|
|
Post by nash on Jun 19, 2020 9:14:44 GMT -7
Hey Guys.
One of the things that I'd like to have us discuss is playing our guys out of position. This has something that's been a bit of a thorn in the side of our league for a while.
In the NHL a coach can play a skater at any position based on team needs so that ultimately becomes the rated position(s) in our game. Our game simulates both the GM and coach role so the question is this:
Should we have the discretion to play our skaters outside their rated position?
In one respect, not allowing this or having very restrictive opportunities to play guys out of position makes a lot of sense. The NHL coach has already determined for us where the skater is effective. This means you as a GM will have to make a decision when you end up with too many guys in a single position and need to make a trade in order to have a playable roster.
The negative to that is if you have a bunch of injuries it may take a lot of effort to ice a roster for 20 games that is playable.
Playing guys out of position is appealing as it takes away some of the roster management issues (ie. None of us likes trading our guys, especially to fill a position gap on the 4th line), but also reduces trade talk. NHL GMs sometimes have to make hard decisions, especially if they have an abundance of talent at one position and weakness at another. We should also have to make those same choices.
If we were to allow guys being played out of position, there would have to be a penalty associated with that. A reasonably harsh penalty. Unfortunately that also means that only teams that are looking to win games will be worried about that. In my situation I wouldn't worry about playing guys out of position with a penalty. My team sucks so having a sub-optimal player on a line won't worry me too much. I'll just defer the decision until my team is better and maybe it's solved itself by that time.
I see there being two choices.
1. You can't play guys out of position unless you don't have a choice based on your roster (ie now).
2. You can free play guys out of position but with a significant penalty to their performance so GMs will be encouraged to trade to smooth out their lineup.
I don't really know which of these are preferable as both have merit. Any thoughts? Nash.
|
|
|
|
Post by revelstoke on Jun 19, 2020 12:17:36 GMT -7
I think I'd prefer 2 - as long as the penalties are sufficiently stiff that I really don't want to play a player OOP.
So it's not like you can't, especially if I have so many injuries that I'm forced to do so - just that I'll be terrible at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by nash on Jun 21, 2020 20:01:00 GMT -7
Thanks for the feedback Larry. I think since there really hasn't been substantial support for a change we'll go with the status quo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2020 6:36:06 GMT -7
I don't particularly care for having stiff penalties for playing guys OOP. We don't have the depth that NHL teams do, nor do we have the options to bring guy sup from a farm squad to fill a roster spot in the event of injuries. With us having limited resources, 35 players max, forcing trades, or forcing us to draft based on position instead of talent seems counter to building strong teams. We played years with the D not being R or L, with no real detriment.
I get the idea of maybe opening up trades somewhat, but as we're not NHL teams, we shouldn't be penalized for drafting the best player available and playing them. I think most guys try to have a balanced line up positionally, but in some cases (Defense in particular) that's a real issue. Im not sure if we just missed out on a lot of the good RD or if some guys are just luckily drafting them, but the LD seems to be pretty strong in the league and the RD seems a tad weak, numbers wise.
Im not sure what the answer is here as I know you dont want 2 forward lines of just RW playing together, I understand the idea, just not sure about how to make those parts come together without being overly heavy handed.
|
|
|
|
Post by QC Mike on Jun 22, 2020 8:32:48 GMT -7
I'm more for the stiff penalties for skaters playing OOP but am curious about the position rating of players. Steve has mentioned that the stats didn't track how often a player played in a certain position so he's forced to rely on what various sources say a player plays to get those ratings. Has that situation changed with the NHL's new drive for more stats?
If it hasn't, I know Steve "fudges" D positions based on shifts, I was wondering if there was something similar that could be done based on Games Played that would add some extra flexibility for younger players? As long as a skater has played less than X career games (100? 70? I would tempted to include playoffs here even though it doesn't impact our cards it does impact the player's finding their spot on the roster), the "side" of their rating is lost RW/LW=W, RD/LD=D. If a forward has a split rating C/RW, C/LW that would convert to an F.
You could also do the reverse for grizzled veterans where after playing Y games (800? 700? 436?) they gain that flexibility as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by nash on Jun 23, 2020 15:00:55 GMT -7
I don't particularly care for having stiff penalties for playing guys OOP. We don't have the depth that NHL teams do, nor do we have the options to bring guy sup from a farm squad to fill a roster spot in the event of injuries. With us having limited resources, 35 players max, forcing trades, or forcing us to draft based on position instead of talent seems counter to building strong teams. We played years with the D not being R or L, with no real detriment. I get the idea of maybe opening up trades somewhat, but as we're not NHL teams, we shouldn't be penalized for drafting the best player available and playing them. I think most guys try to have a balanced line up positionally, but in some cases (Defense in particular) that's a real issue. Im not sure if we just missed out on a lot of the good RD or if some guys are just luckily drafting them, but the LD seems to be pretty strong in the league and the RD seems a tad weak, numbers wise. Im not sure what the answer is here as I know you dont want 2 forward lines of just RW playing together, I understand the idea, just not sure about how to make those parts come together without being overly heavy handed. This is a false narrative Daniel. In general our teams are far stronger than NHL teams. This is supported by the fact that our Rookie Draft includes about 35% more teams in it than there are CHL teams. Your team has 33 rated skaters not including goalies. In 2018-19 the Nashville Predators (I picked them randomly) play 34 skaters through the season. As far as LD vs RD numbers, I did a quick sort and LD has 83 players with 4757 games played vs RD with 79 players and 4689 games played. There isn't an appreciable difference in number of LD vs RD in the league. I would love to not have to deal with player positioning and freely play my guys where I want. However, NHL GMs have to be cognizant about depth charts when drafting and coaches have to be aware of player performance when icing line-ups. We're trying to simulate these things in SteveBones, so taking out player positioning will remove much of the nuance around team building and coaching. Regardless, this is a third option to be added to the ones I listed in my original post. We're not getting any closer to a consensus! |
|
|
|
Post by nash on Jun 23, 2020 15:03:03 GMT -7
I'm more for the stiff penalties for skaters playing OOP but am curious about the position rating of players. Steve has mentioned that the stats didn't track how often a player played in a certain position so he's forced to rely on what various sources say a player plays to get those ratings. Has that situation changed with the NHL's new drive for more stats? If it hasn't, I know Steve "fudges" D positions based on shifts, I was wondering if there was something similar that could be done based on Games Played that would add some extra flexibility for younger players? As long as a skater has played less than X career games (100? 70? I would tempted to include playoffs here even though it doesn't impact our cards it does impact the player's finding their spot on the roster), the "side" of their rating is lost RW/LW=W, RD/LD=D. If a forward has a split rating C/RW, C/LW that would convert to an F. You could also do the reverse for grizzled veterans where after playing Y games (800? 700? 436?) they gain that flexibility as well. I suspect you'll have to wait for player tracking to get what you're asking for here Mike. It's probably reasonable to wait and see what comes out of player tracking than to ask Steve to make changes to his system before then. |
|
|
|
Post by QC Mike on Jun 23, 2020 21:09:35 GMT -7
I'm more for the stiff penalties for skaters playing OOP but am curious about the position rating of players. Steve has mentioned that the stats didn't track how often a player played in a certain position so he's forced to rely on what various sources say a player plays to get those ratings. Has that situation changed with the NHL's new drive for more stats? If it hasn't, I know Steve "fudges" D positions based on shifts, I was wondering if there was something similar that could be done based on Games Played that would add some extra flexibility for younger players? As long as a skater has played less than X career games (100? 70? I would tempted to include playoffs here even though it doesn't impact our cards it does impact the player's finding their spot on the roster), the "side" of their rating is lost RW/LW=W, RD/LD=D. If a forward has a split rating C/RW, C/LW that would convert to an F. You could also do the reverse for grizzled veterans where after playing Y games (800? 700? 436?) they gain that flexibility as well. I suspect you'll have to wait for player tracking to get what you're asking for here Mike. It's probably reasonable to wait and see what comes out of player tracking than to ask Steve to make changes to his system before then. Understand that but player tracking is done with the "release" of the ratings. I just throw these things out so that Steve can see what we're thinking and take a quick look at this data and see if this is something that's doable or not and let's us potentially debate whether or not we even want to have him consider it. If it's a non starter from a league point of view, why have him waste any time on it. |
|
