Projected Team strength down....

[Glenn-Philadelphia]

I have reached out to Justin for his thoughts as the issue is very much the same that precludes me from getting the AHL stats directly.

[Phil-Cornwall]

Justin....I can pay you in Bitcoin.

[Phil-Cornwall]

oh, when will we be delivered from this Evil...

[Glenn-Philadelphia]

Well I was able to locate using my browser web developer tools how this information is grabbed.

When viewing the network tab I see there is a POST method initiated by stats.controller.js2 that yields all of the stats in the JSON response tab. That means I can manually copy this data and process it but I still need a way to programmatically retrieve it and add that logic to the scraper program.

[Glenn-Philadelphia]

...progress...

[Phil-Cornwall]

looks like it's back to normal!

Vonderbar

[Glenn-Philadelphia]

well it needs a tweak or two yet to fully automate it but is should be back up and running again in the next few days.

[Chris-Suffolk]

Annnnd, on a side note and totally not related to anything...I'd like to report Fake News...

Where exactly are the "Projected Team Strength" stats derived?

I question this projection. It appears to be heavily weighted on Goaltender Performance in-season and not an indication of the "team stats" as it suggests in its title. For example, and this is not meant as a back handed comment, Washington's projected strength has him above Suffolk for 23-24. The issue I see glaringly is, he has one position player Averaging over 1 Pt Per Game, while all of the others are below .63 PPG. He does have 2 goaltenders with .914 and .916 SvPtcg's. And that's it. Are we to believe that Troy Terry alone and only one of those goalies will project out to be a better "Team Strength" than Suffolk?

By comparison, Suffolk has 4 players over PPG, one at .96 and then the rest at >50 and one Goalie at .924 and another at .906.

Just a quick glance has Suffolk rated higher, IMO. Not that it matters...It just boggles ones mind. Maybe you're trying to mind-fk Suffolk with the Jedi Mind trickery.

Just doesn't make sense to me. Little to no accuracy. Why even use it?!

***Note: Even the teams at the Top of the heap aren't equating to 23-24 Strength, IMO. This feature is Fake News!

[Glenn-Philadelphia]

Dec 7, 2022 11:18:56 GMT -5 Chris-Suffolk said:

Annnnd, on a side note and totally not related to anything...I'd like to report Fake News...

Where exactly are the "Projected Team Strength" stats derived?

I question this projection. It appears to be heavily weighted on Goaltender Performance in-season and not an indication of the "team stats" as it suggests in its title. For example, and this is not meant as a back handed comment, Washington's projected strength has him above Suffolk for 23-24. The issue I see glaringly is, he has one position player Averaging over 1 Pt Per Game, while all of the others are below .63 PPG. He does have 2 goaltenders with .914 and .916 SvPtcg's. And that's it. Are we to believe that Troy Terry alone and only one of those goalies will project out to be a better "Team Strength" than Suffolk?

By comparison, Suffolk has 4 players over PPG, one at .96 and then the rest at >50 and one Goalie at .924 and another at .906.

Just a quick glance has Suffolk rated higher, IMO. Not that it matters...It just boggles ones mind. Maybe you're trying to mind-fk Suffolk with the Jedi Mind trickery.

Just doesn't make sense to me. Little to no accuracy. Why even use it?!

***Note: Even the teams at the Top of the heap aren't equating to 23-24 Strength, IMO. This feature is Fake News!

This is skewed at the moment because it relies heavily on the year to date stats for players under contract for the team for next year. As some skaters aren't showing up on the source site, they are not being factored into the equation at present.

I stated and posted in the past the details for how these are being calculated and offered nyone to make suggestions how to make them better, which if memory serves, went unanswered.

I can just turn it off if people would rather do that as well.

[Chris-Suffolk]

I realize that it is supposed to be taking into account the "In season stats of signed players and that there are some players not appearing on the stats." I have a player or two not showing on my stats ( Borgen, Leason, *Brodzinski, *Miromanov ), and I was including all of my already signed players. All of the teams above Suffolk in the rankings are in the same boat as well, each with players signed ranked. So, there's not much of a discrepancy there at all. Still, Washington only has ONE player with any decent statistical significance-Troy Terry.

I'm saying: How can Troy Terry and a Goalie ALONE, carry the strength of the entire team versus ( in this example ) Suffolk which has 4-5 players scoring AT or ABOVE Troy Terry and a Goalie who has a BETTER SvPtcg ( CURRENTLY )...Yet Washington is RANKED ABOVE Suffolk.

WASHINGTON - Troy Terry-1.00 + Jake Oettinger-.916 > SUFFOLK - Matthews-1.11, Tkachuk-1.46, Hintz-1.20, Burakovsky-1.04 and Svechnikov-0.96 + Samsanov-.924

These are the stats I pulled from the Current Season Stats as listed on our "TEAM STATS" page.

The Projected Team Strength is Not Adding Up! So, I am saying that the Formula which is assigning the "Projected Team Strength" is either pulling erroneous stats or it is an incorrect formula altogether.

It makes little to zero sense.

But, I Vote to keep it...Lull the teams into false sense of security whereas they think their teams are good enough and I can sneakily surprise them come game time.

[Chris-Suffolk]

Just bring the old car into the shop for the 50,000 Mile Servicing! It's under warranty!

[Glenn-Philadelphia]

Here is the current days breakdown of what is factored into the score. Perhaps goalies are providing too much of a weighted advantage? Feedback is appreciated.

teamcity	Off	Goalie	CapSpace	Total
Cincinnati	33.9	90.5	46	170.4
St Paul	56.6	89.7	23	169.3
Seattle	48	88.2	33	169.2
Baltimore	56	90.7	21	167.8
Washington	32.2	91	43	166.2
Hamilton	66.1	81.3	16	163.3
Halifax	72.2	65	20	157.3
New Jersey	44	89.3	20	153.3
Colorado	41.2	83.5	28	152.7
Michigan	32.6	91.6	27	151.2
Pittsburgh	65.4	56.2	29	150.6
Cleveland	37.7	78.4	34	150.1
Suffolk	43.8	89.7	16	149.4
Milwaukee	44	82.6	20	146.6
Chicago	44.2	70.3	32	146.5
Hartford	48.3	70.3	25	143.6
Philadelphia	40.3	69.4	32	141.8
Oregon	31.3	90.9	17	139.2
Adirondack	41.3	91.2	6	138.5
Hershey	26	82.8	28	136.8
New York	32.6	69.1	35	136.7
Boston	35.7	81.2	19	135.9
Cornwall	35.4	70.3	20	125.7
Moncton	34.5	64.2	23	121.7
Toronto	40.2	54.8	26	121
Syracuse	45.3	49.7	24	119
Alaska	31.7	55.5	31	118.2
Quebec	24	56	33	113
Edmonton	50.8	44.8	0	95.6
Montreal	44.2	29.3	22	95.6
Calgary	47.9	3.2	36	87
Johnstown	37.8	29.6	14	81.4

[Chris-Suffolk]

This is good information Glenn, Thank you!!

Would it be beneficial to also add a Defense Score to the table?

Another question I have is, IF the UFA's are not added into the calculations, and there is a positive value being added for CapSpace, it really isn't taking into account that those UFA's will be gone. In other words, the UFA's are effecting the Rating twice. Both their Salary is counting against CapSpace creating a Negative Impact, and their Stats are NOT counting for Overall Team Strength.

It might be difficult, but is it possible to have "Potential UFA" Salaries deducted from the calculation?

[Glenn-Philadelphia]

UFAs are a negative to the teams goaltending and scoring values and a positive as the cap space will allow owners to refill team holes in the off-season. This means they are not being counted twice and on the contrary, provide a balance to bring teams projected strength up if the team has a lot of free agents.

I would love to add the D values but because the calculations that go into the cards are much too complex to replicate with the summary data I use for this function.

The only other pending value I will probably add at some point is a rating for draft capital that each team possesses. This one is doable time permitting.

[Chris-Suffolk]

Great Glenn! It makes sense to me now. Thanks for the clarifications.