|
|
Post by nash on Oct 6, 2022 8:46:44 GMT -7
Right now, for my top three lines I am basically icing 5.5 +passing on average. My top 9 forwards and top 4 defenceman are all at least +1, sometimes higher. That means any time I roll on an @ I have about a 7.6% chance of shooting, which seems pretty good. If I had 6 passing on each line that would be an 8.3% chance to shoot.
However, when I compare that to Defence and it's ability to suppress shots, based on our conversations each single defence point has approximately an increase of 10% chance to stuff a shot. That means putting a player with a 3 defence on the ice instead of a 2 is superior to the opponent having a +6 passing on the line with regards to shot generation versus shot suppression (8.3%<10%).
This means to me that I should want a single defence point extra on my player more than +6 passing.
|
|
Adam (Moose Jaw)
Power User
Da competition is gonna sleep wit da fishes
Posts: 145
|
Post by Adam (Moose Jaw) on Oct 6, 2022 12:33:44 GMT -7
I know that I am new, but here is what I am thinking.
For my rambling here, let's say that the Home team has a +6pass, the Visitor has an extra defense, and it is even strength. Say the Visitors turnover the puck and Home now has possession. Regardless of which player receives the puck, as I believe there is close to an even chance regardless of position (Steve, please feel free to correct me here), that player has the 8.3% of generating an auto-shot with the @.
(8.3% + 8.3% + 8.3% + 8.3% + 8.3%) / 5 = 8.3%
Now if Home attempts a non-automatic shot, the effectiveness of the extra defense point depends on which Visitor position has it, in relation to where the shot is coming from (Home Positions LW + LD + C + RD + RW).
If the extra defense point is on the Visitor left winger then the effectiveness would be: (0% + 0% + 10% + 10% + 10%) / 5 = 6% (this would be the same for either winger)
If the extra defense point is on the Visitor right defense then the effectiveness would be: (10% + 10% + 10% + 0% + 0%) / 5 = 6% (this would be the same for either defense)
If the extra defense point is on the Visitor centre (and it increases it to a 2 or 4) then the effectiveness would be: (0% + 0% + 10% + 0% + 0%) / 5 = 2%
If the extra defense point is on the Visitor centre (and it increases it to a 1, 3, or 5) then the effectiveness would be: (10% + 10% + 10% + 10% + 10%) / 5 = 10%
If the Visitors are disadvantaged it would be either 10% or 0% depending on the Visitor team defense before the extra defense.
It looks like the only scenario where adding an extra defense would potentially be more beneficial would be if you up a centre to a 1, 3 or 5.
Does that make sense to everyone, or am I way off base here?
|
|
|
|
Post by Shamrockville on Oct 6, 2022 12:47:46 GMT -7
The +passing only affects the @ for shot generation. The opponents D has nothing to do with those shots. They could have D10 out there and if you still pass the +pass requirements you shoot.
Guys with more, or higher +pass will most likely have more P#'s on their cards which are only affected by bars for stoppage, not defense. The more, and higher P$ you have on your cards should give you better odds to get those 3 pass shots, which again are not affected by D ratings.
There is no downside to having 6 +Pass on lines in any scenario.
I see what Nash is getting at, he is balancing his shot generation vs shot suppression in the event that the opponent has possession instead, which is valid, but I'd say it has more to do with how well constructed that 2D guys matrix is constructed. If he has good matrix as well as the +pass, you also have to factor in how often he would keep posssession of the puck on your side vs a turnover, where you'd then have to worry about shot suppression.
If I understand correctly, I think there is almost no difference between a 3 pylon defenseman or a 2 +pass with a good matrix, simply because you'll cut out shots against by keeping the puck vs having to stop shots with the 3 D.
The obvious way to fix this would be to get a 3D thats also a +pass....just kidding here of course.
In strict black and white terms, yes you stop more shots (when you dont have the puck) than you generate with a 3D out. However, if you have the puck, you will keep the puck (and possibly move it to a better shooting forward) more often with that 2 D and his +pass.
It's a balance you'd have to consider with each guys card I guess. Take Evan Bouchard for example....thats a 2D +Pass card that I probably play over a 3D simply because it's that good everywhere on his matrix. You try to pair him with a 4D partner sure, but I look at all that puck control and shooting and I think I cut out 5-8 shots per game simply because I'm not turning it over when I have it. Other 2D +P cards may not be so capable on the rest of their matrix and maybe you look for a 3 D instead for those particular times.
I think it's a 50-50 split IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shamrockville on Oct 6, 2022 12:50:59 GMT -7
Also, remember that with each year Steve looks to improve the matrix quality with each of these special card items. We implemented the rule where the player himself with a +P counts towards the shot attempt, to increase the quality of +P on cards.
If we think, by years end, that +P could use another tweak, it's always possible to look at options for that as well. Small incremental changes keep us from breaking the game with large changes that have to be retrofitted.
|
|
|
|
Post by bonavista on Oct 6, 2022 13:35:44 GMT -7
yeah as Daniel said the +pass is irrelevant in regards to Defense. Nash i think you may have made a faulty assumption on your first qualifying statement unless i am just misreading it.
"That means any time I roll on an @ I have about a 7.6% chance of shooting, which seems pretty good. If I had 6 passing on each line that would be an 8.3% chance to shoot"
with 5 passing out there when you roll at @ on a card you have 83% chance of shooting (red die is anything but 6). with 6 passing you have 100% chance to shoot when rolling an @ on a matrix.
No those @'s only happen a certain amount of time as it is only 3 spots out of the matrix so it only happens a certain percent of the time. Steve posted that before at some point but i do think it was around the 8% mark.
Daniel is also right though in those +passing guys do tend to have more P results. that can dramatically lock down a game especially if your opponent does not have much in the way of bars.
|
|
