|
Post by nash on Jul 14, 2023 21:23:32 GMT -7
I like the energetic discussion. Let us keep it productive.
On one side are those who want a more complete statistical representation. Those who want playoff appearances to align with regular season appearances.
On the other side are those who want more lineup decisions as well as those who don't see a correlation between regular season appearances and playoff appearances.
The current system reflects more of what the second side want. Players who play 75% of the regular season can play all the playoff games instead of around 75% in the proposed system. This does make some sense as core players will play through injuries in the playoffs where in the regular season they will rest. However, unrealistically a coach is also able to dress someone who is a high performing backup in the NHL for the first few games of each series even if they have someone who is a reasonable starter. Something an NHL coach would not be likely to do without reason (injury, fatigue etc). That is more impactful than doing the same thing with almost any skater.
My goal is to try and reflect what happens in the NHL. I think that brings me down on the side of not rolling in guys based on their regular season games played, at least for skaters.
For goalies I think the rolling in system makes more sense. Sometimes backups do play, but rarely takeover completely unless there is injury. Perhaps a hybrid system where we roll in the goalies but have a more conventional system for skaters might work.
|
|
|
Post by Belfast on Jul 15, 2023 8:04:06 GMT -7
Because its a game? We still have to have fun playing it? Why dont we just give each team an "expected" rating then roll D100 and add that number to your roll to see who wins? Then we can be done with all this coaching nonsense, and submit to random rolls and be done a season in 30 minutes.
I want to play a game that's fun, not sit and have a stats battle of minutiae. It's not broken now, we've played this way for decades, why do we need to make changes to it that have the possibility to screw you? What, just to add more randomness to it? There is no practical benefit to this change, and only the possibility of a negative impact.
|
|
|
Post by alphalackey on Jul 15, 2023 11:34:42 GMT -7
"I want to play a game that's fun, not sit and have a stats battle of minutiae." How many total hours will all 12 managers spend playing in the CHL next year, and how much total time will be spent rolling in players for playoff games? It's fitting that you used the $5 word whose Latin root also gave us the word "minutes". "It's not broken now" It's bad now, and could stand to get a lot better. Why did we even go from Stratomatic to Faceoff to Perkins-Powered hockey in the first place, if not for a better experience? "What, just to add more randomness to it?" To adhere to good game design principles, the principles that the game is built upon. The major principle is to emulate the NHL as much as practically possible within the "cost/benefit" framework we're used to. The second major principle is to make each player as unique as possible, i.e. "avoid bucketing". Remember how Strato bucketed players? The top 25% in shots per game got the same generic offence score, the next 25% the same, etc. etc. And don't get me started on penalty shots, the ULTIMATE in bucketing. We surely couldn't have had a shootout without eliminating bucketing there. But that's my next proposal. "There is no practical benefit to this change, and only the possibility of a negative impact." Surely the possibility of a positive impact is there?
|
|
|
Post by alphalackey on Jul 15, 2023 11:57:36 GMT -7
One? Maybe. 2 or 3? Can’t happen. That's the whole point of my system. And also the other way, so that the .931 David Aebischer who "should" play 1.25 games doesn't play 3.75 above expectation. Like I get the concerns that we don't want to be adding up expected goals and awarding some fraction of 2 points to the expected winner. Lord knows I have real hockey analysis to do that with ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) but there's a reason we don't just roll a few d6 and call it a game. Anyone remember D'Ice Hockey? So yeah, obviously there is a concern about balance between realism and time spent. The "cost/benefit" tradeoff, mentioned above, that we're accustomed to. I think it's pretty clear that the cost is minimal in terms of time spent, and I think the benefit far outweighs it.
|
|
|
Post by alphalackey on Jul 15, 2023 16:01:08 GMT -7
BTW in the Bombers / Redblacks game, Ottawa WON the coin toss... and chose to receive >.< which is where they willingly chose the same 2:1 underdog status that the OG NFL OT rules gave the coin toss winner.
One point in favor of "let's let coaches make horrible decisions, you never know.." mentality.
EDIT: and the bad play won! So it's gonna be done again next time! It's Evander Kane "double down on hard 12, get a 9, therefore I'm a genius" all over again.
|
|
|
Post by nash on Jul 15, 2023 17:44:54 GMT -7
"It's not broken now" It's bad now, and could stand to get a lot better. Why did we even go from Stratomatic to Faceoff to Perkins-Powered hockey in the first place, if not for a better experience? Hey Charles, Can you expand on your statement about the game being bad now? What are a few of the things that need to be repaired to make it not bad?
|
|
|
Post by Belfast on Jul 15, 2023 18:36:02 GMT -7
Look, your argument about "more real" Playoff experience doesn't add up. If we don't know how many games they might play, because we don't know have playoff cards, then they could conceivably play more than what we allocate now, and they could play less. So your system isn't even approximating NHL play either, since we dont have playoff cards and we don't know how many games a guy will play. We're not screwing any players with higher games played because of this very reason.
This system doesn't have any positive effects attached to it.
Look if I have a 56 game playing guy he might get rolled out for game 2. If I am planning to play that guy for my home games where I get last change to match up against certain opponents, I can get fucked by this. I strategize my home vs away for such things. If I plan to sit my guy in games 3 and 6 on the road, I am "forced" to perhaps miss a home game where I can have an advantageous line up match.
I don't favor a system that is even further limiting my ability to make choices in deployment for zero benefit.
I don't care if some 62 game playing "Sprong" type card can play all 7 games, every team has the same option now on when they want to deploy guys, why do we need to change it since we have all agreed that we never know how many playoff games guys will play anyhow?
|
|
|
Post by alphalackey on Jul 15, 2023 18:46:57 GMT -7
"It's not broken now" It's bad now, and could stand to get a lot better. Why did we even go from Stratomatic to Faceoff to Perkins-Powered hockey in the first place, if not for a better experience? Hey Charles, Can you expand on your statement about the game being bad now? What are a few of the things that need to be repaired to make it not bad? The game is very good now, better than it's ever been. The system of allocating playoff games is bad, because it inadvertently skews to lower GP players AND it gives unrealistic future powers.
|
|
|
Post by alphalackey on Jul 15, 2023 18:47:59 GMT -7
I don't favor a system that is even further limiting my ability to make choices in deployment for zero benefit. Assuming you play correctly, it does not limit your ability one whit.
|
|
|
Post by Belfast on Jul 15, 2023 18:53:06 GMT -7
And who are you to decide what is "playing correctly?" You disagree with my above statement that I can get screwed if I'm pre-planning to play certain guys in my home games?
You still haven't listed a single positive reason to change the system that's in place now.
|
|
|
Post by alphalackey on Jul 15, 2023 20:01:36 GMT -7
And who are you to decide what is "playing correctly?" I, a person who is capable of calculating an optimal decision, especially when it comes between two polar opposites where the difference is miles apart. Who am I to decide that doubling down on hard 14 against a 5 is worse than standing? Positive reasons to make this change, from a prior post: "To adhere to good game design principles, the principles that the game is built upon. The major principle is to emulate the NHL as much as practically possible within the "cost/benefit" framework we're used to. The second major principle is to make each player as unique as possible, i.e. "avoid bucketing". Remember how Strato bucketed players? The top 25% in shots per game got the same generic offence score, the next 25% the same, etc. etc."
|
|
|
Post by Belfast on Jul 15, 2023 20:44:26 GMT -7
You still haven't listed a single positive reason to change the system that's in place now. Then you are not reading my posts or are deliberately ignoring them. Either way the disrespect is intentional and I’m done. Because I'm arguing that your points dont make any sense, that's disrespect? So it's not disrespect to tell me I dont know how to play the game, or that MY reasoning isn't sound, in how I anticipate my lineup to be most useful? "The ultimate goal: to make the player's "playoff games played" percentage match their "real NHL GP" percentage in the same way we do for the regular season" With no way of knowing how many games players might play in the NHL in playoffs, this is nullified. We've given a range of games to accommodate the possibilities that players may play more games in the playoffs to err on the side of caution, to ensure that people can play a good lineup against each other that's reflective of their team building process. If you try to directly tie their games played percentage in the regular season to a playoff series of 7 games, that's one argument. But trying to tell coaches when they can or cannot play their players, or that whatever strategy for best utilization of those players is, that goes too far. The players are completely unique already, I don't think further deviations are required just to add an "element of chance or surprise". If we take this rolling in of players as presented, we're ignoring the capability of players to play a full playoff series even though missing regular season games. Since we've all agreed that we have no way of knowing how many games players might play, we're left with basing it on their regular season games played percentages, but over the course of a 7 game series. What is the positive result in randomizing who can play in any given game? You claim it's a "reality" issue? But since we cant know how many games in a playoff series a guy will play, that's not really a good argument. The "skewing" towards lower game playing guys that you claim is a maximum of 1 game, compared to the actual regular season games played percentage. Your argument states that a guy could "only miss 1 game, that 2 or 3 is impossible", even though the math clearly shows that it is possible for them to miss 2 games. My position is that given that your system claims to only have a 1 game variance, and our system currently only has a 1 game variance, why do we need to make any change at all?
|
|
|
Post by Belfast on Jul 15, 2023 20:51:26 GMT -7
And who are you to decide what is "playing correctly?" I, a person who is capable of calculating an optimal decision, especially when it comes between two polar opposites where the difference is miles apart. Who am I to decide that doubling down on hard 14 against a 5 is worse than standing? Positive reasons to make this change, from a prior post: "To adhere to good game design principles, the principles that the game is built upon. The major principle is to emulate the NHL as much as practically possible within the "cost/benefit" framework we're used to. The second major principle is to make each player as unique as possible, i.e. "avoid bucketing". Remember how Strato bucketed players? The top 25% in shots per game got the same generic offence score, the next 25% the same, etc. etc." Tell me you didn't read my post without telling me you didn't read my post. Your gambling analogies have zero point here Charles, especially when you take a drastic view and try to compare it to a completely different game, with different stakes and margins for choice. This is a game that we're supposed to still have fun with and each person achieves that in a different fashion. You trying to tell me that my coaching decision to play a certain lineup at home vs a certain lineup on the road clearly shows a difference in playing style, but judging by the last two years, Id say I have a pretty good track record of my decision making being fairly astute. We can't compare our teams to NHL teams, since we have amalgamations, that are comprised of above average players, trying to enforce a randomness into allowing a coach to actually plan out lineups without the worry of random rolls is paramount. Trying to compare our current iteration of the game vs Strato is a strawman of the worst variety. Every single player in the NNHL card set is completely different, thanks to Steves work and matrix calculations. There is zero chance of any type of bucketing players into generic cards.
|
|
|
Post by nash on Jul 15, 2023 21:35:56 GMT -7
Ok. I'm shutting this discussion down.
We'll vote on this in August.
|
|