|
|
Post by Avs on Sept 1, 2011 16:04:37 GMT -5
So what about old drafts? we're getting sidetracked here Look! A ladybug! |
|
|
|
Post by NJDevils on Sept 1, 2011 16:13:04 GMT -5
So what about old drafts? we're getting sidetracked here, but i dont see the necessity in changing the amount of rounds per season. it's fine the way nick has it set up IMO. Well were I'm trying to go with this is that there are a lot of prospects rated similarly. Giving a larger pool of talent adds the potential for more diversity among the prospects. |
|
|
|
Post by sensgm on Sept 1, 2011 16:17:02 GMT -5
NJ i think your missing the point we are trying to make! Its all a case of how prospects are currently being made not the number of prospects! Three round is plenty! We all know 4th and 5ths wouldnt carry much value and it also means alot more work for the commish etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by LosAngelesGM on Sept 1, 2011 16:43:32 GMT -5
I finally have a chance to comment....
I am not necessarily mad, but I will say I am frustrated because no matter what you do, you wont please everyone. In regards to the ratings, I try my best (within the rating system we use) to rate guys better in some areas than in others. I know its far from perfect. But, most of you should take a look at the prospects I've made for you. An 8.0 Rated Prospect, we set the OV at 68. I created a bunch of 8.0 prospects and if you want to go by the book, they should all be 68OV. Yet all of you have 69/70/71 OV guys. I hope you see how this kinda pisses me off a little. I went above what the rules state to give more value to prospects, and you guys are partly (I know there is more than just this one complaint) complaining that the ratings arent good enough and all. If everyone is going to be ungrateful for the extra bump, we can easily rerate all prospects back to what their OV should be.
Now that I got the "asshole" part out of me. I'll calm down lol.
I am ok with a new system. If someone wants to make something up and let me/Nick see it, then send it our way. We both agree with this, do not send us charts that give 9.0 Rated Prospects as 75+ OV. We saw guys enter the league at 75OV and in 3 seasons they are rated just as good as Crosby and Ovechkin. Its not realistic. I realize there will be top tier prospects who should be mid 70's, but not EVERY prospect that is 8.0, 8.5, 9.0 will turn into a stud. Usually in NHL Drafts, About 40-50% of the prospects drafted in the 1st Round turn into something solid. The others are busts. Its how it works. This is why we dont want to overrate new prospects.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluejacketsgm on Sept 1, 2011 16:53:25 GMT -5
I don't think we're complaining and saying you did a poor job - at least I'm not. I think we're just saying that it's ok to give somebody a 58df and a 73pc instead of a 68pc and 64df or whatever the equivalent would be in the overall ratings. I have no qualms about how any of the prospects look so far and I don't think many do. I think this was a suggestion on where to go from this season forward and not a demand of re-rating all current created guys. I know it's a pain in the ass to create guys anyway as I've had to do it before for draft time in other leagues. I'd be willing to help a bit as well during that time if need be.
|
|
|
|
Post by LosAngelesGM on Sept 1, 2011 17:01:21 GMT -5
My post was angry but tried to be joking/playful too.
Guys, how about under the current system, let me try a few more prospects. Ill post newer ones on this thread. If people like how it goes from now on, we stay as is. If people do not, we alter it before Season 2. Agreed??
|
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Sept 1, 2011 17:07:45 GMT -5
I finally have a chance to comment.... I am not necessarily mad, but I will say I am frustrated because no matter what you do, you wont please everyone. In regards to the ratings, I try my best (within the rating system we use) to rate guys better in some areas than in others. I know its far from perfect. But, most of you should take a look at the prospects I've made for you. An 8.0 Rated Prospect, we set the OV at 68. I created a bunch of 8.0 prospects and if you want to go by the book, they should all be 68OV. Yet all of you have 69/70/71 OV guys. I hope you see how this kinda pisses me off a little. I went above what the rules state to give more value to prospects, and you guys are partly (I know there is more than just this one complaint) complaining that the ratings arent good enough and all. If everyone is going to be ungrateful for the extra bump, we can easily rerate all prospects back to what their OV should be. Now that I got the "asshole" part out of me. I'll calm down lol. I am ok with a new system. If someone wants to make something up and let me/Nick see it, then send it our way. We both agree with this, do not send us charts that give 9.0 Rated Prospects as 75+ OV. We saw guys enter the league at 75OV and in 3 seasons they are rated just as good as Crosby and Ovechkin. Its not realistic. I realize there will be top tier prospects who should be mid 70's, but not EVERY prospect that is 8.0, 8.5, 9.0 will turn into a stud. Usually in NHL Drafts, About 40-50% of the prospects drafted in the 1st Round turn into something solid. The others are busts. Its how it works. This is why we dont want to overrate new prospects. my problem with your ratings is the inconsistency in them. some guys like jared cowen are a 72, while erik gudbranson is a 70. cowen is a 8.0 prospect, gudbranson was an 8.5 at the time of creation. that's the part that bugs me, and i think is completely unfair. with what i proposed, there's a set overall. whoever would create the prospects would never divert from that. the individual ratings that amount to that overall ratings would be the only thing that would be in the creators hands, and hopefully, would be made according to that players real life bio and hopefully give some diversity amongst the players. right now, the players you create all look identical. calvin de haan and alex petrovic could not be any more dissimilar style of players in real life - yet in ECFHL - they are the same exact player. it's redundant and boring....at least to me |
|
|
|
Post by LosAngelesGM on Sept 1, 2011 17:15:46 GMT -5
I dont mind people raising an issue, and I dont mind someone pointing out some of the downfalls of the system, but if you want to complain so much, create a new system. Nothing is more aggravating than one person sitting there saying "this is unfair, this is wrong, this is a problem" but what are you doing to help resolve the issue? Create a new system for the league then that you think is fair. I've been swamped with work and other things the last few weeks and my time isnt going to open up anytime soon, so I'm not going to create a brand new system at the moment. If you see such an issue, help out, and take action. It would help Nick and I. We are open to listening if there is action taken.
And since you are complaining about the ratings of Cowen at 72 and Gudbranson at 70, NEITHER of them should even be that high. So you are complaining about an issue that was a GENEROUS bump for the prospects. Makes almost no sense to me. I see your issue with the different areas of ratings and how there isnt disparity among each category. But to complain about something I bumped up for everyone to be generous is extremely ungrateful.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluejacketsgm on Sept 1, 2011 17:22:43 GMT -5
Alex is a Panther fan and therefore leads a very unhappy life. He has to take out his frustrations on somebody.
|
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Sept 1, 2011 17:27:39 GMT -5
I dont mind people raising an issue, and I dont mind someone pointing out some of the downfalls of the system, but if you want to complain so much, create a new system. Nothing is more aggravating than one person sitting there saying "this is unfair, this is wrong, this is a problem" but what are you doing to help resolve the issue? Create a new system for the league then that you think is fair. I've been swamped with work and other things the last few weeks and my time isnt going to open up anytime soon, so I'm not going to create a brand new system at the moment. If you see such an issue, help out, and take action. It would help Nick and I. We are open to listening if there is action taken. And since you are complaining about the ratings of Cowen at 72 and Gudbranson at 70, NEITHER of them should even be that high. So you are complaining about an issue that was a GENEROUS bump for the prospects. Makes almost no sense to me. I see your issue with the different areas of ratings and how there isnt disparity among each category. But to complain about something I bumped up for everyone to be generous is extremely ungrateful. if you bothered to read the entire thread - you'd see that I DID propose another system. and if you don't see how Cowen being a 72 as an 8.0 prospect and Gudbranson being a 70 overall as an 8.5 is unfair - then you shouldn't be the one creating the prospects honestly. |
|
