|
Post by QC Mike on Apr 19, 2020 16:39:20 GMT -7
During our game Daniel and I seemed to be rolling an inordinate number of stoppages (60+ face-offs per game). This doesn't seem to reflect today's NHL and makes Ace face-off players more dominant within the game. We discussed and experimented with the idea of having the # result dependent on the 4th die: 1-3 skate (player keeps puck time advances), 4-5 turnover (lose puck and time advances), 6 time advances and face-off. Game seemed to flow well and was a little quicker as we weren't looking at the face-off chart every three rolls. Were thinking it might be the basis of a new code that might have variances based on some stat. If it doesn't generate enough face-offs within the game, change the ranges to 1-2, 3-4, 5-6.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2020 16:24:52 GMT -7
The thought process here was more to make the players who aren't big shooters, or who get watered down by big minutes have a more meaningful "description" of their impact on the game flow.
The "Stoppage" is fine, players grind the puck on the boards, they flip it off the glass and out...it happens. But the 12+ Shifting defensemen in the league who don't take 300 shots simply aren't as invalid as their number of stoppages would indicate. I'm saying this for all years, not just the recently changed ones.
Changing the "Stoppage" to a "Possession check" was something that Mike and I discussed at length, prior to trying it out for "feel". This really seemed to make for a better "eye" test and for a much better feel for the flow of the game. It was much easier to view a "quarterback" circling back in his zone looking for a second attempt to ge tout, rather than just a dry faceoff, hence the 1-3 was "try again" basically, a 4-5 was a "Crap, turned it over while attempting to pas or carry it out, and a 6 was the regular "Ok you gummed it up along the boards and got a whistle".
While appreciating that the stoppages were being looked at, I think what may end up is just more really low numbers being applied to the cards and simply being turnovers. At least this option gives you a "chance" to do something meaningful with the puck, without it being a straight turnover. I'd like to get more peoples opinions on a possible "possession check"...kind of like a "skate" when you're penalty killing. I think it could have some traction, as it gives all 3 results in one card spot, which should give you more area to put in the meaningful shots and, (in particular) passes that just don't seem to have the space we need for them in 216 results.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 21:56:03 GMT -7
Because the value of the A face off and AA face off guys is disproportionately large already, we are not even close to being accurate with the # of faeoffs actually taken in games, NO real NHL defenseman commits that many actual stoppages resulting in a faceoff, thereby putting his team at a disadvantage, and it dds some flavor to teh game while streamlining the play.
|
|
|
Post by QC Mike on Apr 23, 2020 9:40:19 GMT -7
Because the value of the A face off and AA face off guys is disproportionately large already, we are not even close to being accurate with the # of faeoffs actually taken in games, NO real NHL defenseman commits that many actual stoppages resulting in a faceoff, thereby putting his team at a disadvantage, and it dds some flavor to teh game while streamlining the play. Around 5 face-offs per period would be nice and the idea was just something we started talking/tinkering about because we were averaging 20 face-offs per period and it wasn't because of goals (1-0, 1-2). At 20 face-offs per period those As and AAs become VERY valuable. We were trying to come up with something that would let the game flow without changing the balance of it too much and our thoughts were the player holding on to it and re-rolling was similar to the defenseman sitting behind the net or getting to center ice and circling back while the line change completed or they reset the rush but still gave a chance for the stoppage or turn the puck over so that it wasn't just a roll again until you get a good result
|
|
|
Post by bonavista on Apr 23, 2020 9:41:17 GMT -7
I am wondering how much further changes are needed? you already stated that #'s on the card have been reduced. This will already reduce the perceived advantage of A and double AA faceoff centers. I guess the better question is how many #'s a plug defense player had removed.
For example take Dan Hamhuis. looking at base stats his results are pretty much the same from last year and this year. how many less #'s would he have on his card for this year?
|
|
|
Post by bonavista on Apr 23, 2020 9:42:32 GMT -7
how would you get 20 face off's per period. that would be one on every single tick?
|
|
|
Post by bonavista on Apr 23, 2020 9:48:25 GMT -7
sorry your right. for some reason i was thinking full shifts, not individual tics. my bad
|
|
|
Post by bonavista on Apr 23, 2020 9:54:35 GMT -7
If that is the change just off of reducing the number of # on a card then i dont think we have to worry about adjusting any more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2020 16:56:04 GMT -7
Think outside the box here grasshoppers ;-). This thought gave us a way to make 3 different results occur in one slot on the cards rather than a single one, it A. Not only made the faceoffs deal more manageable, it B carved a bit of room out of the 216 results, in order to adequately pack more results in, which had been a challenge in the past, AND it was something new and fun that kept the game flow going, and once we tried it, it really did go well. The possibility of putting more, lower percentage results is also fine, but this would still only be a single type of result on that one slot, if you just keep it, move time and then re-roll you then open up the whole card's set of results for attempting. There also DO still need to be faceoffs, so having one (or even two of the results) being a true stoppage is still giving the A's and AA's their opportunity to influence the games, you'd still be most likely to turn the puck over, or go to a face off, but the opportunity to reset and "try again" made the whole experiment fun, and you weren't totally reluctant to play those # monsters.
|
|
|
Post by nash on Apr 23, 2020 21:27:54 GMT -7
Daniel, maybe you could be a bit more clear and brief for me. What issue is this fixing?
|
|
|
Post by QC Mike on Apr 25, 2020 17:12:47 GMT -7
Think outside the box here grasshoppers ;-). This thought gave us a way to make 3 different results occur in one slot on the cards rather than a single one, it A. Not only made the faceoffs deal more manageable, it B carved a bit of room out of the 216 results, in order to adequately pack more results in, which had been a challenge in the past, AND it was something new and fun that kept the game flow going, and once we tried it, it really did go well. The possibility of putting more, lower percentage results is also fine, but this would still only be a single type of result on that one slot, if you just keep it, move time and then re-roll you then open up the whole card's set of results for attempting. There also DO still need to be faceoffs, so having one (or even two of the results) being a true stoppage is still giving the A's and AA's their opportunity to influence the games, you'd still be most likely to turn the puck over, or go to a face off, but the opportunity to reset and "try again" made the whole experiment fun, and you weren't totally reluctant to play those # monsters. I am enjoying the thought experiment here.
What about on the PP and PK? Ideas?
If we're still doing the single column for PK (which I'm not a huge fan of as it doesn't depend in any way on what opposition they face) I was thinking that if the PP team has no players who are rated as a defenseman that the PK team is able to apply a +/- 1 modifier to their result
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2020 15:06:59 GMT -7
We were looking to find some way to employ the defensemen in the NHL who only translate to #'s for 1/2 to 3/4 of their cards in the simulator. Having 50-70 faceoffs in a game is pretty unreasonable and makes the A and AA more powerful than intended, plus they just slow the game down in a way that no one wants to even put them on the ice unless they're a 4/4 or a 5.
We've already known that putting all of the results onto a card can be difficult in players who shoot a lot, or who have exemplary passing. This would be a way to fix everything in one code result.
We were just getting tired of the flow of the game being interrupted every 3 or 4 ticks and thought this would represent the defensemen who come out, dont like what they see up the ice and circle back for another look, or drop a pass after getting to center, or just turning it over as you approach center. It still left us with a very reasonable # of faceoffs and it made the game seem like it had a consistent flow.
Making those plug defensemen something other than stoppage machines, just seems reasonable, since the stoppages dont really translate to the NHL in any way.
Just something we tried, really liked the feel of and wanted to share.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2020 15:18:11 GMT -7
Also, as a quick reply to Mike's recent post; I'm kind of leaning in the same vein in that really, your opposition faces zero penalty for playing 5 forwards every powerplay because the SH team's shooting is in now way dependent on what opposition they face.
It's also not unreasonable to understand that the normal matrix simply can't apply to the PP and SH situations. The "game within game" situations almost call for their own cards, but thats another whole bomb that we dont really want to open.
Mike's solution may be something to look at....maybe for each defenseman that isnt utilized in their normal spots on the PP, the SH team's shot number moves up the column by one, say from the 3 spot to a 4 or a 5, which are more likely to happen?
As for the #'s on a PP or SH situation, I don't think they'd inordinately affect the play. Even a plug defenseman would stand a better chance of successfully participating in the offence on a PP, realistically, so having a 1 in 3 chance to "reroll" on their substandard card shouldn't affect play that much. Remember that we're not advocating that the 1-2 be a "pass" so wouldnt be counted towards a shot attempt, but rather more like a "Skate" occurrence, so that still negatively affects the teams PP since it moves time regardless AND you're still rolling on that # monsters card. On the 2-3 their directly turning it over to the SH team and on a 5-6 it's still just a straight stoppage, though how you get a stoppage on the PP is questionable, unless the puck goes up over the glass off a shin pad or the goalie ties it up, but those come from shot attempts which isnt the case here.
I hope my line of thinking is clear, it may not translate to typed text as easily as Id like, but I like to think that it would "help" simplify and pack 3 results into one occurrence...maybe use a different symbol entirely so we stop thinking of it as a modified "stoppage"?
|
|
|
Post by nash on Apr 27, 2020 9:44:29 GMT -7
We were looking to find some way to employ the defensemen in the NHL who only translate to #'s for 1/2 to 3/4 of their cards in the simulator. Having 50-70 faceoffs in a game is pretty unreasonable and makes the A and AA more powerful than intended, plus they just slow the game down in a way that no one wants to even put them on the ice unless they're a 4/4 or a 5. We've already known that putting all of the results onto a card can be difficult in players who shoot a lot, or who have exemplary passing. This would be a way to fix everything in one code result. We were just getting tired of the flow of the game being interrupted every 3 or 4 ticks and thought this would represent the defensemen who come out, dont like what they see up the ice and circle back for another look, or drop a pass after getting to center, or just turning it over as you approach center. It still left us with a very reasonable # of faceoffs and it made the game seem like it had a consistent flow. Making those plug defensemen something other than stoppage machines, just seems reasonable, since the stoppages dont really translate to the NHL in any way. Just something we tried, really liked the feel of and wanted to share. Thanks Daniel. Will this approach negatively impact offensive defencemen too much? Anecdotally, I think the high stoppage defencemen tend to have higher defence values, while more offensive guys tend to be lower. I question making these players more appealing to play than a puck mover. I'll use Zach Werenski as an example. He's a 2/3, 12 shifts with 20 goals and 187 shots in 63 games. For a defenceman he should shoot pretty well with a good range. On the other side I'll use Patrick Nemeth. 4/4, 11.5 shifts with 1 goal and 89 shots in 64 games. Fairly comparable games and shifts but I expect most managers would generally prefer to play Nemeth and rely on their offense to come from their forwards. I play 2's and 3's all the time and can't stop a shot. I bet I average 50 shots against. Now that's not all on my defencemen since my forwards suck as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2020 17:25:55 GMT -7
Hi Gent's,
In reply to Steve's above note: "I like the thought process, and agree with you that the flow would be improved, and that the strength of the A and AA face-off would be properly curtailed.
What would happen to # on the Powerplay and Penalty Kill? Assuming that the separate PK grid is gone, what about:
On the PP, # becomes "Team retains possession. Roll to see who gets it. Time moves." On the PK, # becomes "Forechecking shot for opponent.""
Those options, may make the # too powerful IMO. That makes them auto passes on the PP and it makes them auto shots against when they are PK. Not quite the intent we were going for. Looking at each "Special Teams" situation now:
On the PK a # is a good option. It stops the play, moves time and gives you a chance to regain possession. That's almost better than a "+" result. So if you're on the PK a # doesn't hurt you, and may actually benefit you. In addition it is a detriment to your opponent on the PP because it disrupts the flow of the PP too much, which we don't actually see in real game play. Most teams on the PP get fairly sustained pressure in the offensive zone so those #'s hurt their chances.
On the PP a # is a boat anchor, and almost forces you to play a forward on the point if you don't have a good offensive defenseman. As Nash has mentioned recently, if we changed the # results to auto passes on the PP it could devalue the true offensive defensemen.
Maybe just modifying the results by one "shift would make it more palatable for each case? ES results are 1-2, 3-4, 5-6. PP and PK results are 1, 2-3, 4-5, 6.
If we go with teams at ES, a # results in: Red Die is a 5-6 the player retains possession, time moves and reroll the result. Red Die is a 3-4, a regular stoppage occurs, time moves, we have a face off. Red Die is a 5-6 the player coughs up the puck to an opposing forward, time moves.
A team on the PP, Red Die is a 1 results in the SH team getting a shot on goal by the opposing winger, at their normal range. Red Die is a 2-3 a regular stoppage occurs, time moves, we get face off. Red Die is a 4-5 player retains possession, time moves (NOT A PASS), and reroll on that players card. Red Die is a 6 a pass occurs and counts in the regular sequence (if it was the first pass on a PP time doesnt move, receiving player rolls. If it's the second pass on the PP a shot occurs for the receiving player).
A team on the PK, Red Die is a 1 results in the PP team getting a shot on goal (random player)using their PP range (regardless of where they are positioned, i.e. a forward on the point get's a quality chance because of the give away). Red Die results in a 2-3, player coughs it up to a forward on the PP, time moves and PP player rolls on their card. Red Die results in a 4-5 we get a regular stoppage, time moves, we get a face off. Red Die is a 6, the player gives one of the PK forwards a breakout pass, that player get's a shot on net at their SH range.
I think that would address most of the possible concerns. It doesnt devalue a true offensive defenseman, their still going to have better results than a 50-50 chance on their cards at ES, they are still going to have better results on the PP. My only concern is that it may still be unbalanced in a PK situation. This does, admittedly, give the #'s some possible results that an offensive defenseman might not have if they don't have any # results on their card. However, if we're not having the PK column again next year, then the offensive defensemans ability to shoot, even at SH ranges, should nullify any advantage from the # since the offensive defenseman also wont have any negative results attached to them like purely giving up a shot on goal.
|
|