|
Post by Scott-New York on Jun 27, 2015 20:24:10 GMT -5
I would honestly have to have Glenn explain the Setoguchi card but I don't understand that either at this point. I also have some confusion but expected that with the new format.
|
|
|
Post by Ian-Halifax on Jun 27, 2015 20:30:24 GMT -5
There should be no confusion. A forward who was a 40 before should be a 67 now, simple as that. Like I said, a lot more changed than we were aware of. That's why a bunch of no names are better than some of the best forwards in the league.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jun 27, 2015 20:34:50 GMT -5
My impression is that a forward who was a 40 before would be closer to an 80 now, the cards are based more on like a 120 than a 100, we have guys over 100.
|
|
|
Post by Ian-Halifax on Jun 27, 2015 20:40:10 GMT -5
Ok Beleksey and Soderberg would be a 35 in previous years? With their time on ice, no way. Like I said, a lot more changed than we were aware of and it makes no sense. Soderberg and Belskey are some of the best 3rd line players in the league.
|
|
|
Post by Mike - Montreal on Jun 27, 2015 20:42:40 GMT -5
Is there a reason not all our players are showing on our team pages? I started hunting around and looked at the player cards page and found a number of my players on the UFA page. I figured it was a work in progress, so I decided to wait and see if it sorted itself out.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jun 27, 2015 20:49:03 GMT -5
You are correct Mike, it isn't finished yet as far as getting all of the players - especially the RFAs tied back to their teams.
I am going to jump on Skype as it will be a lot easier rebutting all of the comments on here in person as opposed to typing them in.
gbobb3 is my skype handle - respond here if you are planning on jumping on.
|
|
|
Post by Ian-Halifax on Jun 27, 2015 21:30:43 GMT -5
You are correct Mike, it isn't finished yet as far as getting all of the players - especially the RFAs tied back to their teams. I am going to jump on Skype as it will be a lot easier rebutting all of the comments on here in person as opposed to typing them in. gbobb3 is my skype handle - respond here if you are planning on jumping on. No point. If you're going to rebut that Seto should have a better card than half my team and Voracrk wasn't one of the best forwards in the league I'm going to lose that argument because those are pretty obvious.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jun 27, 2015 21:39:24 GMT -5
You don't want to know how the points are allocated then? Read my past 10 posts if you haven't already then to get some answers to your questions/rant.
|
|
|
Post by Ian-Halifax on Jun 27, 2015 22:02:41 GMT -5
Honestly? No. I'm going to sound like a dick saying this but in my opinion if you're going to try to argue what I just said than you are wrong. If you could find me a single NHL coach that would take Schwartz, Stone, etc over Voracek OFFENSiVELY then I would shut up. Wouldn't happen though. Players who play on the PK are double dipping. Better offense and better defense. I'm not arguing that they shouldn't have good cards, but something is flawed when they have a better offense than a guy who almost won the points total. I really don't know how you could even argue about Seto. He's just the first person I looked at, for all I know there are a ton of people like him. I have no clue how cards work anymore, I could be saying this shit and have the best team in the league (I'm sure I don't). And like I said before I could care less about you changing them. I'll just ride it out and see what happens, I'm just saying what I see because I'm fine being the bad guy. I do know this though, if you ran the cards how they were in the past, they would be a lot different.. You changed a lot more than just making cards x/60. I know you changed points and TOI/PK, but I also think something with that ruined the cards. When you talked about changing the cards to x/100 I was under the impression you were just going to change how they were displayed, not change how they were generated. Other than goalies, I don't really see what was wrong in the past.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jun 28, 2015 8:03:04 GMT -5
Ian, there is no fudge factor built into the offense scores. They are all based, and can be tied out to, hard empirical evidence. Offense is based on minutes/seconds between goals and assists (goals being weighted slightly higher) while not playing shorthanded. The algorithms still calculate the old value (last years as well) and Jake graded out at a 46 OFF.
I will be online most of the day today finishing the card work. If anyone has a question the offer stands to jump on Skype and ask away. I will have Skype running here while I am working.
edit* - to make sure you have it my Skype handle is gbobb3
|
|
|
Post by John-Michigan on Jun 28, 2015 8:24:08 GMT -5
Lots to sift thru. Glenn I trust you and your product. I won't get on the bash you band wagon. My only question is the comparison in points with the new ratings. If someone can explain or direct me to a prior post that will. Ie: a prior card of a 35 offense 25 defense would now translate to?
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jun 28, 2015 8:45:29 GMT -5
Lots to sift thru. Glenn I trust you and your product. I won't get on the bash you band wagon. My only question is the comparison in points with the new ratings. If someone can explain or direct me to a prior post that will. Ie: a prior card of a 35 offense 25 defense would now translate to? That player would be a 70/50 in the new model. You can simply take the new numbers and divide them in half to get a prior year comparable.
|
|
|
Post by Ian-Halifax on Jun 28, 2015 9:03:16 GMT -5
Ok maybe you can clear a few things up for me then. I don't really have time to look everyone over, here are just a few examples I saw.
1) Setoguchi is a 77, better than half my forwards. Played 12 games with 0 points.
2) Erik Cole is 87 offense. Total TOI: 14:39 - SH TOI: 0:01 = 14:38 TOI. He had .57 PPG with 21G/18A in 68 GP Matt Beleskey is 71 offense. Total TOI: 14:28 - SH TOI: 0:15 = 14:13 TOI. He had .49 PPG with 22G/10A in 65 GP Anders Lee is 77 offense. Total TOI: 14:23 - SH TOI: 0:02 = 14:21 TOI. He had .54 PPG with 25G/16A in 76 GP. Both guys had more goals (weighted higher), one of them in less GP. Both had more goals per game. Both had less TOI and their PPG were not drastically different to Cole's. Yet their cards aren't even comparable. Anders Lee gets a 10 less offense because he was .03 worse in PPG even though he played 17 seconds less and had more goals?
|
|
|
Post by Ian-Halifax on Jun 28, 2015 9:11:17 GMT -5
Another one I see, Matt Hunwick. I have no clue how you come up with the D ratings so I can't really argue it. Dude definitely isn't an all star but based on what you just said his card in previous years would be a 29 D. He was +17 in a lot less TOI than most of the other D. Does his card get ruined by the fact that he doesn't play on the PK?
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jun 28, 2015 9:51:47 GMT -5
Ok maybe you can clear a few things up for me then. I don't really have time to look everyone over, here are just a few examples I saw. 1) Setoguchi is a 77, better than half my forwards. Played 12 games with 0 points. 2) Erik Cole is 87 offense. Total TOI: 14:39 - SH TOI: 0:01 = 14:38 TOI. He had .57 PPG with 21G/18A in 68 GP Matt Beleskey is 71 offense. Total TOI: 14:28 - SH TOI: 0:15 = 14:13 TOI. He had .49 PPG with 22G/10A in 65 GP Anders Lee is 77 offense. Total TOI: 14:23 - SH TOI: 0:02 = 14:21 TOI. He had .54 PPG with 25G/16A in 76 GP. Both guys had more goals (weighted higher), one of them in less GP. Both had more goals per game. Both had less TOI and their PPG were not drastically different to Cole's. Yet their cards aren't even comparable. Anders Lee gets a 10 less offense because he was .03 worse in PPG even though he played 17 seconds less and had more goals? Setoguchi is easy to figure out. If a guy missed most of the year an average of his cards over the years is used in this stead however he will still be fragile as glass. In regards to bullet number 2 I think your numbers prove out the cards .57 PPG = 87 (43 old rating) .54 PPG = 77 (38 old rating) .49 PPG = 71 (35 old rating) Remember goals are weighted slightly higher (maybe 20% more). Also, your TOI figures above are the players average. The card builder uses their total time on ice to calculate scores so Cole did his work in 8 less games (or using your averages, 112 minutes (Lee 14Mins per game * 8 extra games)) time. You also need to add the players shoot/shot/pass ratings in when weighing the offensive value of the card. The off composite score is only used to create a pool for allocation to the offense sub categories. In regards to your follow up post, yes, a players time spent on the PK does factor into their defensive composite score.
|
|