|
Post by KingsGM_Anthony on Aug 7, 2009 8:18:12 GMT -5
Option 1 is to Keep it how it is now. Only re-rated based on the prior NHL season performance.
Option 2: Take the prior year performance, then take the performance of the past 2 years
Option 3: Take the prior year performance, then take the performance of the past 3 years
Option 4: Who the fuck cares!
|
|
|
Post by tampagm on Aug 7, 2009 8:56:37 GMT -5
it should be based on more than one season no doubt
i really dont see how players like Booth should be rated in the same as selanne for example
|
|
|
Post by stlouisgm on Aug 7, 2009 9:44:49 GMT -5
i agree with tampa
|
|
|
Post by rawbo on Aug 7, 2009 9:44:59 GMT -5
We can't change it now, it would have to be next season.
It would be pretty bad to change ratings now because trades were made based on these ratings.
I would want them change to take previous years other than this one, but not until next season.
|
|
|
Post by KingsGM_Anthony on Aug 7, 2009 10:00:38 GMT -5
this change is for NEXT off-season this seasons ratings will NOT be adjusted again (i've already done it 3 times-sorry)
|
|
|
Post by columbus on Aug 7, 2009 14:41:55 GMT -5
no definately cant change the ratings now, you put in alot of effort this offseason, but if we could make this change for next offseason, that would be great
|
|
|
Post by coloradogm on Aug 7, 2009 14:50:21 GMT -5
People focus way too much on OV for one thing. Constantly see people saying this or that guy shouldn't be rated higher, little FHL advise OV is the most misleading and useless stat out there. I think it should be 80% prior season and 20% the season before that or 90% and 10%. I don't need guys that are over the hill still being rated like top guys or if someone had a horrid year it should be shown same vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by rawbo on Aug 7, 2009 15:11:58 GMT -5
I kinda like what Colorado GM is saying, however I'd like it something like 70/30.
|
|
|
Post by columbus on Aug 7, 2009 16:23:36 GMT -5
I think 70/30 would be more reasonable even a 60/40 would be more to my liking.. and i agree that overalls dont play a extremely huge factor, yet when guys like Bobby Ryan for example, who is an extremely skilled rookie i might add, scores 31 goals. which is definately good, but his scoring rating is an 89 based on 1 year production due to the fact he was hurt a bit, yet another much more skilled player in Zetterberg scores the same number of goals in that particular season, and scores 43,33,39 in the 3 previous years, and his scoring is an 83.. i dunno one of the two is incorrect and i think hyping these guys up like ryan and brassard etc.. after half year or so production and comparing them to the best guys in the league is wrong. If that's how you guys feel the league should be run, that's fine, but in my mind it's not logical.. i hope people understand where im coming from, and im not trying to bash or downgrade anyone's team or point of view, im giving my two cents to make this the most realistic and fair league based on my personal opinion. I'll even say it myself, on my own team i dont think Patrick Marleau ratings are representative of the player, OV he should be 83 and scoring should be a bit down too, even if he had 38 goals, he does not merrit being 6 points away from Ovie.
anyways Cheers boys it's friday. time for a breww
|
|
|
Post by tampagm on Aug 7, 2009 16:45:29 GMT -5
I think 70/30 would be more reasonable even a 60/40 would be more to my liking.. and i agree that overalls dont play a extremely huge factor, yet when guys like Bobby Ryan for example, who is an extremely skilled rookie i might add, scores 31 goals. which is definately good, but his scoring rating is an 89 based on 1 year production due to the fact he was hurt a bit, yet another much more skilled player in Zetterberg scores the same number of goals in that particular season, and scores 43,33,39 in the 3 previous years, and his scoring is an 83.. i dunno one of the two is incorrect and i think hyping these guys up like ryan and brassard etc.. after half year or so production and comparing them to the best guys in the league is wrong. If that's how you guys feel the league should be run, that's fine, but in my mind it's not logical.. i hope people understand where im coming from, and im not trying to bash or downgrade anyone's team or point of view, im giving my two cents to make this the most realistic and fair league based on my personal opinion. I'll even say it myself, on my own team i dont think Patrick Marleau ratings are representative of the player, OV he should be 83 and scoring should be a bit down too, even if he had 38 goals, he does not merrit being 6 points away from Ovie. anyways Cheers boys it's friday. time for a breww yeah thats pretty much the message i was trying to get across.
|
|
|
Post by coloradogm on Aug 7, 2009 20:40:08 GMT -5
Zetterberg had a horrid year for his standards, no reason that shouldn't show in his ratings. If he bounces back which he likely will his ratings will go back up. Its not as if the NHL guys can say Zetterberg should have more goals and score more goals because he has in the past. I prefer a league that resembles the NHL as much as possible. The up coming season is supposed to correlate to the prior NHL season, no reason Zetterberg should put up 100 pts here and 40+ goals when he did not in the NHL. Its not as if his SP/SK/DF went down rather only PA/SC which went down this season too so should be reflected. At least thats my opinion.
I do agree with rookies should be rated a little lower until their 2nd year though.
|
|
|
Post by rawbo on Aug 8, 2009 5:41:19 GMT -5
I know one thing, if IT is intensity Zetterberg and Franzen should be through the roof.
I was told it is height and weight so I didn't get it changed but I don't know about that seeing Hal GIll at a 70 and Darcy Tucker at a 73.
|
|
|
Post by newjerseygm on Aug 8, 2009 10:14:07 GMT -5
I agree with Columbus gm, players who have consistently put points up deserve more respect than rookies that come in. Just because some vets didn’t perform to their standards doesn’t mean they should plummet in ratings. The fact that they’ve been doing it for years gives them the proof that they have the capability to put those numbers up again. As for a rookies or 2nd year players it could have been a fluke season or the next season they could get injured and never come back the same. A 60/40 makes sense in my mind for those reasons.
|
|
|
Post by canucks on Aug 8, 2009 14:37:26 GMT -5
Option 2 is the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by coloradogm on Aug 9, 2009 0:42:36 GMT -5
I know one thing, if IT is intensity Zetterberg and Franzen should be through the roof. I was told it is height and weight so I didn't get it changed but I don't know about that seeing Hal GIll at a 70 and Darcy Tucker at a 73. For the longest time and most anyone you ask will tell you IT is hits. It is in the largest part hits but also slightly affects blocked shots. Most all ratings base IT 100% off of hits though.
|
|