04-06-2021, 05:40 PMFlowseidon Wrote: Heads up, I'm just removing the quote block because it's getting pretty massive at this point. Want to try and keep things a little more clear.

1. So, some background here. When I was coming into the role, I was seeing a lot of complaints around a WCW type of setup being too restrictive, and in that case, Centers who might be more deserving would be left off for a winger who may not have had as good of a season, just because there's more room for wingers. The reasoning I choose the wildcard forward is essentially that it allows some flexibility for that 3rd forward to go to who people would consider the next most valuable. Now, maybe that gets messier with the ranked choice that we're doing, and I'm certainly open to that discussion for the types of  in terms of systems, do you have specific suggestions for where to look, systems you think would be good, or resources I should check out?

2. We have been using the indexes. Those do have both the standard and advanced stats. I think moving to a more formalized document is a good idea, and something that could be used to make things easier on the committee members and help them get the right players. Would someone on the All-Star committee mind PMing me a link to theirs? I'll take a look and work on adapting that for next season on my own end.

3. It's been by and large nominate and then vote. This is a failure on my part, and talking with people here/disc/PMs has really shown I can't allow this to continue. I can commit to implement this suggestion and try to move discord and generating more discussion through the season and as it comes time to nom/vote on everything. I agree that fostering the discussion is necessary, and honestly the top priority of all this.

I agree that there needs to be an evaluation of putting in the effort. I have been tracking some statistics over the past couple seasons in terms of voting etc, but I think with the move forward into more open discussion, etc that I will be able to more accurately track who is and isn't putting in the efforts needed.

I can only point back to my post from last season for a lot of these: https://simulationhockey.com/showthread....pid2985250

1. The thing is, the system is pretty hard to understand from the outside because some things about it aren't really intuitive. And I think that even extend to the people who do voting because they seem to interpret it differently too, which became clear last season. Is it "better" to get votes in the #3 Winger spot or as the #1 Wildcard? Is it better to put people in the order you see them or to vote tactical? If a Center gets a lot of Wildcard votes, does he end up in the Center or the Wildcard category or does it depend on the competition? And there are a lot of other questions like that. It's a bit tough to explain but it just looks super messy both from the voting and from the analysis standpoint if you have Wildcards that sometimes fall into one category and sometimes the other.

What you could do instead is for example:

- Simply have people vote for the 9 best Forwards. Maybe have a run-off vote if you end up short on Centers somehow. I would say this is both the easiest system and the one that gives the most flexibility and there would be nothing wrong in ending up with 5C and only 4W for example if the Centers did so well in a season.
- Go back to the W-C-W format. If you aren't one of the 3 best Centers then tough luck but in a system that's supposed to honor the best of the best, I don't think that's too much of a problem. Do they really have it that much worse than the other positions anyway? The pure numerical competition is exactly the same as for Wingers and Defenders, Centers get the fewest spots but there also are only half as many of them as there are W and D so it evens out. If anything it's the Wingers who suffer if you start giving their spots to the Centers.
- Keep the Wildcard-spots but they aren't an extra category in the voting process, they just appear in the results. The details would depend on whether you vote on 9F or 3C-6W but honestly I don't think the Wildcards are needed at all.

2. You should probably talk to reid about his stat-sheet but I'd assume that he'd have no problem sharing it. I can definitely recommend it, it's a great ressource!

3. What exactly is the difference between the nominating and the voting phase in this case? But yeah good to hear that you acknowledge that there needs to be more discussion, that is crucial here for sure. And regarding the individual voters... Looking through the votes from the last two seasons there were at least 2-3 cases where the homerism was super blatant, where you only need to look at the ballots to know that one of the voters was on Edmonton and another on Buffalo. Giving your teammate a bit of an edge when it is a close call is understandable, but in these cases the bias was so obvious that I think you should really reconsider having people like that on the committee.

04-06-2021, 07:01 PMSlashACM Wrote:

04-06-2021, 05:18 PMEricNCSU Wrote: So lemme get this straight... Eller and Goodman tied for votes...

Eller won 40% of his games and let in 3+ goals a game.

Goodman won 80% of his games and let in less than 2 goals a game. Literally LEAD THE LEAGUE in GAA....

In what universe does this make sense?

This is one of the less egregious emissions imo. Whiteman had a good season, but saw less games and started against easier opponents. 3 starts against hamilton and 3 against edmonton are tough games, but 6 against wpg and 4 against nola make it really easy to pad those stats.

Eller was the starter and saw more easy games as well as more hard ones, and the ratio of difficult to easy teams played is much more near 50% than Goodman who was skewed heavily towards easy.

Yeah I kinda have to defend them on this one as well, there are good arguments not to have Goodman in here, most importantly that he played less than half of TEX' games. And the fact that he missed so many at the very least opens up the possibility that his starts were cherry-picked and against easier competition. Plus GAA is more or less purely a team stat at this point since we switched to FHM. I'm not saying that a player with relatively few starts can't win an Award or make it on the All-Star team, but in order to do that they'd have to set themselves apart from the competition more than Goodman did this season. Plus I would argue that <50% isn't enough games in any case, I would want at least around 40 or so for a goalie to be considered, not 31.