|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 8, 2023 10:33:44 GMT -5
Like they used to say whenever the streets were safer than they are now, "If you see something, say something." There are about 10 goalies who are going the be showing with 0 ratings. These goalies have either a little tweaking to do because they have played a small sample size of NHL games and are either not under contract (most likely draftable) or the are under contract and the owning GM will be allowed to pick which version of their card they want to use. Cards will be released at 11:45 which will give me a few minutes to make sure the publishing process went smoothly before heading downstairs to enjoy lunch with my lovely wife on the eve of our anniversary. A few other notes. I still need to work through the prospect and missing players list so I am asking everyone to hold off on asking about a player who may or may not be showing up on your teams roster. I will be working through these and other draft related processes over the next few days.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jedediah-Hartford on Jul 8, 2023 12:50:03 GMT -5
Has any goalie card been better than Ullmark's for this season? 90-95, yowza!
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt-Colorado on Jul 8, 2023 13:04:21 GMT -5
Only Craig Anderson about ten years ago, I think he was 47-47 which would be 94-94 these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt-Colorado on Jul 8, 2023 13:06:59 GMT -5
Only Craig Anderson about ten years ago, I think he was 47-47 which would be 94-94 these days. 13-14 Craig Anderson. He was pretty good that year. |
|
|
|
Post by Matt-Colorado on Jul 8, 2023 13:45:23 GMT -5
Jean luc-Foudy is showing as draft eligible.
I drafted him last year in the 4th round.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 8, 2023 13:54:08 GMT -5
10-4 Matt. Don't worry about any guys not showing up or showing as draftable or some other unexpected FA status, or prospect/non prospect until I finish populating those tables. I will alert when everyone should be showing up correctly. This shouldn't be longer than 2 or 3 days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt-Colorado on Jul 8, 2023 13:59:47 GMT -5
Cool cool
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric-Baltimore on Jul 8, 2023 19:43:01 GMT -5
Something looks a little off with two of my Goalies.
Connor Ingram is 52-58 and Charlie Lindgren is 44-48. Their NHL stats last year were pretty similar: Ingram had a 3.37 GAA and a .907 Save % over 27 games while Lindgren had 3.05 and .899 over 31 games. I thought their ratings would be a little closer with Lindgren being a little better. Is there something else that is taken into account for the goalie ratings?
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 8, 2023 21:22:48 GMT -5
Something looks a little off with two of my Goalies. Connor Ingram is 52-58 and Charlie Lindgren is 44-48. Their NHL stats last year were pretty similar: Ingram had a 3.37 GAA and a .907 Save % over 27 games while Lindgren had 3.05 and .899 over 31 games. I thought their ratings would be a little closer with Lindgren being a little better. Is there something else that is taken into account for the goalie ratings? The actual ratings should be solid so this is the type of anomaly for me to pursue. I will dig deeper tomorrow to confirm but I am guessing this is being driven by the save percentage differential between the two. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 8, 2023 21:55:08 GMT -5
The difference between a .899 and .907, while seeming close to the naked eye, has always driven this type of disparity in card value. A similar jump or greater jump in card value would likely be found if you compared a goalie with a .915 save percentage to the .907
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 9, 2023 9:36:43 GMT -5
Yep, these guys are being calculated correctly based on current protocols.
In a nutshell, the program will use the better of a goalies rating points from either the save percentage or GAA. It will then calculate the other score by taking the higher of either calculated lower score points or (.90 * higher score points) to determine the other score.
Scott is correct in concluding that the .899 to .907 is the primary driver for these guy's cards being as far apart as they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 9, 2023 10:19:11 GMT -5
The issue I have with this is that a guy stopping 89.9% of the shots he faces churns out a player card that is almost unusable and will not likely result in him stopping 89.9% of the shots he sees in the G, or at least based on his card, I wouldn't expect him to reach that percentage
|
|
|
|
Post by Jedediah-Hartford on Jul 9, 2023 10:19:23 GMT -5
It's not one of my players, but while comparing rosters I was looking at Baltimore's and noticed Tommy Novak has only a 6 fortitude, even though he played 76 games total across NHL and AHL and 51 of 53 possible games up with Nashville. Seems harsh for someone who missed a couple games all season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 9, 2023 10:20:56 GMT -5
It's not one of my players, but while comparing rosters I was looking at Baltimore's and noticed Tommy Novak has only a 6 fortitude, even though he played 76 games total across NHL and AHL and 51 of 53 possible games up with Nashville. Seems harsh for someone who missed a couple games all season. The 6 is based on only his NHL games played as only those games were used to create his card |
|
|
|
Post by Jedediah-Hartford on Jul 9, 2023 10:37:43 GMT -5
It's not one of my players, but while comparing rosters I was looking at Baltimore's and noticed Tommy Novak has only a 6 fortitude, even though he played 76 games total across NHL and AHL and 51 of 53 possible games up with Nashville. Seems harsh for someone who missed a couple games all season. The 6 is based on only his NHL games played as only those games were used to create his card You will find plenty of other players whose cards indicate a higher fortitude despite playing fewer NHL games last year. |
|
