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

Committees for 08-09 disk

Expand Messages
  • Dr Majcher
    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.
    Message 1 of 19 , Apr 6 6:05 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      committees 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.

    • sylvain
      I was part of Anaheim comittee and I have never received any news from the other 2 guys... I know Philadelphia (my other comittee) still corresponding ...
      Message 2 of 19 , Apr 6 6:09 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        I was part of Anaheim comittee and I have never received any news from the other 2 guys...
         
        I know Philadelphia (my other comittee) still corresponding
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 9:05 PM
        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
        committees 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.

      • Herb Garbutt
        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
        Message 3 of 19 , Apr 7 4:43 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Message
          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@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hockeydisk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dr Majcher
          Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 9:06 PM
          To: hockeydisk@yahoogroups.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.

        • Bill Corfield
          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
          Message 4 of 19 , Apr 7 5:46 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            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@...>
            To: hockeydisk@yahoogroups.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.

          • Dave Bole
            I like what Herb layed out in his first e-mail. Yes, I to got a little po d when some of the ratings that I suggested got overturned. But, the disk we got is
            Message 5 of 19 , Apr 7 6:10 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              I like what Herb layed out in his first e-mail.
               
              Yes, I to got a little po'd when some of the
              ratings that I suggested got overturned.
               
              But, the disk we got is great.  I have no
              problems with it...well...Maybe with IGINLA.,...LOL
               
              I look forward in discussing the ratings again
              this year.
               
              DAVE BOLE
               
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:46 PM
              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.

            • dchaiken10@yahoo.com
              My problem player is radim vrbata. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T ... From: Dave Bole Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:10:47 To:
              Message 6 of 19 , Apr 7 6:16 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                My problem player is radim vrbata.

                Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T


                From: "Dave Bole"
                Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:10:47 -0400
                To: <hockeydisk@yahoogroups.com>
                Subject: Re: [hockeydisk] Committees for 08-09 disk

                I like what Herb layed out in his first e-mail.
                 
                Yes, I to got a little po'd when some of the
                ratings that I suggested got overturned.
                 
                But, the disk we got is great.  I have no
                problems with it...well... Maybe with IGINLA.,...LOL
                 
                I look forward in discussing the ratings again
                this year.
                 
                DAVE BOLE
                 
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:46 PM
                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.

              • Herb Garbutt
                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,
                Message 7 of 19 , Apr 7 7:20 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  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.

                • Andy Bartalone
                  Bill and anyone else that may have this concern. ... where Herb won all ties. That is, in the vast majority of cases where a ratings team or representative
                  Message 8 of 19 , Apr 7 7:46 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Bill and anyone else that may have this concern.

                    > ? 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.

                    I worked with Herb on 7 teams last season and I did not see anything like
                    *Herb won all ties*. We had an honest discourse on each and every one came
                    to decisions based on a multitude of things, but it was definitely NOT
                    *Herb won all ties*, I actually think that it was about 60/40 in my favor.

                    Just saying.
                  • Dave Atkinson
                    I like this open discussion. I like getting the issues out on the table. I want to weigh in on this, but I m traveling and typing this on a blackberry. I ll
                    Message 9 of 19 , Apr 7 8:40 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I like this open discussion. I like getting the issues out on the
                      table. I want to weigh in on this, but I'm traveling and typing this
                      on a blackberry. I'll wait til I get home to a real keyboard to jump
                      in. I was glad to see the email from Bill with concerns...... I lwant
                      to keep this process transparent, so I'll address that. The rating
                      teams are valuable and I still like that approach, it's just last year
                      had out of control issues that Herb mentioned. Look at this as a
                      tweak, not a total change. I expect lots of changes to the base rating
                      set.

                      D

                      On 4/7/09, Andy Bartalone <buffalo@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Bill and anyone else that may have this concern.
                      >
                      >> ? 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.
                      >
                      > I worked with Herb on 7 teams last season and I did not see anything like
                      > *Herb won all ties*. We had an honest discourse on each and every one came
                      > to decisions based on a multitude of things, but it was definitely NOT
                      > *Herb won all ties*, I actually think that it was about 60/40 in my favor.
                      >
                      > Just saying.
                      >
                    • dadadove@aol.com
                      I was involved in 2 groups with Herb and didn t feel there was any bias on his part.? He steered the groups through the process and listened to all discussion.
                      Message 10 of 19 , Apr 8 12:43 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I was involved in 2 groups with Herb and didn't feel there was any bias on his part.  He steered the groups through the process and listened to all discussion. Certainly if he felt strongly enough on something he stood his ground, but so did the rest of us.

                        Chris Wolter


                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Dave Atkinson <boomhound@...>
                        To: hockeydisk@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 8:40 pm
                        Subject: Re: [hockeydisk] Committees for 08-09 disk



                        I like this open discussion. I like getting the issues out on the
                        table. I want to weigh in on this, but I'm traveling and typing this
                        on a blackberry. I'll wait til I get home to a real keyboard to jump
                        in. I was glad to see the email from Bill with concerns.... .. I lwant
                        to keep this process transparent, so I'll address that. The rating
                        teams are valuable and I still like that approach, it's just last year
                        had out of control issues that Herb mentioned. Look at this as a
                        tweak, not a total change. I expect lots of changes to the base rating
                        set.

                        D

                        On 4/7/09, Andy Bartalone <buffalo@guisarme. net> wrote:
                        >
                        > Bill and anyone else that may have this concern.
                        >
                        >> ? 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.
                        >
                        > I worked with Herb on 7 teams last season and I did not see anything like
                        > *Herb won all ties*. We had an honest discourse on each and every one came
                        > to decisions based on a multitude of things, but it was definitely NOT
                        > *Herb won all ties*, I actually think that it was about 60/40 in my favor.
                        >
                        > Just saying.
                        >
                      • Dr Majcher
                        I don t know if there is an absolutely ideal way to come up with the ratings each year. Let s give this new method a chance and see if it s better than how
                        Message 11 of 19 , Apr 8 5:48 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I don't know if there is an absolutely ideal way to come up with the ratings
                          each year. Let's give this new method a chance and see if it's better than
                          how things went last year. As Herb said, it will eliminate the problem of
                          having to wait on getting all the ratings in for testing to begin.

                          One thing that could be a problem is that some of the committees could
                          see that the ratings are "done" and may not want to be bothered with
                          going through them to do any tweaking to them. Last year, some committees
                          just went along with all of Herb's suggested changes. I'm hopeful that this
                          won't happen but realistic enough to think some committees will take that
                          approach.

                          As for the perception that Herb got his way on all the ties, there's perception
                          and then there's reality (often times the line gets blurred between these two).
                          I believe the reality is that the extensive disk testing is what eventually
                          ends up determining if some ratings need to be adjusted before the rating
                          is made final.

                          I hope everyone remains open minded about this process and particates in
                          tweaking/adjusting, within the commitees, the ratings that Herb will supply to
                          us. As Herb said he's no expert on every single NHL players skills. However,
                          I found Herb to be very thoughful & knowledgeable in the ratings suggestions
                          he made to our commitee last season. He backed up his suggestions with stats like HITS per MIN and didn't force any changes on us. That along with all the tremendous work he's doing in putting together a set of ratings for each team gives us a great start on what should hopefully be another great disk. 

                        • D. Atkinson
                          As I promised am going to put in my 2 cents here. However, Herb has already covered the topic so well, I don t know how much more I can add. I do want to
                          Message 12 of 19 , Apr 11 8:58 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            As I promised am going to put in my 2 cents here. However, Herb has already covered the topic so well, I don't know how much more I can add.

                            I do want to change from how we did the disk last year. It was an experiment, and it failed. The disk ended up coming out the latest ever, and that was with me needing to take vacation time from work to get the final stuff done. Not that the review team didn't do good work. There was some fabulous discussions and committees adding huge value to our process. But, there were also some apathetic committees that didn't even get moving until August, some unwanted bickering, some strong homerism, and groups being very different on the definition of a 1 or 5. This is the part that made the disk more difficult.

                            Bill Corfield suggested that "Herb just do the disk ratings". I don't see that as a good solution (if we want a good disk). Nothing against Herb, he will be the first to tell he doesn't know the whole league in detail. However, Herb is fair and balanced, and knows enough to give a good first draft. The testing can only do so much.....yes, some ratings like DEF have a strong tie to performance. However, many of the more objective ratings give APBA it's "feel" and I can't really make a direct tie (within statistical significance) to the performance of the players. Getting it right when a player is a 4 SKT, 5 SPD versus 5 SKT, 4 SPD is the subtle differences that diehard APBA fans want, as it shows up in the flow of the game. So, I think the concept of Herb getting out a rough set to be tweaked by committees is a good fix. First, it will get people past that "writer's block" of having to do all the ratings from scratch, which will save time and give us a equal metric basis. Second, it will stimulate discussions immediately, which will also save time and have these discussions take place while the season is still fresh on everyone's mind. Third, it will give a fair and balanced set where the same metric is used as a starting point. I don't want to inhibit the review teams from making changes...that's not the goal. However, I will likely run some stats on the changes, and the teams that get modified by a statisitically significant amount (especially in one direction) will get a close look, with discussions to follow. I want to avoid homerisms that unbalance the entire disk. For example, if all DEF 1 and 2 ratings are bumped up on a team, this will get a hard look. And, the changes will have to be borne out by the testing, within the limits of the APBA game engine. Last year, we had major issues with Montreal. Not that the review team did a bad job, but the APBA engine has a difficult time handling a team that has a very strong won/loss record, but gives up a ridiculous amount of shots. We had to really suppress some ratings on Montreal to get them to perform as they did in the NHL, if we didn't do this, the Habs would have been an unbeatable juggernaut, an unrealisitic result. I know this didn't sit well with the review committees (and rightly so to a point), but in the end, the realistic performance of the disk is the final, critical metric. So, only as many tweaks as needed to get it right were done....in cases where a tweak didn't help the issue, we tweaked it back. Nearly 1000000 games were run in testing to get things realistic. But the quality of the review teams really makes the disk what it is in the end.

                                     d

                            Herb Garbutt wrote:

                            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.


                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.