Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4408RE: [hockeydisk] Committees for 08-09 disk

Expand Messages
  • Herb Garbutt
    Apr 7 7:20 PM
      Message
      Hey Bill,
       
      No worries, definitely not taking anything personally.
       
      I'm not at all surprised by the 'Herb won all ties' impression. In the majority of cases, yes, I probably did. In some cases, the reason I did was to acheive the goals we set out for at the beginning of the process (stop everything from gravitating toward 3, lower the average rating to increase shots, more 1s).
       
      In some cases, I pushed really hard for the sake of consistency. Some groups insisted that their goons were straight 2s, other groups had them as 1s. (this is a big generalization, not all goons are created equal, but for the most part, these guys don't have the skills to play, which says 1....again, it's a generalization, but it's the easiest illustration of the problem I could think of). Wait, thought of another one. There were some teams where say 26 or the 28 players on a team would be 3 SPD or better. If every other team had only 20 of 28, you can see why a changes would need to be made.
       
      In a lot of cases I did conceed ratings and then Dave tested, and testing dictated that changes had to be made. At that point, we were running so far behind, I didn't go back and consult with the groups, I simply changed the ones I had conceeded (providing they helped fix whatever problem testing was showing). So from the ratings teams' perspective, when they saw the final disk, it probably appeared that I didn't take their suggestion.
       
      The opposite also happened. The one that really stands out is that I lobbied the SJ group really hard to have Joe Thornton dropped from a 4D to a 3. After finally convincing them, San Jose tested low and Thornton ended up as a 4 on the final disk. I still don't agree with it, but just so you know, I don't always get my way :) 
       
      Why don't I just do it myself? The simple answer is I don't profess to know the skating ability of every Phoenix fourth liner. I don't know everything. If I don't know, I try really, really hard to find out. But there's 800+ players, 10 ratings per player. Even if I did a remarkable job and got 90% of them right, that's still 800 wrong. And as I said, I do whatever research I can to get them right. Asking people who watch the teams on a regular basis, is part of that research.
       
      So why not the same process as last year? It was just way to slow and tedious. I think this process will move much faster if the ratings teams are given a finished set where they can point out ratings they don't agree with instead of having them debating every single skill, every single player. And I think we'd all like to have the disk done a lot earlier.
       
      Yes, leagues can make edits but I doubt very many do. They live with the ratings and I'd rather give those who care enough to get involved some input into the disk.
       
      Hope this answers some questions, alleviates some concerns. But feel free to ask any more questions or bring up any more concerns.
       
      Herb
       
      Just to address the last two e-mails (yes, I know you are kidding but there are probably others out there wondering so....) there are always going to be 'problem' players on every disk. They're not really problems. We play one season with the disk. The disk is going to based on the average of 1000s of test seasons. In those 1000s of seasons every player is going to have some spectacular years and some dreadful years. When you play just one of those 1000s, some of the 800+ players on the disk are going to have those remarkable seasons. In our league, it's Matt Cullen and Shane Doan. And actually Iginla is lighting it up too. 
       
      In the strike year, we used the same disk two years in a row. The first year with the disk, Chara had 27 goals, 76 points. Second year, same disk, no real changes to the team, Chara had 10 goals and 34 points. 
       
      -----Original Message-----
      From: hockeydisk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hockeydisk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bill Corfield
      Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:46 PM
      To: hockeydisk@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [hockeydisk] Committees for 08-09 disk

      Hey Herb-

        I respect your decision to go the route you are, but I have some concerns...Its important to me you know this isn't personal, but rather voiced only with the hope for the best disk possible.

        There was an impression amongst some in the apba community last time where "Herb won all ties." That is, in the vast majority of cases where a ratings team or representative disagreed with you on a rating, your ratings usually prevailed. I understand the impossible nature of trying to please everyone and still generate an accurate disk. Its also a given the respect you have across the apba community for the work you put in on this.

        The first thought I had when I read your mail was this. Why doesn't Herb just do the disk? Period...

        Leagues have and are always free to make any edits they chose to, so you work up the ratings the way you believe are best, see how they survive the test sims, make your adjustments then send it out. If a league doesn't like it, there's a zillion different systems they can implement to allow tweaking within in their league.

        I wonder if this approach wouldn't take us to the same destination they we're bound for using the approach your detailed in your email. It might be significantly quicker and easier for all parties involved...

       Thoughts?

      Bill Corfield

      CCHL, LHL, WHA


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Herb Garbutt <herbgarbutt@ cogeco.ca>
      To: hockeydisk@yahoogro ups.com
      Sent: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 7:43 pm
      Subject: RE: [hockeydisk] Committees for 08-09 disk

      Hey guys,
      We've decided to go with a slightly different approach this season but the ratings groups will still be involved.
       
      Here's what we're doing. I am going to rate the entire league and then send those ratings to the groups for discussion. I know this probably worries some of you, but to (hopefully) ease your concerns, here is why we believe this process will work better.
       
      1/ Consistency:  Last year we had 30 different groups each using their own criteria. Some groups mandated that there had to be a certain number of 1s, 2s, 3s etc., some gave out very few 2s and 1s, some gave fringe players 2s across the board, other gave them 1s. That is not to say anyone was wrong. They were right using their criteria. But with so many different criteria, there wasn't much consistency from team to team. By having one rater, throughout, we can eliminate these issues and then use the groups to correct/tweak ratings.
       
      2/ Timing. The committees were actually in place by about February last year. Some started right away, some waited until the end of the season, some didn't start rating until July, some just never happened. I was also encouraging groups to start ratings as far back as February so they could evaluate while games were still being played. Unfortunately, by the end of the playoffs probably 2/3 of the groups had not started ratings.
      We're hoping that worst case, if groups are slow to respond, at least we'll have my baseline to work from and Dave can start testing much, much earlier. I'm hoping end of June, beginning of July, which will lead to us getting the disk much earlier and Dave actually being able to enjoy some of his summer.
       
       
      In doing my ratings, I am using last year's ratings as a baseline. If there is no evidence to support a particular rating, or I don't have a strong opinion, I'm using last year's rating. So no, I'm not simply throwing out all of last year's hard work. It worked well in testing so it's a great place to start from. In this regard, the groups will be especially important on rookies.
       
      I have rated about 350 players so far. I hope to have the league finished by the end of the second round of the playoffs...at which point, we'll send the ratings out to the different groups for their opinions.
       
      Any concerns or questions, drop me a line.
       
      Herb
       
       
       
       
       
      -----Original Message-----
      From: hockeydisk@yahoogro ups.com [mailto:hockeydisk@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Dr Majcher
      Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 9:06 PM
      To: hockeydisk@yahoogro ups.com
      Subject: [hockeydisk] Committees for 08-09 disk

      Currently 176 games into a '07-'08 Replay using the actual dressed lineups for
      each NHL team and I have to say last year's disk was extremely well done.
      Scores, penalties called, etc. are very realistic. Only noticed a few tweaks
      here and there that could be made to the disk. Considering the number of
      players on the disk, it's a testament to the great work Dave, Herb & the
      commit tees put into the disk.

      With a week remaining in the '08-'09 NHL schedule, I'm wondering if the
      committees for each team are ready to begin the rating process starting
      next week. That was our one fault last year, in not having the committees 
      in place and active right after the NHL season ended. Hopefully, that won't be
      the case this year and we'll produce another fantastic disk in a more
      timely manner.

    • Show all 19 messages in this topic