can reflect the actual series result? If there are 100 points total:
50-60 points = 4/3, 61-68 = 4/2, 69-75 = 4/1, 76+ = 4/0
Doesn't impact anything, just dresses up the result.

As for balloting.
Sliding scales (middle means the teams are even in that category)
Offense: 10 (5 is even 0 is max for home, 10 is max for away : A - - - - - 5 - - - - - B)
Defense: 10
Goal: 10
Depth: 6 (3 is even 0 is max for home, 5 is max for away : A - - - 3 - - - B)

Bonus points (Assign additional points for various factors)
A Backup Goal: 0 - 1 - 2
B Backup Goal: 0 - 1 - 2
A Composition: 0 - 1 - 2
B Composition: 0 - 1 - 2
A Power Play: 0 - 1 - 2
B Power Play: 0 - 1 - 2
A Penalty Kill: 0 - 1 - 2
B Penalty Kill: 0 - 1 - 2
X-Factor: 0 - 1 - 2 (I just replaced the colors with numbers)
A Home Ice: 1 - 2 (You can give the home team 1 or 2 points for home ice advantage depending on how big of a factor you think it is. They get 1 point for last change automatically. Give them another point if you think the crowd or their play at home are better than the other team's.)

AK: the sliding scales are something I just brought up to <a href="/users/NateElder12" target="_blank">@NateElder12</a>; it's doable in Google Forms and would be more accurate on those categories. Good call. Depending on how the final pts scale turns out, we'll apply the sliding scales to each category, dependent on the cat. total.

I tried to work with what you set out and just refine it a little and make it more comprehensive without making it too complicated. Not sure if I succeeded. :p
Look it over anyway and let me know what you think about the adjustments.</div></div>

Thanks Rico, tons of good stuff here. I'm going to attack it line by line and sorry if it's messy, but i'm not gonna break up your quotes so my comments will be mixed into the above...
Forum: GM Game 2018-19Wed at 4:34 pm
Forum: GM Game 2018-19Wed at 4:26 pm