Put IN THE BUCKET: ideas for drafts in the ATD off-season | Page 2 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League

Put IN THE BUCKET: ideas for drafts in the ATD off-season

  • If you are having issues logging in, we have found opening the log in page in a new tab/window rather than using the pop out should resolve these issues. We are working to get this resolved and thank you for patience.
  • Congrats to our latest Sportsbook winners - GOLD MEDAL kihei, SILVER MEDAL fish7 and BRONZE MEDAL Sammy Kat - new tournament begins today 6/15
ERAS starts with the evidence that survives. For modern players, that includes tracking and advanced statistics. For historical players, it includes biographies, newspaper accounts, voting, awards, team roles, and contemporaneous descriptions of abilities. If Harry Cameron is repeatedly described as one of the fastest players in hockey, a major puck carrier, and a central figure in attack creation, that is treated as evidence. The first task is to determine what abilities the player possessed and what role he was actually performing.

Once the role is established, the next step is to reconstruct the environment surrounding that role. A shutdown defenseman, an offensive defenseman, a transition driver, and a scoring winger operate under different burdens and constraints. Team structure, roster composition, deployment, competition, and responsibility all contribute to the environment. The player is then evaluated relative to the other players performing similar roles within his own era. Some traits are expressed through role ratings, while others use broader bands such as L/M/H (Low, Medium, High) for concepts like Control of Play, Connector, and Partner Elasticity, where evidence supports classification but not false precision.

Only after role and environment are established do we attempt to estimate the environment numerically. Team results, player results, scoring environments, usage patterns, and relative dominance are used to infer an xGF and xGA environment. For modern players these values may closely resemble directly measured data. For historical players they are reconstructions. The process therefore moves from evidence → role → environment → inferred xG environment → results. In that sense, ERAS is not trying to estimate talent directly. It is trying to reconstruct the difficulty of the environment in which a player's achievements occurred.
1780427753154.png
 
Hockey is the ultimate team game, right? I'd like to see a draft that plays into this, with it being required to have a co-GM in order to participate. Ideally more than two GMs per team. Somewhere in the three to six range.

While this isn't really an idea for a draft, I feel it's worth mentioning here. I think there's likely an appetite for three drafts per year. You've obviously got the ATD as the main one. Personally, I think the MLD should take place every year too. And then we could still have time for another draft, whether that's an OPPF, a AAA, or one of the other good ideas in this thread.
 
Hockey is the ultimate team game, right? I'd like to see a draft that plays into this, with it being required to have a co-GM in order to participate. Ideally more than two GMs per team. Somewhere in the three to six range.

While this isn't really an idea for a draft, I feel it's worth mentioning here. I think there's likely an appetite for three drafts per year. You've obviously got the ATD as the main one. Personally, I think the MLD should take place every year too. And then we could still have time for another draft, whether that's an OPPF, a AAA, or one of the other good ideas in this thread.
I'll just say that I don't know why more don't play with co-GMs. It's more fun in my opinion. Having someone to bounce ideas off of and formulate a strategy with enhances the experience.
 
I'll just say that I don't know why more don't play with co-GMs. It's more fun in my opinion. Having someone to bounce ideas off of and formulate a strategy with enhances the experience.
Agreed. I think I'll likely try to team up with someone at least every other year.
 
Hockey is the ultimate team game, right? I'd like to see a draft that plays into this, with it being required to have a co-GM in order to participate. Ideally more than two GMs per team. Somewhere in the three to six range.

While this isn't really an idea for a draft, I feel it's worth mentioning here. I think there's likely an appetite for three drafts per year. You've obviously got the ATD as the main one. Personally, I think the MLD should take place every year too. And then we could still have time for another draft, whether that's an OPPF, a AAA, or one of the other good ideas in this thread.

The only issues I can see with having 3 to 6 GM's per team is that it would severely limit the amount of teams participating. Let's say we average around 25 to 30 teams per ATD with only a small handful of teams typically consisting of two gm's co-managing..if we had 3 posters joining up for a single team that would mean we'd likely only have around 10 teams in the draft. I suppose that would be perfectly fine for a side draft, but not ideal for the main ATD.

The other issue is the clock and how likely it would be to drag on for ages. The draft would run at a snails pace. Imagine a team of 3, 4 or 5 GM's all having to sign off on each draft pick, with some only checking in quickly once a day. It sounds like a nightmare trying to discuss strategy via PM with so many GM's, and having to time selections in a reasonable manner when two or more of your GM's are offline for 3 quarters of the day or more. Sometimes timing can be an issue with just two GM's due to timezones, real life jobs and plans etc.

It's a cool idea in theory but I'm just not sure how feasible it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spitsfan24
One way to encourage co-gming and not sacrificing draft size is to make it an optional additional team; a GM can have 1 solo team and 1 co-GM team. Or two co-GM teams, I guess, though I think they should probably be with a different partner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spitsfan24
One way to encourage co-gming and not sacrificing draft size is to make it an optional additional team; a GM can have 1 solo team and 1 co-GM team. Or two co-GM teams, I guess, though I think they should probably be with a different partner.

We would have to have a single conference for each GM's main team, and then a second conference consisting of all the co-managed clubs if that were the case and i'm understanding correctly. Because a single GM matching up in the playoffs against their second team with a co-GM seems like it would be a pretty weird situation, haha. I guess it could happen in the finals still, even with the two conferences.
 
We would have to have a single conference for each GM's main team, and then a second conference consisting of all the co-managed clubs if that were the case and i'm understanding correctly. Because a single GM matching up in the playoffs against their second team with a co-GM seems like it would be a pretty weird situation, haha. I guess it could happen in the finals still, even with the two conferences.
There was an optional two-teams-per-GM draft a few years ago- I don’t remember how it was setup, but I believe that possibility was discussed.
 
There was an optional two-teams-per-GM draft a few years ago- I don’t remember how it was setup, but I believe that possibility was discussed.

Yes, I remember that. We each managed two clubs - one in each conference. So this would be a little different as we'd each have our own club in one and then co-manage with another GM in a second conference. Would definitely be a different dynamic than usual. Not sure there would be much support for that to be honest.
 
The only issues I can see with having 3 to 6 GM's per team is that it would severely limit the amount of teams participating. Let's say we average around 25 to 30 teams per ATD with only a small handful of teams typically consisting of two gm's co-managing..if we had 3 posters joining up for a single team that would mean we'd likely only have around 10 teams in the draft. I suppose that would be perfectly fine for a side draft, but not ideal for the main ATD.

The other issue is the clock and how likely it would be to drag on for ages. The draft would run at a snails pace. Imagine a team of 3, 4 or 5 GM's all having to sign off on each draft pick, with some only checking in quickly once a day. It sounds like a nightmare trying to discuss strategy via PM with so many GM's, and having to time selections in a reasonable manner when two or more of your GM's are offline for 3 quarters of the day or more. Sometimes timing can be an issue with just two GM's due to timezones, real life jobs and plans etc.

It's a cool idea in theory but I'm just not sure how feasible it is.
I had it in mind for a side draft and not the main ATD, because as you've pointed out, there are major hurdles. As a casual side draft, though, I still think it could work, pace be damned.
 
I had it in mind for a side draft and not the main ATD, because as you've pointed out, there are major hurdles. As a casual side draft, though, I still think it could work, pace be damned.
I like the idea, but to have enough teams to make it work, I'm not sure we could do three GM's. We just don't get enough participation for side drafts.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Ad

Ad