CDC STHS Hockey League (Season 3)

[logic]

What do you guys talk about in this? I've never been in tiny chat

Jalapeno urethra

[Caboose]

What do you guys talk about in this? I've never been in tiny chat

TURN BACK BEFORE ITS TOO LATE

[Gally]

I must've been hated when I first came here because apparently UMB pretended to be me.

[BananaMash]

What do you guys talk about in this? I've never been in tiny chat

Well, on the rare occasion that we actually do talk about hockey it is usually Caboose just taking a massive dump on anything related to the Canucks while everyone else tries to ignore him. Lax generally just hates on Mallet, and that about sums up the extent of our hockey talk ability.

However, we are expects in the area of bodily functions and bodily fluids. We've had several titillating discussions about urethras, and more importantly, what you can insert inside a urethra. However, I won't get into the bulk of these conversations, as the subject matter doesn't meet the family values which CDC attempts to uphold. There have also been some conversations regarding fecal matter, incestual relations, and occasionally Ari tries to convince me that I should seek relations with a female of the larger variety.

Now then, if you can look past that, then chat may be the place for you. It's essentially like a bad porno.

Occasionally the chats involve UMB pretending to be people. His favorite one was Gally, and it upset everyone. No one ever pretends to be you Romo, I am sorry.

[*VaNcOuVeRCaNuCkS*]

My lineups haven't been what I have set them too.

[28/05/2013 10:32:15 PM] - Auto Lines Function has been run for Panthers.

[28/05/2013 10:32:15 PM] - Auto Roster Partial Function has been run for Panthers.

[28/05/2013 10:32:15 PM] - Panthers roster errors : Too many Players available in Pro Team! 24 Dressed. Maximum is 21. Some errors will be automatically fixed.

This is what errors the client has outputted for your team

[Xbox]

Well, on the rare occasion that we actually do talk about hockey it is usually Caboose just taking a massive dump on anything related to the Canucks while everyone else tries to ignore him. Lax generally just hates on Mallet, and that about sums up the extent of our hockey talk ability.

However, we are expects in the area of bodily functions and bodily fluids. We've had several titillating discussions about urethras, and more importantly, what you can insert inside a urethra. However, I won't get into the bulk of these conversations, as the subject matter doesn't meet the family values which CDC attempts to uphold. There have also been some conversations regarding fecal matter, incestual relations, and occasionally Ari tries to convince me that I should seek relations with a female of the larger variety.

Now then, if you can look past that, then chat may be the place for you. It's essentially like a bad porno.

Occasionally the chats involve UMB pretending to be people. His favorite one was Gally, and it upset everyone. No one ever pretends to be you Romo, I am sorry.

Lol that sounds entertaining outside of UMB joining your chat room. That child has serious issues.

[Otis]

Kovalchuk and Backes scrap

[logic]

CBJ in the market for a superstar, a package of Jenner, De La Rose, and a first round selection is rumored to be available

[Caboose]

Good luck with that buddy.

[F.Underwood]

TURN BACK BEFORE ITS TOO LATE

BECOME ONE OF US

ONE OF US

[*VaNcOuVeRCaNuCkS*]

Pre-Season Day 9 Simmed

http://cdcsimleague.com/pro_scores.php

League file and website updated

[Tony Romo]

Well, on the rare occasion that we actually do talk about hockey it is usually Caboose just taking a massive dump on anything related to the Canucks while everyone else tries to ignore him. Lax generally just hates on Mallet, and that about sums up the extent of our hockey talk ability.

However, we are expects in the area of bodily functions and bodily fluids. We've had several titillating discussions about urethras, and more importantly, what you can insert inside a urethra. However, I won't get into the bulk of these conversations, as the subject matter doesn't meet the family values which CDC attempts to uphold. There have also been some conversations regarding fecal matter, incestual relations, and occasionally Ari tries to convince me that I should seek relations with a female of the larger variety.

Now then, if you can look past that, then chat may be the place for you. It's essentially like a bad porno.

Occasionally the chats involve UMB pretending to be people. His favorite one was Gally, and it upset everyone. No one ever pretends to be you Romo, I am sorry.

Gosh your hilarious

[inane]

Hmmm. Slepyshev and Rosen 3 points in three games and +3 on third line each. Nino 0 points and -4 on second. Krejci -7 and no points.

[Chimon]

VC, I can't see the box score for Game 58 (TOR-OTT)?

[SOB for MVP]

Hershey 4-0

Capitals doing alright without the big guns in the lineup

[Patrick Kane]

People complaining about prospects, so I decided to come out with a system.

First off, give top prospects good ratings to separate them from low/mid tier prospects.

Now this isn't perfect, its all based off percentages and grading needed to be tweaked to make it perfect. THERES ALOT TO BE TWEAKED SO DON'T BASH ME RIGHT OFF THE BAT, I DON'T MIND IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THINGS, ITS NOT SET IN STONE.

1. Potential

For a simple, easy, method - use this rubric.

1st-3rd overall picks: 90 POT

4th-9th overall picks: 80/85 POT

10th-30th overall picks: 75/80 POT

2nd round picks: 70 POT

3rd round picks: 65/70 POT

4th round picks: 65 POT

5th-7th round picks: 60 POT

Decrease POT by 5 every year. Once its at 50, the player can NO longer improve.

Essentially a top 3 pick can improve using this system till hes 26.

2. Grade

Depending on success of the year, they will be given a grade.

NHL:

Forwards

60+ point season = A

30-59 point season = B

15-29 point season = C

14 or less point season = D

Defense

30+ point season = A

15-29 point season = B

5-14 point season = C

4 or less point season = D

AHL:

Forwards

No possible way to get A

100+ point season = B

65-99 point season = C

64 or less point season = D

Defense

65+ point season = B

30-64 point season = C

29 or less point season = D

A = 25% increase in attributes

B = 15% increase in attributes

C = 7% increase in attributes

D = 3% increase in attributes

Age is a factor, add these percentages.

18 = +4%

19 = +3%

20 = +2%

21 = +1%

22 = +0%

I feel since players can start at 18, they should only be in the AHL for four years, until playing their won't help their development at all.

MacKinnon had 34 pts in 37 games, on pace for 75 points in AHL. "C"

9 pts in 45 NHL games, on pace for 16 points in NHL. "C"

So MacKinnon should get a 7% increase on all stats + 4% since he acheived this at 18. 11% all around increase.

Orignal key ratings:

60 CHK

75 SKT

63 STR

70 END

75 PH

72 PA

75 SC

70 DF

New ratings:

67 CHK

82 SKT

77 STR

77 END

79 PA

82 SC

77 DF

Barkov had 68 pts in 65 games played on pace for around point per game. "C"

18 years old, so he should get a 11% boost in all stats.

Orignal key ratings:

60 CHK

72 SKT

68 STR

73 END

72 PH

72 PA

72 SC

72 DF

New ratings:

67 CHK

79 SKT

75 STR

80 END

79 PH

79 PA

79 SC

79 DF

David Rundblad; 46 points in 72 games played gives him a C rating. He was 22 years old. % increase = 7

Original key ratings:

55 CHK

80 SKT

61 STR

70 END

75 PH

74 PA

68 SC

65 DF

New ratings:

59 CHK

84 SKT

65 STR

74 END

79 PH

78 PA

72 SC

69 DF

[Patrick Kane]

[SOB for MVP]

People complaining about prospects, so I decided to come out with a system.

First off, give top prospects good ratings to separate them from low/mid tier prospects.

Now this isn't perfect, its all based off percentages and grading needed to be tweaked to make it perfect. THERES ALOT TO BE TWEAKED SO DON'T BASH ME RIGHT OFF THE BAT, I DON'T MIND IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THINGS, ITS NOT SET IN STONE.

1. Potential

For a simple, easy, method - use this rubric.

1st-3rd overall picks: 90 POT

4th-9th overall picks: 80/85 POT

10th-30th overall picks: 75/80 POT

2nd round picks: 70 POT

3rd round picks: 65/70 POT

4th round picks: 65 POT

5th-7th round picks: 60 POT

Decrease POT by 5 every year. Once its at 50, the player can NO longer improve.

Essentially a top 3 pick can improve using this system till hes 26.

2. Grade

Depending on success of the year, they will be given a grade.

NHL:

Forwards

60+ point season = A

30-59 point season = B

15-29 point season = C

14 or less point season = D

Defense

30+ point season = A

15-29 point season = B

5-14 point season = C

4 or less point season = D

AHL:

Forwards

No possible way to get A

100+ point season = B

65-99 point season = C

64 or less point season = D

Defense

65+ point season = B

30-64 point season = C

29 or less point season = D

A = 25% increase in attributes

B = 15% increase in attributes

C = 7% increase in attributes

D = 3% increase in attributes

Age is a factor, add these percentages.

18 = +4%

19 = +3%

20 = +2%

21 = +1%

22 = +0%

I feel since players can start at 18, they should only be in the AHL for four years, until playing their won't help their development at all.

MacKinnon had 34 pts in 37 games, on pace for 75 points in AHL. "C"

9 pts in 45 NHL games, on pace for 16 points in NHL. "C"

So MacKinnon should get a 7% increase on all stats + 4% since he acheived this at 18. 11% all around increase.

Orignal key ratings:

60 CHK

75 SKT

63 STR

70 END

75 PH

72 PA

75 SC

70 DF

New ratings:

67 CHK

82 SKT

77 STR

77 END

79 PA

82 SC

77 DF

Barkov had 68 pts in 65 games played on pace for around point per game. "C"

18 years old, so he should get a 11% boost in all stats.

Orignal key ratings:

60 CHK

72 SKT

68 STR

73 END

72 PH

72 PA

72 SC

72 DF

New ratings:

67 CHK

79 SKT

75 STR

80 END

79 PH

79 PA

79 SC

79 DF

David Rundblad; 46 points in 72 games played gives him a C rating. He was 22 years old. % increase = 7

Original key ratings:

55 CHK

80 SKT

61 STR

70 END

75 PH

74 PA

68 SC

65 DF

New ratings:

59 CHK

84 SKT

65 STR

74 END

79 PH

78 PA

72 SC

69 DF

[Chimon]

People complaining about prospects, so I decided to come out with a system.

First off, give top prospects good ratings to separate them from low/mid tier prospects.

Now this isn't perfect, its all based off percentages and grading needed to be tweaked to make it perfect. THERES ALOT TO BE TWEAKED SO DON'T BASH ME RIGHT OFF THE BAT, I DON'T MIND IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THINGS, ITS NOT SET IN STONE.

1. Potential

For a simple, easy, method - use this rubric.

1st-3rd overall picks: 90 POT

4th-9th overall picks: 80/85 POT

10th-30th overall picks: 75/80 POT

2nd round picks: 70 POT

3rd round picks: 65/70 POT

4th round picks: 65 POT

5th-7th round picks: 60 POT

Decrease POT by 5 every year. Once its at 50, the player can NO longer improve.

Essentially a top 3 pick can improve using this system till hes 26.

2. Grade

Depending on success of the year, they will be given a grade.

NHL:

Forwards

60+ point season = A

30-59 point season = B

15-29 point season = C

14 or less point season = D

Defense

30+ point season = A

15-29 point season = B

5-14 point season = C

4 or less point season = D

AHL:

Forwards

No possible way to get A

100+ point season = B

65-99 point season = C

64 or less point season = D

Defense

65+ point season = B

30-64 point season = C

29 or less point season = D

A = 25% increase in attributes

B = 15% increase in attributes

C = 7% increase in attributes

D = 3% increase in attributes

Age is a factor, add these percentages.

18 = +4%

19 = +3%

20 = +2%

21 = +1%

22 = +0%

I feel since players can start at 18, they should only be in the AHL for four years, until playing their won't help their development at all.

MacKinnon had 34 pts in 37 games, on pace for 75 points in AHL. "C"

9 pts in 45 NHL games, on pace for 16 points in NHL. "C"

So MacKinnon should get a 7% increase on all stats + 4% since he acheived this at 18. 11% all around increase.

Orignal key ratings:

60 CHK

75 SKT

63 STR

70 END

75 PH

72 PA

75 SC

70 DF

New ratings:

67 CHK

82 SKT

77 STR

77 END

79 PA

82 SC

77 DF

Barkov had 68 pts in 65 games played on pace for around point per game. "C"

18 years old, so he should get a 11% boost in all stats.

Orignal key ratings:

60 CHK

72 SKT

68 STR

73 END

72 PH

72 PA

72 SC

72 DF

New ratings:

67 CHK

79 SKT

75 STR

80 END

79 PH

79 PA

79 SC

79 DF

David Rundblad; 46 points in 72 games played gives him a C rating. He was 22 years old. % increase = 7

Original key ratings:

55 CHK

80 SKT

61 STR

70 END

75 PH

74 PA

68 SC

65 DF

New ratings:

59 CHK

84 SKT

65 STR

74 END

79 PH

78 PA

72 SC

69 DF

What I've done so far for the first round is this:

1st-3rd overall picks: 95 POT

4th-15th overall picks: 90 POT

16th-30th overall picks: 85 POT

As far as the rest of your system goes, here is my critique:

1. Potential

- Rating potential for the second round and beyond has to be circumstantial. Your system is too strict and won't allow for late bloomers or sleeper/diamonds in the rough picks. Re-raters need to do their research when creating new prospects/draftees to come up with a PO rating.

- I agree that PO should decrease by -5 only, rather than -10 as we have been doing for the past couple seasons.

- I disagree that a player who reaches 50 PO should no longer be able to improve, as this would once again go against the idea of late bloomers or players who may have a breakout season.

2. Grade & Percentages

- The effort is appreciated but I feel it's too structured/complicated for the re-raters to remember.

- Players develop at different rates and ways and I find it difficult to go along with the suggestion that all attributes should increase at a uniform rate (+x% in all stats). For example this is what I typically look at when re-rating a player:

> CK: Hits, Player type/profile from sources

> FG: Fights, Player type/profile from sources

> DI: PIMs (No set rule; Depends on DI/GP)

> EN: Ice-time (No set rule; Depends on TOI/GP in NHL and/or AHL)

> DU: Games Played (At least 74 GP = +3 [NHL])

> FO: Faceoffs taken, FO% (minor)

> PA: Assists (No set rule; Depends on #, Player type, did they improve or get worse? ...etc.)

> SC: Goals (No set rule; Depends on #, Player type, did they improve or get worse? ...etc.)

> PH: Combination of Assists and Goals, Player type

> SK, ST: Player type/profile from sources

> DF: Short-handed (PK) ice-time, Takeways (minor for forwards, major for defencemen)

> PS: SO attempts and makes (Typically +1 for each make, but it may improve if the player takes a lot of attempts and doesn't make any...I would expect they'd learn).

> EX: GP (No set rule; NHL Regular season & playoffs, AHL regular season & playoffs)

> LD: Player type/profile from sources

The re-rates I've been doing have been pretty minor for prospects so far (~ +1-5) but I wouldn't mind having a higher range (+4-7) to go with. This would make drafting and prospect development more relevant and make free agency a tool, not a necessity, in creating and managing an organization/team (which is what a GM does).

[Dion Phaneuf]

I prefer the system we already have in place. It's simple and some prospects are nearing busts like RL.