|
Post by NJDevils on Sept 6, 2011 22:29:58 GMT -5
Rabble rabble rabble...
|
|
|
Post by ECFHL Commissioner on Sept 6, 2011 22:35:50 GMT -5
You can voice your opinions on it as long you it's respectable. We're doing our best here.
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Sept 6, 2011 23:07:18 GMT -5
I like it. The only thing I would change is a slight change to the overalls. I think 8.0's should be a 71. and then a 2 point jump after that - 7.5's should be a 69 and 7.0's should be a 68 and so on.
8.0+ prospects are rather rare, and would give them a little bit of extra value. 7.5 and 7.0 prospects are pretty common, and would mean alot of guys are going to be starting at 70 overall...thats a little too high IMO, eventually, they're all going to become too good. 7.0 prospects arent anything that special....90% of the league is eventually going to develop into 80 overalls, which is what i think you were trying to avoid.
maybe make the ratings like this:
Overall
10
75
9.5
74
9
73
8.5
72
8
71
7.5
69
7
67
6.5
65
6
63
5 or Below
61
If you think about it - anything under a 7.0 is really a pretty bad prospect with not much of an NHL future....
|
|
|
Post by leafs on Sept 6, 2011 23:18:56 GMT -5
I like Alex's chart better but I think it wouldn't hurt to have a slight range to make it easier on PJ and Thomas when they are creating the specs. Something like this:
Overall
10
75
9.5
74
9
73
8.5
72
8
71
7.5
69-70
7
67-68
6.5
65
6
63
5 or Below
61
As for who gets the higher OV in those ranges well it would be subjective which could lead to disputes but this would be an attempt to cover our bases if one HF team's author was much more generous with their ratings then another. It's not an exact science that they are using and HF has been known in the past for having some generous and other non-generous authors as well as authors who aren't very active in updating their ratings.....just a thought
|
|
|
Post by ECFHL Commissioner on Sept 6, 2011 23:27:43 GMT -5
We can tweak it to Alex's chart. Having a range is just going to cause more bitching and moaning.
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM on Sept 7, 2011 1:47:39 GMT -5
Agree with nick. Having a range gives people a chance to complain. Why is his guy a 70 and my guy is a 69? A set overall makes it fair for everyone.
It's pretty easy to alter players overall ratings. A small player can be given low strength, for example, to bring his ratings down, while a soft player can be given low intensity, etc. these aren't looked on as "crucial" ratings to most, but affect players overall all the same.
also, nick, i hope you didn't feel as i was bitching - i was just giving my recommendation as to what i would do if it were my league. if you kept your list, i wouldn't make a peep....but you told me you didnt want all players to develop into 80+ overall players in a few years time , so i thought this would be a good way to prevent that from happening. mediocre prospects will likely only become mediocre players under my list.
|
|
|
Post by sensgm on Sept 7, 2011 7:23:39 GMT -5
So to confirm the chart would be as follows:
HF 10 = OV75 HF9.5 = OV74 HF9 = OV73 HF8.5 = OV72 HF8 = OV71 HF7.5 = OV69 HF 7 = OV67 HF6.5 = OV65 HF6 = OV 63 HF5.5 or below = OV61
I think this chart is fine and actually would work pretty well for the reasons Alex has pointed out!
I would also like to raise a couple of other points:
1. I am still presuming if a Prospect has played a considerable amount of time in the NHL, his ratings will be based upon his NHL performance and not his HF rating?
2. Nick when I spoke to you about the number of prospect re-creations, you suggested three and told you my concerns! However now the prospects chart and system has been settled upon I think it should be three re-creations (Going against what I said to you via PM). The reason being GM’s who have yet to make any prospects in the second half of the season will be at an advantage, as they will be able to create three prospects under the new system and then possibly rerate two other prospects. Therefore potentially having a total of 5 prospects made under the new system/chart! So if you raise the number of re-creations to three (like you originally intended) it makes things a little fairer to those GM’s who have actually been active and created their prospect early – Hope that makes sense!
Finally on a personal note I am mega annoyed that I traded Tarasenko right at the deadline, he will now become WAY better! I’m not going to bitch and moan because I know it is for the good of the league… but all the same its somewhat annoying! I guess I can take the positive that having this set of rules come the draft should help me, seeming as I have 7Nr first round picks
|
|
|
Post by bluejacketsgm on Sept 7, 2011 9:13:28 GMT -5
"8.0+ prospects are rather rare"
I had like 3 of them foolz!
|
|
|
Post by oilersgm on Sept 7, 2011 10:45:39 GMT -5
YOU GUYS should tweak the rating by letters as well I'm sure Id rather draft a 6.5 B then a 7.0 F
|
|
|
Post by sensgm on Sept 7, 2011 11:13:49 GMT -5
That just makes things alot more complicated, and again would lead to more bitching! by having a simple system everybody knows what they are dealing with!
|
|