|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Dec 18, 2021 2:42:10 GMT -5
You asked why you should be accepting of a wide range of values, I proved that it happens all across the board. They occur regardless of whether the player is great or not. You want me to check guys with only a .915 save percentage…ok. Cam Talbot (the only other goalie with a .915 save percentage) has the same cumulative scores of all his subcategories as your boy Demko. He has two 4’s and the rest are fives. What effect this has on actual shots is that when using some sub stats for Demko he has a small chance at a better or worse chance at making the save on a few shots. In the long run it ends up evening out because of the law of averages. You’re literally just arguing over what is essentially a computer generated dice roll, that all other things being equal, ends up balancing itself out over the course of a season and thousands of dice rolls. So would it really make you that much happier to see Demko with two fours instead of ones and none of your 6s and 7s. Because it’s essentially just aesthetics at that point. Yes Jon! It would make me extremely happy to have 4's and none of the 6's and 7's. "My boy" Demko deserves to have BETTER cards than guys, including "your boys", that he has better stats than....Thats just an obvious statistical observation. You should be able to grasp that idea. Maybe those Seattle blend Soy-lattes are getting to you and the Pantifa squad. Would you rather have: Goalie “D” - 0.915 — 2.85 & 1SO 4 years in NHL Goalie “A” - 0.932 — 1.90 & 3SO Rookie Goalie “S” - 0.916 — 2.62 & 1SO Rookie My team has a lot of deficiencies compared to a lot of others in this league but my goaltending is not one of those deficiencies. Nedeljkovic is still managing to look solid despite being traded to a bottom dwelling (but young, up and coming) team. Shesterkin is leading the new Russian revolution sporting a .937 after 18 games for another up and coming team doing better than expected. “My guys” are better. Come back when you can put together an argument backed up by something more meaningful than “my guy is better cuz I say so….WWWAAAA” |
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Dec 19, 2021 10:30:48 GMT -5
Your argument keeps referring to who is better. But, you keep refusing to defend the STATISTICAL RESULTS that get TRANSLATED to OUR GHL CARDS. So, don't put words into my mouth or think that I don't know who is better in REALITY Jon.
We USE LAST YEARS STATS, so don't compare what YOUR's or ANYONE elses players are doing NOW. It doesn't relate to this discussion.
FACT is, Demko had BETTER stats (last season) than many, NOT ALL, goalies. In the translation of NHL STATS to GHL CARDS, Which for those not following along (Jon), was not "equally distributed" to Demko as it was to ALL, not some, ALLLLLLLLL other GHL goaltenders.
So, their is my issue.
You want me ACCEPT an overlooked error in the card development, because you think I am whining about losing. Well, contrary to your ASSumption. I was looking for reasons for the results I was getting, ya know, paying attention to MY teams needs/faults. Just like you. I discovered, that ONLY 2 Starting and Backup Goalies (which has forever been an issue in the GHL as even Glenn admitted) in the ENTIRE GHL had been given a 1 in their attributes. It does compute to the statistical results in Demko's NHL stats to garner 2 of them, arguably even to have one. IF YOU are under the ASSumption, that Demko does deserve the 2 "1's", than I am ASKING why the other GHL Goalies in the league DO NOT have a SINGLE 1. I question the development of the Cards relating to goalies, BECAUSE that is where the HUMAN aspect came into determination. Furthermore, the "1's" given to Demko's card directly impact his "In game performance."
A "1" for Positioning and Balance for a goaltender, is pretty vital.
So, shut your mouth little boy until you understand completely what is going on. I'm NOT looking for OPINIONS. Leave the answer YOU believe out. The ONLY person who can answer questions relating to this SIM that I ever rely on, come from the horses mouth...Not the horses ASS!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Dec 19, 2021 16:08:45 GMT -5
I get exactly what is going on. You hate being proven wrong, but here I go again. Demko was allotted 57 points to distribute between his substats based on his Save % and GAA (and maybe some other stuff Glenn has in the formula). Yes, most goalies get a fairly normal distribution. There are quite a few who get a bit more scattered, as I have shown. This happens every year and the allotment of 57 points into Demko's substats. I have never seen anywhere that says that this placement has to be uniformly divided. in fact it seems to be a common thing and something that aligns more with reality than not as most everyone has some weaknesses in their game. Since we cannot pull this out with stats alone, a random generation of stats based on the allotted points seems reasonable. The 1's could be very realistic in the sense that if you look at the Save% and GAA, Demko was 36th and 16th last year respectively, meaning he was probably middle of the pack if not a step below that and likely has holes in his game. This can be shown by having a uniformly low 3-4 across the board or by being good in some categories and awful in others. In the grand scheme of the mechanics of our sim Demko has a slightly lower chance to save on 2/12 shots. On the other hand he has a better chance to save on 6/12 shots than someone given a flat allotment of points. So all in all I think it will even out in the end. As far as you claiming I haven't been following along please correct me: 1. You whined that Demkos stats were worse than Adin hills. when compared against the entire league they're both similar with Hill holding the edge in GAA and SO. Adin Hill - S%=T20th / GAA=32nd / SO=2 Demko - S%=T16th / GAA=36th / SO=1 Hill also didn't get hit by the .88 modifier, because he didnt play the required # of games, based on last years league wide goalie stats compared to an average year but that also shows up with his 6 in Stamina and Demkos 8. 2. You then asked if substats were used to calculate save opportunity. which they are. 3. You asked how the points were distributed. It is either based on a recent GM rating evaluation (substats alloted based on equivelant value of the card). If not recently rated it is RANDOM. 4. Then you complained that Demko had 1's because in an example Glenn used an average of 4 points to every stat and then 2 more placed randomly. You said "EVERY goalie in this league, whether they are 40-40 or 58-60 has balanced cards. No one has a 1!!! NONE! Even the guys with 30-30 cards have 3 and 4's up and down." I went on to point out that it happens to guys all over including two top 5 goalies. It is a randomly assigned process that can happen to goalies regardless of if they are the best or worst goalie in the league. 5. you said a 1 is unacceptable in any circumstance unless he is the worst at that particular skill. This was explained to you that the 1 is relative to all other goalies in the league. even the best player can have a skill he is very bad at when compared to the rest of the league. 6. You claimed that this was an issue that only affected you and seemed to be a card creation issue. I, again, with actual numbers and other goalies proved that this happens to many other goalies and that it was not an error in card creation but in fact a thought out process to implement a little more realism (and hence some degree of randomness) to the sim. 7. You then argued that most of the goalies I used were either too good or too bad to be used as realistic comparisons. So I used cam talbot to explain that the total of all of your substats are the same as someone with the same S%, and hence not an error. 8. You then claimed that Demko should therefor have the same substats as Talbot (despite Glenn already explaining that the distribution is random) and that Demko was better than, and therefor should have a better card than my "boys". I then explained that my guys have better stats than demko and you in fact do not have a single leg to stand on in regards to any of your complaints as we had explained all of them. 9. Now you say i have no clue what I am talking about despite being the one to use actual facts to back up what I am saying and that Demkos 1s were a card creation error, which it is not. You said I didnt use last years stats but all of the stats i used were from the 20-21 season (outside of explaining that Shesterkin is becoming absolutely dominant despite last years ok stats, which were still better than Demkos). 10. You dont have to like it but the 1's are not errors they are a product of the small amount of randomness that goes into card creation. 11. you have no clue what you are talking about. All goalie stats are from 20-21, with more than 14 games played so missing a lot of goalies who only played a few games, and pulled from: www.quanthockey.com/nhl/seasons/2020-21-nhl-goalies-stats.html |
|
|
|
Post by Joe-Adirondack on Dec 19, 2021 16:22:16 GMT -5
Get the fuckin popcorn 🍿
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Dec 19, 2021 20:58:54 GMT -5
Jon, Are you in the Goalie Card Development Squad? If not, I really don't give a shit what you have to say. It ain't your thing sonny, so sit down.
Your first few sentences tell me all I need to know...
" Yes, most goalies get a fairly normal distribution. There are quite a few who get a bit more scattered, as I have shown. This happens every year and the allotment of 57 points into Demko's substats. I have never seen anywhere that says that this placement has to be uniformly divided."
Sentence 1- You agree there is "fairly normal distribution", yet you're ok when they are skewed. As long as it doesn't affect Seattle, IMO.
Sentence 2- You haven't shown shit! A range from 7-4, or 6-3, 5-3....Is not the same as a 7-1 range. THERE are only 2 Goalies (Demko and Price) with that range. One, was injured (Price).
Sentence 3- Just an idiotic comment right there.
Who cares if you've never seen it written that placement should be uniformly distributed....It SHOULD. It has, and It is...ALL of those that you HAVE SHOWN to be a "bit more scattered" are HARDLY SCATTERED. In your mind they're scattered. You haven't shown a single Goalie with disparity in his ratings like Demko or Price...BECAUSE there isn't one. They are literally only apart by 3 or 4 at WORST...Demko has a range of 6...NONE, have a 7 and a 1...Please, show me another that does. If you can't, then please stay out of this discussion.
There are Rookie goalies and Shitty goalies in the GHL that have better subset ratings in Position and Balance with Far worse numbers and Overall ratings than Demko's card. And guess what Jonny....They are in the minors of the GHL, because they have cards that are for example, 35-38, 40-40, etc...and not worthy to be GHL starters.
Like I keep saying...I don't recall ever asking you for your opinion in the matter, nor do I recall anyone placing you in charge of the card development...actually, no one has placed you in charge of anything. So, do us all a favor, and shut your mouth. Unless, of course, you had something to do with the Goalie Card Creation. Then, I'd understand your strong opposition to my inquisition. Still, I have a problem though.
I don't expect ANYTHING to change midseason...as it never does. I am addressing the issue, because HOPEFULLY, it can be addressed BEFORE the next season begins. I don't believe you were apart of this league during the early goaltending issues 2013-2015. I brought up the goalie issues then...and guess what Jonny....Still there! Sure, there has been some improvement. But, still there are problems. I don't like to partake in broken lines without at least letting the commander know they're broken...Maybe you do. When something is amiss or out of whack, it needs to be brought into control, fixed, repaired, removed, etc...
It's not my toy to fix. Hell, it's not even in my capacity to repair or fix. Hence, the reason I brought up my contention. I provided the comparisons. All you are doing is saying that there are ranges in everyones card....But, none, NONE, are like Demko and Price period! We have caught errors in the past. We have presented thoughts in the past. I am presenting one right now. Like it or not, I don't care what point you're trying to make...Shit, I didn't even read the rest of your wasted breath.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Dec 20, 2021 13:24:09 GMT -5
Chris,
It can change mid season because statistically speaking, it doesn't have an impact on the sim exactly how the sub points are distributed as each rating has an equal chance to come up from one check to the next.
That being said, if you want to raise positioning by X amount, just identify the technical categories that we will subtract the same sum from. Example, Positioning +4, angles and vision -2 each. Same goes for Balance which changes would be offset by reductions in other Athletic categories.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Dec 20, 2021 15:33:09 GMT -5
Glenn above - "statistically speaking, it doesn't have an impact on the sim exactly how the sub points are distributed"
Also Varlamov has a stat range of 1-9. There are only about 10-15 goalies with a 7+ so thats at least 3/15 with a range that large, which seems about right. doesnt seem like an error to me. Just you not understanding what is going on and trying to outgame the system or complaining about a problem that isnt there.
your whole argument is "I dont like the stat range, its unfair to me." it's not, it's part of the randomness that the sim implements. Glenn shouldnt have to explain every little detail to you just because you cant wrap your head around statistical analysis.
I'm done with you. All you want to do is bitch, whine, and complain. I've been respectful, while on the other hand you cant even come up with a factual counterargument other than to try and call me names like some little fourth grader...no I take that back, my 4th grade son is much more mature than you. go back and hide under your rock. You were wrong and cant admit that. I'm sure you're gunna come out and try to spin this by saying this vindicates everything you've been arguing about because his card is gunna look a little different. IT DOESNT, it's statistically meaningless. Come back when you can actually make a coherent argument rather than just attack people who disagree with you.
AND keep away from my fucking goalies, fucking cold call me again trying to pick up Shesterkin earlier this year for your garbage, like i dont know what I fucking have and dont know hockey and I'll do more than just point out that you're an idiot for not understanding the concept of random distribution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Dec 20, 2021 20:13:24 GMT -5
Jonny cakes...You should go back and read the posts. Go to "Markstroms stats", where this whole thing began. You'll find it there, that you were the instigator of name calling. So, get your panties out of your ass, and get back on the teet.
LOL....And leave my goalies alone!!! Some Classic Pantifa shit there! LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Dec 21, 2021 12:11:13 GMT -5
Pull it out then. Quote me. Show me where I did it. I haven’t edited a damn thing, so go back and find where I did that. I’ll wait.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Dec 21, 2021 19:16:47 GMT -5
You'll have to refer back to the "Markstroms stats" post to see my presentation. If you like. Should be easy to locate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Dec 21, 2021 21:15:34 GMT -5
Careful everyone, evidently trying to commiserate with someone but starting the sentence off with "IF you're just complaining about your goalie...(take a look at mine)" hurts his feelings, he will take it extremely personal, and we can't have anyone with hurt feelings in soy-bean latte, panty bunching, antifa land so be extra thoughtful to Suffolk. Please guys, make sure to pat him on the head and tell him what a good job he's doing. Non-denominational heaven forbid someone else other than the almighty (GHL) creator explain how anything works or you're a defiling heretic as well. Facts and figures have no right being in these conversations and name calling like you're on a childrens playground will be the only response you get for trying to have an adult conversation, because even if you're right...you're wrong...and wouldn't you rather be ignorant than listen to someone else being right. Absolutely!
If I'm gunna be called out for something I'd at least have preferred to have done it in the first place...almost makes me want to now, but I'll refrain since I know how sensitive you are to something absolutely benign and so I'm sure if I actually insulted you we'd never hear the fucking end of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Dec 22, 2021 6:43:50 GMT -5
Careful everyone, evidently trying to commiserate with someone but starting the sentence off with "IF you're just complaining about your goalie...(take a look at mine)" hurts his feelings, he will take it extremely personal, and we can't have anyone with hurt feelings in soy-bean latte, panty bunching, antifa land so be extra thoughtful to Suffolk. Please guys, make sure to pat him on the head and tell him what a good job he's doing. Non-denominational heaven forbid someone else other than the almighty (GHL) creator explain how anything works or you're a defiling heretic as well. Facts and figures have no right being in these conversations and name calling like you're on a childrens playground will be the only response you get for trying to have an adult conversation, because even if you're right...you're wrong...and wouldn't you rather be ignorant than listen to someone else being right. Absolutely! If I'm gunna be called out for something I'd at least have preferred to have done it in the first place...almost makes me want to now, but I'll refrain since I know how sensitive you are to something absolutely benign and so I'm sure if I actually insulted you we'd never hear the fucking end of it. You’re so cute Jonny! A bit full of yourself? Wipe the marshmallow from your upper lip. Just know that little boys shouldn’t be heard from unless spoken to. No one cares to hear your thoughts about their conversations. So, keep your little mouth shut. Capish?! You’re so eloquent with your wordsmithing…you must be one of them there Corporate suit types who’s expecting the whole company bonus at the cost of selling out his brothers and sisters. You know, those weasel types from the movies. Anyway, that’s my opinion. I know you’ll just keep jumping in and throwing your shiny Pennie’s worth of bullshit here on the forum, as will I…it’s not going to change anything. But, if you don’t actually have the keys to the car, you should probably just shut the fuck up! Got it pussy?! Maybe it wasn’t marshmallow after all. |
|
|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Dec 22, 2021 15:56:38 GMT -5
I am cute and full of myself, thank you. I have worn a suit, it was a concrete-rubble shade of green and we went on these ridiculous outings to some weird places, just like in those Vietnam movies (but without the napalm, depending on what idiot you ask). It's where I've seen and done some fucking awful things, things you'll never have to deal with, but I never sold out my fucking guys. So I'll speak whenever the fuck I feel like it. And ya I've traded in my combat boots after 10 years to work towards earning my white doctors coat but that doesn't mean I'm some idiot teenager who doesnt know how the world works. As I probably have more life experience than you could ever hope to muster. So call me whatever you like, I'm not going anywhere. I'll just try and keep the syllable count down since it seems to upset you. After all, nothing more valuable than making sure noone upsets you.
Also I keep assuming you are speaking to me since I dont know any jonny's. Unless you actually know and are talking to some pussy, soybean latte, corprate sell-out, seattlite, panty-bunching, marshmallow lipped, cute, and full of themself child. But thats a lot of qualifiers
|
|
