|
Post by QC Mike on Sept 27, 2022 21:23:28 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by QC Mike on Jan 7, 2023 16:27:44 GMT -7
Since I keep proposing a modified standings structure (3 pts Regulation Win, 2 pts OT Win, 1 pt Tie or OT Loss) I thought I would put this out there so that people could see it in action.
|
|
|
Post by nash on Jan 8, 2023 7:11:02 GMT -7
Thanks for posting the alternative Mike. This is an opportunity for you to accomplish two things:
1. Explain to us why this is better than the conventional standings using comparisons between the two data sets above. 2. Can you see any unintended consequences to the draft order by making this change?
|
|
|
Post by QC Mike on Jan 8, 2023 12:49:03 GMT -7
Thanks for posting the alternative Mike. This is an opportunity for you to accomplish two things: 1. Explain to us why this is better than the conventional standings using comparisons between the two data sets above. 2. Can you see any unintended consequences to the draft order by making this change? Will do once I have more info. I haven't played most teams yet so don't have a good feel for where I think each team should be in the standings and where they end up since I like to think that the standings should reflect how good a team actually is in comparison to its peers. First thing I realized is it will potentially need an adjustment on tie breakers. Are regulation wins more important than over time wins? I didn't want to create a ROW column for tie breakers unless necessary to keep info to a minimum so each win column is separately a tie breaker as it stands on the adjusted chart.
|
|
|
Post by QC Mike on Jan 24, 2023 23:38:12 GMT -7
Posting a quick note hear so people can look at the "alternate" standing versus the real standings after "100" games have been played to get an impression as to what they see as some of the possible changes and differences.
|
|
|
Post by revelstoke on Jan 26, 2023 9:44:37 GMT -7
Looks like all you supposed playoff teams better get going or else I'm going to take one of those spots for no good reason at all.
|
|
|
Post by QC Mike on Jan 30, 2023 14:32:43 GMT -7
Like right now how Oxford and Houston are in the playoffs and the lottery.
|
|
|
Post by nash on Jan 30, 2023 15:25:53 GMT -7
I really don't have a preference. My concern lies with small sample sizes for shootouts.
|
|
|
Post by Shamrockville on Jan 30, 2023 16:38:17 GMT -7
I think Charles actually has experience with the shoot out process for our game type. Id at least be interested to see how it would work before I made any decision one way or the other. I think it could add another dimension to trades, obviously, and if we're going to keep up with teh NHL, we may as well investigate it. What's our other option? Just to continue OT longer to get results?
|
|
|
Post by revelstoke on Feb 1, 2023 7:19:12 GMT -7
I used the shootouts in the SBHL for a couple seasons, and honestly, it didn't really make any difference for trades at all - but what it did do was potentially have people pull their starting goalie in favour of their 'shoutout' goalie, since it didn't account for any games played etc. All of the ranges were quite high (average was something like a 3-12, and most teams had at least 4-5 shooters at a 4-8 or higher), so other than poor dice rolling, the goalie was forced to make a save most of the time.
The only issue was that there are a lot of skaters in the NHL who potentially could be good shootout players, but don't have enough sample size or just aren't given the opportunity by their own coach to take a shot.
|
|
|
Post by amack17 on Feb 1, 2023 15:25:00 GMT -7
I think my goal for this year is to set the record for most goals against while still having a positive goal differential... Ugh #mixinasaveReimer
|
|
|
Post by amack17 on Feb 1, 2023 15:35:11 GMT -7
My concern is that teams just pick their best ranges all the time. It might be worthwhile to consider randomization. 4 forwards and 1 defenceman chosen at random to take the shots. I dunno. Do NHL teams not typically use the same players in their shootouts? At least on average? Here and there I can see some fluctuations, but generally your highest skill players are taking the shots, I would think. There would be the occasional changes for situations like, this random third line guy had a hat trick tonight, he must be "feeling it", but ceteris paribus, I want my highest skilled players out there every time.
|
|
|
Post by QC Mike on Feb 1, 2023 18:07:59 GMT -7
I'd like to see some shoot-out rules. Agree with the making all games worth three points if we can. Would like to see some NNHL specific rules around shoot out participation. - Any players in the penalty box at the end of OT are not eligible to participate in the shoot out
- Any player who was injured during the game is not eligible to participate in the shootout
- Rules for choosing a shooter involve fatigue. Something like at the end of OT every skater gets 1 shift back (a la play offs) and you are then able to select any player to participate in the shoot out as if they were going out for a shift or a skater is ineligible to participate in the shoot out if they are tired and have three less shifts or more than any other eligible skater. Hope others might have other ideas and these may change based on shoot out rules.
|
|
|
Post by bonavista on Feb 3, 2023 8:12:56 GMT -7
responding to Mike's post the first point makes sense and i think is the rule in the NHL as well. The other 2 points i am not sure of though
Injuries - if someone is out of the game due to injury or perhaps out for period in either the 3rd or OT might make sense but disqualifying a guy due to a random -1 in the 1st period doesn't make sense to me.
Fatigue factor. What this does to me is force me to play my 4th line more during the game in the off chance that I might have to go into a shoot out. i have lots of games where my 4th line guys might have 3 shifts or more left, even some defensemen potentially. This rule forces me to use those lower skill guys for a potential shootout.
As for the old SBHL rules for the shootout. They worked out fairly well. Each shooter had a base chance with those who had actually taken a shootout chance during the year have a better one (usually). Goalies were treated the same way with a base that was modified based on actual performance if they were involved. As for changing goalies, if I remember i was guilty of this as well but thinking back it was totally against the rules involved for changing goalies. As long as we confirm the normal goalie change rules for play are enforced for shootout this shouldn't be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by QC Mike on Feb 12, 2023 22:00:16 GMT -7
responding to Mike's post the first point makes sense and i think is the rule in the NHL as well. The other 2 points i am not sure of though Injuries - if someone is out of the game due to injury or perhaps out for period in either the 3rd or OT might make sense but disqualifying a guy due to a random -1 in the 1st period doesn't make sense to me. Fatigue factor. What this does to me is force me to play my 4th line more during the game in the off chance that I might have to go into a shoot out. i have lots of games where my 4th line guys might have 3 shifts or more left, even some defensemen potentially. This rule forces me to use those lower skill guys for a potential shootout. As for the old SBHL rules for the shootout. They worked out fairly well. Each shooter had a base chance with those who had actually taken a shootout chance during the year have a better one (usually). Goalies were treated the same way with a base that was modified based on actual performance if they were involved. As for changing goalies, if I remember i was guilty of this as well but thinking back it was totally against the rules involved for changing goalies. As long as we confirm the normal goalie change rules for play are enforced for shootout this shouldn't be an issue. For the NHL, a player is only ineligible if they still have time remaining on a misconduct (their own or the goalies) or have been tossed from the game. I want the penalties to be a bit more meaningful.
Injuries - an injured player is less likely to shoot during the game (-X). Who's to say that first period -1 isn't a little tightness in their wrist or finger that affects their shot? A hammie that affects their ability to deke? How do you reflect that in the shoot out rules/ranges? Think it's just easier to say they're unavailable until you've gone through all the uninjured players or some other penalty. If the shoot out rules have range rolling involved, maybe treat the injury like a possible penalty. Roll a single die, if the number is equal to or less than the injury totals and number of injuries (a player injured twice in a game, first for -2 and then -1 would be rolling against a 5 (3+2)) the shot is flubbed. If they exceed this, they get to roll against their range normally.
Fatigue - given our rules for fatigue I don't see this as generally being a problem as it's hard to over play people a lot but let's say you had only four players rated to play LW. During the course of the game you lose two of them (maatch penalty and an injury) that forces you to ride your two remaining LWs into the ground. The shootout comes around and one of those multi shift tired LWs has a great shootout range but you have 14 other available players who aren't a couple of shifts over. I don't think that player should be available before the others if there's a significant difference. Was trying to come up with something that where if you were somehow able/forced to grossly overplay someone they weren't available for the luck rolls (although the fact that they should have rested through the entire OT could be used as a counter - can't be OP 3on3 so they shouldn't have seen the ice).
|
|