|
|
Hello membership
I had touched on in a previous post (player ratings observations) some concerns that I had about the league.
I am proposing an idea, that maybe the board could consider. I thought about this during a game, when it seemed that we spent the majority or time in our end.
I am suggesting that a weighted cap system be looked at according to your teams position in the standings. The 9th and 10th place team become the starting point.
Team, Cap pts, adjusted cap
Rhinos.........+9, 619
Hornets.......+8, 618
HC Hitmen..+7, 617
Chiefs......... +6, 616
Pirates.........+5, 615
Pucks..........+4, 614
Bangers.......+3, 613
IceHogs.......+2, 612
Lucky...........+1, 611
Thundercocks..-1, 609
GC Club...........-2, 608
MadDogs..........-3, 607
Nanucks...........-4, 606
Stickmen..........-5, 605
Devils...............-6, 604
Renegades.......-7, 603
Crushers...........-8, 602
Haze. ...............-9, 601
I am trying to illustrate that when the Rhinos play the Haze, that while last years team drafts say they are equals at 610 points, it is more like the Rhinos are a 619 team playing a Haze team that is 601points. (Another example could be the HC Hitmen (617), playing the Stickmen (605). In this example, the difference is 12 points, and I would surmise that the sticks top end talent is overvalued.
At the end of the year, the rhinos would have to rate their team 9 points higher ( 3 to 5 players would see increases in their ratings, by 9 points )while the Haze would rate their players down to 601(ie a 48 to a 46, a 45 to 41, another player down a point or two).
According to the scale above, (which are calculated at the current standings), each team would make their adjustments.
I know that we could say that the weighted cap structure doesn't explain why the Haze could beat the Rhinos, but that can be explained by winning percentage. The Rhinos win 77%, the Haze win at 23% of the time. Who the Haze beat 23% of the time is unpredictable.
This would affect all teams at next seasons draft. (Should the cap remain at 610, this would affect teams at the top, and the bottom teams as well). |
|
|
|
I agree their is a big difference from 1st to last but it is more then just points.
Rhino's top 4 guys have played 19,24,30,37 games 2 of Haze's top ranked guys have played 9 each.
There should be a formula to rate players. But it depends on position line mates and chemistry. If you team always shows up you will all play better.
Their is good parity in the middle of the league unfortunately big descrepancy between 1 and 18. |
|
|
|
Rhinos top four guys
Games played 110
Points, top 4----152
Average points per game(top 4). 1.38
Haze top four
Games played 84
Points, top 4----51
Average points per game (top 4). 0.61
It took the Haze top 4 players 84 games to get 51 points.
The Rhinos top 4 players would only need 37 games to get 51 points.
That's a huge difference.
I recall that when I played the Rhinos a few weeks ago, I saw a team that was far superior to our team (renegades)(and yet we were winning 2-0, and lost 4-2, with a empty net goal). Some people might say there was parity in that game, but I can tell you that the Rhinos were the better team from start to finish).
Note: above stats -- January 11th |
|
|
|
Current system is pretty good at creating even teams year to year. Rhinos were bottom feeders or years and now they are without a question the best team. They'll likely flop in the playoffs though. 'Prez' trophy winners usually do 
Problems i have with the system is that the longer a player has been in the league the more skewed their ranking is.
A 40 on one team can be the equivalent of a 35 on another or a 45 on another.
Newer players that come in to the league are generally under ranked compared to players that have been in the league awhile that have the same ranking when skill is compared. This is one of the reasons the Rhinos are so good, they have had a decent turn over of new players in the last few years.
The only way to have total parody in the league is to rank every player to as accurate a rating as possible, and ignore the team skill cap bell curve thats been going on for a while. If a team is under the over cap after the accurate-ish ranking of each player, awesome. If not, they would need to make some changes.
|
|
|
|
| I tend to agree with Rob. I believe there may be some disparity in the ratings of some of the league veterans with new members. Part of the reason in my opinion is there is no clear benchmark. I think it would be helpful to have some examples as to what the league considers a 35 to be, a 40 to be, a 45 to be and so forth. This could be as simple as selecting a few long standing members whom we are all familiar with and designating their rating as the benchmark for the season. Only from there can we all honestly rate our own and other teams players. |
|
|
|
I agree with Rob, it has to be a player ranked evaluation not a team rank.
If you continually add points to a good team those players will eventually be over ranked which will create parity until they exceed the cap allowance and have to dismantle. Then you have a bunch of over ranked players enter the draft. |
|
|
|
Some good discussion here, well thought out points for the most part, and no kneejerk "we have to blow up that team" nonsense :^P
Believe it or not, the league does 'weight the cap' every year, it's called 'normalization', and is essentially what's been suggested here.
The Rhinos will 'gain' 10 points this year (assuming we stay on top :^), and the Haze will 'lose' 10 points (again, assuming that standings finish as is).
The only real difference is the point jump is 2 points as you go up & down the standings (10,8,6,4,2,0 ... 0,2,4,6,8,10), so the middle 8 teams will see a 'zero' change in their cap.
Also, believe it or not, individual players are adjusted to try & reflect their skill based on the league standard for that rating, through team input & season stats ... this is somewhat like trying to turn a freighter with a rowboat, as there are only a few points to play with every year, so it takes some time ...
With respect to under-rated new players, this year there will be a non-normalization adjustment to players who've entered the league without a spare year in which to re-evaluate & re-rate their skill level. That means these players will have their ratings increased/decreased before any team normalization occurs.
With respect to comments about long-time league members' ratings, and echoing comments here about 'rating drift', the board has attended many games this year specifically to observe & evaluate all existing league players, in order to identify those have 'dropped' comparative to an increasing league skill level, and alternately, to find players that have 'flown under the radar' for years with a rating far below their actual abilities. These observations will also be used when 'normalizing' teams at years' end.
Thanks to all of you for your comments & suggestions, your feedback is always useful for trying to improve the league! |
|