|
|
Post by nash on Oct 24, 2021 11:54:06 GMT -7
Opened up the season this weekend:
Brooks 2 @ Cremona 3
Cremona 2 @ Brooks 1
|
|
|
|
Post by nash on Oct 25, 2021 21:56:45 GMT -7
I thought the matrices were the best we've had so far. We did use the +PASS correctly.
I'm going to have to get used to the PK ratings. I'm not sure I get them, since I have a 3 defense winger who counts as a 2 on the PK. What does that mean?
|
|
|
|
Post by QC Mike on Oct 31, 2021 13:50:30 GMT -7
I'm going to have to get used to the PK ratings. I'm not sure I get them, since I have a 3 defense winger who counts as a 2 on the PK. What does that mean? Guys who are not PK Ace have a PK Defense of 1/2 their regular defense, round up. Guys who are PK Ace have their regular defense +2 on the PK. This is a replacement for "guys who didn't play the PK can't play the PK". I wanted all players to have the ability to play the PK as whether or not they actually do play is a coaching decision, and out of the player's control. Have to say I'm not a fan of this on its face (haven't played a game to way in with facts). Coaches often don't play players in certain situations because they are not good at it. Never expect to see Milan Lucic penalty killing in normal situations.
Have gone from dressing 7-8 ace penalty killers per game last season to having three ace PKs with players like Elias Lindholm (CGY PK1) being almost unplayable with a 2 defense on the PK. Feel that the tweaks to make the PP more effective have started to go to far. I was consistently putting out a PK defence of 9 last year and my PK was only 13 for 19 (68.4%) during regular season and was 11 for 13 (84.6%) during my 6 playoff games which works out to 24 for 32 (75%) for the whole season. Not exactly stellar given where 9 defense is on the PK curve. This year I'm expecting to put out an average PK defense of 7 and that includes using a 5 D defenseman - a luxury I didn't have last year.
|
|
|
|
Post by nash on Oct 31, 2021 14:39:27 GMT -7
I'm not sure what your issue is aligns with what Steve is saying.
He changed things so guys who don't have a PK rating can still play the PK, but may not be very good at it. That's how it works in the NHL now. I see plenty of guys who play the PK some every game but don't get a PK rating, likely because they aren't that good at it, but coach's decision.
It sounds to me that your guys may not have PK'd as much in the 56 games season as the season prior so they lost their ace. Isn't that what we want to see?
|
|
|
|
Post by QC Mike on Oct 31, 2021 19:55:35 GMT -7
The method of picking Ace PK has not changed. Only the defense of players who don’t play the PK has been simplified from “cannot play” to “can play but with lower D”. I have no problems with my players not getting PK ace ratings (and it's not based on just SH TOI - no forward averaged more SH TOI per 60 then Lindholm in Calgary, Goodrow in TB). My issue is it's treating the players who DID play SH TOI the same as players who didn't play enough/any SH TOI. One we have data for and the other is just a WAG. I would think for players who made the old cutoff for SH TOI and would have been "okay to play on PK" their PK defense would just be what their defense normally is (if Steve doesn't want to figure a separate SH D) and for players who wouldn't have qualified for "okay to play on PK" would be the "can play but with lower D" as part of that guess. There were players who were okay to play on the PK with last year's cards who weren't an ace PK and I'm not sold that players who played a lot of PK but didn't pass the threshold to qualify as an ace are half as effective on defense on the PK as they are at ES. |
|
|
|
Post by Belfast on Nov 1, 2021 14:12:49 GMT -7
So is that adding a 3rd tier to the PK ratings? One where they get the Ace, one where they still got a fair amount of PK time and one where they clearly weren't PK'ers and use the 1/2 rating?
I thought the new change was actually quite good. Players with the 1 Ace were actually playable on the PK now instead of merely adding one to the Def total. Guys with a 4 def and no SH TOI were still not horrid as they would still be a 2 (Joel Eriksson-Ek for example).
If the method hasnt changed, then the same number of guys playing SH TOI is still being used correct? I guess it would just be a discussion on how Lindholm didnt get an ACE if he played that much short handed time?
|
|
