Post by Bolts/Stars GM on Jan 20, 2018 14:14:33 GMT -5
I think we should go with some sort of downgrades guide for the future. I have always been ok with it being at the discretion of the admins, cause even if there is a few downgrades that don't go the way you want it just adds to the challenge. However, every time we do downgrades there are a lot of complaints, and that can be super grating and disheartening for the person who puts the work in.
I think it would be a good idea to have some guide that outlines downgrades. Just something like overall and the minimum points that overall has to get to not be downgraded or something, then every like 10 points off that they are can be another minus one or something (rounding to the nearest 10)
90+ FW = 60 points, so if a 90+ FW gets 40 points, they get -2, if they get 55 they get -1, 30 points is -3, and so on.
If people like this idea I can put together a more complete list later. If we do this, nobody can really complain about downgrades. I imagine we'll add age parameters too.
In doing downgrades this time I looked at age, production, TOI, and plus/minus primarily. Don't look at injuries so much.
Based on age, a player usually got -1 to minus 2, even if they played well.
If they were old AND had a poor season (Weber, Carter, etc.) They got -2 to -3.
Players that had poor production, based on their overall, or poor TOI and were in their 20's got -1.
The guidelines have always been there, and if GM's weren't aware that older players or poor producers or poor TOI could lead to a downgrade, then that's not so much my issue.
I like the way its been done, I'm definitely not complaining about your judgement here, I just think if it was a little more like this overall needs at least this many points people couldnt complain as much in general, cause they'd know exactly what to expect. You could accurately project your own downgrades if you have your team's stats, and there wouldn't be any ability for people to say this guy should be -1 instead of -2 based on whatever reason.
I think it's totally different from team to team tho.
Some teams only have 1 superstar, while others have 4-5. The teams with a handful of stars are gonna have way more production and inflated stats.
A rebuilding GM shouldn't have to be punished for attempting to manage a poor team.
I like the way the it's outlined now. Maybe some people just need to look over it again
but if its overall based, it doesn't matter if one team has less superstars, cause their teams would be judged at a different rate. If anything the team with more superstars would be worse off based on this, cause its less likely for a team with 5 90s to get them all over 60 points than for a team with 1 90 to get that one guy over 60 points
Here's my suggestion to be added to Dman upgrades/downgrades
Team total GA (while consider how good the goalie is) Team PK% Where the team actually finishes Player role
If a DFD plays on a team with a high PK%, maybe their doing their job and don't deserve a downgrade purely based on their stats. stuff like that.
Forwards and goalies are pretty cut and dry for what we can use. It seems that D in this league barely produce, especially the ones down the line up.
I'll keep this in mind when putting a guidline together, they'll definitely have a much lower required point total, but stuff like player role is a little too subjective for me. Besides IRL, pure DFD's are rarely higher than 4th or 5th on the depth chart, its not the 90s or 00s anymore.