|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jun 23, 2019 15:36:25 GMT -5
In one category only, Werenski cannot be better than Lovejoy in defensive rating no matter how you spin it. You're focusing too much energy on the little red box which simply doesn't make Lovejoy a better defensemen
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Jun 23, 2019 16:13:12 GMT -5
Jon, I understand your argument. However, it appears to me that you're focusing on the defensive rating and there is so much more to a player card. As Glenn pointed out, the sub scores are likely not complete yet and once they are, I'd bet Lovejoy's stick check goes down. Also, I understand that +/- goes into card creation, however, it is +/- for the player in comparison to the team which is the best we can do to make this absolutely meaningless stat meaningful. Now, let me get to my point of view on Werenski vs. Lovejoy and see if this makes sense. Werneski: Card 63-67-67 Offensive Aggregate (45 shot + 34 shot % + 52 pass) = 131 Stamina 8 Lovejoy: Card 45-99-89 Offensive Aggregate 74 Stamina 6 As you can clearly see, Werenski is relied on to play big minutes, most likely top pairing 5 on 5 and top pairing powerplay, or at least that's what it can translate to in the GHL. Lovejoy is a bottom pairing 5 on 5 and top pairing penalty killer. If these two players played on the same team, an NHL coach is going to put Lovejoy out to kill penalties while Werenski will be stapled to the bench in that situation. Now I agree that maybe Werenski deserves a slightly higher defensive rating than 67 but he certainly shouldn't be rated higher than Lovejoy, just on NHL use alone. However, Werenski is still more valuable, both in the NHL and GHL. Take Werenski's card. His total card value is 197 (63 + 67 + 67). However taking stamina into account, 197 x .8 = 157.6 vs Lovejoy's rating using the same formula of 139.8. That's a 17.8 point difference in total value, not to mention the 57 point difference in offensive talent alone. The end result is that I would take Werenski over Lovejoy every day but they both have a purpose and are both valuable. I will disagree with you on one other point you made. I doubt, without running the numbers, that Pesce is the best defenseman in total card value. I'd bet it's Mark Giordano. Yes, Norris Trophy winning, Mark Giordano! I want to ask a question, and probably Glenn would be the "real one to answer this"...Because, I think Scott is right about the aggregates and where an "NHL" coach would play this player ( hence, how the players stats are attained ). But, here's my question... QUESTION: Does it really matter whether a player played 17-18 mins per game ( ie: Lovejoy ) VERSUS a player that played 23-25 mins per game ( ie: Werenski )....AS IT RELATES TO THE GHL? It took me a while to realize, that having the "best NHL" player(s) didn't really equate to having the best GHL player(s). ALL that seems to matter in the GHL is having the BEST SAMPLE SIZE players. Is that what this league really is? Is that what we really want? I know it matters in real life NHL. We see the results and the players REAL worth day in and day out. BUT, in the GHL those FACTS do not RELATE to our game in and game out matters. For example, last season in the GHL, Georgiev played a meaningful half a season. It's happened in the GHL for years. A part time player plays an entire GHL season with a huge impact, whereas in the real world AHL/NHL he was merely a part time player with moderate impact. "Sample Size" has always had a major impact to us in the GHL. To Jon-Seattle's point...It really doesn't add up...at least not where we are "seeing" it add up properly. |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jun 23, 2019 16:47:16 GMT -5
Jon, I understand your argument. However, it appears to me that you're focusing on the defensive rating and there is so much more to a player card. As Glenn pointed out, the sub scores are likely not complete yet and once they are, I'd bet Lovejoy's stick check goes down. Also, I understand that +/- goes into card creation, however, it is +/- for the player in comparison to the team which is the best we can do to make this absolutely meaningless stat meaningful. Now, let me get to my point of view on Werenski vs. Lovejoy and see if this makes sense. Werneski: Card 63-67-67 Offensive Aggregate (45 shot + 34 shot % + 52 pass) = 131 Stamina 8 Lovejoy: Card 45-99-89 Offensive Aggregate 74 Stamina 6 As you can clearly see, Werenski is relied on to play big minutes, most likely top pairing 5 on 5 and top pairing powerplay, or at least that's what it can translate to in the GHL. Lovejoy is a bottom pairing 5 on 5 and top pairing penalty killer. If these two players played on the same team, an NHL coach is going to put Lovejoy out to kill penalties while Werenski will be stapled to the bench in that situation. Now I agree that maybe Werenski deserves a slightly higher defensive rating than 67 but he certainly shouldn't be rated higher than Lovejoy, just on NHL use alone. However, Werenski is still more valuable, both in the NHL and GHL. Take Werenski's card. His total card value is 197 (63 + 67 + 67). However taking stamina into account, 197 x .8 = 157.6 vs Lovejoy's rating using the same formula of 139.8. That's a 17.8 point difference in total value, not to mention the 57 point difference in offensive talent alone. The end result is that I would take Werenski over Lovejoy every day but they both have a purpose and are both valuable. I will disagree with you on one other point you made. I doubt, without running the numbers, that Pesce is the best defenseman in total card value. I'd bet it's Mark Giordano. Yes, Norris Trophy winning, Mark Giordano! I want to ask a question, and probably Glenn would be the "real one to answer this"...Because, I think Scott is right about the aggregates and where an "NHL" coach would play this player ( hence, how the players stats are attained ). But, here's my question... QUESTION: Does it really matter whether a player played 17-18 mins per game ( ie: Lovejoy ) VERSUS a player that played 23-25 mins per game ( ie: Werenski )....AS IT RELATES TO THE GHL? It took me a while to realize, that having the "best NHL" player(s) didn't really equate to having the best GHL player(s). ALL that seems to matter in the GHL is having the BEST SAMPLE SIZE players. Is that what this league really is? Is that what we really want? I know it matters in real life NHL. We see the results and the players REAL worth day in and day out. BUT, in the GHL those FACTS do not RELATE to our game in and game out matters. For example, last season in the GHL, Georgiev played a meaningful half a season. It's happened in the GHL for years. A part time player plays an entire GHL season with a huge impact, whereas in the real world AHL/NHL he was merely a part time player with moderate impact. "Sample Size" has always had a major impact to us in the GHL. To Jon-Seattle's point...It really doesn't add up...at least not where we are "seeing" it add up properly. Chris, Yes it matters. It matters quite a bit. If you have a player who played 17-18 minutes in the NHL and he is seeing the same amount of minutes in the GHL then you can expect similar results. If you try to play that player 23-24 minutes then because his stamina is lower, his performance will suffer. That being said, goalies are their own conundrum as their stamina and fortitude is calculated differently. |
|
|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Jun 23, 2019 16:57:00 GMT -5
Scott I get where you are coming from, the overall stats do combine to show that Werenski is the more well rounded, dare I say better player. That said he wasn't stapled to the bench in SH situations and I was mistaken in my initial post, it wasn't 45 seconds (that was actually from 17-18 season) it was 1.17 (No Matt I didn't make that up and now will forever haunt me). Also his takeaways /60 is drastically better than most of the others on my list just below Pesce and Jones. Very little difference in giveaways /60. Corsi was much better for Werenski and honestly Lovejoys is the worst, it's not good. I see Glenn says we're accounting for all these stats but I'm just not seeing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt-Colorado on Jun 23, 2019 17:22:19 GMT -5
1-17 will follow you everywhere.
Stop campaigning to get my diamond in the rough nerfed. I barely have one forward line, let me have a defense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jun 23, 2019 17:33:36 GMT -5
Scott I get where you are coming from, the overall stats do combine to show that Werenski is the more well rounded, dare I say better player. That said he wasn't stapled to the bench in SH situations and I was mistaken in my initial post, it wasn't 45 seconds (that was actually from 17-18 season) it was 1.17 (No Matt I didn't make that up and now will forever haunt me). Also his takeaways /60 is drastically better than most of the others on my list just below Pesce and Jones. Very little difference in giveaways /60. Corsi was much better for Werenski and honestly Lovejoys is the worst, it's not good. I see Glenn says we're accounting for all these stats but I'm just not seeing it. Its a weighting issue. PK time/lack there of, plays a big part in determining def comp. Everything is not factored in equal measure. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Jun 23, 2019 17:55:12 GMT -5
Scott I get where you are coming from, the overall stats do combine to show that Werenski is the more well rounded, dare I say better player. That said he wasn't stapled to the bench in SH situations and I was mistaken in my initial post, it wasn't 45 seconds (that was actually from 17-18 season) it was 1.17 (No Matt I didn't make that up and now will forever haunt me). Also his takeaways /60 is drastically better than most of the others on my list just below Pesce and Jones. Very little difference in giveaways /60. Corsi was much better for Werenski and honestly Lovejoys is the worst, it's not good. I see Glenn says we're accounting for all these stats but I'm just not seeing it. Its a weighting issue. PK time/lack there of, plays a big part in determining def comp. Everything is not factored in equal measure. Glenn, if a defender plays PK time, his card is better than those who dont. But, he is being rewarded for 100% of the game, as compared to the guy who doesnt play PK time, but is the better All Around defender. Does that make sense? Of course, a guy that plays the PK should be a better "Defensive" Defender, but not better Overall. I think Jon and I are trying to say, a guy like Werenski, compared to Lovejoy, is a more "Valuable" commodity than Lovejoy. But, it just doesn't seem like that in the GHL card developer. I'd rather have a Lovejoy on my team. He can play on the top pairing defense and his part time shutdown capabilities will benefit me greater. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jun 23, 2019 18:08:05 GMT -5
That's the point Chris, Lovejoy is not more valuable, see my post above. Lovejoy is only better defensively and you could play him on your top pairing but it would be a mistake because his fortitude wouldn't hold up. If you watched the DVR during the finals, that was evident over and over
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Jun 23, 2019 18:12:41 GMT -5
If you watched the DVR during the finals, that was evident over and over Scoot is right. Having not had much close studying of Stamina until my recent semi's and finals, and thinking...'eh Stam of 4 and 5 is about as good as 6 and 7'.... Boy is there a difference. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Jun 23, 2019 18:38:39 GMT -5
That's the point Chris, Lovejoy is not more valuable, see my post above. Lovejoy is only better defensively and you could play him on your top pairing but it would be a mistake because his fortitude wouldn't hold up. If you watched the DVR during the finals, that was evident over and over No, I did not watch the DVR at all. But, this is all good information. I'll have to take you all at your word. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Jedediah-Hartford on Jun 24, 2019 12:03:46 GMT -5
I'm way late on the annual d-card debate due to a weekend away but my instincts seem to agree with Jon that blocked shots might be held in higher esteem than they perhaps should be. Admittedly I have a lot of research to do before I can be sure on that so in the meantime my dumb question is... which of 'fewer' or 'more' seconds between blocked shots is considered better? The reason I ask is that a lot of blocked shots in a short time might be effective, but doesn't it also mean that the d-man isn't good enough to prevent those shots from taking place at all? Or, is more time between blocked shots a better indicator of overall defensive skill if the offense isn't getting as many shots when you are on the ice at all?
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jun 24, 2019 14:56:59 GMT -5
The fewer the seconds between blocked shots the better. Meaning they block more shots per 60 mins than someone who has more seconds between blocked shots.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jedediah-Hartford on Jun 24, 2019 17:33:58 GMT -5
So, of the defensive categories that we see on a player's card (listed below), are they evenly weighted, or are some weighted more than others? Is there a trail that leads to how each player gets his rating in a particular category? (Apologies if this has been answered previously)
Stick Check
Deny Space
Range
Awareness
Lane Ctrl
Shot Block
A second question (that probably has also been addressed but pops up in my head anyway) - Is there ever going to be a point where players who are healthy scratches for significant periods of time don't get dinged on the fortitude rating?
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jun 24, 2019 18:18:23 GMT -5
The bottom 3 in each category are different then the 5 above in the Green/Red/Blue columns. Face Off/shot block/hits are all based directly on the players stats from the previous year. The other 5 categories above are assigned by GMs rating them or determined arbitrarily. In either case, the sum of these 5 ratings are capped by the players composite ratings score. OFF/DEF/NEUT.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Jun 24, 2019 18:21:37 GMT -5
Thought only injuries affected Fort
|
|
