S46 VHL & VHLM Awards List

[Molholt 2,185]

1 minute ago, Mr. Power said:

Also, congrats to the other, legit winners. O'Malley really is legend, another dominating season. Some tight awards here too, I thought Klose would get a few more votes for the Boulet, but Karnage is still a solid candidate for the award. 

 

10 GWG on a playoff team.

[JardyB10 4,865]

The BOG shouldn't even really be needed to determine the award list anyway. I can understand Higgins and his multi wanting to delegate the duties because he basically has to do everything in the off-season, but if anything he can just use them to narrow down the last couple candidates on a pre-made list.

 

If I had made the list, I would have had Calgary's MVP on the list as a formality. The other 2-3 candidates would have been Titans. Which I guess still wouldn't have prevented Denis from winning. It is a sad day in the league when over half our GMs put no thought into award voting.

[Devise 4,475]

Just now, sterling said:

To be fair, five other people voted for Tyler still...

 

Sure, the argument was how biased Eagles was with his ballot. The five other people that voted Tyler clearly looked at the stats and nothing more. Anyone who did any serious research (I know you can see a good number of ballots in the BoG voting where one CGY player was selected as a "hey sure you had a good first round) would of realized that it was stat boosting in the first round as to why they had such high numbers. I'm not saying Calgary didn't have a strong season, they made the finals. But they lost in five. They won a single game in the finals. There really isn't any justification for them to be winning Playoff MVP honestly. 

[Will 4,660]

1 minute ago, JardyB10 said:

The BOG shouldn't even really be needed to determine the award list anyway. I can understand Higgins and his multi wanting to delegate the duties because he basically has to do everything in the off-season, but if anything he can just use them to narrow down the last couple candidates on a pre-made list.

 

If I had made the list, I would have had Calgary's MVP on the list as a formality. The other 2-3 candidates would have been Titans. Which I guess still wouldn't have prevented Denis from winning. It is a sad day in the league when over half our GMs put no thought into award voting.

 

That's what it is done. I post the top 3-6 candidates in BOG and they narrow it down, at which point Higgins sent out a ballot to the GMs. The actual Kanou ballot was Klose, Koponen, and Denis.

[JardyB10 4,865]

Well that's good then. This is why I shouldn't make ignorant assumptions.

[Molholt 2,185]

1 minute ago, JardyB10 said:

Well that's good then. This is why I shouldn't make ignorant assumptions.

 

Father comes back and just assumes he knows how his children are being raised, ruins everything by pretending that he's a real parent, leaves again.

[Devise 4,475]

Yeah Jardy that is the way we have done it for a while. It has worked fine in this format, it just provides GM's an opportunity to vote for a candidate that may not be deserving in some cases. We on the BoG, and the Blue Team usually winds up leaving a "less than worthy" candidate on the ballot in some cases due to either lack of fitting candidates and or as a minor acknowledgement. In the case of Denis, him being included would of been one of those. A nomination for his good stats in the first round, while acknowledging that alone doesn't really make you qualified to win MVP.

 

The issue is though every now and then, once every so often seasons we leave someone on and GM's don't pay attention to who they are voting for and just vote. It can create near split votes where someone unqualified wins the award. So really our only solution to that is to lower the ballot, however in some cases it's clear that one person has won the award and you can't just put one person on a ballot for an award. We've had that with top D a couple times. Usually, GM"s justify their logic and we see a 10-0 split in some of those cases. 

 

The other issue with limiting the ballot is it feels like we are then determining award winners, when GM"s are supposed to have some power in their voting. It's kind of a catch 22 with that honestly, where there will be consequences either way we do it. The reality is though we need GM's who actually care about award voting, especially awards like playoff MVP which actually can make or break hall of fame careers as that is a legit award worthy of consideration. Handing out those type of awards falsely can have an effect. 

Edited January 5, 2016 by Mr. Power

[JardyB10 4,865]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Power said:

The reality is though we need GM's who actually care about award voting

 

This is really it. I can see being taken aback by the stats. Even at first glance I was like, "Shit, the best Helsinki player had 10 fewer points than every other Calgary player?" But it just takes a quick peek at those first four games to realize that (probably) no Calgary player got more than 7 points in the last 10 games. Those 10 games being the only amount of games Helsinki got to play too.

 

But the overarching problem here is that the Titans team was so mediocre that they couldn't even differentiate themselves from the other mediocre players in the playoffs.

[Will 4,660]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Power said:

Yeah Jardy that is the way we have done it for a while. It has worked fine in this format, it just provides GM's an opportunity to vote for a candidate that may not be deserving in some cases. We on the BoG, and the Blue Team usually winds up leaving a "less than worthy" candidate on the ballot in some cases due to either lack of fitting candidates and or as a minor acknowledgement. In the case of Denis, him being included would of been one of those. A nomination for his good stats in the first round, while acknowledging that alone doesn't really make you qualified to win MVP.

 

The issue is though every now and then, once every so often seasons we leave someone on and GM's don't pay attention to who they are voting for and just vote. It can create near split votes where someone unqualified wins the award. So really our only solution to that is to lower the ballot, however in some cases it's clear that one person has won the award and you can't just put one person on a ballot for an award. We've had that with top D a couple times. Usually, GM"s justify their logic and we see a 10-0 split in some of those cases. 

 

The other issue with limiting the ballot is it feels like we are then determining award winners, when GM"s are supposed to have some power in their voting. It's kind of a catch 22 with that honestly, where there will be consequences either way we do it. The reality is though we need GM's who actually care about award voting, especially awards like playoff MVP which actually can make or break hall of fame careers as that is a legit award worthy of consideration. Handing out those type of awards falsely can have an effect. 

 

Overall this year Higgins made the ballots small, intentionally I assume. There was no more than 3 candidates on the final ballot for any given award, with only 2 on one I think (possibly ROTY).

 

As has been said, the problem doesn't necessarily lie with bias (although thats obviously never good) but with GMs not paying attention or caring whom they vote for. Which is one reason why I've always thought the SHL's award committee thing was a good idea, as the people who end up voting have a chance to discuss and engage with one and other rather than quickly looking at stats and deleting the other candidates. For example, if every GM had read Advantage's mag article, the result of the Kanou vote this season would likely be different. 

 

I'm not really upset about it but, like you said, some awards like the Kanou are significant more so than others because of how scarce they are, and seldom do the same people get nominated multiple times.

[Kendrick 4,741]

I guess @Advantage and @Mr. Power now know what I was saying. Some gM's can't put past their childish issues or bias' when it comes to rewarding people who rightfully should win awards based on their efforts. I've been in the league 47 years and only a couple times I can think where this has happened. But then again it's not like the guy in question did his job as VHLM Commish correctly, didn't even send the ballot to some GM's.

[Devise 4,475]

4 minutes ago, Draper said:

 

Overall this year Higgins made the ballots small, intentionally I assume. There was no more than 3 candidates on the final ballot for any given award, with only 2 on one I think (possibly ROTY).

 

As has been said, the problem doesn't necessarily lie with bias (although thats obviously never good) but with GMs not paying attention or caring whom they vote for. Which is one reason why I've always thought the SHL's award committee thing was a good idea, as the people who end up voting have a chance to discuss and engage with one and other rather than quickly looking at stats and deleting the other candidates. For example, if every GM had read Advantage's mag article, the result of the Kanou vote this season would likely be different. 

 

I'm not really upset about it but, like you said, some awards like the Kanou are significant more so than others because of how scarce they are, and seldom do the same people get nominated multiple times.

 

An award committee maybe something we should also consider. No offense to GM's here, but this would work to ensure we have as little bias as possible, we could ensure there is mandatory award discussion and that anyone who makes a voting decision has to at least justify why they did it. Just a thought of course. 

[Molholt 2,185]

Just now, Mr. Power said:

 

An award committee maybe something we should also consider. No offense to GM's here, but this would work to ensure we have as little bias as possible, we could ensure there is mandatory award discussion and that anyone who makes a voting decision has to at least justify why they did it. Just a thought of course. 

 

Could you not also just do this in the GM forum instead of through PM, and just have them justify their decisions their, amongst them all and the blue team?

[Devise 4,475]

1 minute ago, Molholt said:

 

Could you not also just do this in the GM forum instead of through PM, and just have them justify their decisions their, amongst them all and the blue team?

 

Sure. But as mentioned, not all the GM's are as bias free. We already listed Eagles award ballot, where do you think he's going to lean? It's not bad having people leaning from different teams, but every single GM has a reason to be biased. Does that mean all of them will? Of course not. As stated, our system has worked for several seasons. The biggest reason it has consistently worked though is because there isn't always an opportunity to show your bias. Sometimes the awards are so clear cut, you'd easily be called out for making the mistake. However it doesn't change the fact that when award voting does get close, that bias can come into play. 

 

I'd be fine with either solution honestly. 

[Kendrick 4,741]

3 minutes ago, Molholt said:

 

Could you not also just do this in the GM forum instead of through PM, and just have them justify their decisions their, amongst them all and the blue team?

Yup! That's the way I always thought it would've been done. So that if that GM is a total idiot like mentioned above, they get thrown over hot coals for their vote. Not only that if the blue team sees something funny they can ask for a justification for that vote.

[Molholt 2,185]

Just now, Mr. Power said:

 

Sure. But as mentioned, not all the GM's are as bias free. We already listed Eagles award ballot, where do you think he's going to lean? It's not bad having people leaning from different teams, but every single GM has a reason to be biased. Does that mean all of them will? Of course not. As stated, our system has worked for several seasons. The biggest reason it has consistently worked though is because there isn't always an opportunity to show your bias. Sometimes the awards are so clear cut, you'd easily be called out for making the mistake. However it doesn't change the fact that when award voting does get close, that bias can come into play. 

 

I'd be fine with either solution honestly. 

 

Well if you made them public (to the other GMs and blue man crew), other GMs would be able to call them on their bias before the final results are posted. Advantage, for instance, could've said how ridiculous it was and maybe more people would've realized it or switched their vote beforehand.

[Kendrick 4,741]

I do agree that some GM's just don't care though. I mean one BOG member listed Joseph Roy III in their final ballot and after being told previously he wouldn't be considered.

[Will 4,660]

GM forum not a bad idea. Other solution would a committee with no GMs allowed. 

[CowboyinAmerica 2,889]

Just curious after the all the argument: What do those against Denis here think of Wingate co-winning last season, in what was a similar situation, though perhaps not as explicit because Wingate dominated up until Games 6 and 7? Should the Playoff MVP never come from a losing team? And if not, why even have them on a ballot?

[Devise 4,475]

Just now, Kendrick said:

I do agree that some GM's just don't care though. I mean one BOG member listed Joseph Roy III in their final ballot and after being told previously he wouldn't be considered.

 

Exactly. That is my fear. We are entering a reality where we are just finding bodies to put in GM roles. It isn't that they aren't qualified GM"s, but do they have that same respect/time to put in a thoughtful award vote? If not, then perhaps those people shouldn't be voting. The purpose of the award committee, would be that the Blue Team could publicly select members we all know as having the integrity of awards and the league as the first priority. Again this isn't to call out any other GM's (although I stand by calling out you Eagles, that ballot needs serious justification considering your Helsinki won in 5 games) but you sometimes get the impression a few of the GM"s out there treat award voting similar to award predictions. A copy paste or a quick scan over whose numbers are higher and that is all. 

[Molholt 2,185]

Let's not forget the blue team having Roy on the list to begin with...

 

#FireEveryone

Edited January 5, 2016 by Molholt

[Kendrick 4,741]

2 minutes ago, CowboyinAmerica said:

Just curious after the all the argument: What do those against Denis here think of Wingate co-winning last season, in what was a similar situation, though perhaps not as explicit because Wingate dominated up until Games 6 and 7? Should the Playoff MVP never come from a losing team? And if not, why even have them on a ballot?

The playoff MVP can come from a losing team sure, but thats assuming the losing team lost in a tightly contested series and that losing player played above all other players.

 

This year just doesn't see that. Team gets smoked 4-1 in the final series after having to go through a relatively weaker conference to get there. But hen one GM who is now on his second "call out" of bias, votes his own guy.

[Will 4,660]

2 minutes ago, CowboyinAmerica said:

Just curious after the all the argument: What do those against Denis here think of Wingate co-winning last season, in what was a similar situation, though perhaps not as explicit because Wingate dominated up until Games 6 and 7? Should the Playoff MVP never come from a losing team? And if not, why even have them on a ballot?

 

No, there is no reason to question you being there. That was a 7 game series that could have gone either way and you had the numbers in the series that mattered to back it up.

[Kendrick 4,741]

1 minute ago, Molholt said:

Let's not forget the blue team having Roy on the list to begin with...

That was admitted as being a mistake that he fixed rather quickly. He mentioned he thought Roy III played defense all year when he didn't.

[Advantage 2,891]

3 minutes ago, CowboyinAmerica said:

Just curious after the all the argument: What do those against Denis here think of Wingate co-winning last season, in what was a similar situation, though perhaps not as explicit because Wingate dominated up until Games 6 and 7? Should the Playoff MVP never come from a losing team? And if not, why even have them on a ballot?

I almost never like seeing the losing team win it but only in a close series where there is a ridiculously dominant performance (see Giguere in 2003).

 

I didn't vote for you admittedly last season because I thought Clegane (.924 SV%) and O'Malley (20 Pts, 12 GP) had justifiably great playoff campaigns.

[Devise 4,475]

27 minutes ago, CowboyinAmerica said:

Just curious after the all the argument: What do those against Denis here think of Wingate co-winning last season, in what was a similar situation, though perhaps not as explicit because Wingate dominated up until Games 6 and 7? Should the Playoff MVP never come from a losing team? And if not, why even have them on a ballot?

 

Our "de facto" rule previously is that a team that lost in the finals can win playoff MVP is there is justification for it. As in, long playoff series, close tight, team who won the Cup doesn't have exact stand outs who dominated. But the bar for the losing team is always higher to get it, because they lost. Being the team MVP, while you've lost doesn't really make as much sense.  It's why you rarely see regular season MVP awarded to a team who doesn't make the playoffs. The whole point of the award is the player who is most responsible for said teams success, and the team has to have success to justify that.

 

Last years was a co vote, in a series that did go the distance and as you said Wingate did dominate a few games in the series. The big thing that disqualifies Denis from this years would be that he put up over half his points in the first round series. He actually only had 9 points 10 games against New York and Helsinki, where as Koponen had more in the exact same number of games against Davos and Calgary similar competition when you exclude Toronto. 

Edited January 5, 2016 by Mr. Power