|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 9, 2023 15:45:51 GMT -5
These definitely don't seem correct and this should be looked into for certain. As far as inaccuracy, however, it IS NOT inaccurate. We can not give a player who splits time credit for playing NHL + AHL while only giving him one card or the other. If we want to give him fortitude based on both cards, then we would have to average his two cards out or something along those lines, otherwise, we would or could have a bunch of AHL players playing in the GHL. If you want to say it's simply a result and consequence of how the cards are put together say that, but end with that. Taking a further step and claiming it's an accurate representation is a joke. You can't "give a player credit?" What's being "given" when the player has suited up and played 76 games? If fortitude is supposed to be a portrayal of a player's ability to stay healthy, why can't that be determined independently of the talent side of the card? So, would we count their AHL ice time toward stamina if we could as well? My point was that if we're using NHL stats only to create the card, why would we include AHL games played or any other AHL stat? It would appear that we do, however, and if I recall correctly, is why we nerf the NHL stats if they play under 41 games in the NHL. I'm still not sure why we would only be using one aspect from the lower card toward the higher one though |
|
|
|
Post by Jedediah-Hartford on Jul 9, 2023 16:16:24 GMT -5
I realize this isn't necessarily a realistic ask, but if fortitude was determined based on games missed due to injury rather than games played, I think some players could end up with numbers that more closely reflect their availability to play without adversely affecting the in-game numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brenden-Oregon on Jul 9, 2023 16:17:15 GMT -5
I was typing something else but then thought about the prospect rule. We now have a 20 NHL game rule and the main reason for the rule is so the player is useable when they start their ELC. The prospect rule would then be kinda pointless if the player had an NHL card based off 25 games or so but then only had a fortitude of 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brenden-Oregon on Jul 9, 2023 16:21:30 GMT -5
I realize this isn't necessarily a realistic ask, but if fortitude was determined based on games missed due to injury rather than games played, I think some players could end up with numbers that more closely reflect their availability to play without adversely affecting the in-game numbers. I wonder if Novak was somehow just missed since the rest seem to have the correct fortitude |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 9, 2023 16:45:14 GMT -5
NHL goalies were gone through to determine amount of games missed due to injury and this is what is to be used to determine the NHL goalie card fortitude ratings. Once I review we will have some more light on the subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 9, 2023 17:18:56 GMT -5
I realize this isn't necessarily a realistic ask, but if fortitude was determined based on games missed due to injury rather than games played, I think some players could end up with numbers that more closely reflect their availability to play without adversely affecting the in-game numbers. This is actually how we do goalies but it has to be done one at a time, going through each players stat page to account for each game missed due to injury, which is the reason we can't do this for skaters, it would be next to impossible and the time taken would set back card creation by a long shot as we would have to look at each page for every skater to determine if he was injured or a healthy scratch, etc. I agree, though, that would be better if it was a possibility. |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 13, 2023 7:35:01 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. When first reading this I was thinking this guy was a goalie for some reason. In his case it appears to be more of a one off miscalculation (and in this case at least, not indicative of a systemic issue). The card generation process combines players stats when played in the AHL and NHL and in this case it didn't link both sets of stats because of his first name being different in the NHL versus AHL cards. (Thomas versus Tommy). I will adjust him accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 13, 2023 7:47:00 GMT -5
These definitely don't seem correct and this should be looked into for certain. As far as inaccuracy, however, it IS NOT inaccurate. We can not give a player who splits time credit for playing NHL + AHL while only giving him one card or the other. If we want to give him fortitude based on both cards, then we would have to average his two cards out or something along those lines, otherwise, we would or could have a bunch of AHL players playing in the GHL. You had Nathan Walker with a fortitude of 9 last season on an NHL card after playing 30 NHL games and 47 AHL games so I’d say it’s both correct and how it’s been for quite awhile. Just to be clear, Skaters (Non Goalies) fort should be based on their total GP the previous year. NHL players stamina is based on minutes played per game. Goalies are handled differently. NHL goalies undergo a detailed review to calculate games missed due to injury or illness and then their fortitude is calculated accordingly. Their stamina is based on number of games played. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 13, 2023 7:49:46 GMT -5
I think the question was if fortitude was calculated on both AHL and NHL games played for players who split time and examples given for where that wasn't the case. It may have been corrected, I haven't looked.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brenden-Oregon on Jul 13, 2023 8:04:40 GMT -5
As far as I know or have seen, it was just the one player that Jed had brought up whose fort seemed off. The rest have looked correct so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 13, 2023 8:14:48 GMT -5
As far as I know or have seen, it was just the one player that Jed had brought up whose fort seemed off. The rest have looked correct so far. There might be some other one offs though where the players AHL and NHL cards weren't combined to calculate Fort because of different versions of first name. There are checks we have to catch these occurrences (usually by matching the players last name and birthdates) so they should only not find a match rarely. |
|
|
|
Post by Lance-Pittsburgh on Jul 17, 2023 8:20:16 GMT -5
Not a bitch or a boast, just a question...
When I assign some of my players to either the "Bigs" or the "Minors" via the Up/Down tool on the Lineup page, some of my forwards have different positions available on the drop-down menu that are not available on their card. For example:
Jesper Bratt shows LW/RW eligibility on the drop-down, but only RW on his card;
Pierre-Luc Dubois shows C/LW eligibility on the drop-down, but only C on his card;
Barrett Hayton shows C/LW eligibility on the drop-down, but only C on his card; and
Kasperi Kapanen shows RW/LW eligibility on the drop-down, but only RW on his card.
I assume the card positions are the correct ones, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 17, 2023 8:45:15 GMT -5
Not a bitch or a boast, just a question... When I assign some of my players to either the "Bigs" or the "Minors" via the Up/Down tool on the Lineup page, some of my forwards have different positions available on the drop-down menu that are not available on their card. For example: Jesper Bratt shows LW/RW eligibility on the drop-down, but only RW on his card; Pierre-Luc Dubois shows C/LW eligibility on the drop-down, but only C on his card; Barrett Hayton shows C/LW eligibility on the drop-down, but only C on his card; and Kasperi Kapanen shows RW/LW eligibility on the drop-down, but only RW on his card. I assume the card positions are the correct ones, right? Thanks for the heads-up. I will have a look to see where these are being pulled from. The values that are on the cards is what the simulator uses when the games are played. |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 17, 2023 9:14:56 GMT -5
The position you see on the players in the bigs-minors selection is grabbed from a master file that is created when the player is first loaded into the system. This value does not get updated with subsequent years of service (new player cards) and is meant to be a general Forward/Man/Goalie breakdown. The values that are shown for the players selected when setting liens should match the cards all of the current cards which is what is used by the engine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric-Baltimore on Jul 18, 2023 9:57:35 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. When first reading this I was thinking this guy was a goalie for some reason. In his case it appears to be more of a one off miscalculation (and in this case at least, not indicative of a systemic issue). The card generation process combines players stats when played in the AHL and NHL and in this case it didn't link both sets of stats because of his first name being different in the NHL versus AHL cards. (Thomas versus Tommy). I will adjust him accordingly. Just checking in on this. It doesn't appear that Novak's card has been adjusted and I think fortitude comes into play with asking prices right? |
|
