ATD 2013 - should all teams make the playoffs?

[BenchBrawl]

My personal playoff history was pretty unsuccessful , I built a pretty strange team in my first ATD(2011) where I counted too much on Gretzky and Lidstrom and got my ass handed to me against MadArcand , definitely deservedly so.I then participated in all minor drafts in 2011 where I learned some drafting and political strategies but I didn't gain that much knowledge as far as ATD players goes when participating in minor drafts for obvious reasons.

After that came ATD2012 , where my knowledge of ATD players got a serious boost and where I felt I built a near-championship-level team that unfortunately got bounced in the 2nd round.That loss did hurt me in many ways , particularly because of the real time and effort I invested in it but this is part of the game.

I did participate in the MLD2012 but my heart wasn't in it at all so I lost quickly , deservedly so.

I also won the Leafs Forum ATD , and while I definitely robbed someone in a trade that gave me a major advantage , I didn't screw it up and the win was still appreciated.

We're now at ATD2013 , and I'm anxious to see what my team can acheive this time around.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

How would a regular season debate thread be different from a lineup assassination thread?

By narrowing it down to four teams per division, the debate would actually be a real debate, instead of making one post and having it get quickly buried. And if you dare go to work during a debate, your team will get thrashed and then the debate is lost in the pile when you get home and try to defend your team having it fall on deaf ears. (I tend to have bad experiences with the assassination thread.)

 

[markrander87]

Why don't we consider the "playoffs" a tournament and then weigh both regular season and playoffs combined when evaluating a player?

It seems like a fairly simple fix to this entire conversation.

When evaluating say top line centres during "the ATD Tournament" you focus more on overall resume more then "well it's the playoffs so player X has the major advantage"...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Why don't we consider the "playoffs" a tournament and then weigh both regular season and playoffs combined when evaluating a player?
..

I'd like to think that's what I already do.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

By narrowing it down to four teams per division, the debate would actually be a real debate, instead of making one post and having it get quickly buried. And if you dare go to work during a debate, your team will get thrashed and then the debate is lost in the pile when you get home and try to defend your team having it fall on deaf ears. (I tend to have bad experiences with the assassination thread.)

Didn't jarek want to divide the assassination thread up by divisions? Seems something we could do even if all teams make the playoffs.

I'm definitely open to changing the current format of the assassination thread to one that will encourage more GMs to give feedback.

 

[seventieslord]

By narrowing it down to four teams per division, the debate would actually be a real debate, instead of making one post and having it get quickly buried. And if you dare go to work during a debate, your team will get thrashed and then the debate is lost in the pile when you get home and try to defend your team having it fall on deaf ears. (I tend to have bad experiences with the assassination thread.)

Good idea! I think we should separate assassination threads into divisions. Then people can start making the case that they have the best goaltending, coaching, top line, or whatever, and it will really help for the voters to sort out the four teams for their votes.

I can't believe we didn't think of this before.

Why don't we consider the "playoffs" a tournament and then weigh both regular season and playoffs combined when evaluating a player?

It seems like a fairly simple fix to this entire conversation.

When evaluating say top line centres during "the ATD Tournament" you focus more on overall resume more then "well it's the playoffs so player X has the major advantage"...

I already do this.

regular season = regular season resume only
playoffs = regular season resume, tweaked up or down slightly based on playoffs

 

[markrander87]

I already do this.

regular season = regular season resume only
playoffs = regular season resume, tweaked up or down slightly based on playoffs

But as several gm's have already pointed out, not everybody does. Guys like Dionne, Thornton etc...just get a bad rap and fall way to low in this thing.



FWIW I'm also a big fan of seperate assassination threads per division. Great idea.

 

[VanIslander]

Assassinations were designed to be evaluations of a team compared to itself as a standing unified club with all of its capabilities and whether they mesh and reflect a team built with pp and pk and passing and defensive ability and chemistry and all basic elements.

It has NOT been an exercise in comparing one team to another!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nor an exercise in LOBBYING for the superiority of one team RELATIVE to another.

Assassination threads should remain an assessment of a team without comparison to other teams imo.

It would be a radical departure from the process to do otherwise.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

regular season = regular season resume only
playoffs = regular season resume, tweaked up or down slightly based on playoffs

I try to do the same thing. Though I try to look at WHY a playoff failure failed in the playoffs. If a Marcel Dionne got worn down by tight checking, I would look to see that the team has guys to take attention off him. If a Joe Thornton is too predictable for the playoffs, I look to see if he has either a less predictable player on his line, or a goal scorer who is so clutch that he'll score even if everyone knows the puck is going to him (I LOVED Bossy as a linemate for Big Joe). Keith Tkachuk? Too easily distracted when the other team focused on pissing him off. My solution? Make him the third best member of his line, so the other team would be stupid to focus on him; and I won a draft with that strategy.

And the other way around - someone like Sergei Fedorov or Yvon Cournoyer who repeatedly impressed in the playoffs over a large sample size probably was legitimately playing better in the playoffs regularly, rather than just getting lucky. But I wouldn't completely discount their regular season either.

For most players (guys without unusually poor or great playoff records or with a limited sample of playoff games), I do exactly what you do - regular season first, with small adjustments based on playoffs.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Personally , I kind of mix it up as far as the clutchness of a player goes.What I do is mostly ignore the differance between playoff and regular season production ( except in extreme cases ) in the first few rounds and start to take the clutchness of a player into account more and more as we progress in the playoffs.

The way I see it is the beginning of the playoffs aren't really playoffs in the way I evaluate teams and players , but once it's down to 4 or 2 teams I start to consider that these moments are very important and take that into account when evaluating each players individually in these respective line-ups.

For example , I won't consider Claude Lemieux that bigger of a factor in the 1st round compared to what his overall resume is , but he will gain some usefulness points if his team goes all the way to the finals.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I always try to visualize lines coming together and making a cohesive whole, and as such, with players with talent but questionable playoff performances, I look harder at those lines, if a player is in a position that strikes me as a great fit, I focus almost solely on regular season. If it is a bad fit, then I look a lot closer at the poor playoffs. And of course, usually it's somewhere in between. (Unless it's a case like when Dionne was put with Maurice Richard, that was spot on brilliant.)

Good idea! I think we should separate assassination threads into divisions. Then people can start making the case that they have the best goaltending, coaching, top line, or whatever, and it will really help for the voters to sort out the four teams for their votes.

I can't believe we didn't think of this before.

The assassination threads have value as a place to discuss the teams as a cohesive unit. That's why I'd prefer to have division by division regular season debate threads, and then giving them high stakes by a winner getting a bye and the 4th place team getting eliminated.

That said, if we do not have teams miss the playoffs (which is, sadly, looking like the way it will go.) then I'd rather have division by division assassination threads.

 

[seventieslord]

Assassinations were designed to be evaluations of a team compared to itself as a standing unified club with all of its capabilities and whether they mesh and reflect a team built with pp and pk and passing and defensive ability and chemistry and all basic elements.

It has NOT been an exercise in comparing one team to another!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nor an exercise in LOBBYING for the superiority of one team RELATIVE to another.

Assassination threads should remain an assessment of a team without comparison to other teams imo.

It would be a radical departure from the process to do otherwise.

Yes, it would be. But let's face it, it would be a positive departure.

Right now it's a mish-mash of 32 teams being assassinated, with 32 guys trying to get reviews by doing reviews themselves. It doesn't lend itself well to actual comparison between teams, let alone what matters, teams in the same division.

This way you are sure to get reviews because it's your divisional opponents trying to prove their team is better.

The downside is that the reviews might be more negative.

But now that I think about it, maybe they should be. Right now they are 90% positive. "good first line, I really like that you put Toe Blake with Esposito. Pretty good second line, Perreault doesn't have to be the main threat. Defense is definitely above average. Goaltending won't hurt you." Some more pointed criticism can't hurt.

The assassination threads have value as a place to discuss the teams as a cohesive unit. That's why I'd prefer to have division by division regular season debate threads, and then giving them high stakes by a winner getting a bye and the 4th place team getting eliminated.

The divisional threads can still be that.

But we'd probably want to be sure we had guys doing reviews outside of their division.

What about awarding standings points for reviews done outside of one's division? There would have to be certain "word count" standards for them to count, and maybe something like just 0.5 points per review with a maximum of 6 bonus points to a guy who did 12 reviews, or something like that. Kind of like back in intramurals when there were bonus points for participation and sportsmanship.

Anyway, to your point above, they would still be high stakes because a 1/4 and 2/3 playoff system pretty much does what you're saying 90% of the time, and this allows the 4th place team a "fair trial" with at least the potential for an upset, but essentially you'd get your wish - a bye for 1st, then they play the winner of 2/3!

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Anyway, to your point above, they would still be high stakes because a 1/4 and 2/3 playoff system pretty much does what you're saying 90% of the time, and this allows the 4th place team a "fair trial" with at least the potential for an upset, but essentially you'd get your wish - a bye for 1st, then they play the winner of 2/3!

It's also unfair to the 4th seed in that way. If the fourth seed team is given a regular season debate thread, then maybe they can establish why they should be the third seed, and maybe then they match up well against the 2nd seed. Throwing a rookie GM against a contender doesn't give them a fair shake. A real regular season debate thread with real stakes would give them a fair chance and a more rewarding experience.

 

[seventieslord]

It's also unfair to the 4th seed in that way. If the fourth seed team is given a regular season debate thread, then maybe they can establish why they should be the third seed, and maybe then they match up well against the 2nd seed. Throwing a rookie GM against a contender doesn't give them a fair shake. A real regular season debate thread with real stakes would give them a fair chance and a more rewarding experience.

That's pretty much agreeing with me, though. They get their chance in the regular season debate thread, and if they fail, they still get a series (in which they may very well be cannon fodder.)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yes, it would be. But let's face it, it would be a positive departure.

Right now it's a mish-mash of 32 teams being assassinated, with 32 guys trying to get reviews by doing reviews themselves. It doesn't lend itself well to actual comparison between teams, let alone what matters, teams in the same division.

We're lucky if half the teams assassinate anyone in the current format.

What about awarding standings points for reviews done outside of one's division? There would have to be certain "word count" standards for them to count, and maybe something like just 0.5 points per review with a maximum of 6 bonus points to a guy who did 12 reviews, or something like that. Kind of like back in intramurals when there were bonus points for participation and sportsmanship.

I would like for there to be an incentive to assassinate teams, but I think adding points in the standings might be going too far.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

That's pretty much agreeing with me, though. They get their chance in the regular season debate thread, and if they fail, they still get a series (in which they may very well be cannon fodder.)

Except there is severely limited stakes if the regular season standings are meaningless.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I like the idea of separate assassination threads for each division. Even if nothing else is changed, it will be a lot more organized and easier to find info on teams when you need it.

I think that both VI and seventies have good points regarding assassinations. A good compromise might be that if you are assassinating a team in your own division you can compare the teams within your division and lobby for one team being better than another. If you are assassinating a team outside of your own division then you should stick to the previous format...Not saying there can't be negative comments, but there shouldn't be anything directly comparing one team to another.

I do not like the idea of awarding points for assassinations, as TDMM said, that's just going too far. Everyone seems to be on the same page where those that give more assassinations receive more...I think that is reward enough. Also, some people just don't have as much time as others...I would hate to see someone opt out of the ATD just because they knew they wouldn't be able to meet the "assassination quota."

 

[seventieslord]

Keep in mind that I was only suggesting half a point per assassination. As anyone who has collected votes in a large draft can attest to, 3-4 point spreads are actually quite rare and you end up seeing a lot of separation.

In practice, with everyone doing at least a few reviews to make sure they don't "fall behind", you'd likely see 2-3 flips in the standings in an entire 32-team draft. And if you get bumped ahead of a team that's otherwise better, you'll still end up having to out debate them (or a team that they would have had to out-debate).

 

[seventieslord]

Here are the actual gaps in the standings last draft:

Jim Robson: 17, 7, 37, 19, 9, 9, 49
Foster Hewitt: 32, 11, 8, 2, 52, 3, 8
Bob Cole: 38, 4, 22, 13, 14, 22, 9
Rene Lecavalier: 1, 22, 12, 21, 21, 2, 38

Remember what I suggested was a potential cap of 3 bonus points in the standings. So the bolded races are the four that "could" have been flipped, if the player behind did 3-6 more reviews than the team in front of them.

So as you can see, it is not a substantial effect on the standings, but, it does provide some incentive to a) pick up a couple points that "might" come in handy, and b) make sure you don't fall behind.

That's not reinventing the wheel. It's only about as much of an impact as was made back when we started awarding first place votes as a reward for voting.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What about a extra few points if you do ONE assassination? (or two mini-assassinations)

Or maybe this is easier - you can't vote on the standings (and thus can't give yourself a first place vote which often makes a difference) if you don't do one assassination (or two minis)

Bascially, I Don't like giving points per assassination ( even with a cap) because some GMs really are busy.

But it really isn't too much work to give 1 assassination (or 2 minis), and I would definitely be on favor of requiring GMs to give 1 assassination (or 2 minis), with a small bonus as incentive

 

[VanIslander]

Team rankings should be determined only by the merits of the teams not the effort of its GMs.

To give a real-world example: Brian Burke can work his butt off but his team ain't moving up the standings until he goes out and gets better players to make it happen!

 

[markrander87]

This is the problem with threads like these. They start to veer off on to completely different tangents. Awarding gm's for assassinations is unfair to gm's who just can't devote as much time as other gm's.

To get this back on track. Every team makes the playoffs and separate threads for each divisions assassinations.

 

[vecens24]

Under NO circumstances should you get points for assassinating people.

There is literally no correlation between having a good team and being someone who assassinates people. The two are not related at all, nor should they be related in the voting process.



Let's get back on track here and discuss more about the playoffs. This whole "oh, people will cry if their team is eliminated without a playoff matchup" is stupid in my opinion. People cry after getting eliminated after one playoff matchup. I don't think that you necessarily deserve a chance to speak about your team just because you made one. If you make a crappy team, that's kind of your fault, isnt it?

(this is the no mercy POV)

 

[seventieslord]

Team rankings should be determined only by the merits of the teams not the effort of its GMs.

To give a real-world example: Brian Burke can work his butt off but his team ain't moving up the standings until he goes out and gets better players to make it happen!

Imagining that the rankings don’t have something to do with GM effort is turning a blind eye to reality. In alternate realities if two guys draft the exact same team in the same draft, and one is more skilled at highlighting his players’ strengths, promotes their players relentlessly and makes extensive bios, and the other does nothing at all, they will place very differently in the standings. Also, as we have all seen, the GM that “shows up†for the playoffs when their opponent doesn’t, also has an advantage.

The idea I brought forward is much less impactful to the whole process than the two principles listed above. You are a big proponent of lineup assassinations and have, in the past, lamented how little some GMs seem to care to do them (though we all love getting them). This provides a real, tangible reason for everyone to do them.

GM effort leading to success is a real thing, and this would be just one more (and the smallest) facet of that.

And if you say you don’t have the time to do a couple assassinations (after researching your players, drafting, discussing during the draft, and making bios), you’re just not trying hard enough to have the time.

TDMM’s idea of not allowing teams to vote on the standings could work, but at the same time, we want MORE votes, not fewer.

 

[Hobnobs]

Let's get back on track here and discuss more about the playoffs. This whole "oh, people will cry if their team is eliminated without a playoff matchup" is stupid in my opinion. People cry after getting eliminated after one playoff matchup. I don't think that you necessarily deserve a chance to speak about your team just because you made one. If you make a crappy team, that's kind of your fault, isnt it?

(this is the no mercy POV)

And if you make a great team in a strong division where only 1 vote seperates you from the others? tbh if we want the whole elimination process prior to the post season then we should have regular season games. Anyone wants to go through that? Why not have a full atd seasons with trades and where one team doesnt make the playoffs because the gamemaster decided that this is the season Mario gets cancer.

just my couple of cents.