|
|
Post by Brian-Cleveland on Jun 24, 2019 18:26:28 GMT -5
Thought only injuries affected Fort I think that's only true with goalies. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Jun 24, 2019 18:28:04 GMT -5
How can that be
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian-Cleveland on Jun 24, 2019 18:30:52 GMT -5
Games played for a player is their fortitude and time on ice per game is his stamina. For a goalie games played is his stamina. Games dressed is his fortitude. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Jun 24, 2019 18:33:08 GMT -5
Fort is for injuries so if a player is not hurt it should not count against him
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jun 24, 2019 18:33:17 GMT -5
Games played for a player is their fortitude and time on ice per game is his stamina. For a goalie games played is his stamina. Games dressed is his fortitude. Very close but goalies Fort is based on 82-games lost due to injury for goalies. Scotty does this research for us. |
|
|
|
Post by Jedediah-Hartford on Jun 24, 2019 18:57:02 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. Correct me if I am mistaken, but that sounds like player cards are essentially open to being affected by competing GMs, which is an obvious conflict of interest. |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jun 24, 2019 19:56:38 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. Correct me if I am mistaken, but that sounds like player cards are essentially open to being affected by competing GMs, which is an obvious conflict of interest. Not at all. There is a function that determines total number of points that can be spread across each category. I think its roughly 40% of total composite score. If a player has a 100 rating then 40 points will be spread across the 5 ratings for that category. Those skills are there to flesh out the players but the total points allocated is calculated by the card generator. |
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Jun 24, 2019 21:29:18 GMT -5
...still unsure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jedediah-Hartford on Jun 25, 2019 8:34:16 GMT -5
Correct me if I am mistaken, but that sounds like player cards are essentially open to being affected by competing GMs, which is an obvious conflict of interest. Not at all. There is a function that determines total number of points that can be spread across each category. I think its roughly 40% of total composite score. If a player has a 100 rating then 40 points will be spread across the 5 ratings for that category. Those skills are there to flesh out the players but the total points allocated is calculated by the card generator. Now is the 40% required to be used, or are there some instances where not all of the 40% gets added to a card? (I know I'm putting an extraordinary amount of typing into this considering my team goal for the year surrounds uniform tweaks.) |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jun 25, 2019 10:01:44 GMT -5
40%, or the actual percentage that i don't know off the top of my head is always applied. No more,no less.
|
|
|
|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Jul 18, 2019 22:50:28 GMT -5
I realized a few years ago that the best kind of defensemen to have in the G are often the opposite of what is trending in the NHL and other pro leagues. In the NHL, the proverbial 'crusher' has been replaced by the shiny, flashy new "rusher" wherein shiftiness and the ability to transport the puck out of the D zone takes precedence over the classic "shutdown" or "two-way"defender. Ghost, Reilly, Barrie, Gardiner, et al don't hold the same value in our simulation as they do in actual pro hockey because the sim's logic apparently pits an opponent's offensive numbers against your guy's probability of closing him off before he can produce a scoring chance. Had Karl Alzner's health not failed him, he'd be a superstar in the G, because he could hit, block shots and suppress the opposition the way a Jake Muzzin type of defender would approach the game. My best seasons have been the ones where my forwards could skate and snipe and my D-men punished the guilty. Pretty sure Hank won goalie of the year with my all star shutdown D lineup...
Im really hoping Hronek becomes a two-way force vs a Norris candidate.Those guys just eat your cap space and expose your goalie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 19, 2019 6:15:50 GMT -5
Opinions are like ass holes...
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 19, 2019 6:39:27 GMT -5
I realized a few years ago that the best kind of defensemen to have in the G are often the opposite of what is trending in the NHL and other pro leagues. In the NHL, the proverbial 'crusher' has been replaced by the shiny, flashy new "rusher" wherein shiftiness and the ability to transport the puck out of the D zone takes precedence over the classic "shutdown" or "two-way"defender. Ghost, Reilly, Barrie, Gardiner, et al don't hold the same value in our simulation as they do in actual pro hockey because the sim's logic apparently pits an opponent's offensive numbers against your guy's probability of closing him off before he can produce a scoring chance. Had Karl Alzner's health not failed him, he'd be a superstar in the G, because he could hit, block shots and suppress the opposition the way a Jake Muzzin type of defender would approach the game. My best seasons have been the ones where my forwards could skate and snipe and my D-men punished the guilty. Pretty sure Hank won goalie of the year with my all star shutdown D lineup... Im really hoping Hronek becomes a two-way force vs a Norris candidate.Those guys just eat your cap space and expose your goalie. It is difficult for some to look past the weaker defensive ratings of some d-men and this fact tends to dissuade to lower the value of these types of players in the G. The one thing I would say is that every point they have, whether it be in the Off/Def/Neut category is a positive in the simulation. Also the bottom line is you need to score goals to win any game so points in the Shot/Shot Pct/Pass categories are gold as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 19, 2019 6:52:06 GMT -5
Wait...I changed my 'opinion'. They all suck if they don't have at least an 80 D rating! Look no further than the red box, there is nothing else to see here, completely forget that NY made their first conference finals appearance with Mike Green (62-64-64) playing on the top pair. Do not waste your cap on those results, we did not make it to the finals...
|
|
|
|
Post by Jedediah-Hartford on Jul 19, 2019 8:23:50 GMT -5
Wait...I changed my 'opinion'. They all suck if they don't have at least an 80 D rating! Look no further than the red box, there is nothing else to see here, completely forget that NY made their first conference finals appearance with Mike Green (62-64-64) playing on the top pair. Do not waste your cap on those results, we did not make it to the finals... I haven't seen anyone say their d-men suck for not having an 80 D rating, I think that's a caricature more often than the reality for those of us who annually question the defensive ratings. In my case I wonder why my guys are in the 68-71 range rather than the 72-75 range half the time, it's not about expecting to have 6 elite defenders so much as it's following my guys, reading about how they are having an improved or a better performance during the season, and then not seeing that paid off in the next year's ratings. It gives off the impression that what makes a great GHL defenseman is less based on overall stats and effectiveness and more on a selected group of stats. Take the blocked shots per minute stat (or whatever it is that we use that surrounds blocked shots), for instance. I sometimes feel this stat favors a particular style of defender over others, regardless of the effectiveness of any style. There could be defenders that are effective without a reliance on blocked shots, are those players getting a fair shake compared to those who do rely on blocking shots? Maybe, maybe not, one of the reasons that is hard to tell the lack of many of those stats appearing anywhere on the GHL site to track, which leads into another reason why I think there is a lot of hubbub every year surrounding card values.
Part of what makes card values difficult for some to accept is that the parameters used for calculating the d-ratings (and possibly some of the o-ratings as well, I'm not sure but I didn't want to leave them out) don't appear in our NHL stats page for us to keep track of throughout the year. For all the explanations that have been offered regarding the way the card values are created, it's clear that some of us just aren't seeing it. If there was a way to show the stats that actually go into the ratings calculations on that page, we might have a better understanding of this when targeting players not only in the draft but in the RFA/UFA process. I realize that would probably involve a lot of work and therefore not easily done, but it could go a long way towards quieting the debate.
|
|
