08-17-2022, 08:05 PMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: What exactly should that look like? We have Awards streams or forum threads were the hosts talk about the contributions of the nominees, in some years we have articles about the various award candidates and me or other members of the Committee are usually there in those threads to answer any questions you might have.
But usually how it goes is that someone simply complains that one of their teammates didn't get some nomination and once we reply and ask for some more detailed feedback or even push back against an incorrect narrative then those people usually go silent. It doesn't feel like the highest form of conversation to engage in most times.
I get where you're coming from, I think. Explaining it to each person looking to raise some Hell has to be exhausting. I don't mean it to come off as another whinge on that sort of topic, but I can see how it looks that way.
While I am guilty of having some opinions that run contrary to results, it usually comes from not understanding how you see things versus how I see them. It feels like every time someone new joins the committee or a rule changes, the way awards are graded changes. While some of that is to be expected, I think the way it's communicated leaves something to be desired. I think a lot of the disquiet that people, myself very much included, have about awards is that there's not a clear indication of "In the case of X award, the committee generally views A Stat and B Stat with the highest priority, C Stat with a secondary priority, and D, E, and F Stats as tertiaries." So it precipitates, at least for me, as "Why didn't I get nominated for this award? I had a pretty good season in A Stat, C Stat, and F Stat," and I'm missing the piece of the puzzle where my B and D Stats weren't good enough and that was the deal breaker. I've tried a few times to retrace steps to see how you might've gotten to a conclusion, and it's not usually very successful.
I think the best understanding of awards that I've had was a Trips article that included notes from members of the committee on their thought process. It's been some time since I've seen something like that.
In the case of Awards Presentations, I haven't been able to make them for a couple of seasons. They've been a little late for me since I wake up early.
That's absolutely fair, there are two main issues though in my opinion. The first is that Award criteria is much more fluid and not nearly as constant over time as people might think. Of course there is a general set of criteria that we largely agree on for each Award that I can share, but it is still an ever-evolving process. Whenever a new engine is announced or major rule changes happen within an engine, like we just had for tactics for example, the Awards landscape changes. And that has happened at least 3-4 times over the last 15 or so seasons. Each time that happens, it tends to take a few seasons for everyone to adjust and determine how the value of different stats has been affected by the change and what implications that has for the Awards process. And even when there is relative calm for a couple of seasons, things still evolve as a natural part of the process and you just happen to identify little things over time that you think should be adjusted, especially when new members come into the Commitee.
And that's essentially my second point here, the role of the individual member. Every member of the Committee sees things a bit differently and I actually think that's a Strength, not a Weakness. To a certain extent I want people to use somewhat different criteria for the various Awards, as long as the are able to give a good justification for why they decided that way. It gives us much better input and more differing points of view to then distill the truth from. Of course you still need to adhere to certain standards and I will call people out and am not afraid to remove them if their votes don't make any sense but that rarely ever happens. So I could absolutely make a post denoting the criteria used for the different Awards (maybe I'll actually do that in here in a bit) but ultimately that would be my criteria and not the definitions shared by everyone else on the Committee.
08-19-2022, 02:17 AMjumpSeat Wrote: More of a question than an opinion, but just reading between the lines of this thread there seems to be a lot of sentiment focused toward user recognition. It's been stated multiple times (and I'm paraphrasing here), that awards are for players not users yet the whole active versus inactive debate seems to further trigger this discussion. So being a relative newb, my question is - is there an existing award for most dedicated user or something along those lines?
I'm thinking of something that might be roughly the equivalent of a Lady Byng, so as to have a specialized set of criteria applied. Say an award evaluated by outstanding play (but not necessarily THE absolute best), combined with outstanding activity. Just wondering if an approach like this might help assuage the apparent sticking point of inactives potentially trumping actives?
There is an Award for Most Dedicated User but it as purely about on-site contributions and behind the scenes work and has nothing to do with in-sim performance..
08-18-2022, 09:34 PMsköldpaddor Wrote: I don't even think it needs to be a super LONG justification just a "I looked at these stats and while this player had six more points, they also did so while playing six more minutes of ice time per game, so I found the contribution of this other player to be more deserving of individual recognition due to efficiency" or something like that. Just the slightest explanation as to the thought process that went into it.
We had that for a while but as a member of the Committee, it tended to feel like an unnecessary hassle that wasn't really worth the effort so we scrapped it. Keep in mind that there are separate Discord channels for every Individual Award where discussions go on even prior to the nominating phase. You get a pretty good feel for peoples opinions, their justifications and involvement just by looking at these channels and it's quite easy to identify people who are slacking. I mean I wouldn't be against it coming back, I just don't think it would add much.
08-18-2022, 09:34 PMsköldpaddor Wrote: I don't even think it needs to be a super LONG justification just a "I looked at these stats and while this player had six more points, they also did so while playing six more minutes of ice time per game, so I found the contribution of this other player to be more deserving of individual recognition due to efficiency" or something like that. Just the slightest explanation as to the thought process that went into it.
We had that for a while but as a member of the Committee, it tended to feel like an unnecessary hassle that wasn't really worth the effort so we scrapped it. Keep in mind that there are separate Discord channels for every Individual Award where discussions go on even prior to the nominating phase. You get a pretty good feel for peoples opinions, their justifications and involvement just by looking at these channels and it's quite easy to identify people who are slacking. I mean I wouldn't be against it coming back, I just don't think it would add much.
Moreso just a collective write up from the committee head with a short blurb why this player stood out over other nominees.
“The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again. ... There are neither beginnings nor endings to the Wheel of Time. But it was a beginning.”
08-19-2022, 05:46 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: We had that for a while but as a member of the Committee, it tended to feel like an unnecessary hassle that wasn't really worth the effort so we scrapped it. Keep in mind that there are separate Discord channels for every Individual Award where discussions go on even prior to the nominating phase. You get a pretty good feel for peoples opinions, their justifications and involvement just by looking at these channels and it's quite easy to identify people who are slacking. I mean I wouldn't be against it coming back, I just don't think it would add much.
Moreso just a collective write up from the committee head with a short blurb why this player stood out over other nominees.
Yeah this. I am not a person who yells about awards for the most part because I figure that you guys (the awards committee I mean) talk through this stuff on your own. I'm sure by the end of it you all have a pretty clear idea of why the winner got the award based on your own internal discussions, but it might help appease the general masses if we got a little group summary of the thought process.
08-19-2022, 09:31 AMHabsFanFromOntario Wrote: Moreso just a collective write up from the committee head with a short blurb why this player stood out over other nominees.
Yeah this. I am not a person who yells about awards for the most part because I figure that you guys (the awards committee I mean) talk through this stuff on your own. I'm sure by the end of it you all have a pretty clear idea of why the winner got the award based on your own internal discussions, but it might help appease the general masses if we got a little group summary of the thought process.
I think this ties to the same thing Blitz was referring to where after all is said and a winner is chosen,. it would be nice to get a little bit of why that person was chosen for the award. We all have our own ideas of what Awards should mean and what each should take and after the committee makes a selection it would be nice to have a blurb on why they as a collective wound up at that decision.
I know it's no longer the case, but I remember not too long ago where after some *controversial* winners it was revealed that the committee at the time didn't even discuss anything and just voted. I'm sure that's not the case anymore and I wouldn't ask for anyone to tie their name to the blurbs either. That being said hearing some of the criteria and justification used by the entire committee on why X Player got Y Award at least gives us a glimpse into the conversation.
You are right that it would be better to have more public explanation for the Awards. All I can really say to that is that over the last few seasons, it has been a struggle to even find people to host the Award Shows at all. And those who did them usually had to spend most of their preparation on the technical and organisational side so a lot of the commenting happened on the fly, even if they were given some extra info beforehand. We have been trying to get more explanations out there with the various Nominee-presentations that we have done semi-regularly over the last years, but it's the same issue, you need people to actually do the write-ups there and it's quite a bit of work if you want to do it justice and usually not a lot of feedback or interaction when they are posted.
08-19-2022, 05:32 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: That's absolutely fair, there are two main issues though in my opinion. The first is that Award criteria is much more fluid and not nearly as constant over time as people might think. Of course there is a general set of criteria that we largely agree on for each Award that I can share, but it is still an ever-evolving process. Whenever a new engine is announced or major rule changes happen within an engine, like we just had for tactics for example, the Awards landscape changes. And that has happened at least 3-4 times over the last 15 or so seasons. Each time that happens, it tends to take a few seasons for everyone to adjust and determine how the value of different stats has been affected by the change and what implications that has for the Awards process. And even when there is relative calm for a couple of seasons, things still evolve as a natural part of the process and you just happen to identify little things over time that you think should be adjusted, especially when new members come into the Commitee.
And that's essentially my second point here, the role of the individual member. Every member of the Committee sees things a bit differently and I actually think that's a Strength, not a Weakness. To a certain extent I want people to use somewhat different criteria for the various Awards, as long as the are able to give a good justification for why they decided that way. It gives us much better input and more differing points of view to then distill the truth from. Of course you still need to adhere to certain standards and I will call people out and am not afraid to remove them if their votes don't make any sense but that rarely ever happens. So I could absolutely make a post denoting the criteria used for the different Awards (maybe I'll actually do that in here in a bit) but ultimately that would be my criteria and not the definitions shared by everyone else on the Committee.
08-18-2022, 09:29 PMRAmenAmen Wrote: Speaking as the J Awards head (though I'm sadly on my way out since I'm GMing), Awards are tough, voting is tough, and the rationale behind each committee member's vote is different. In my time on the J committee, I've made it a policy *not* to share ballot results, because I don't think it would do anything but create unneeded controversy and take away from celebrating the award winners. I'm not opposed to what you're referencing either, but a few things would absolutely need to change in order to make this happen.
First, the awards committee, while an awesome job to have, is not a lucrative job. The pay for a season of awards work is about the same as 1-2 media pieces a dedicated user could write up in a few hours. That's not to say the committee doesn't work hard on their decisions, but that many committee members are spending their SHL time working on other jobs or media to make sure they earn enough to keep up with training, coaching, and their trading card addictions. Committing to more extensive writeups to back their award ballot decisions would take a lot more time, and would *need* to be backed by additional pay to justify the expected work. It would also likely delay getting results out to the rest of the site. While the decision process begins at the end of the regular season, we also each have players invested in the season, streams to watch, and many of us have war rooms to participate in, which get much busier during the playoffs, when we're also hard at work discussing awards and filling out ballots. If the expectation from the committee is to write some in-depth analysis, it would either need to delay the awards presentation by another week or two (something nobody wants), or it would need to be a separate task to be done during the early stages of the following season (again, adding an extensive amount of expected work).
I love this kind of analysis, and maybe this *is* the direction we want to go, but if it is, please be patient with your awards committees. And also pay them more.
I'll reply to both at once because I think you hit a lot of the same points.
RED, that's exactly where I was trying to go, I just wasn't as sure how to phrase it and I didn't want to assume too many things. Ramen, I can understand that perspective and focus, and I agree that it should be focused on the winners. For what it's worth, I seem to recall the piece I mentioned having anonymous excerpts.
It's completely understandable that things change and the determination changes with those things. It'd be nonsensical and probably negligent if they never changed with as dynamic as the league has been in the almost 3 years that I've been here. I think the disconnect is that y'all are on V66 of how this works, and there's a lot of people who aren't. Personally, I'm still somewhere around V60. Ultimately what I'm asking is for some idea of what V66 of what the Awards Committee is looking at is like. I agree wholeheartedly that bringing different viewpoints and justifications for consideration is something that should be in practice, and I'm glad that you do that. That's not where I get lost though; I get lost on the nuances of the common ground that you're starting from. I'm not sure that you necessarily have to share results and put people on blast for who and how they voted, and honestly I don't really care about how the committee voted on an individual basis because it can be very different. I want to know ultimately where the committee agreed and what made them decide the things that they decided.
As an example, the most mad I've ever been about an Award was that I didn't get nominated for the Dar in S59. I thought that the ideal Jeff Dar candidate had 1) solid statistic representation in blocked shots and hits, 2) more than 60 points, and 3) a GA:TA ratio greater than 1. Time came, and I wasn't nominated. It didn't matter so much that I had solid hits and blocks, didn't matter that I had more points. Somebody ultimately passed down that GA:TA is the golden stat for winning the Dar, or was at the time. I got mad because I was left to interpret what was going to happen, thought I might get a good thing, and then I was wrong. It was especially frustrating to me because I thought that the Dar and the Holmes are similar awards, and I won a Holmes with a similar stat distribution. I'm okay with it changing, but my complaint here and the request for more of a breakdown in the process is that the worst part of change is finding out that it's different when you've gotten your hopes up. I feel like cutting off a lot of that "why-why-why" type of thinking at the knees by talking more about committee practice is a good way to keep that from happening. It also allows more space to focus on the winners and their achievements.
As a bit of a hot take, I think especially as we move to a culture where we're not testing and finding what works, offering a system of values to strive toward is a new aspect that we may begin to see people look for in Awards more frequently. I think the new meta may not be as well decided by FHM in the coming 3 to 5 seasons, but we'll see it coming out of the All-Star selections, Fantasy stats, and Awards noms. People want to be good, it's part of the game, and that inspiration from builds has always been pulled. I think now that people shouldn't be doing their own testing, we'll see more copycatting.
I also think paying people more is generally worthwhile in the SHL. Make it rain.
08-19-2022, 02:17 AMjumpSeat Wrote: More of a question than an opinion, but just reading between the lines of this thread there seems to be a lot of sentiment focused toward user recognition. It's been stated multiple times (and I'm paraphrasing here), that awards are for players not users yet the whole active versus inactive debate seems to further trigger this discussion. So being a relative newb, my question is - is there an existing award for most dedicated user or something along those lines?
I'm thinking of something that might be roughly the equivalent of a Lady Byng, so as to have a specialized set of criteria applied. Say an award evaluated by outstanding play (but not necessarily THE absolute best), combined with outstanding activity. Just wondering if an approach like this might help assuage the apparent sticking point of inactives potentially trumping actives?
There is an Award for Most Dedicated User but it as purely about on-site contributions and behind the scenes work and has nothing to do with in-sim performance..
Good to know. Thanks for filling me in!
A proud member of the Season 67 Four Star Cup champion Maine Timber!!
08-19-2022, 05:32 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: That's absolutely fair, there are two main issues though in my opinion. The first is that Award criteria is much more fluid and not nearly as constant over time as people might think. Of course there is a general set of criteria that we largely agree on for each Award that I can share, but it is still an ever-evolving process. Whenever a new engine is announced or major rule changes happen within an engine, like we just had for tactics for example, the Awards landscape changes. And that has happened at least 3-4 times over the last 15 or so seasons. Each time that happens, it tends to take a few seasons for everyone to adjust and determine how the value of different stats has been affected by the change and what implications that has for the Awards process. And even when there is relative calm for a couple of seasons, things still evolve as a natural part of the process and you just happen to identify little things over time that you think should be adjusted, especially when new members come into the Commitee.
And that's essentially my second point here, the role of the individual member. Every member of the Committee sees things a bit differently and I actually think that's a Strength, not a Weakness. To a certain extent I want people to use somewhat different criteria for the various Awards, as long as the are able to give a good justification for why they decided that way. It gives us much better input and more differing points of view to then distill the truth from. Of course you still need to adhere to certain standards and I will call people out and am not afraid to remove them if their votes don't make any sense but that rarely ever happens. So I could absolutely make a post denoting the criteria used for the different Awards (maybe I'll actually do that in here in a bit) but ultimately that would be my criteria and not the definitions shared by everyone else on the Committee.
08-18-2022, 09:29 PMRAmenAmen Wrote: Speaking as the J Awards head (though I'm sadly on my way out since I'm GMing), Awards are tough, voting is tough, and the rationale behind each committee member's vote is different. In my time on the J committee, I've made it a policy *not* to share ballot results, because I don't think it would do anything but create unneeded controversy and take away from celebrating the award winners. I'm not opposed to what you're referencing either, but a few things would absolutely need to change in order to make this happen.
First, the awards committee, while an awesome job to have, is not a lucrative job. The pay for a season of awards work is about the same as 1-2 media pieces a dedicated user could write up in a few hours. That's not to say the committee doesn't work hard on their decisions, but that many committee members are spending their SHL time working on other jobs or media to make sure they earn enough to keep up with training, coaching, and their trading card addictions. Committing to more extensive writeups to back their award ballot decisions would take a lot more time, and would *need* to be backed by additional pay to justify the expected work. It would also likely delay getting results out to the rest of the site. While the decision process begins at the end of the regular season, we also each have players invested in the season, streams to watch, and many of us have war rooms to participate in, which get much busier during the playoffs, when we're also hard at work discussing awards and filling out ballots. If the expectation from the committee is to write some in-depth analysis, it would either need to delay the awards presentation by another week or two (something nobody wants), or it would need to be a separate task to be done during the early stages of the following season (again, adding an extensive amount of expected work).
I love this kind of analysis, and maybe this *is* the direction we want to go, but if it is, please be patient with your awards committees. And also pay them more.
I'll reply to both at once because I think you hit a lot of the same points.
RED, that's exactly where I was trying to go, I just wasn't as sure how to phrase it and I didn't want to assume too many things. Ramen, I can understand that perspective and focus, and I agree that it should be focused on the winners. For what it's worth, I seem to recall the piece I mentioned having anonymous excerpts.
It's completely understandable that things change and the determination changes with those things. It'd be nonsensical and probably negligent if they never changed with as dynamic as the league has been in the almost 3 years that I've been here. I think the disconnect is that y'all are on V66 of how this works, and there's a lot of people who aren't. Personally, I'm still somewhere around V60. Ultimately what I'm asking is for some idea of what V66 of what the Awards Committee is looking at is like. I agree wholeheartedly that bringing different viewpoints and justifications for consideration is something that should be in practice, and I'm glad that you do that. That's not where I get lost though; I get lost on the nuances of the common ground that you're starting from. I'm not sure that you necessarily have to share results and put people on blast for who and how they voted, and honestly I don't really care about how the committee voted on an individual basis because it can be very different. I want to know ultimately where the committee agreed and what made them decide the things that they decided.
As an example, the most mad I've ever been about an Award was that I didn't get nominated for the Dar in S59. I thought that the ideal Jeff Dar candidate had 1) solid statistic representation in blocked shots and hits, 2) more than 60 points, and 3) a GA:TA ratio greater than 1. Time came, and I wasn't nominated. It didn't matter so much that I had solid hits and blocks, didn't matter that I had more points. Somebody ultimately passed down that GA:TA is the golden stat for winning the Dar, or was at the time. I got mad because I was left to interpret what was going to happen, thought I might get a good thing, and then I was wrong. It was especially frustrating to me because I thought that the Dar and the Holmes are similar awards, and I won a Holmes with a similar stat distribution. I'm okay with it changing, but my complaint here and the request for more of a breakdown in the process is that the worst part of change is finding out that it's different when you've gotten your hopes up. I feel like cutting off a lot of that "why-why-why" type of thinking at the knees by talking more about committee practice is a good way to keep that from happening. It also allows more space to focus on the winners and their achievements.
As a bit of a hot take, I think especially as we move to a culture where we're not testing and finding what works, offering a system of values to strive toward is a new aspect that we may begin to see people look for in Awards more frequently. I think the new meta may not be as well decided by FHM in the coming 3 to 5 seasons, but we'll see it coming out of the All-Star selections, Fantasy stats, and Awards noms. People want to be good, it's part of the game, and that inspiration from builds has always been pulled. I think now that people shouldn't be doing their own testing, we'll see more copycatting.
I also think paying people more is generally worthwhile in the SHL. Make it rain.
The thing is that while all these small shifts happen and Awards criteria changes, we often aren't conciously aware of most that ourselves so it is really hard to pin it down and do write-ups about it. And for a lot of Awards there isn't actually a "consensus" to speak of but competing interpretations and viewpoints going up against each and one being successful, that a significant portion of the Committee might not agree with. It's tough to verbalize an objective summary in that case as it will always only cover the opinion of a portion of the Committee. But I don't want to weasel my way out of this, I can absolutely try to put up some summaries like that this season.
In regards to your own personal case, looking at the stats now I assume you are talking about S60 and not S59, right? I think what eliminated you from contention there for a lot of people was that you didn't see significant PK-time. PK-time is not a stat where having as much of it as possible will give you a crazy edge over the rest, but one where you simple need to be above a certain cut-off to really be considered and I think for most voters that is between 0:30 and 1:00. Another factor where the nominees had you beat by a good margin were possession stats (relative Corsi/Fenwick), which actually is one example of a Stat that has changed quite a bit over time. It uses to be very important for some Awards a few seasons back but it's significance has diminished since as certain mechanisms of the Sim have become more apparent to us.
I know in both the J and SHL all star committee I’ve made my feelings strong on IAs getting spots, and I am absolutely against it as I think it’s better to reward active users for their hard work. I apparently made all pro in the ISFL this season even though I’ve been IA for like 3 seasons and I feel terrible. I guarantee there’s an active OL that deserved that spot over me and I don’t want people here to go through the same feelings. And I know this season could be a massive tipping point, cause Keprosoft, who hasn’t been on the site in almost a year, is going to be nominated for goalie of the year, if not win outright, and people are going to have to try and figure out why every goalie is either pissed or retiring. I understand the argument for voting for IAs, but please please do what you can to reward those who are dedicated to the SHL.
hievements 5: Named Assistant Captain of Kelowna : Drafted 6 OA by Calgary : Named Captain of Kelowna
08-19-2022, 05:32 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: That's absolutely fair, there are two main issues though in my opinion. The first is that Award criteria is much more fluid and not nearly as constant over time as people might think. Of course there is a general set of criteria that we largely agree on for each Award that I can share, but it is still an ever-evolving process. Whenever a new engine is announced or major rule changes happen within an engine, like we just had for tactics for example, the Awards landscape changes. And that has happened at least 3-4 times over the last 15 or so seasons. Each time that happens, it tends to take a few seasons for everyone to adjust and determine how the value of different stats has been affected by the change and what implications that has for the Awards process. And even when there is relative calm for a couple of seasons, things still evolve as a natural part of the process and you just happen to identify little things over time that you think should be adjusted, especially when new members come into the Commitee.
And that's essentially my second point here, the role of the individual member. Every member of the Committee sees things a bit differently and I actually think that's a Strength, not a Weakness. To a certain extent I want people to use somewhat different criteria for the various Awards, as long as the are able to give a good justification for why they decided that way. It gives us much better input and more differing points of view to then distill the truth from. Of course you still need to adhere to certain standards and I will call people out and am not afraid to remove them if their votes don't make any sense but that rarely ever happens. So I could absolutely make a post denoting the criteria used for the different Awards (maybe I'll actually do that in here in a bit) but ultimately that would be my criteria and not the definitions shared by everyone else on the Committee.
08-18-2022, 09:29 PMRAmenAmen Wrote: Speaking as the J Awards head (though I'm sadly on my way out since I'm GMing), Awards are tough, voting is tough, and the rationale behind each committee member's vote is different. In my time on the J committee, I've made it a policy *not* to share ballot results, because I don't think it would do anything but create unneeded controversy and take away from celebrating the award winners. I'm not opposed to what you're referencing either, but a few things would absolutely need to change in order to make this happen.
First, the awards committee, while an awesome job to have, is not a lucrative job. The pay for a season of awards work is about the same as 1-2 media pieces a dedicated user could write up in a few hours. That's not to say the committee doesn't work hard on their decisions, but that many committee members are spending their SHL time working on other jobs or media to make sure they earn enough to keep up with training, coaching, and their trading card addictions. Committing to more extensive writeups to back their award ballot decisions would take a lot more time, and would *need* to be backed by additional pay to justify the expected work. It would also likely delay getting results out to the rest of the site. While the decision process begins at the end of the regular season, we also each have players invested in the season, streams to watch, and many of us have war rooms to participate in, which get much busier during the playoffs, when we're also hard at work discussing awards and filling out ballots. If the expectation from the committee is to write some in-depth analysis, it would either need to delay the awards presentation by another week or two (something nobody wants), or it would need to be a separate task to be done during the early stages of the following season (again, adding an extensive amount of expected work).
I love this kind of analysis, and maybe this *is* the direction we want to go, but if it is, please be patient with your awards committees. And also pay them more.
I'll reply to both at once because I think you hit a lot of the same points.
RED, that's exactly where I was trying to go, I just wasn't as sure how to phrase it and I didn't want to assume too many things. Ramen, I can understand that perspective and focus, and I agree that it should be focused on the winners. For what it's worth, I seem to recall the piece I mentioned having anonymous excerpts.
It's completely understandable that things change and the determination changes with those things. It'd be nonsensical and probably negligent if they never changed with as dynamic as the league has been in the almost 3 years that I've been here. I think the disconnect is that y'all are on V66 of how this works, and there's a lot of people who aren't. Personally, I'm still somewhere around V60. Ultimately what I'm asking is for some idea of what V66 of what the Awards Committee is looking at is like. I agree wholeheartedly that bringing different viewpoints and justifications for consideration is something that should be in practice, and I'm glad that you do that. That's not where I get lost though; I get lost on the nuances of the common ground that you're starting from. I'm not sure that you necessarily have to share results and put people on blast for who and how they voted, and honestly I don't really care about how the committee voted on an individual basis because it can be very different. I want to know ultimately where the committee agreed and what made them decide the things that they decided.
As an example, the most mad I've ever been about an Award was that I didn't get nominated for the Dar in S59. I thought that the ideal Jeff Dar candidate had 1) solid statistic representation in blocked shots and hits, 2) more than 60 points, and 3) a GA:TA ratio greater than 1. Time came, and I wasn't nominated. It didn't matter so much that I had solid hits and blocks, didn't matter that I had more points. Somebody ultimately passed down that GA:TA is the golden stat for winning the Dar, or was at the time. I got mad because I was left to interpret what was going to happen, thought I might get a good thing, and then I was wrong. It was especially frustrating to me because I thought that the Dar and the Holmes are similar awards, and I won a Holmes with a similar stat distribution. I'm okay with it changing, but my complaint here and the request for more of a breakdown in the process is that the worst part of change is finding out that it's different when you've gotten your hopes up. I feel like cutting off a lot of that "why-why-why" type of thinking at the knees by talking more about committee practice is a good way to keep that from happening. It also allows more space to focus on the winners and their achievements.
As a bit of a hot take, I think especially as we move to a culture where we're not testing and finding what works, offering a system of values to strive toward is a new aspect that we may begin to see people look for in Awards more frequently. I think the new meta may not be as well decided by FHM in the coming 3 to 5 seasons, but we'll see it coming out of the All-Star selections, Fantasy stats, and Awards noms. People want to be good, it's part of the game, and that inspiration from builds has always been pulled. I think now that people shouldn't be doing their own testing, we'll see more copycatting.
I also think paying people more is generally worthwhile in the SHL. Make it rain.
Ironically enough about 5 seasons prior I felt similar about the Dar because I blew everyone out of the water in TA/GA, getting a lot of SB, and playing well defensively but not having points(I believe I had around 30) in part to being more defensive and on a team at the bottom of the standings and I didn't get a nom after getting one the season before with worse stats.
There are several players in MTL that deserve a serious look for the Aidan Richan (most improved)... namely Sconnie McHits, who was one point away from doubling his rookie season (42 -> 83)
Also, Mads McBride smashed the rookie goals record with 31 (all even strength)... third in rookie points... team captain... just sayin'
RomanesEuntDomus![[Image: HFFO.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/HFFO.gif)
![[Image: gunnarsoderberg.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/gunnarsoderberg.gif)
![[Image: xJXeYmQ.png]](https://i.imgur.com/xJXeYmQ.png)
![[Image: DG0jZcS.png]](https://i.imgur.com/DG0jZcS.png)
![[Image: 7MO9RpC.png]](http://i.imgur.com/7MO9RpC.png)
: .![[Image: spartangibbles.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/spartangibbles.gif)
![[Image: 4star.png]](https://simulationhockey.com/images/4star.png)
Four Star Cup champion Maine Timber!! 
![[Image: swift.png]](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/831282703767830599/1003027785742295223/swift.png)
![[Image: popcorn.gif]](https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/images/smilies/popcorn.gif)
If you 
hockey Fan Fiction, (FHM style): Click Here!
![[Image: winter-500.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/709471992100945974/1109520965404201021/winter-500.png)
![[Image: olivercastillon.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/olivercastillon.gif)
![[Image: OX6Yrrn.png]](https://i.imgur.com/OX6Yrrn.png)
![[Image: hPSkjwC.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/hPSkjwC.jpg)
![[Image: a5C9JXf.png]](https://i.imgur.com/a5C9JXf.png)
