|
Post by Oxford United on May 28, 2024 13:30:36 GMT -7
There is a new result on the matrix. There will be a slight increase in Infractions (#) this year. The purpose of this new result is to turn about half of the resulting stoppages into Interceptions (Δ) which keeps play moving. This differs from previous seasons where some Infractions (#) were converted into 2 and D2 results. Interceptions (Δ) occur less often on players who shoot more.
|
|
|
Post by Shamrockville on May 28, 2024 14:42:42 GMT -7
Don't a 2 and a D2 have the same result but still give a minor chance for a shot in man advantage situations?
If this new result occurs less often on players who shoot more, does this not negatively impact players who dont shoot as much even more by having even higher chances for interceptions, inordinately speaking?
|
|
|
Post by Oxford United on May 28, 2024 15:20:28 GMT -7
Don't a 2 and a D2 have the same result but still give a minor chance for a shot in man advantage situations? If this new result occurs less often on players who shoot more, does this not negatively impact players who dont shoot as much even more by having even higher chances for interceptions, inordinately speaking? Right now, players who shoot less are burdened with terrible N and Dn results. Changing some matrix results to # allows the N and Dn results to be a bit better as we squeeze the same number of shots into fewer available results. Not a lot better, but a little. However the result can be a 20% chance of an infraction, which (1) slows play and (2) makes A/AA too dominant. Converting some # to Δ retains the value of A/AA and keeps play moving at the cost of some turnovers. Think of this way: at the top end we have auto-shots. At the bottom, auto-nots. And because the volume of # is also increasing (slightly) this year, the increased value of A/AA should also be apparent. I’ll publish a couple of DRAFT cards illustrating the intent, and you can judge for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Shamrockville on May 28, 2024 18:38:20 GMT -7
Thanks for the explanation Steve, appreciate it.
|
|
|
Post by Oxford United on May 29, 2024 4:41:35 GMT -7
Here's what one card can look like depending on how many Infractions are present. I present to you Mr Tyler Motte. Mr Motte's first card is a matrix in the style of previous years. There are limited "#" results, and as a result the matrix is covered in 3s, 4s and 5s. With this matrix, he has an 11% chance of triggering a face-off, and a 27% chance of shooting against an average defense of 6.5. The second card has more "#" results, in keeping with Mr Motte's 1.2 shots-per-game ratio, and he now has an 23% of triggering a face-off with each touch. This matrix affords him a 34% chance of shooting against an average defence, a more reasonable result considering his average of 3 touches per game (when fully played). But that's a lot of face-offs. Finally, this last card maintains the 34% chance to shoot against average defence, but lowers the chance of triggering a face-off from 23% to 15% by moving 8% to interception (Δ). Not a huge change but one that adds more flow to the play around Mr. Motte. There are already so many dials to adjust when creating cards, and Δ adds a new dial to the panel, one that lowers the impact that # has on creating better shooting matrixes for mid-to-low volume shooters. The Δ also adds a coaching decision to lineup creation: given a skater's advantages, am I willing to accept that he may create a few unforced turnovers during play? As always, let me know what you think.
|
|
|
Post by Shamrockville on May 29, 2024 11:40:15 GMT -7
If he has a 34% chance to shoot and generates 1.2 shots per game, wouldn't he then only be generating about 1 faceoff per game at 23% stoppage rate, even on the card with the most stoppages? I'm just wondering what the impact is going to be overall in actual faceoffs reduction vs the automatic chance to giving the puck to the opposition.
I was under the impression that we had already culled the faceoff issue to a point where we were pretty much on par with an NHL game, somewhere around 40-50. NHL average is 50-70 faceoffs per game. As the A and AA's only tilt about 5% for the team that has them vs the team that doesn't, wont this further reduce the impact of the A and AA faceoff guys?
This is one guy, but if we look at the new turnover as a whole team over a full game, how many faceoffs will we lose?
To me, this may actually tilt the ice in your opponents favor if you have more of the mid tier players who don't shoot as much since they wont be giving the puck up directly and you will. I'm not sure that turnovers are a solution to stoppages, which at least give you the chance to get the puck back vs 0% chance on one of the new mechanisms.
|
|
|
Post by Oxford United on May 29, 2024 13:41:34 GMT -7
If he has a 34% chance to shoot and generates 1.2 shots per game, wouldn't he then only be generating about 1 faceoff per game at 23% stoppage rate, even on the card with the most stoppages? I'm just wondering what the impact is going to be overall in actual faceoffs reduction vs the automatic chance to giving the puck to the opposition. I was under the impression that we had already culled the faceoff issue to a point where we were pretty much on par with an NHL game, somewhere around 40-50. NHL average is 50-70 faceoffs per game. As the A and AA's only tilt about 5% for the team that has them vs the team that doesn't, wont this further reduce the impact of the A and AA faceoff guys? This is one guy, but if we look at the new turnover as a whole team over a full game, how many faceoffs will we lose? To me, this may actually tilt the ice in your opponents favor if you have more of the mid tier players who don't shoot as much since they wont be giving the puck up directly and you will. I'm not sure that turnovers are a solution to stoppages, which at least give you the chance to get the puck back vs 0% chance on one of the new mechanisms. Good questions. No faceoffs will be lost. The number of faceoffs will increase slightly. Previous cards were ~5.6% Icing/Infraction. This will be the new cards' minimum. So even your top shooters still have a ~5.6% of creating a faceoff via Icing/Infraction, as they always have. (Add to this the chance of penalties for an overall chance of generating a faceoff.) To create better matrices for mid- to low-volume shooters, there will be a slight increase in the average number of Icing/Infraction, and this will lead to a few more face-offs. The Δ's role is to help to ensure that the increase from ~5.6% takes us to ~10%, say, and not ~20%. For mid- to low-volume shooters, the cost of a better matrix is a slightly higher chance to end play, either with a faceoff or an interception. In Tyler Motte's case, Δ/#/I together create a ~10% chance of causing a faceoff, where #/I and no Δ creates ~18%. His card with Δ creates more faceoffs than the default (10% vs 5.6%), but not as many more as without Δ (18%). Motte has an average of 3 touches in his 6 shifts per game. With Δ on the matrix, he will: - Shoot 5 times every 4 games (with a 36% of scoring at least one goal).
- Cause the puck to be intercepted (Δ) 1 time every 4 games.
- Cause an Infraction (I/#/#?) 1 time every 3 games.
- Take a penalty 1 time every 7 games.
If your lineup is filled with top end shooters who don't have extra Infractions, the number of faceoffs will stay the same as previous years: ~5.6% plus penalties. Example: Timo Meier. 11% total chance that an event causing a faceoff occurs (including #/#?/I/X/Δ).
|
|
|
Post by alphalackey on May 29, 2024 15:36:44 GMT -7
No need to highlight all the X results on Timo Minor, I'm sure I'll hit three of them a game
|
|
|
Post by Oxford United on May 29, 2024 15:54:32 GMT -7
No need to highlight all the X results on Timo Minor, I'm sure I'll hit three of them a game It could be worse. You could have no extra # or Δ because there's no room after the penalties have been applied. I'm looking at you, Matt Rempe.
|
|
|
Post by nash on May 29, 2024 16:03:49 GMT -7
Please continue with the highlighting. It will add to the visibility on the MegaCards.
|
|
|
Post by Oxford United on May 29, 2024 16:06:30 GMT -7
Please continue with the highlighting. It will add to the visibility on the MegaCards. One does not vanquish one's enemies by making things easier for them.
|
|
|
Post by nash on May 29, 2024 16:07:18 GMT -7
I'm trying to give the rest of you guys a chance next season. I'm a generous opponent.
|
|
|
Post by amack17 on May 29, 2024 18:14:12 GMT -7
No need to highlight all the X results on Timo Minor, I'm sure I'll hit three of them a game It could be worse. You could have no extra # or Δ because there's no room after the penalties have been applied. I'm looking at you, Matt Rempe. View AttachmentWow, look at that drag column!
|
|
|
Post by Shamrockville on May 29, 2024 19:10:55 GMT -7
No need to highlight all the X results on Timo Minor, I'm sure I'll hit three of them a game Hey, I'll happily take him back if you want to do nothing but trash him Charles.
|
|
|
Post by Shamrockville on May 29, 2024 19:11:52 GMT -7
Thanks again for the explanation, using examples for ease of engagement.
|
|