HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

ATD 2013 - Planning

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-03-2012, 03:08 PM
  #51
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Edit: One issue with your idea is that it would take more time to evaluate trades, right?
Why more? The chart would be known, so GMs will have largely ready-made trades for evaluation. For a commissioner, there's no thinking, you just punch in a couple numbers and give a thumbs-up or -down. No?

Not saying I agree or disagree with it, just throwing it out there...

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 03:09 PM
  #52
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,226
vCash: 50
Disagree with the one round before rule , sometimes you want to see what is going to happen within the next 10 picks to make a decision.We should simply make sure that it's done in a reasonable way.People can't appear out of nowhere 4 hours into their clock and start to negociate.If you are on the clock you should already know who you are going to pick.

If you are seen online on your clock you should be expected to pick within the next 2 hours.You can't just log on , be seen on the board by moderators and then log off and come back 7 hours later to make your pick.

BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 03:11 PM
  #53
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post

Edit: Or you can simply announce that you are in negotiations for a trade and it will be posted as soon as its done and more people will be ready for approving or vetoing it and it wont hold up the draft.
I guess that could work. See my second edit though - there is nothing stopping anyone from negotiating a trade when he's on the clock or close to the clock. Just pick the other team's player and trade him afterwards.

So I'm not sure what this restriction will accomplish.

Last draft was the first draft that we didn't ban on the clock trades. You're saying you want to ban on the clock trades AND trades within a round of the clock, right?

(Obviously conditional trades would still be allowed)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
Disagree with the one round before rule , sometimes you want to see what is going to happen within the next 10 picks to make a decision.We should simply make sure that it's done in a reasonable way.People can't appear out of nowhere 4 hours into their clock and start to negociate.If you are on the clock you should already know who you are going to pick.
So you want to re-ban on the clock trades even though they are easy to circumvent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post

If you are seen online on your clock you should be expected to pick within the next 2 hours.You can't just log on , be seen on the board by moderators and then log off and come back 7 hours later to make your pick.
I don't really agree with this. If someone found their planned pick was taken already, why shouldn't they have their full clock to do research?

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 03:12 PM
  #54
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Why more? The chart would be known, so GMs will have largely ready-made trades for evaluation. For a commissioner, there's no thinking, you just punch in a couple numbers and give a thumbs-up or -down. No?

Not saying I agree or disagree with it, just throwing it out there...
I guess that makes sense.

Now coming up with values for the chart - that's the hard part!

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 03:13 PM
  #55
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,226
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I guess that could work. See my second edit though - there is nothing stopping anyone from negotiating a trade when he's on the clock or close to the clock. Just pick the other team's player and trade him afterwards.

So I'm not sure what this restriction will accomplish.

Last draft was the first draft that we didn't ban on the clock trades. You're saying you want to ban on the clock trades AND trades within a round of the clock, right?

(Obviously conditional trades would still be allowed)



So you want to re-ban on the clock trades even though they are easy to circumvent?



I don't really agree with this. If someone found their planned pick was taken already, why shouldn't they have their full clock to do research.
You should already have thought about it and have a player B on your list.Every player in the top 500 is known to a point where you can easily get a resume of their strenght to compare , it shouldn't take that long.

I think on-the-clock trades should be limited to the first two hours of the clock , therefore seeing on-the-clock trading as a privilege and not a right in the draft.

BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 03:19 PM
  #56
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
You should already have thought about it and have a player B on your list.Every player in the top 500 is known to a point where you can easily get a resume of their strenght to compare , it shouldn't take that long.
I have definitely used most of my clock doing research when something unexpected happens in the draft. I wouldn't want that taken away from me.

Quote:
I think on-the-clock trades should be limited to the first two hours of the clock , therefore seeing on-the-clock trading as a privilege and not a right in the draft.
Gives an unfair advantage to GMs who are always signed on, IMO

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 04:24 PM
  #57
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,208
vCash: 500
I am not in favor of trades that have to be "in advance." Trades are often made because something unexpected has happened shortly before your pick, and you need to make an adjustment.

I am also not a fan of telling people what they can and cannot do with their clock time. If we have agreed that the clock is a certain length what does it matter what people use their clock for?...discussing trades, research, personal matters, etc. I don't even like the penalty for trading on the clock...at the very least the rule should be amended so that people who make their trade at the beginning of their clock (some per-determined time, maybe the first quarter or third of their clock time) do not get punished at all. If you go past the threshold then the penalty can be administered.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 05:02 PM
  #58
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,208
vCash: 500
Here are some of the trading numbers from last year's ATD that might help us make some decisions regarding trade limits...

How many teams made x number of trades total
11 trades - 1 team
10 - 1
9 - 0
8 - 2
7 - 1
6 - 0
5 - 0
4 - 6
3 - 7
2 - 4
1 - 6
No trades - 5 teams

How many teams made x number of trades cumulative

11 trades - 1 team
10 - 2
9 -2
8 - 4
7 - 5
6 - 5
5 - 5
4 - 11
3 - 18
2 - 22
1 - 28


Number of Trades Made Sorted By Assets Per Team
2 Assets/Team - 28 trades
3 - 16
4 - 5
5 - 1
6 - 1

Average Number of Assets Per Team = 2.65


*Note, these numbers are for approved trades only, they do not account for vetoed trades


Last edited by Hawkey Town 18: 12-03-2012 at 07:19 PM.
Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 05:56 PM
  #59
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,234
vCash: 873
My thoughts:

- After the swap of all picks prior to the draft, perhaps only accept 2-on-2 trades if any picks that change hands are in the Top-100, and then only accept 3-on-3 if any picks that change hands are in the Top-250/Top-300 etc ... My thought behind this is to easily be able to evaluate a trade with high picks involve (The consequences of a lopsided trade in the 500's isn't really important). I think most of the trades in the draft is for one team to get the player they are coveting, and this rule enable the teams to do so, while not giving a competitive advantage to another one.

- I don't mind a no-trade draft.

- I am still unsure if I will be participating, although the urge is present. The main reasons to participate in these drafts for me is to make biography, and I will still be away abroad until the very least early February. I may participate without doing bios and just making the picks (To fill a spot per say), but how fun is that?

- The later the draft start, the better my chance of participating (to give one GM opinion)

EagleBelfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 06:54 PM
  #60
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,727
vCash: 500
If we allow trades at all, I would be against any rule that restricts trades of 3 assets at once. "I give you 2 later for 1 now" is one of the most common trades and it's usually very easy to rubberstamp. It's once you get past 3 assets that there are problems.

I think the idea of only allowing 2-on-2 or 3-on-3 trades if the pick is a high one might be a good idea.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 06:57 PM
  #61
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
Here are some of the trading numbers from last year's ATD that might help us make some decisions regarding trade limits...

How many teams made x number of trades total
11 trades - 1 team
10 - 0
9 - 1
8 - 2
7 - 1
6 - 0
5 - 0
4 - 6
3 - 7
2 - 4
1 - 6
No trades - 4 teams

How many teams made x number of trades cumulative

11 trades - 1 team
10 - 1
9 -2
8 - 4
7 - 5
6 - 5
5 - 5
4 - 11
3 - 18
2 - 22
1 - 28
Thanks for doing this. Seems like a limit of 8 trades per team would have affected 2 teams.

Interesting that only 5 teams made more than 4 trades. For me, it wasn't because of lack of trying, I probably would have made 6 trades if I could have found a partner

Another possible idea (just throwing them out there because now's the time to do it) - vetoed trades count against the 6/8 trade limit.

Quote:
Number of Trades Made Sorted By Assets Per Team
2 Assets/Team - 28 trades
3 - 16
4 - 5
5 - 1
6 - 1

Average Number of Assets Per Team = 2.65


*Note, these numbers are for approved trades only, they do not account for vetoed trades
I think that this is a great example of how we wouldn't really lose anything other than headaches by banning trades with more than 4 assets going either way.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 07:00 PM
  #62
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,727
vCash: 500
Anyone who ever complained about the draft list being slow to be updated should be in favor of restricting megatrades - in my experience, a single trade with 5 assets going either way takes as long to update as an entire round of normal picks.

That's a reason to keep the restrictions on big trades even into the later rounds, especially since with shorter clocks in the later rounds, it is harder to figure out who is up.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 07:18 PM
  #63
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,208
vCash: 500
Found a mistake in the trade data from last year..."Les Canadiens de Montreal" were listed as "Montreal Canadiens" for one of the trades, and I counted it as a separate team. So there will be one more team that didn't trade at all and Les Canadiens de Montreal go from a 9 trade team to a 10 trade team. This shouldn't really make much of a difference because it only affects two teams that are both on opposite extreme ends of the spectrum.

OP will be fixed in a couple minutes

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 08:43 PM
  #64
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,226
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
Found a mistake in the trade data from last year..."Les Canadiens de Montreal" were listed as "Montreal Canadiens" for one of the trades, and I counted it as a separate team. So there will be one more team that didn't trade at all and Les Canadiens de Montreal go from a 9 trade team to a 10 trade team. This shouldn't really make much of a difference because it only affects two teams that are both on opposite extreme ends of the spectrum.

OP will be fixed in a couple minutes
To be fair I've always done my trades in a reasonable amount of time and they were clearly to get specific players , not exclusively for the fun of trading or the fun of giving the middle finger to the whiners in the heat of the moment.


Last edited by BenchBrawl: 12-03-2012 at 08:48 PM.
BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 09:03 PM
  #65
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,203
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I think that this is a great example of how we wouldn't really lose anything other than headaches by banning trades with more than 4 assets going either way.
Then they might just make two trades.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 09:19 PM
  #66
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
Then they might just make two trades.
I think that would be harder than it sounds, because both trades would have to be able to stand on their own as being fair. I just went and found two quick examples from last year's draft without analyzing them, just the first two I could find...

To Team A: 89, 215, 264, 392, 441
To Team B: 124, 152, 252, 380, 453

To Team A: 110, 136, 200, 249
To Team B: 87, 153, 215, 279

Can you break either of these down to be 2 separate fair trades?


EDIT: Looks like the first one could technically be broken down into 2 by just doing the first 3 as one trade and the remaining 2 as another, but you don't see a lot of GM's agree to something like that second part...12 now for 12 two rounds later.


Last edited by Hawkey Town 18: 12-03-2012 at 09:26 PM.
Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 09:20 PM
  #67
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
Then they might just make two trades.
That's fine. 2 smaller trades will each be easy to evaluate.

Though I guess splitting the trades does nothing about making the draft list easier to update.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 09:43 PM
  #68
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,692
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
I'm fine with either unlimited trading or some type of max where you can have like 5 trades or 15 or 20 assets change hands total(not including trades of full draft sets before the draft starts).

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 12:04 AM
  #69
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
I am not in favor of trades that have to be "in advance." Trades are often made because something unexpected has happened shortly before your pick, and you need to make an adjustment.

I am also not a fan of telling people what they can and cannot do with their clock time. If we have agreed that the clock is a certain length what does it matter what people use their clock for?...discussing trades, research, personal matters, etc. I don't even like the penalty for trading on the clock...at the very least the rule should be amended so that people who make their trade at the beginning of their clock (some per-determined time, maybe the first quarter or third of their clock time) do not get punished at all. If you go past the threshold then the penalty can be administered.
I couldn't possibly agree more with you.

People are too uptight about the clock. It's your clock to use as you want.

this whole attitude about the clock is a symptom of the "go go go draft draft draft" mentality that has permeated most people here and if we toned that mentality down, the drafts wouldn't be any worse off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
If we allow trades at all, I would be against any rule that restricts trades of 3 assets at once. "I give you 2 later for 1 now" is one of the most common trades and it's usually very easy to rubberstamp. It's once you get past 3 assets that there are problems.

I think the idea of only allowing 2-on-2 or 3-on-3 trades if the pick is a high one might be a good idea.
I agree with your 1st part.

I don't really get the point of the 2nd part at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Thanks for doing this. Seems like a limit of 8 trades per team would have affected 2 teams.

Interesting that only 5 teams made more than 4 trades. For me, it wasn't because of lack of trying, I probably would have made 6 trades if I could have found a partner
The first thing I noticed was that only 5 teams made more than 4 trades. a limit of 4 would have affected only the abusers - which is what we want.

seriously, if we're going to impose a limit, we want to say that 8 is acceptable?

Quote:
Another possible idea (just throwing them out there because now's the time to do it) - vetoed trades count against the 6/8 trade limit.
Yes - absolutely. Whatever can be used as a deterrent to BS trades should be.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 12:42 AM
  #70
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I agree with your 1st part.

I don't really get the point of the 2nd part at all.
Nobody is going to bother vetoing a trade that affects only picks after 300 or so, so in that sense, there is no point in limiting trades to 3-4 assets or fewer. But I would still rather just ban trades with more than 4 assets going either way to make the draft list faster to update.

Quote:
The first thing I noticed was that only 5 teams made more than 4 trades. a limit of 4 would have affected only the abusers - which is what we want.

seriously, if we're going to impose a limit, we want to say that 8 is acceptable?
Was there a single person who liked the 3 trade limit in ATD2011 by the end? It caused nothing but complaints and was in some ways worse than not allowing trades at all. How different is a 4 trade limit? If we're allowing trades at all, do we really want to add the added gaminess of "well I could trade up for the player I want now, but I might need to save a trade for later?"

you all are free to vote how you want. But I would vote for either loose restrictions on trades to prevent only the extreme cases or no trades at all, rather than allowing trades, but restricting them so much that you have to be strategic about them.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 12-04-2012 at 12:47 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 12:49 AM
  #71
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Nobody is going to bother vetoing a trade that affects only picks after 300 or so, so in that sense, there is no point in limiting trades to 3-4 assets or fewer. But I would still rather just ban trades with more than 4 assets going either way to make the draft list faster to update.



Was there a single person who liked the 3 trade limit in ATD2011 by the end? It caused nothing but complaints and was in some ways worse than not allowing trades at all. How different is a 4 trade limit? If we're allowing trades at all, do we really want to add the added gaminess of "well I could trade up for the player I want now, but I might need to save a trade for later?"

you all are free to vote how you want. But I would vote for either loose restrictions on trades to prevent only the extreme cases or no trades at all, rather than allowing trades, but restricting them so much that you have to be strategic about them.
Well, ok. I agree that in the end we wished we never had a limit. Maybe 4's not the right number. But 8? That just seems like no limit at all.

6 is probably a good number to look at.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 12:50 AM
  #72
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Well, ok. I agree that in the end we wished we never had a limit. Maybe 4's not the right number. But 8? That just seems like no limit at all.

6 is probably a good number to look at.
That's why I liked an 8 trade limit. It is exactly like no limit to the large majority of GMs.

6 wouldn't be so bad though.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 01:55 AM
  #73
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
That's why I liked an 8 trade limit. It is exactly like no limit to the large majority of GMs.
right, the majority of people aren't a problem. Those who are, will still make 8 trades, which is only a couple less than they made!

I like 6, for this reason.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 06:44 AM
  #74
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
right, the majority of people aren't a problem. Those who are, will still make 8 trades, which is only a couple less than they made!

I like 6, for this reason.
This all has to be voted on in January when everyone is here, but it seems like what you're talking about is:

1) 6 trades max per team
2) Vetoed trades count towards the maximum number of trades

And then with the possible inclusion of

3) 4 assets per side max in each trade

I do like the simplicity of it.

Swapping your whole set of draft picks before the draft starts doesn't count towards any of these (we all agree to that it seems).

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 06:58 AM
  #75
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,203
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
This all has to be voted on in January when everyone is here, but it seems like what you're talking about is:

1) 6 trades max per team
2) Vetoed trades count towards the maximum number of trades

And then with the possible inclusion of

3) 4 assets per side max in each trade

I do like the simplicity of it.

Swapping your whole set of draft picks before the draft starts doesn't count towards any of these (we all agree to that it seems).
Since we will never be able to convince any side about trades I think this is a good compromise.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:58 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.