Questions

[Scott-New Jersey]

Nothing is broke dont need fixing

[Jon-Seattle]

Jun 5, 2017 17:34:54 GMT -5 Scott-New York said:

In a situation like MacArthur and other players that didn't play in the regular season, their playoff stats alone wouldn't make much of a difference due to a minimum amount of games played, they'd still be capped. It would at least give him a player card but not much of one. It may also add a few players to the draft each year but this too would be very minimal and as Glenn pointed out, it would also decrease a few players values.

This was more along the lines of what I was thinking. It would be interesting to see what kind of differences there would be in card value for a lot of depth players given this kind of setup. I think the cards it could hurt most are some of the goalie cards but I don't think it would drastically bring down to many skater cards. Established players wouldn't be hurt much if at all by a poor playoff series whereas a depth card would see an increase in games played and possibly some aggregation of stats would bring them somewhat more in line with value for next year that an NHL team may expect.

One of the big advantages would be that it adds a few extra playable cards and tradeable assets, especially if we cap it at an 82 game card, where even if a guy plays 100 games the card reflects 82 games worth of play. More draftable/playable cards doesn't seem to be a negative to me, especially with another team coming in to deplete talent but perhaps I'm in the majority in that regard.

Downside is if a goalie gets shellshocked or a prolific scoring player is held 0-100 shot wise. I still don't think this would be a huge drawback, but again this was just something to try and get some conversation on the topic. Aggregating multiple seasons is unrealistic and I personally hate that idea.

As far as the ain't broke don't fix it talk, I think you guys have been continuously been upgrading this site/card value/programming so I thought it'd be interesting to get some new ideas flowing while we're nearing some down time.

[Scott-New Jersey]

Sounds like your trying to get someone like COLTON SISSONS a better card for next year.

[Jon-Seattle]

Jun 5, 2017 21:13:04 GMT -5 Scott-New Jersey said:

Sounds like your trying to get someone like COLTON SISSONS a better card for next year.

Don't you knock Sissons, he's a clear first line center...
.
.
.
Now that y'all are done laughing I believe I already mentioned him but I'm not even advocating this gets done this year. This is just something I think would give some better value too younger players who either didn't have a chance to make an impact until later on in the year, rookies who came late to the party (Guentzel), or depth players who find their niche later in the season or step up after an injury or three.

[Scott-New York]

I'm not against this at all but even if this was done, it would make little to no difference in the cards of a player who didn't play most of the regular season and then played in the playoffs, his card would still be capped and I doubt 14 or so games would land him much past a high 60's card

[Jon-Seattle]

Jun 6, 2017 5:47:21 GMT -5 Scott-New York said:

I'm not against this at all but even if this was done, it would make little to no difference in the cards of a player who didn't play most of the regular season and then played in the playoffs, his card would still be capped and I doubt 14 or so games would land him much past a high 60's card

Possibly, I think it could be an interesting thing to look at if Glen has time to look at it. Maybe make up a few extra cards after everything is sorted out to see how it would effect some established players, younger players, and maybe a few cards where it would be harmful and see where we are at after seeing how the cards compare. Maybe it makes them a little more realistic as far as players on the upswing, and guys who turn it up for big games or shows absolutely no change or harmful change but I think the analysis of the cards in that manner could be insightful. If we have a few more 60-70 cards because we include the playoffs rather than guys in the 40s because they only played 10-20 games during the regular season is that really a bad thing? I don't believe it would even be that big of a difference but it would be interesting to find out.

[Scott-New York]

I agree, but the cards are based on 82 games, can this be changed easily, or is it too much work? How would it affect players that don't play in the playoffs? We have a lot to do in the summer, especially this summer with the expansion draft. If this would cost any sort of delay, this may not be the off season to try and implement this. Once player cards are out, 30 teams need to select their protected lists for the expansion and then of course we will select the new team, have our amateur draft, RFA, UFA... yes, this only adds one extra thing to the off season but it's a very significant thing in the time frame. With that said, I would be very interested to see a general comparison to the card creation process without playoffs included and then with if it's even possible in the programming.

[Dane-Hamilton]

Would be cool but biggest thing is that it will delay cards coming out. Glenn grabs the data in May and starts working if we had to wait til mid June to get all of the data would it delay it a ton.

[Jon-Seattle]

I am definitely not in favor of doing new cards this offseason. This is more an experiment to see if this would even be worthwhile by comparing cards from this year to potential cards if we included playoffs. You're absolutely right in saying this is the wrong year but I was trying to explain that I thought it would give more playable cards to team overall, especially in the next few years when the talent pool is depleted a bit. Plus it sounds like Seattle is becoming a more attractive NHL landing spot soon with their stadium deal gaining some traction so we could see 32 teams in as little as 2-3 years, yes likely longer but a man can dream damnit.

As far as holding up card creation I don't know how Glen does it now but couldn't you start with nonplayoff teams then roll them out as teams are knocked out? Perhaps upgrade the finals teams cards by having a base card ready from the regular season and then add the playoff stats after it's over? Plus cards don't come out until after the finals anyway.


Again this would all be based on an 82 game card. You could either average everything over an 82 game season, for example if a guy plays 50 games out of 82 but then plays 20 of 20 for the playoffs you could go 70/92 = fort which is something I think we would mostly all oppose regardless because then missing the playoffs would hinder more cards than it would hurt and it's to difficult for Glen to really work with.

The other more feasible option in my opinion is to rile it out as 70/82=fort if using the same breakdown as above or for players who may have played all or nearly all of the regular season 100/82 = fort with a cap at 10. All other stats would kind of be similar although stats such as shot percentages would remain relatively unchanged but point/60 would go up, etc.

[Scott-New Jersey]

So how would it be fair for guys to get a boost just because they made a playoff. Especially on fort. If 2 guys play 50 regular season games both sold have the same Fort. One should not get a boost because his team makes the playoffs and he plays 20 more games.

[Dane-Hamilton]

Kind of agree with Scott on fortitude while I'd like Malkins up because of playoffs not fair to someone who missed the playoffs but was healthy to end regular season

[Jon-Seattle]

For me the thought process is that these players are playable by more meaningful games than their counterparts. At most it's 20 games (?) I realize that's nearly 1/4 of a normal season but this is for 2/30-1 teams these are players that are risking injuries that may last into the first part of the next season and stats aren't always going to change that much. Malkin and Crosby for instance aren't going to see a huge bump. Again it's a thought and there seem to be more people on the fence then actually For or against so I think it'd be cool to see some possible cards from something like this. We don't have to use them but let's take a look and see if it's worth it.

I realize Glenn's idea is likely more feasible do to the limited change in stats but might be more subjective. Hopefully when we get some more activity once cards actually come out we can get some more discussion going to see if anyone can come up with something better if we don't want to try and compare some possible cards.

[Scott-New York]

Don't get me wrong, I am for this. I am only questioning the feasibility and then if it was feasible, we'd have to question the fortitude issue, stamina and whether it would be worth risking players taking negative hits on their cards as well

[Jon-Seattle]

Jun 6, 2017 19:40:05 GMT -5 Scott-New York said:

Don't get me wrong, I am for this. I am only questioning the feasibility and then if it was feasible, we'd have to question the fortitude issue, stamina and whether it would be worth risking players taking negative hits on their cards as well

I completely agree which is why I'm saying maybe do a test run, see what stats make more sense or don't and see if we want to include it, and tweak it here or there. I think the best way to do that would be to see how some of the cards come out in both scenarios and see if it even comes close to looking right. Glen would likely have to be on board for this to even be considered but I think it has its merits even if we decide not to go with it because we'll at least have a legitimate reason on why we're not using it.

It might be the apples to oranges comparison Glen gave or we may realize we have some Honeycrisp and Fuji apples in the same orchard (Two red apple varieties you uncultured *****). Just kidding, the analogy is kind of bad but I'm playing up the Washington state theme I got going on so roll with me a bit.

[Matt-Syracuse]

I do have a thought.

If a player is injured and exceeds his actual injury time, when he comes back, why isn't he healed X fortitude (say 1 for every 10 games missed?

That way we'd be rooting for injuries so our guys can "do their time" before coming back for the playoffs.

Probably too much bookkeeping, but would make injuries more fun.