|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Nov 29, 2018 16:57:06 GMT -5
We need to fix this.
Talking with Hamilton today, and I'm surprised that Georgiev, with 10 NHL games last season has a superior card to Cam Tallbot. Was Talbot a Vezina candidate last season? not even close to, but in 67 NHL games, he posted a 3.02 GAA and a .908 SV%. His card this year is 53-59 By contrast, Georgie, in the role of backup, pitched a 3.15 and a better Sv% (.918) but over a larger body of work, it is without any basis to suggest he has a better card than Talbot (63-65).
Not saying reduce the value of Dane's guy, but let's be real here: a first year backup playing ten NHL games simply cannot be rated significantly higher than an NHL starter playing 85% of the schedule. What's the fix, because we need one.
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Nov 29, 2018 18:55:29 GMT -5
Fake news....I've said it since....FOREVER!
Apples to Apples = NHL Goalie to NHL Goalie Comparison
GHL is Apples to Oranges ( IMO ) and apparently Hamilton and Moncton at least.
AHL Goalie to NHL Goalie Comparison, whereas the AHL goalie gets NO deduction of rating even though he is not facing "NHL" competition year round. If they were NHL caliber players in the AHL then they'd be in the NHL, they aren't. By that I mean, the entire 23 man AHL roster is NHL ready and capable as are the current NHL players.
MY suggestion is:
If a goalie plays 30 games in NHL, then we have a count down of the goalies usage in the GHL. Meaning we can only play him for 30 games also. No More than he actually played in NHL/Real life. That will certainly help when we have an AHL guy backup an NHL goalie for a 10 game stint.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Nov 29, 2018 21:03:58 GMT -5
And what do you recommend when multiple teams don't have 82 combined NHL games among their 5 goalies? Are teams with 3 or 4 NHL goalies going to loan their goaltenders to the teams who don't have 2 NHL goals on their roster? What about teams who only have 1 NHL goalie? I agree with the fact that an NHL back-up shouldn't be able to play as a starter in the GHL. I do not agree that a back-up can't have better stats than a starter, however. If he has better stats, he's going to have a better card. In the example Owen gave above, however, If those states are right, something is amiss in the card values somewhere in one or both of those players.
|
|
|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Nov 29, 2018 22:32:50 GMT -5
Whatever the resolution, an unproven (at the NHL level) goalie CANNOT have a better card than an NHL goalie with almost SEVEN TIMES the body of work in the same season at the time rating was determined, especially when he's faced 1732 fewer NHL shots, not in the previous year, but in his entire career. The logic of this absolutely eludes me. If we wanna reward an upstart goalie with ten games under his belt against the best shooters in the world with good tech numbers, great, but to have any kind of fortitude or stamina to be a starter-calibre goalie in the GHL is to miss the mark. Especially when tenured veterans have lesser statistical values at 10 x the cost.
is this indicative of a needed tweak in the way we calibrate/qualify goalie values? Is this (goalie rating) a 'feel' thing? How do we evolve this?
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Nov 30, 2018 5:45:00 GMT -5
I'm going to guess that Georgiev has a better card because of two factors. The first is a much better save percentage. And the second is a much lower sample size. It works the same way with skaters. A player who is productive from the 3rd line will often have a better card than some of the early good players. Have a look at Mathieu Perreault throughout his card history... that's one very valuable bottom six player. His stamina should hold him back. The issue isn't in the card, it's in the goalie stamina. Georgiev at a 7 stamina is arguably too high, however, having a high card value than Talbot is logical being that his save percentage was 10 points higher, although in a smaller sample size. For a skater view of the same thing, compare Mathieu Perreault to Arturri Lehkonen. Lehkonen was a less productive top player, he has a much worse card but higher stamina.
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Nov 30, 2018 10:14:56 GMT -5
And what do you recommend when multiple teams don't have 82 combined NHL games among their 5 goalies? Are teams with 3 or 4 NHL goalies going to loan their goaltenders to the teams who don't have 2 NHL goals on their roster? What about teams who only have 1 NHL goalie? I agree with the fact that an NHL back-up shouldn't be able to play as a starter in the GHL. I do not agree that a back-up can't have better stats than a starter, however. If he has better stats, he's going to have a better card. In the example Owen gave above, however, If those states are right, something is amiss in the card values somewhere in one or both of those players. Recommend that the GM draft or trade wisely to make sure that he has a goalie with those kind of parameters met! Because after all that’s his responsibility to do that. NHL GM’s make sure that they have the team to take the ice, that’s all we need to do also.
|
|
|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Nov 30, 2018 12:41:45 GMT -5
I'm going to guess that Georgiev has a better card because of two factors. The first is a much better save percentage. And the second is a much lower sample size. It works the same way with skaters. A player who is productive from the 3rd line will often have a better card than some of the early good players. Have a look at Mathieu Perreault throughout his card history... that's one very valuable bottom six player. His stamina should hold him back. The issue isn't in the card, it's in the goalie stamina. Georgiev at a 7 stamina is arguably too high, however, having a high card value than Talbot is logical being that his save percentage was 10 points higher, although in a smaller sample size. For a skater view of the same thing, compare Mathieu Perreault to Arturri Lehkonen. Lehkonen was a less productive top player, he has a much worse card but higher stamina. Scott, save percentage across 304 shots versus the same at approximately seven times that rate cannot be considered advantageous to the guy with the much smaller body of work. In short, what Georgie demonstrated over ten games would not be sustainable had he been forced to perform for 85% of the season. That's like making a rookie shooter with an unsustainably high shooting % a second line GHL caliber player that would normally cost you 3.5-4M in cap for 500K. If a guy hasnt got the body of work to back it up, we cant be OK with giving him a better card than tenured pro's with similar numbers. Georgie had a better sV% over ten games. Talbot had a better GAA over 67. That's problematic.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Nov 30, 2018 12:41:55 GMT -5
All too often guys just focus on the tech and athl numbers and forget the whole mechanic surrounding stamina. As Scotty pointed out his rating in this category is lower than that of Talbots because of games played which means on average over a year both players will be about average.
Also, as has been the case since day one, players are rated on how they performed last year (aside from averages that are used if a player plays a very few number of games due to injury). With that in mind just saying Talbot should have higher stats just because is about as far from stats based cards (which we have) as you can get.
I am not saying there couldn't be some improvements made to the process but I would think that what would cause major changes would be more then worrying about a few points between two average (for this year at least) goalie cards.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Nov 30, 2018 12:46:47 GMT -5
I'm going to guess that Georgiev has a better card because of two factors. The first is a much better save percentage. And the second is a much lower sample size. It works the same way with skaters. A player who is productive from the 3rd line will often have a better card than some of the early good players. Have a look at Mathieu Perreault throughout his card history... that's one very valuable bottom six player. His stamina should hold him back. The issue isn't in the card, it's in the goalie stamina. Georgiev at a 7 stamina is arguably too high, however, having a high card value than Talbot is logical being that his save percentage was 10 points higher, although in a smaller sample size. For a skater view of the same thing, compare Mathieu Perreault to Arturri Lehkonen. Lehkonen was a less productive top player, he has a much worse card but higher stamina. Scott, save percentage across 304 shots versus the same at approximately seven times that rate cannot be considered advantageous to the guy with the much smaller body of work. In short, what Georgie demonstrated over ten games would not be sustainable had he been forced to perform for 85% of the season. That's like making a rookie shooter with an unsustainably high shooting % a second line GHL caliber player that would normally cost you 3.5-4M in cap for 500K. If a guy hasnt got the body of work to back it up, we cant be OK with giving him a better card than tenured pro's with similar numbers. Georgie had a better sV% over ten games. Talbot had a better GAA over 67. That's problematic. The program that generates the cards uses the better of save pct or GAA. Even though Talbots was higher, it was still significantly below average.
|
|
|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Nov 30, 2018 13:01:05 GMT -5
All too often guys just focus on the tech and athl numbers and forget the whole mechanic surrounding stamina. As Scotty pointed out his rating in this category is lower than that of Talbots because of games played which means on average over a year both players will be about average. Also, as has been the case since day one, players are rated on how they performed last year (aside from averages that are used if a player plays a very few number of games due to injury). With that in mind just saying Talbot should have higher stats just because is about as far from stats based cards (which we have) as you can get. I am not saying there couldn't be some improvements made to the process but I would think that what would cause major changes would be more then worrying about a few points between two average (for this year at least) goalie cards.In the NHL, a guy is considered a rookie until he has In the NHL a guy is considered Calder-eligible (AKA a rookie) up until he has played something like 25 games. Georgie is a raw rookie. I can't imagine how we can possibly argue that less than half that amount (10 games) makes him a better GHL-level asset than a goalie with a better GAA over 7x the workload. Any player with under 25 games in the show shouldn't be anything close to 2nd tier GHL goalie. Not trying to punish Dane here, but I really think we need to re-think how the system quantifies and qualifies goalie ratings. Had Georgie's junior pro numbers been better, there might be an argument to be made that he was a hidden gem, but theyre consistently around the 3.00 GAA/.905 SV% against inferior shooters. I think we are looking at it wrong. A rookie goalie may have all the Fort/Stam of a tenured pro, but his TECH/ATHL numbers would (should) be lower because they are untested at the highest level. You may have pristine rebound control vs AHL shooters, but to think those skills will fare equally against the best in the game is not an accurate representation of what youre going to see across a larger body of work.
|
|
|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Nov 30, 2018 13:04:26 GMT -5
Scott, save percentage across 304 shots versus the same at approximately seven times that rate cannot be considered advantageous to the guy with the much smaller body of work. In short, what Georgie demonstrated over ten games would not be sustainable had he been forced to perform for 85% of the season. That's like making a rookie shooter with an unsustainably high shooting % a second line GHL caliber player that would normally cost you 3.5-4M in cap for 500K. If a guy hasnt got the body of work to back it up, we cant be OK with giving him a better card than tenured pro's with similar numbers. Georgie had a better sV% over ten games. Talbot had a better GAA over 67. That's problematic. The program that generates the cards uses the better of save pct or GAA. Even though Talbots was higher, it was still significantly below average.Fir Fair point, but when you drag Georgie's numbers across almost 70 games, you don't need to be a rocket surgeon to anticipate a significant dip. That's my point hence the shooting% analogy. The mean he regresses to in the NHL will almost always be lower than the junior-pro comparable.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Nov 30, 2018 15:12:48 GMT -5
How are goalie stamina numbers figured? Why is Georgiev a 7 when he played significantly less games? That's the issue I see. The card values are based on stats and the fact is, a .918 save % is significantly higher than a .908 in this case. I understand the argument with this is sample size but it's always been this way and works the same with skaters as I pointed out.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Nov 30, 2018 15:37:37 GMT -5
How are goalie stamina numbers figured? Why is Georgiev a 7 when he played significantly less games? That's the issue I see. The card values are based on stats and the fact is, a .918 save % is significantly higher than a .908 in this case. I understand the argument with this is sample size but it's always been this way and works the same with skaters as I pointed out. Because he played games in the AHL as well.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Nov 30, 2018 15:45:40 GMT -5
All too often guys just focus on the tech and athl numbers and forget the whole mechanic surrounding stamina. As Scotty pointed out his rating in this category is lower than that of Talbots because of games played which means on average over a year both players will be about average. Also, as has been the case since day one, players are rated on how they performed last year (aside from averages that are used if a player plays a very few number of games due to injury). With that in mind just saying Talbot should have higher stats just because is about as far from stats based cards (which we have) as you can get. I am not saying there couldn't be some improvements made to the process but I would think that what would cause major changes would be more then worrying about a few points between two average (for this year at least) goalie cards.In the NHL, a guy is considered a rookie until he has In the NHL a guy is considered Calder-eligible (AKA a rookie) up until he has played something like 25 games. Georgie is a raw rookie. I can't imagine how we can possibly argue that less than half that amount (10 games) makes him a better GHL-level asset than a goalie with a better GAA over 7x the workload. Any player with under 25 games in the show shouldn't be anything close to 2nd tier GHL goalie. Not trying to punish Dane here, but I really think we need to re-think how the system quantifies and qualifies goalie ratings. Had Georgie's junior pro numbers been better, there might be an argument to be made that he was a hidden gem, but theyre consistently around the 3.00 GAA/.905 SV% against inferior shooters. I think we are looking at it wrong. A rookie goalie may have all the Fort/Stam of a tenured pro, but his TECH/ATHL numbers would (should) be lower because they are untested at the highest level. You may have pristine rebound control vs AHL shooters, but to think those skills will fare equally against the best in the game is not an accurate representation of what youre going to see across a larger body of work. Again you are ignoring the stamina numbers. For everyone out there, a simplified way to determine a goalies actual card value would be to multiply their athl and tech values (and by extensions their sub scores in both categories) by their stamina/10. In this particular case: Talbot 53x(10/10=1) or 53 and 59x(10/10=1) or 59 compared to Georgiev 63x(7/10=.7) or 44.1 and 65x(7/10=.7) or 45.5 You need to factor stamina into the equation. The sim is setup to allow higher levels of play by a goalie for shorter time (Blue/Green/Yellow/Orange/Red).
|
|
|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Nov 30, 2018 16:08:36 GMT -5
Actually, my point is that inexperience and stamina arent actually correlated. A rookie player can be full of piss and vinegar and even fitter than an NHL'er in some cases but the skill level will fluctuate based on his ability to adapt to a faster pace and a more physical opponent. It's not that he suffers from a sudden lack of stamina, but a challenge in translating his skill set at the pro level.
Stamina is a measure of fitness ie wingate testing. It's the ability to perform at a high level during periods of extreme resistance. Lots of rookies do exceedingly well on this test at the combine, but that doesnt make them NHL-ready. That's an experience issue, and ten pro games doesnt warrant having enough experience to make a player outperform a tenured pro, even for brief periods of on-ice play. Maybe in a wingate test, but not in a pro hockey game or even a sim.
Done ranting. Just think we are giving advantages to unproven assets over tenured players with greater experience. Georgiev has the most starts and the best numbers for Dane. And he has Dubnyk and Mrazek in the mix as well. That alone is indicative of a system not working the way it was intended. A rookie platooning with Dubnyk and he's beating him? And he has perfect FORT and pretty good STAM after just 10 games? Yeah, sorry...I think something needs to be tweaked there.
|
|