|
|
Post by amack17 on Apr 15, 2024 20:36:04 GMT -7
Which is the more impressive season? For our game, one has a much stronger impact than the other, but overall, which feat do you find more impressive?
|
|
Belfast
Power User
Posts: 594
Member is Online
|
Post by Belfast on Apr 15, 2024 22:46:25 GMT -7
No brainer, 70 goals is far and away more impressive. Because they award assists for 2 people, it absolutely waters down the value of assists.
In our game there is no comparison, it's all about goals and shots in 5v5. Nothing else even approaches the value of those two items. I'd even rank PP goals above assists since passing really doesn't result in a lot of goal potential.
NHL may be different because those teams are counting those goals and assists on their team. Since our teams have a host of players who aren't linked in the NHL, we most times end up passing to a much lower level player than who that particular 100 assist player might be playing with.
Connor McDavid for me, is only NHL good if I have a similar line to what he has in Edmonton. Passing to Hyman and RNH, with Bouchard and Ekholm as the D is far and away better than say McDavid with a Tavares and Tkachuk with Ekholom and Carlo as a D pair.
Passing really only hits a new level if you have a full line of shooters or other superb passers. Too many times we get the 1 or even 2 passes then nullified by a pass to a brick who turns it over.
This is all, of course, just my opinion on the passing conundrum we seem to discuss every year. You can't make it too powerful, and you can't nerf it, so it just kind of is a "bonus" if you get a guy that can pass well.
|
|
|
|
Post by nash on Apr 16, 2024 4:29:56 GMT -7
I don't really value passers in the NHL or the CHL. I like goal scorers.
I appreciate 70 goal scorers are more common in NHL history and they absolutely need someone passing them the puck, but 30 years of Faceoff has definitely clouded my opinion.
|
|
Belfast
Power User
Posts: 594
Member is Online
|
Post by Belfast on Apr 16, 2024 14:49:13 GMT -7
Yeah, great passers elevate players either to, or past, their potential. It's just frustratingly hard to manufacture that to a 216 matrix.
I liked Steves Passer Rating theory. Not the actual +Pass stat, but their rating of their actual passes. I thought it'd be useful to have those passers add their passing number to the recipients numbers when they roll after the pass. That kind of gives the feel of a great pass setting up an adequate shooter with that perfect window instead of a regular shot number. It wouldn't be huge, I imagine 1-3, but sometimes an extra 1 or 3 to a shot number can make a difference. Like when you have those low numbers 3,4,5, those might actually shoot if you add a couple points to that. I dont think it'd unbalance the game, but it'd make the passers have a tactile contribution.
Just my 1 cent, adjusted for inflation.
|
|
|
|
Post by nash on Apr 16, 2024 19:27:58 GMT -7
Yeah, great passers elevate players either to, or past, their potential. It's just frustratingly hard to manufacture that to a 216 matrix. I liked Steves Passer Rating theory. Not the actual +Pass stat, but their rating of their actual passes. I thought it'd be useful to have those passers add their passing number to the recipients numbers when they roll after the pass. That kind of gives the feel of a great pass setting up an adequate shooter with that perfect window instead of a regular shot number. It wouldn't be huge, I imagine 1-3, but sometimes an extra 1 or 3 to a shot number can make a difference. Like when you have those low numbers 3,4,5, those might actually shoot if you add a couple points to that. I dont think it'd unbalance the game, but it'd make the passers have a tactile contribution. Just my 1 cent, adjusted for inflation. Yeah. That would be crazy. It's already difficult to stop a shot based on defense, but that would make moderate shooters ridiculous and marginalize excellent shooters. |
|
Belfast
Power User
Posts: 594
Member is Online
|
Post by Belfast on Apr 16, 2024 20:16:44 GMT -7
Hmmm, perhaps. I dont think its particularly difficult to hold down shooters. If we're talking about our top lines, they're going to shoot no matter what. Even on our teams which are better than NHL teams. Your team defense can absolutely hold shooters off the board. Once you can confidently stop 7's and most 8's, I think you're pretty tough to beat. You can't stop an Ovechkin, or Matthews say, but our middle lines can easily become non-existant when facing those types of defense. Those guys aren't marginalized one bit. THey're still going to shoot no matter what, it would help them, even if its a smaller degree, but it does make some of our middle 6 more valuable, thus maybe prompting more trading as well.
I think it would just boost the middle pack somewhat, and it wouldnt be outrageous. How many elite passers are there? If it was weighted to a 0-1-2, perhaps that would make more sense? Im just voicing my opinion of course, but I think itd make those elite passers worth trading for. Ii mean I'm not talking just average to good passers, I mean the truly excellent ones. The McDavids, Kucherovs..Marners type guys. I dont think we'd have so mane of them that it'd unbalance things.
I may be mistaken, but I think it'd be worth the exercise to see.
|
|
