Army of backwashers

[Beketov 9,022]

45 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

Frank did not got rewarded for that, he shared the award with Miller in a year that Miller should have alone won it with current rules or the GM who won the cup should have won it

 

How many times do I have to say it before you understand. There are no “current rules” aside from the fact that it’s Regular Season only. There are no set criteria or what makes a GM better than any other and nothing is guaranteed to weigh more heavily.

 

You seem to be under the assumption that we vote for specific traits every single season with consistency and we simply don’t do that. It’s Top Executive, not “made the best moves.” We don’t automatically favour moves or favour the draft or favour free agency or whatever you wish to bring up. We simply look at the 10 GM’s and decide that given the scope of the league in that particular season who did the best with what they had. In this particular season the best was taking a pile of draft picks and turning them into an amazing group of players that took a team from 8th to 1st. Next season if no one does that different criteria will judge the winner. Or even if someone does do that but someone else does something better with their team then the GM not making moves could still win. We didn’t just decide 56 seasons ago that “Top GM = Best trades”; it is a constantly evolving metric based on the season.

 

What wins one season may not win the next and 0 votes does not mean no one thought Frank was deserving. Please try to understand these concepts.

[jRuutu 2,464]

12 minutes ago, Beketov said:

 

How many times do I have to say it before you understand. There are no “current rules” aside from the fact that it’s Regular Season only. There are no set criteria or what makes a GM better than any other and nothing is guaranteed to weigh more heavily.

 

You seem to be under the assumption that we vote for specific traits every single season with consistency and we simply don’t do that. It’s Top Executive, not “made the best moves.” We don’t automatically favour moves or favour the draft or favour free agency or whatever you wish to bring up. We simply look at the 10 GM’s and decide that given the scope of the league in that particular season who did the best with what they had. In this particular season the best was taking a pile of draft picks and turning them into an amazing group of players that took a team from 8th to 1st. Next season if no one does that different criteria will judge the winner. Or even if someone does do that but someone else does something better with their team then the GM not making moves could still win. We didn’t just decide 56 seasons ago that “Top GM = Best trades”; it is a constantly evolving metric based on the season.

 

What wins one season may not win the next and 0 votes does not mean no one thought Frank was deserving. Please try to understand these concepts.

Why not include the playoffs into the mix then? Why does it have to be regular season only - because NHL does it like that?

 

GM who wins the cup in a team who has not won it in 20 years gets 0 votes, but a GM who goes all in and makes a change from bottom to top in the regular season, but does not make it into finals gets the all the votes = That looks and is stupid. Not having the playoffs play part in the decision for top executive is stupid, little bit like in 100m sprint you would award the first to make it to 40m, but the guy who ends up being first at 100m does not get ´anything´.

[Beketov 9,022]

1 minute ago, jRuutu said:

Why not include the playoffs into the mix then? Why does it have to be regular season only - because NHL does it like that?

 

GM who wins the cup in a team who has not won it in 20 years gets 0 votes, but a GM who goes all in and makes a change from bottom to top in the regular season, but does not make it into finals gets the all the votes = That looks and is stupid. Not having the playoffs play part in the decision for top executive is stupid, little bit like in 100m sprint you would award the first to make it to 40m, but the guy who ends up being first at 100m does not get ´anything´.

I get that’s your opinion and have said countless times and it may be looked at, you can stop sounding like a broken record.

 

The point is that this season (like every other season before) playoffs were not considered. Believing they should is fine but that still doesn’t make it a valid argument for this season when they weren’t. If you have some kind of valid argument for Frank over Hedgehog without taking the playoffs into consideration bring it up because so far you have not.

 

And please stop with the 0 votes thing. As several of us have already pointed out, that means nothing. Awards are not voted on by ranking, it is simply a vote on who deserves it the most. Cornerstone got 8/9 of the MVP votes and had a 5-6 page discussion on it. Does that sound like the other candidates weren’t considered at all? Yes, 0 votes could mean he was never considered but it just as easily can mean (and does in this case based off the discussion) that everyone thought that candidate was 2nd best.

[jRuutu 2,464]

Just now, Beketov said:

I get that’s your opinion and have said countless times and it may be looked at, you can stop sounding like a broken record.

 

The point is that this season (like every other season before) playoffs were not considered. Believing they should is fine but that still doesn’t make it a valid argument for this season when they weren’t. If you have some kind of valid argument for Frank over Hedgehog without taking the playoffs into consideration bring it up because so far you have not.

 

And please stop with the 0 votes thing. As several of us have already pointed out, that means nothing. Awards are not voted on by ranking, it is simply a vote on who deserves it the most. Cornerstone got 8/9 of the MVP votes and had a 5-6 page discussion on it. Does that sound like the other candidates weren’t considered at all? Yes, 0 votes could mean he was never considered but it just as easily can mean (and does in this case based off the discussion) that everyone thought that candidate was 2nd best.

What you want me to say? Is it not enough that I think Frank should have won it because he lead Quebec to first cup victory in 20 seasons over Hedgehog who made moves to improve Rigas position on the regular season standings?

 

Lead a team to cup victory first time in 20 seasons... 20 seasons

 

vs

 

Moved from 8th to 1st during regular season, regular season where Riga secured playoff spot with a difference of 69 points, cant say the regular season was a battle for both Riga and Quebec. When Riga did those moves, you could almost guess they will have a good year, there is no what ifs in a league like this where some teams have barely even one line of real players and wont reach 30 points.

 

 

Which one is more impressive overall? Which one is harder or more likely to happen?

 

 

Cornerstone winning the MVP with 5/6 pages of discussion sounds what it reads on the title, his friends with him making a case for him to win it

[STZ 5,358]

@boubabi doesn't have friends

[Beketov 9,022]

17 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

Lead a team to cup victory first time in 20 seasons... 20 seasons

Did I not just specifically ask if you had an argument that didn’t involve the playoffs? The Cup means nothing in this discussion. I’m sorry if you disagree with that but this season that cup does not have any value on top GM. Do you have an argument that doesn’t involve it or not?

 

17 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

Cornerstone winning the MVP with 5/6 pages of discussion sounds what it reads on the title, his friends with him making a case for him to win it

Oh my god you could not even remotely be more wrong on that. It was far more easily described as @boubabi argues his case with everyone while eveyrone else brings up other options. It was anything but a circle jerk.

[Corco 1,235]

The Award is based on management moves made during the offseason and season to better improve the team. There are no transactions during the playoffs. Hence, a reason why the post-season isn't factored into the award. 

[boubabi 4,725]

2 hours ago, STZ said:

@boubabi doesn't have friends

Yea that

[boubabi 4,725]

I wish I could trash jruutu's opinion more but now, thats beating a dead horse. 

 

Posts are posts though

[jRuutu 2,464]

7 hours ago, Beketov said:

Did I not just specifically ask if you had an argument that didn’t involve the playoffs? The Cup means nothing in this discussion. I’m sorry if you disagree with that but this season that cup does not have any value on top GM. Do you have an argument that doesn’t involve it or not?

 

Oh my god you could not even remotely be more wrong on that. It was far more easily described as @boubabi argues his case with everyone while eveyrone else brings up other options. It was anything but a circle jerk.

Once again, what you want me to say? No I don´t have argument that does not involve the playoffs, do you have a argument on why the playoffs are not included in the voting process?

 

And still he won all of you in there?

[jRuutu 2,464]

6 hours ago, Corco said:

The Award is based on management moves made during the offseason and season to better improve the team. There are no transactions during the playoffs. Hence, a reason why the post-season isn't factored into the award. 

But what about the moves done seasons ago? Is it possible that not every move bring in the best results right away? Why not reward the best possible result when it happens?

[jRuutu 2,464]

5 hours ago, boubabi said:

I wish I could trash jruutu's opinion more but now, thats beating a dead horse. 

 

Posts are posts though

All I´m hearing is multiple people saying It´s regular season award and someone who possibly have done moves to improve his/her team from past year is a candidate. I´m on the other end asking why is playoff success not involved, here we still are.

[Corco 1,235]

30 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

But what about the moves done seasons ago? Is it possible that not every move bring in the best results right away? Why not reward the best possible result when it happens?

We do. It's called a Continental Cup.

[jRuutu 2,464]

7 minutes ago, Corco said:

We do. It's called a Continental Cup.

It´s a team award though

[Devise 4,475]

2 hours ago, jRuutu said:

It´s a team award though

 

You could say that. It is, but everyone involved in winning a Continental Cup receives an equal share of the Continental Cup reward. But all of the awards, including the Continental Cup play a serious role in Hall of Fame. It's why we make sure to pay attention to awards like Top GM. Because winning a Continental Cup is the reward. I don't think you get that. 

 

I'll give you an example. Put two players on the HoF ballot at the end of their careers. They have the exact same point totals, or close enough in both point totals and individual award cabinet that you can't determine between them. Almost always it'll end up going to the person who has won more Continental Cups. The amount that Continental Cups figure into HoF voting is huge. Huge. It is seen as the award of awards, and having it on your resume can solidify a weak HoF case. We've had players with barren individual award cabinet but good points that get in because they won 2 Continental Cups. 

 

This isn't just about players either. It's also about members. We induct Builders into the Hall of Fame as well and this is based on not just league jobs and help, but also GM resumes. A member who wins a lot of Cups? Likely to get in as a Builder due to a stellar GM record. We go above and beyond to recognize the winners of Continental Cups, whether it be the teams, where each team has their own banner and thread acknowledging all the players and teams success from that year. 

 

Making Top GM factor in playoffs is only "making the rich richer" as it were. Playoff winners have their reward, it's called the Continental Cup. It is without a doubt the most important award we give out every season, and as you can clearly see it plays a factor in almost every aspect of our serious long term voting/recognition. Top GM is not just about "moves" as you have wrongly stated several times. It's about analyzing a franchises regular season, and showing that even though the Continental Cup is rewarded to the team and GM who wins it all, that we still look at what a GM is doing. Because guess what? 9 GM's and 9 teams every season don't win the Cup, but that doesn't mean their narrative is irrelevant and it doesn't mean what they do has no impact just because another team won the Cup. 

[Beketov 9,022]

3 hours ago, jRuutu said:

Once again, what you want me to say? No I don´t have argument that does not involve the playoffs, do you have a argument on why the playoffs are not included in the voting process?

 

And still he won all of you in there?

Then you can stop arguing for Frank now. We have received your feedback that playoffs should potentially be considered for future seasons but they weren't for this season and you admit you have no argument based on regular season. So given the criteria of the season the best GM won.

 

His stats were enough, that's what it came down to. The discussion just helps to showcase them sometimes. The BOG definitely does not always agree as much as the lopsided votes may imply though.

[jRuutu 2,464]

8 hours ago, Beketov said:

Then you can stop arguing for Frank now. We have received your feedback that playoffs should potentially be considered for future seasons but they weren't for this season and you admit you have no argument based on regular season. So given the criteria of the season the best GM won.

 

His stats were enough, that's what it came down to. The discussion just helps to showcase them sometimes. The BOG definitely does not always agree as much as the lopsided votes may imply though.

Thank you, hopefully it happens and the talks are positive in the BOG.

 

 

 

[jRuutu 2,464]

9 hours ago, Devise said:

 

You could say that. It is, but everyone involved in winning a Continental Cup receives an equal share of the Continental Cup reward. But all of the awards, including the Continental Cup play a serious role in Hall of Fame. It's why we make sure to pay attention to awards like Top GM. Because winning a Continental Cup is the reward. I don't think you get that. 

 

I'll give you an example. Put two players on the HoF ballot at the end of their careers. They have the exact same point totals, or close enough in both point totals and individual award cabinet that you can't determine between them. Almost always it'll end up going to the person who has won more Continental Cups. The amount that Continental Cups figure into HoF voting is huge. Huge. It is seen as the award of awards, and having it on your resume can solidify a weak HoF case. We've had players with barren individual award cabinet but good points that get in because they won 2 Continental Cups. 

 

This isn't just about players either. It's also about members. We induct Builders into the Hall of Fame as well and this is based on not just league jobs and help, but also GM resumes. A member who wins a lot of Cups? Likely to get in as a Builder due to a stellar GM record. We go above and beyond to recognize the winners of Continental Cups, whether it be the teams, where each team has their own banner and thread acknowledging all the players and teams success from that year. 

 

Making Top GM factor in playoffs is only "making the rich richer" as it were. Playoff winners have their reward, it's called the Continental Cup. It is without a doubt the most important award we give out every season, and as you can clearly see it plays a factor in almost every aspect of our serious long term voting/recognition. Top GM is not just about "moves" as you have wrongly stated several times. It's about analyzing a franchises regular season, and showing that even though the Continental Cup is rewarded to the team and GM who wins it all, that we still look at what a GM is doing. Because guess what? 9 GM's and 9 teams every season don't win the Cup, but that doesn't mean their narrative is irrelevant and it doesn't mean what they do has no impact just because another team won the Cup. 

I do get it and I´m not asking or hoping that you give it to the cup winning GM every time, even if the playoffs are part of the decision process.

 

Should maybe do something to that then as well? Having cups play so big part in someone changes on making the HOF, but then at the same time playoffs are described as random and anything can happen, so they cant be used to judge top-GM award? Cups should play part in that absolutely, but sounds like someone who has 2 cups is closer in getting there than someone who has maybe 1, but better stat totals?

 

I don´t think it will make rich even richer if you include the playoffs, because the cup winning GM would not still win it every time. Should widen the timeline you watch the GM and what has been going on with the team with everything, if you got a team who has been making nice progress from last year, why not wait and see where that truly goes first? First in regular season is great start, but if we all play for one thing only - the cup, shouldnt making bit closer to that make more sense when talking about top- GM award? If Riga next year is in the finals and plays against Quebec for example, Hedgehog should win the top GM award even if Riga loses. 

 

The regular season is not tight enough overall usually, too many weak teams to have award focus so heavily on regular season only.

[Beketov 9,022]

9 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

Should maybe do something to that then as well? Having cups play so big part in someone changes on making the HOF, but then at the same time playoffs are described as random and anything can happen, so they cant be used to judge top-GM award? Cups should play part in that absolutely, but sounds like someone who has 2 cups is closer in getting there than someone who has maybe 1, but better stat totals?

Better stats will always get in over more cups. The example he was giving was 2 players with basically even stats. At that point it goes to cup and award wins.

 

For example: Not saying either will get in but let’s say Holik and Skye are both up for the HoF. Their stats are likely very similar (as I recall our stats were often pretty close) but Skye has a cup so he’d likely get the nod first. If Holik’s stats were way better though he could realistically get in ahead of Skye without that cup because his stats are more deserving. Does that make more sense?

[jRuutu 2,464]

1 hour ago, Beketov said:

Better stats will always get in over more cups. The example he was giving was 2 players with basically even stats. At that point it goes to cup and award wins.

 

For example: Not saying either will get in but let’s say Holik and Skye are both up for the HoF. Their stats are likely very similar (as I recall our stats were often pretty close) but Skye has a cup so he’d likely get the nod first. If Holik’s stats were way better though he could realistically get in ahead of Skye without that cup because his stats are more deserving. Does that make more sense?

The player who has 2 cups more than likely played with ´better´ group of players than the player who managed to win one cup. Do they look at every season more closely and what kind of support each potential HOF player had? Or just purely look at the stats and awards/cups?

[Beketov 9,022]

43 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

The player who has 2 cups more than likely played with ´better´ group of players than the player who managed to win one cup. Do they look at every season more closely and what kind of support each potential HOF player had? Or just purely look at the stats and awards/cups?

Initially when people are brought in for discussion it starts with just stats and awards. As the discussion goes through more statistics and analysis happen if necessary. We just don’t start immediately with that stuff because some things are obvious from the get go. For example, when O’Malley or Greg Clegane was brought in we really didn’t need more detail. It was fairly obvious just from their numbers that they were top end talent that should be in the hall. Someone like Holik, for example, will need much more analysis and discussion if it ever comes to that because of a lack of cups, individual awards, and good playoff numbers being the counter to excellent regular season numbers.

 

So basically it just all depends on the players that are currently on the ballot. Like most things in the BOG it isn’t a cut and dry set of rules.

[jRuutu 2,464]

6 hours ago, Beketov said:

Initially when people are brought in for discussion it starts with just stats and awards. As the discussion goes through more statistics and analysis happen if necessary. We just don’t start immediately with that stuff because some things are obvious from the get go. For example, when O’Malley or Greg Clegane was brought in we really didn’t need more detail. It was fairly obvious just from their numbers that they were top end talent that should be in the hall. Someone like Holik, for example, will need much more analysis and discussion if it ever comes to that because of a lack of cups, individual awards, and good playoff numbers being the counter to excellent regular season numbers.

 

So basically it just all depends on the players that are currently on the ballot. Like most things in the BOG it isn’t a cut and dry set of rules.

Hopefully players like Holik get in, they are the ones that make HOF special, the obvious ones are well obvious ones Much more interesting to hear stories behind the players who do not have massive tropby cabinet, but have still managed to put up nice numbers