|
|
Post by nash on Nov 11, 2022 7:07:12 GMT -7
Thought I'd give some of my impressions of the game after getting some games in.
1. I like the way the game plays with the situational modifiers now. As Steve has previously posted, the passing by shorthanded may need to be reviewed.
2. I like the new short-handed defence ratings. This is one of the things we always complained about that SH was amalgamated in the card. This is good progress without having completely separate cards for each situation.
3. I am still not sure about the removal of power play performance from matrices. The way I coach, only 5 guys see the ice for power plays, which means the other guys dressed have a drag on their matrices since they don't see the ice on the power play at all. I don't have a solution or am not sure if this is a real problem, just bringing it up here.
5. Defence on players feels a little too strong right now, but I wonder if that's because our teams are a little deep than even we had traditionally because of the increased talent pool available in the rookie drafts from trying to keep podded teams stocked. My mistake there.
6. Top offensive forwards seem less appealing than in the NHL compared to 2nd/3rd line players who can put in some goals. I feel like I'd prefer to trade for a 25 goal 2nd liner with little power play time or performance in the NHL (since he won't see my PP anyways) than a 40 goal guy with 9.5 shifts who saw NHL power play time. First guy would cost a lot less, have less ice time so likely his matrix will still be acceptable and those mid guys tend to have better defence and toys. Is it because things like bars etc are judged on ice time so top guys have a harder time getting them, especially given their extra time is probably power play with fewer defensive zone starts, hitting etc?
7. To reiterate something Daniel has previously mentioned, I don't know how impactful goaltending is. Having a top goalie versus an average+ goalie doesn't seem that much better based on MQ. Something like 126 MQ vs 116 MQ Do top goalies get better results that go back to their own team as well? Maybe the top goalie over a statistically significant sample is only 5% better than the average+ guy so I'm judging based on a per game basis which isn't fair.
Overall, I see significant improvement in the game now that I'm understanding the changes. Enjoying the games and while I have some questions I'd be content with the game as is. Just trying to understand how I should evaluate players value and contribution to my winning versus what it costs me to get them. Is Mathew Barzal worthless because he's a 1 who doesn't shoot or is he a 9.5 million dollar player like in the NHL?
I purposefully left out #4 just to see who read this and who didn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by brandonmoose on Nov 11, 2022 15:13:54 GMT -7
Thought I'd give some of my impressions of the game after getting some games in. 1. I like the way the game plays with the situational modifiers now. As Steve has previously posted, the passing by shorthanded may need to be reviewed. 2. I like the new short-handed defence ratings. This is one of the things we always complained about that SH was amalgamated in the card. This is good progress without having completely separate cards for each situation. 3. I am still not sure about the removal of power play performance from matrices. The way I coach, only 5 guys see the ice for power plays, which means the other guys dressed have a drag on their matrices since they don't see the ice on the power play at all. I don't have a solution or am not sure if this is a real problem, just bringing it up here. 5. Defence on players feels a little too strong right now, but I wonder if that's because our teams are a little deep than even we had traditionally because of the increased talent pool available in the rookie drafts from trying to keep podded teams stocked. My mistake there. 6. Top offensive forwards seem less appealing than in the NHL compared to 2nd/3rd line players who can put in some goals. I feel like I'd prefer to trade for a 25 goal 2nd liner with little power play time or performance in the NHL (since he won't see my PP anyways) than a 40 goal guy with 9.5 shifts who saw NHL power play time. First guy would cost a lot less, have less ice time so likely his matrix will still be acceptable and those mid guys tend to have better defence and toys. Is it because things like bars etc are judged on ice time so top guys have a harder time getting them, especially given their extra time is probably power play with fewer defensive zone starts, hitting etc? 7. To reiterate something Daniel has previously mentioned, I don't know how impactful goaltending is. Having a top goalie versus an average+ goalie doesn't seem that much better based on MQ. Something like 126 MQ vs 116 MQ Do top goalies get better results that go back to their own team as well? Maybe the top goalie over a statistically significant sample is only 5% better than the average+ guy so I'm judging based on a per game basis which isn't fair. Overall, I see significant improvement in the game now that I'm understanding the changes. Enjoying the games and while I have some questions I'd be content with the game as is. Just trying to understand how I should evaluate players value and contribution to my winning versus what it costs me to get them. Is Mathew Barzal worthless because he's a 1 who doesn't shoot or is he a 9.5 million dollar player like in the NHL? I purposefully left out #4 just to see who read this and who didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Shamrockville on Nov 11, 2022 15:20:53 GMT -7
I think the #6 is more perspective and expectation against OUR teams rather than NHL standards.
You're still better off with the top line guys, who are going to be 10-11 shifts, not 9, since you have the advantage of having them on the ice for more time. Id still take a Matthews with his 11 shifts of 3Def and shooting matrix than any 2nd line 7-8 shifting guy. These guys also tend to have much more job security which gives you additional stability and ability to forecast for your future lines. 2nd and 3rd line guys get moved around and their situations change from year to year, which creates some instability for your lines.
I scanned all of the teams and I dont see a big deficiency in those top line guys, they seem pretty strong to me, but that's probably because I dont have any of them.
I'm still lobbying for a greater spread amongst the goalies. I fully understand the point that Steve is making in keeping them in check, I just dont think that the variance is quite large enough yet. Id like to see a season of 65% and 35%, or even a true representation of saves based on the goalies actual save #'s vs high danger chances. Like why does it have to have a top and bottom? If the season saw the top HSS goalie save 68% of the high danger chances and the lowest was 42%, why wouldnt we use those numbers instead?
I know there is a ton more that goes into the save matrix than just the raw HSS%, it must include medium and some low quality as well, Im just postulating here.
Im also absolutely in favor of having some goals on the 7 column. I know that for ease of card maintenance and consistency, the 7 row is used as that base to fill in, but I still think they should be spread out some, even if its only 2 goals on the 7, Id like to see a test version. It just seems that the 7 column eats up so many saves that the remainder of the cards can't adequately express the difference in saves.
I'd also like to see some changes to the PF's results. Steve and I had a lengthy discussion about that and some ideas were brought forth. One was that a PF is considered a shot if it goes through and is a shot against if it doesnt. That would balance out the risk/reward of a PF since they are shots against when intercepted and are only passes when successful right now.
Another was to have the PF's modified based on the players pass rating, so that some guys might not get PF1's, but maybe get only PF2's and 3's.
These were suggestions only, and are obviously bound by Steve's calculations into how much that might affect game balance and shot numbers.
Overall, the cards are 100% better year over year. The changes made, in adding the PP specialists and the game situation modifiers really give it some punch that we were lacking. Extremely happy with the way they are going.
|
|
|
|
Post by brandonmoose on Nov 11, 2022 15:22:23 GMT -7
20% of the goals overall last year were scored via yhe power play. That means on average if you have a player who was a top line power play player he lost 20% of his offensive output. Usually this would push them into to the middle of the teams scoring. These players also Play more minutes on average which in the normal system would stretch there shooting stats out making them less desirable.
Lucky for me I have all 4th line guys
😃
|
|
|
|
Post by nash on Nov 11, 2022 17:02:52 GMT -7
I think the #6 is more perspective and expectation against OUR teams rather than NHL standards. You're still better off with the top line guys, who are going to be 10-11 shifts, not 9, since you have the advantage of having them on the ice for more time. Id still take a Matthews with his 11 shifts of 3Def and shooting matrix than any 2nd line 7-8 shifting guy. These guys also tend to have much more job security which gives you additional stability and ability to forecast for your future lines. 2nd and 3rd line guys get moved around and their situations change from year to year, which creates some instability for your lines. Auston Matthews pro-rates to 67 goals, is a 3 defence, FC, +3 and an A. I would also prefer him to a 7 to 8 shifting guy. How do you feel about a first liner who was not the best goal scorer in the NHL last year? |
|
|
|
Post by Shamrockville on Nov 11, 2022 18:14:09 GMT -7
Ok fair enough but some #1 centers aren't just goal scorers. Anze Kopitar for instance. He's always got a 3 Def, FC, A faceoff but is more of a distributor for his wingers. Each team will have different roles for their #1 guys. Some teams have more balanced scoring, the Leafs are a 1-2 punch so other teams can't really just key on Matthews, they have to respect Tavares as well. That gives Matthews more options if he can be out occasionally against the #2 or #3 lines.
Id still rather have Kopitar than a 2nd line 7-8 shifting guy. Same thing with Lindholm, or a Bergeron, or even and O'Reilly, Toews, Jenner or Hintz. Those guy simply have more opportunity to get better results because of their usage vs the 7-8 shifting guys.
I dont think the matrixes are as bad as what people are thinking. Remember that even though they are based on 5V5 play, that means that they are scaled up to match his total ice time, not just his 5V5.
I.E. If a guy has 17 minutes a game at 5v5 and gets 3 minutes a game on the PP, his matrix is calculated on his 17 minutes, but it is then scaled up to match the 20 minutes that he has for his overall card. So the shooting has to be scaled up 3/20, that either results in more or larger shooting numbers, or in an increased range.
Regardless of how you look at it, the top line guys are still always better to have. The matrices of the 7-8 shifting guys may be similar, but they come with 3 or 4 shifts less of available ice time.
That's just my opinion, when I look at our teams and I look at peoples #1 guys, I dont see many really glaring instances of where Id prefer to have a 2nd line guy in their place. I agree, there will be some, that can't be helped because some guys are simply excellent 5v5 guys but give up their spots on PP and PK to more adept players on their respective teams, but overall I still feel that those 10-12 shifting forwards are still always your best bet.
It's be nice to see a field of stars and 9-11's on a card, but when you factor in 22-24 minutes a game, the actual results on the matrices may seem less than expected.
In any case, my perspective on it is irrelevant, Steve's already looking into making the cards more "eye" appealing, without unbalancing the whole deal, so if he say's he's on it, I'm just gonna leave it with him because I couldnt figure out any way to make things better, other than what I've already mentioned *re: complained about* ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by nash on Nov 11, 2022 19:38:14 GMT -7
I agree the question isn't simple, otherwise it wouldn't be a question, it would be solved.
I'm suggesting that there should be a correlation of value in the NHL to SteveBones. I don't think there is now. I can appreciate that this isn't going to translate perfectly, and some guys are probably overvalued or undervalued in the NHL compared to SteveBones but it's probably not on a case by case basis here, but more widespread.
On a separate note, I am envisioning that since the matrices use Even Strength stats, maybe players should have Even Strength shifts too? Make PP and PK shifts free with separate ranges like we have now. This may not be statistically doable or even make it hard to field enough shifts but it might solve some of the dead shifts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shamrockville on Nov 12, 2022 0:31:24 GMT -7
An interesting thought. Does that overpower those guys then though because you're taking his 360 shots and packing them onto an 8-9 shifting card instead of 11? It also then doesnt have any impact on the 7-8 shifting guys since their cards are already sans PP and SH, so it would only affect higher shifting or "better" guys? Or does it then make all guys 7-9 shifting and the same more or less? Packing all of those top players goodies onto a 7-9 shifting card might be ridiculous, you might not have room for everything with only 216 chances.
Interesting to see what Steve comes up with, since he's already mentioned he's working in the lab on a "cure" for your stable of 1st line players. First world/line problems when you have Jack Hughes as your 3rd line and Barzal carrying everyones bags on the 4th line, LOL.
|
|
|
|
Post by revelstoke on Nov 14, 2022 12:57:09 GMT -7
In essence, the issue isn't the high defensive rated first liners, it's the low to no defence first liners.
Why is Elias Petterson or Barzal for that matter, less valuable than some players game-wise (ie, someone who takes 8-9 shifts and scores 5-10 less than him but has a 3 or 4 D), when he should be rated way higher based on actual NHL play? That is, of course, as long as you're trying to win.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shamrockville on Nov 14, 2022 20:00:17 GMT -7
I think Lars means they should be rated (valued) by US far more highly because they are better players in the NHL, not the ratings from the game.
We do tend to value defense quite a bit more than an extra 10-15 points on a guy. I.E. Barzal "should" be more valued in our league than say some 7 shifting 3 def guy with 40 points, because he's a legit 60-70 point guy in teh NHL, it's just that we dont seem to place the same value on players with lower def. unless they are obscene shooters or goal scorers.
|
|
|
|
Post by revelstoke on Nov 15, 2022 12:46:52 GMT -7
Daniel is correct - it's not that the card rating is low - it's that their useful effectiveness is less than that of a guy that scores less, but plays less time, yet plays better defense, at least, when you're trying to win.
In my own example, I am playing Jake Evans, a 13 goal scoring 8 shifting player, with a 3 defence, on my second line, over Tyler Seguin, a 9 shifting, 1 D, 24 goal scoring player. Why, so I can get that extra defensive point to my wingers where Seguin can sit and be a bit more sheltered, plus Evans shoots enough. Not well, but enough. And enough to make Nash question why he's got all these superstars who got punked by my 'defensive' coaching.
|
|
|
|
Post by nash on Nov 15, 2022 20:42:50 GMT -7
I approve that defensive skills are appropriately rated. However, I would like our valuation of a player to somewhat align to what an NHL coach or gm values. I can understand that no system will align perfectly, but in the NHL Patrick Laine is going to far outvalue Nick Paul. In this system Nick Paul is likely to be dressed ahead of Laine.
Is there a way without adjusting the defensive ratings or toys to make Patrick Laine more appealing than Nick Paul, or a less easy choice? I would absolutely play Laine, but he'd be hidden on my 4th line. I haven't seen Nick Paul's card but eyeballing his stats I suspect I'd be deciding if I'm going to play him on my top 6, definitely ahead of Laine though.
|
|
|
|
Post by nash on Nov 16, 2022 11:09:11 GMT -7
I like the response. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but the -0.0125 goals vs the -0.002 goals is quite close correct? Regardless, I'm willing to see how this plays out over more games before I complain some more  Enjoying the season so far except for getting pimped by Larry. |
|
|
|
Post by QC Mike on Nov 16, 2022 14:46:48 GMT -7
I like the response. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but the -0.0125 goals vs the -0.002 goals is quite close correct? Regardless, I'm willing to see how this plays out over more games before I complain some more Enjoying the season so far except for getting pimped by Larry. It depends on how you look at it. There's a 6x difference between them which could be huge but as we're dealing with tiny numbers, over an 80 game season doesn't work out to even a one goal difference. This seems small but I think explains why some star players aren't on the ice to try and wrap up a narrow win. Also explains why some coaches/GMs in the NHL say that some statistics don't pass the eye/smell test as I don't think it's enough.
Might provide more evidence for my talks with Steve about expanding number of bands. Forwards 0-6 and D 1-7 for example.
|
|
