|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Dec 13, 2021 22:48:11 GMT -5
To add to my last comment;
My goalie who had one of the top two or three goalie cards, tops out in sub category skills at an 8 with the rest being 6-7s. So even thinking Demko would be all 5s is probably being generous.
Plus that .88 multiplier kicks everyone down a bit further as the goalie numbers were down last year compared to most other years.
I don’t think it’s a calculation issue. Glenn isn’t tossing us the whole formula as it would probably confuse more than anything. That said we had time before the season to get this stuff worked out. We even had a few things that got cleaned up after initial review so I’m not seeing the problem. If your just complaining about your goalie card though maybe take a look around. My goalies, who are ballin out in the actual NHL can’t even keep a save percentage above .900 here. Let’s be honest though…it’s probably my defense.
And just like in the NHL there is some parity (or at least in our case RNG) so even if you have the best cards it doesn’t mean you’re going to win every game *Alaska*. So enjoy your conference leading goals for or upgrade your forwards (or just overall) defense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Dec 14, 2021 5:07:17 GMT -5
To add to my last comment; My goalie who had one of the top two or three goalie cards, tops out in sub category skills at an 8 with the rest being 6-7s. So even thinking Demko would be all 5s is probably being generous. Plus that .88 multiplier kicks everyone down a bit further as the goalie numbers were down last year compared to most other years. I don’t think it’s a calculation issue. Glenn isn’t tossing us the whole formula as it would probably confuse more than anything. That said we had time before the season to get this stuff worked out. We even had a few things that got cleaned up after initial review so I’m not seeing the problem. If your just complaining about your goalie card though maybe take a look around. My goalies, who are ballin out in the actual NHL can’t even keep a save percentage above .900 here. Let’s be honest though…it’s probably my defense. And just like in the NHL there is some parity (or at least in our case RNG) so even if you have the best cards it doesn’t mean you’re going to win every game *Alaska*. So enjoy your conference leading goals for or upgrade your forwards (or just overall) defense. No, I’m not JUST complaining! A 1 is not acceptable in the category of Balance and Angles for a .915 goalie, whether it’s yesteryear or today, unless we are talking a goalie who was a sieve. The points should have been allocated across the card, as was done to EVERY other goalie! A 1 poke check is acceptable ( as in Alaska) for it is a attribute which is seen in some. However, less vital than the 1’s given to Demko. The points should have been allocated better-period! |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Dec 14, 2021 13:20:00 GMT -5
Thanks Jon for jumping in as well.
A "1" rating is relative to the other ratings assigned to the goalie. This came up before with non goalies I believe where if a player had a rating of 0 in a category, I think back then it was shooting percentage, then he could never score. That's just not right.
Remember, at the core of the simulation is a pitting of one players skill against another player. This challenge is then used to modify the odds of two perfectly matched skills to determine the outcome of a play.
If a forward who has a shooting pct score of 6 (60 on the card) is having his shot resolved against a goalie with a positioning of 1 this modification could be 0 (both ended up with a 1) to a max of 5 (1 for goalies and 6 for shooter). If the guy was taking a shot from the slot the 5 bump may increase his chance to score by 12%. If a shot from the point, it may increase his chance to score by 2%, if from the neutral zone, maybe .1%
That 1 skill for the goalie only has a chance of coming up 1 in every 12 shots, the other times, the other skills/values are being used.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Dec 14, 2021 16:48:53 GMT -5
Thanks Hon for jumping in as well. A "1" rating is relative to the other ratings assigned to the goalie. This came up before with non goalies I believe where if a player had a rating of 0 in a category, I think back then it was shooting percentage, then he could never score. That's just not right. Remember, at the core of the simulation is a pitting of one players skill against another player. This challenge is then used to modify the odds of two perfectly matched skills to determine the outcome of a play. If a forward who has a shooting pct score of 6 (60 on the card) is having his shot resolved against a goalie with a positioning of 1 this modification could be 0 (both ended up with a 1) to a max of 5 (1 for goalies and 6 for shooter). If the guy was taking a shot from the slot the 5 bump may increase his chance to score by 12%. If a shot from the point, it may increase his chance to score by 2%, if from the neutral zone, maybe .1% That 1 skill for the goalie only has a chance of coming up 1 in every 12 shots, the other times, the other skills/values are being used. Since, most of the GHL goals are scored from "14" in the slot, the % of the shooter scoring are much greater. That's a no brainer. Being as though a goalie is the last line of defense, I am arguing to determine why my goalie's numbers are not like everyone else's goalie cards....spread evenly But, Who came up with the Score Value's for the goalies and decided it was proper to give Every Goalie in the GHL a 3 or above in every category, excluding Demko and Price? That's a burning question for me. Even the shlubs of the GHL have 3's and 4's up and down.... If I had a choice, I'd prefer a shooter having 2% chance versus a 12% everyday....wouldn't you? You guys are defending an issue that appears not to be affecting any other goalie card in the league, and expecting me to agree to you saying, "eh, it's no big deal if a guy is shooting from the point because he's only got a 2% chance of scoring against your goalie, but he's only .50% chance of scoring against your guy." And, I'm supposed to be ok with that even though my guy had better stats than your guy? If he had a horrible statistical season, I'd be with you...But that's not the case. Fair is fair. It's happened to me before, and it was also the reason I quit years ago. Things keep getting pushed off, kick the can down the road until it effects you. That is why I keep saying to STOP putting the cart before the horse, and address issues instead of moving forward....It's mind boggling how statistical you guys are for some things, but couldn't care less for others. I mean, you guys are intelligent and seem like legit problem solvers. But, you are assuming I am whining that "it's a personal problem and I'm just gonna have to deal with whilst you all ignore the real problem." Glenn, are trying to say to me that there's no difference between a player attribute ( Skater or Goalie ) who's got a 7, and one who has a 1? In your example...A player shoots at my goalie in the 1 and 12 example, and the 1 will allow that shot past him 90% of the time? |
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Dec 14, 2021 17:09:01 GMT -5
Look no further than your very own goalie cards. Tell me they have such fluctuating ratings, or do they have closer values?
Then, tell me why I should be acceptable of having 7's, 6's, 5's and 1's!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Dec 14, 2021 18:26:03 GMT -5
Varlamov has a 1 poke check and a 2 in mental despite having a top 5 card and a 9 in angle and multiple 8's.
Devin Dubnyk has a 0 on his glove.
Frederik Anderson has a 2 for vision.
John Gibsons stats range from 2's to 5.
Sergei Brobrovskys stats range from multiple 2's to a 7.
Georgiev has a bunch of 4's and 5's and then an 8 in mental.
Marc Andre-Fleury has 2 fours and a 5 with the rest being 7-8 despite having a top 5 card.
Ian Scott somehow has a negative 1? ok that seems wrong but he's a 20-20 card so I'm not sure it matters.
If there were an actual issue in the calculation or coding that would be one thing but you're legitimately just arguing about randomly distributed stats and trying to find a hole in the formula Glenn is using that isn't there. If there was a legit issue like stats were not being populated properly that would be one thing (which is what happened with Big Saves earlier this year) but it isn't. You just dont like the stats that were randomly assigned to your goalie based on the pool of available points available for his card, thats not a technical issue. It's just complaining.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Dec 14, 2021 20:10:16 GMT -5
Varlamov has a 1 poke check and a 2 in mental despite having a top 5 card and a 9 in angle and multiple 8's. Devin Dubnyk has a 0 on his glove. Frederik Anderson has a 2 for vision. John Gibsons stats range from 2's to 5. Sergei Brobrovskys stats range from multiple 2's to a 7. Georgiev has a bunch of 4's and 5's and then an 8 in mental. Marc Andre-Fleury has 2 fours and a 5 with the rest being 7-8 despite having a top 5 card. Ian Scott somehow has a negative 1? ok that seems wrong but he's a 20-20 card so I'm not sure it matters. If there were an actual issue in the calculation or coding that would be one thing but you're legitimately just arguing about randomly distributed stats and trying to find a hole in the formula Glenn is using that isn't there. If there was a legit issue like stats were not being populated properly that would be one thing (which is what happened with Big Saves earlier this year) but it isn't. You just dont like the stats that were randomly assigned to your goalie based on the pool of available points available for his card, thats not a technical issue. It's just complaining. You mean: 1-Devan Dubnyk- 34-38 the guy who had an .895 SvPtg in 2021? 2-Freddie Andersson- 41-38 the guy who had an .895 SvPtg in 2021? 3-John Gibson- 41-46 who had a .903 SvPtg 4-Sergei Bobrovsky- 44-50 who was sporting a .906 SvPtg 5-***Georgiev- 57-56 who had a .905 SvPtg 6-Fleury- 75-73 who was outstanding and sported a .928..... 7-Demko had a .915 SvPtg..... Varly's 1 in the poke check rating I mentioned. That could be a realistic characteristic, I don't know for sure. His mental state at 2 doesn't effect the sim. But, Yes, I mentioned Varlamov. Let's compare apples to apples... Players 1 thru 4 had off years, matter of fact, horrible years....YET, none of them have a 1 in ANY rating. Georgiev had a decent season, trust me, Im a NYR fan, and I watched him play, I like him...but, most NYR fans knew he had an off year but rebounded nicely. Still his save ptcg is 10 % pts lower than Demko...and wait for it....Not a single 1. Fleury, one of the most under appreciated goalies over the past 10 seasons of NHL hockey...look what happened to Pitt, Murray supplanted Flower...and where's Super Murray these days? You can't tell me you're comparing Demko to Fleury? Your comparing "RANGES" in cards as if that's my issue....But you still haven't come up with a REASON Demko has ANY logical explanation to garner a 1...let alone TWO! You keep saying this guy has 3 and 4's plus 6's...You're missing the point. ALL of those guys above, #1 thru 4, have worse REAL STATS than Demko, yet DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE 1 RATING ANYWHERE ON THEIR CARD. They had Horrible seasons. Demko, DID NOT have a horrible season, yet his card reflects TWO categories indicating he is either Lame or Performed Poorly. IF, either is the case....ANSWER this question...Where does it reflect how piss poorly the others performed? Where are their 1's? Oh, their Avg is lower! So what, they still have 3's and 4's in every rating...NOT A 1. Cmon now...I've already done the research. Not another goalie card is like Demko's. They're all balanced with Medium Range Ratings, with smatterings of Above Average marks for some criteria, WHICH they deserve. I'm not saying Demko should have 7's across the board...He should have the same Medium Range ratings, with a smatter of a 6 here and there. Not an All Star Card. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Dec 14, 2021 20:18:13 GMT -5
LMFAO.....and now Matthews, whose 9 Fortitude just got him a 57 Day injury!!! You can't make this shit up!!!! What? No Suspension for injuring the leagues Top Player (currently)? He must have pulled a groin. Ya...Love it! Fucking Joke!
Fuck this! See you guys next year!
|
|
|
|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Dec 14, 2021 23:34:35 GMT -5
LMFAO.....and now Matthews, whose 9 Fortitude just got him a 57 Day injury!!! You can't make this shit up!!!! What? No Suspension for injuring the leagues Top Player (currently)? He must have pulled a groin. Ya...Love it! Fucking Joke! Fuck this! See you guys next year! Sorry I dummied your superstar centermam. Just finishing our checks out there, Chris. Tell Papi to lay off the Timbiebs while he’s on the trainers table and he’ll be good as new by Valentines Day. Lemme know if you feel like overpaying for some offence. Cheers buddy |
|
|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Dec 15, 2021 3:40:52 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Dec 17, 2021 20:27:38 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. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Dec 21, 2021 19:04:19 GMT -5
To add to my last comment; My goalie who had one of the top two or three goalie cards, tops out in sub category skills at an 8 with the rest being 6-7s. So even thinking Demko would be all 5s is probably being generous. Plus that .88 multiplier kicks everyone down a bit further as the goalie numbers were down last year compared to most other years. I don’t think it’s a calculation issue. Glenn isn’t tossing us the whole formula as it would probably confuse more than anything. That said we had time before the season to get this stuff worked out. We even had a few things that got cleaned up after initial review so I’m not seeing the problem. If your just complaining about your goalie card though maybe take a look around. My goalies, who are ballin out in the actual NHL can’t even keep a save percentage above .900 here. Let’s be honest though…it’s probably my defense. And just like in the NHL there is some parity (or at least in our case RNG) so even if you have the best cards it doesn’t mean you’re going to win every game *Alaska*. So enjoy your conference leading goals for or upgrade your forwards (or just overall) defense. This is your inference to me "just complaining" that I took exception to Jonny. And, this is also where you just jumped into the conversation, much to Glenn's liking, which, again, to me was more like the 3rd man into the fray. Your assumption was that I was just complaining. Whether or not that's your opinion...and you're entitled to it...it still doesn't matter much to me. How'd I do? Did I miss quote you? Did I lie? Did I fabricate? Did I edit your post? To answer your question--"Take a look around."...I did just that BEFORE I posted the very first post. I looked at EVERY single GHL Tandem and looked over ALL of their attributes. My MISTAKE, if we have attributes on cards, AND they aren't being USED!!! WHy do we even have them on the cards? I may not be quite as astute to algorithms and I do not create excel spreadsheets for fantasy world hockey like some may do. I go by real stats and when my team is having an issue, I try my best to find what it is that is effecting my team. Best I can do, is use real stats and look at the cards on my team, then compare them to other teams players and results. Pretty basic, and I'm certain most of us do the same. Pardon me, if I question the Sim! Since you have not been designated as the creator, assistant or otherwise, I don't care to hear your breakdown or synapsis of every crisis that happens, however miniscule, in the sim. Frankly, I find it a bit of a nuisance when a question relating to the sim is jumped on by a few GM's who go on and on for days before Glenn even has a chance to address the Question that was brought up by the originator of the post. Glenn and I were discussing my issue, and I trust Glenn can handle my issue, and we have a rapport. You keep adding your two cents, and it's just a bit obnoxious. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Dec 21, 2021 19:35:11 GMT -5
Thanks Jon for jumping in as well. A "1" rating is relative to the other ratings assigned to the goalie. This came up before with non goalies I believe where if a player had a rating of 0 in a category, I think back then it was shooting percentage, then he could never score. That's just not right. Remember, at the core of the simulation is a pitting of one players skill against another player. This challenge is then used to modify the odds of two perfectly matched skills to determine the outcome of a play. If a forward who has a shooting pct score of 6 (60 on the card) is having his shot resolved against a goalie with a positioning of 1 this modification could be 0 (both ended up with a 1) to a max of 5 (1 for goalies and 6 for shooter). If the guy was taking a shot from the slot the 5 bump may increase his chance to score by 12%. If a shot from the point, it may increase his chance to score by 2%, if from the neutral zone, maybe .1% That 1 skill for the goalie only has a chance of coming up 1 in every 12 shots, the other times, the other skills/values are being used. Trying to wrap MY head around this Glenn. I have to ask...So, the 1 Skill, has a 1 in 12 chance of coming up. Does that mean, when it does come up that the shooter will have a 90% chance of scoring against the 1? Being as though Demko has 2 of those 1's, making it a 2 in 12, or 1 in 6...Doesn't that have a greater chance of having that 1 appear, creating better chance for the opposing team to score, from anywhere, not just the slot? |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Dec 22, 2021 8:23:44 GMT -5
No, this has come up prior when talking about guys who had 0 shooting percentage (back before we went to the 100 point grading system).
The values that players have for their subcategories have nothing to do by themself with percentages. They can be used to compare players but it is also important to notice that saying a guy with a 4 rating is 4 times better than a guy with a 1 rating. He is 3 better. Same goes when comparing an 8 and a 2, the better player is 6 better and not 4 times better.
Whenever a stat is needed to resolve a shot one of the 12 stats is picked at random and compared to the shooters shooting percent stat. This comparison is used as a modifier when consulting the shooting results table based on the position on the ice where the shot originated to determine the shots results.
That is why statistically speaking, it doesn't hurt or help a goalie if he has a wider range of distribution for the sub categories as having so means that some of his other stats are higher than they should be. Now, if it would be a case (and it isn't) where positioning or balance was used on each shot, then having a goalie with lower values in these areas would be detrimental.
|
|
