Titre: Game Day All Star Team

How difficult would it really be to update the All Star Selection calculation to include factors such as:
- opponent team strength
- minutes played
- comparable performance in-game (how other players on your team preformed compared to them)


A couple of matches ago, I defeated the top team in my league 33-27 and one of my players scored 18 goals in 22 shots. He received the 1st star nod for my game, but to my astonishment, was passed over for the Game Day All Star Team that day.

His other stats were admittedly fairly pedestrian... but he was absolutely the reason that I won the game and handed the first place team their 2nd loss of the season.

Compare my player to the one selected that day for LB All Star:

- My Player: 18/22 shooting (82%), 1 assist, 2 turnovers, 0 steals, 0 blocks, 30:31 minutes played (he only plays offense). He scored 0.59 goals per minute played, and had more than 3x as many goals as anyone else on my team!

- All Star Selection: 9/14 shooting (64%), 5 assists, 1 turnover, 3 steals, 1 block, 60:00 minutes played. Even if you add his goals, assists, steals, and blocks, he still only had 0.3 accomplishments per minute played. He didn't even lead his OWN TEAM in scoring OR points that day.

I'll concede that my guy doesn't play defense, and that's likely what put him at a disadvantage in the selection process... but I just can't disguard the fact that he was the sole reason I was able to defeat a nearly unbeaten team.

As far as I'm concerned, an All Star is more than just an "all around player" ... they're someone who wins you important games, and is significant to your team when they are in the game.

It just drives me nuts when I see players from DEAD (manager-less) teams winning All Star nods for pretty average performance against middle-of-the-pack competition.

/rant

I agree and ranted several years back myslef!! I seem to remember that they factor the OR.So if you are both close,you are expected to play each other close and good.

Well it's good to hear that others have the same thoughts... Sad to hear that they've been echoing these sentiments for years and nothing has changed.

I guess it's just frustrating in the lower leagues... because you see these "no-name" teams with players that win season all-star rewards. They don't even log in, so what do they care?

I feel like the people would would think it cool/neat to see their players on such a list are the ones the system is kind of stacked against. It just seems back-asswards lol.

I am in full agreement.. None of my players play for a full 60 minutes, and I dont believe i have gotten one game day all star selection all season, even though my team has only lost 1 game this season.

I agree the all star team picks can be wonky at times, especially when nonames beat bottom teams and get selected. Personally, I put much more focus on team awards though, so I don't bother with them much. And it's at least encouraging that the teams with the best players don't always make the best performing teams.

For example, here are the total all star selections by team of the 12 managed teams in my handball league in order of league standing. That's me at the top there with only 7 selections. I'm in first by 7 pts with a GD of +321.

7
32
15
11
14
16
32
12
14
10
14
14

That "32" in seventh place is exactly what I'm talking about.

And yeah, I totally agree that the team awards are more appropriate to use as a gauge. I don't really look at the all-star stuff much at all in fact (mostly because I think it's incredibly broken). That's a shame, because it's a cool idea, and I'd probably follow it more if it was executed well.

Well take a look at the negitive impact of being named an all star to many times. Maybe that will cheer you up. Each time you get named to weekly All Star, you get a small bump in popularity. Sounds great and all, but that causes salary to jump a alot.

I suspect this is low on their list of things to look at at. This has never been a hot issue for most managers.

Cheers.

I always thought popularity was a good thing? Doesn't that increase attendance and souvenir sales?

NONE of my guys are even remotely popular to the point that I'm actually starting to worry it might hurt me in the long run.

Is the salary bump really that significant (that it cancels out the positives that increased popularity brings your team)?

attendance is no factor right now as the fans, currently, will fill the stadiums. Once we can start building more seats having a few popular players will become a factor.

I am more concerned with experience instead of popularity, although it is nice to see a popular player in the roster

Well you are right Lanky, it does effect those things also. But like in the real world, the contracts of your popular players jumps!! The more popular they are, the bigger the jump.

The player popularity is just a small part of what effects attendance. But pay attention to your popular players on contract time. My best player, his salary jumped 3 times what it was.

I also agree with Bulls, EXP!! That is why you should always do freindlies. Yes, minor exp, but every little bit helps come playoff time.

Makes sense.

Yeah, last season I just bought a bunch of cheap, good OR, low Q players on the market and played every match on high (burning them out and then letting their contracts expire) while I was waiting for my sports academy to ramp up and start yielding results.

This year, I've actually tried getting my better players more consistent exp... but I noticed that their popularity doesn't seem to go up much (as I try not to play them in more than half of each game, and I usually only play them on offense or defense).

It's one of those "scoring by committee" sort of situations, and I was actually starting to worry that it might matter somehow.

I'm glad to hear that the positive effects don't really kick in until a little later.

Well, relax. Your staff salaries are what is going to kill you. lol

Meh, only three or four of my facilities are high enough that the staff members even do anything.

I just got a pull today for a lecturer and physiotherapist. Both were under 25 OR lol.

I'm most worried about my managers and sporting directors. I'm only training one attribute in them. They'll be killing me by season 4.

I feel sick looking at yesterday's All Star Team. The 4 top teams played, only 2 players made it. The rest all no manager teams.

God that's horrible. You know what's really sad though? The manager-less team in last place in your league ("big olds+" ) has more that 5x as many all star nominations this year than the first place team ("Left Hand of the Law" )... 17 to 3 respectively.

Their records are as follows:
7-1-24
30-1-1

So basically, "big olds+" has gotten 2.42 all-star nominations for every game won (despite not having a manager), while "Left Hand of the Law" has gotten 0.10 all-star nominations for every game won.

Seems to make sense... because i mean it's not like all-stars are supposed to win you games or anything...