View Single Post
08-22-2011, 11:42 AM
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,629
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Wow. Clearly this one was decided before the discussion even started. My opponent did nothing but ask a couple of questions. Maybe I should have metagamed more and voted my team to win in 4? That wouldn't have been an honest opinion though.

Three of the top four stars are on my team, and I win a single game of five? Something doesn't add up there.

It's nice to see Paton, Breen and Power recognized, at least.
We can't vote for our own teams.

The way the votes are calculated, if all 13 GMs voted "Belleville in 7," then you'd lose 4-0. A 4-1 series means the vote total was probably something like 10-3 in his favor, regardless of the number of games each person voted for.

Anyway, I'd say your team's defeat was a combination of several factors.

1) Team building:

a) Your first line was full of shooters without playmakers. Herg is one of the most goal-biased players in the draft, but who is there to get him the puck? Do we know anything about Breen other than his goal scoring abilities? Team chemistry is very important to success in this thing.

b) I'm not sure if you have a forward line that I'd feel comfortable with in defensive situations. (Definitely NOT the line centered by Fielder). Generally teams in this that don't have a line that can be used as a checking line don't do very well.

2) Too many unknowns:

a) As I alluded to upthread, the defensive ability of 3 of your starting defensemen is basically unknown (plus Siltanen who was known bad).

b) Like jkrx's team, you filled your team with guys unknown to us, which makes it tough for you. You provided short profiles on most of these guys, and definitely convinced people on some of them (Breen, Power, Paton though we already knew about Paton), but filling a team with relatively unknown guys hasn't been a recipe for success in this thing historically. Maybe you're be like seventieslord of two years ago and be the guy constantly losing while "discovering" guys only to find that everyone appreciates your guys more next time.

c) And I think putting too many career O6 minor leaguers on the team was probably a tough sell for some.

Hope you're back at this again. You're a valuable source of knowledge in this thing and know more about the early era that most of us. Learning how to build successful teams in the ATD/MLD is relatively easy compared to the substantial historical knowledge required to do well. Most GMs lose their first try out for similar reasons to what went wrong with your team, then come back much stronger the second time. I got wiped out easily in the first round of my first MLD, then came back to the main ATD the next year and went all the way to the semifinals (getting lucky enough to draft Bobby Orr did help though).

Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 08-22-2011 at 01:57 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote