Login

ml002 · 03-24-2019, 09:46 PM

03-24-2019, 07:53 PMgoldenglutes Wrote:
03-24-2019, 07:12 PMBarnabasCollins Wrote: A couple years ago we tested the newer versions with injuries on and durability for every player set at 99. No injuries showed up except fatigued players from playing too many minutes. Would be interesting to see someone run some more tests on this, would limit the effectiveness of players playing too many minutes and we might get more realistic sim results.

This sounds promising, but most of the league is super opposed to the newer versions of STHS right?

The newer versions destroy goalies. Like a .890 or higher sv% is a good season. You almost never see .900 or higher

Credit to Copenhagen, Wasty, FlappyGiraffe, InciteHysteria, and caltroit_red_flames
[Image: MM4nqx6.png]

***Hallsy*** · 03-24-2019, 10:27 PM

03-24-2019, 09:46 PMml002 Wrote:
03-24-2019, 07:53 PMgoldenglutes Wrote: This sounds promising, but most of the league is super opposed to the newer versions of STHS right?

The newer versions destroy goalies. Like a .890 or higher sv% is a good season. You almost never see .900 or higher

It's also less random.

sarmo · 03-24-2019, 10:33 PM

03-24-2019, 10:27 PMThatDamnMcJesus Wrote:
03-24-2019, 09:46 PMml002 Wrote: The newer versions destroy goalies. Like a .890 or higher sv% is a good season. You almost never see .900 or higher

It's also less random.

Cant we just buff the goalies to put out around .915 ish? Or is that just to much for Simon t?

ml002 · 03-24-2019, 10:54 PM

03-24-2019, 10:33 PMsarmo Wrote:
03-24-2019, 10:27 PMThatDamnMcJesus Wrote: It's also less random.

Cant we just buff the goalies to put out around .915 ish? Or is that just to much for Simon t?

Based on my limited experience with them, you can't. Goalies just shit the bed when you put the shots silder up to where it's realistic levels unless the goalies are basically maxed out and even then they aren't .900 sv%

Credit to Copenhagen, Wasty, FlappyGiraffe, InciteHysteria, and caltroit_red_flames
[Image: MM4nqx6.png]

DeletedAtUserRequest · 03-24-2019, 11:13 PM

03-24-2019, 10:54 PMml002 Wrote:
03-24-2019, 10:33 PMsarmo Wrote: Cant we just buff the goalies to put out around .915 ish? Or is that just to much for Simon t?

Based on my limited experience with them, you can't. Goalies just shit the bed when you put the shots silder up to where it's realistic levels unless the goalies are basically maxed out and even then they aren't .900 sv%

lets just compensate goalies for taking the beatings... add a few new awards for them and give them a free pass on a point task once a year. Eyebrow

|

|

|

|

***Wally*** · 03-24-2019, 11:53 PM

03-24-2019, 11:13 PMMike Izzy Wrote: lets just compensate goalies for taking the beatings... add a few new awards for them and give them a free pass on a point task once a year.

Throw in a bottle of KY and I'm sold.

Baelor Swift · 03-25-2019, 05:20 AM

03-24-2019, 09:25 PMBoomcheck Wrote:
03-24-2019, 07:39 PMBaelor Swift Wrote: Are your being purposefully dense? I said occasionally, not consistently, which have very different meanings. Philadelphia has been using it quite a bit too. And they apparently were given the inspiration to do so from an opponent, the Rangers, who used it against then. So that's 10% of the NHL we know for a fact utilized it just this season. So is there really any basis at all, be it in reality or in terms of it being a remotely unfair tactic, to disallow this? It's not even viable to run on both PP lines anyways as I'm not sure any team even has 10 strong and active rostered forwards.

Shouldn't be so combative when it was simply a question since I wasn't entirely aware. All I know is that there was some media coverage around Florida for trying it early on in the season. These teams have used it but don't stick with it and like I mentioned before, SHL teams don't really tinker much.

I think the 4f-1d model allows for good enough criteria. Maybe this forces teams that don't have many good d-men to go out and get one or potentially call one up.

It seemed like you completely changed what I said - conflating occasionally with consistently - to argue against me. So of course I was irritated that you were trying to argue against something I didn't actually say by putting words in my mouth.

SHL teams don't tinker much... That's not really true. Some don't. Some do.

I think I've lost you on your reasoning to ban a 5F PP. The fact is, it is an occasionally used tactic at the highest level of ice hockey and with the fact that SHL teams primarily run up to 9 active forwards, it's not something that will happen often unless out of necessity. It's not like the Chiefs found some sort of hack - the powerplay was right in the middle of the league, ranked seventh. It was simply a tactic used because of the personnel available.

As I said maybe 10+ seasons ago, I think it's also a bad idea to put exceedingly strict restrictions on strategies that also have no basis in reality. It basically will force every team to build one way, which only compounds on how dry the league can be with little build variety.

gordieboom · 03-25-2019, 07:37 AM

03-24-2019, 09:46 PMml002 Wrote:
03-24-2019, 07:53 PMgoldenglutes Wrote: This sounds promising, but most of the league is super opposed to the newer versions of STHS right?

The newer versions destroy goalies. Like a .890 or higher sv% is a good season. You almost never see .900 or higher

I have no SimonT knowledge, but when i look at the latest index i see version 3.1.6.6 being used, what version(s) do you mean?

***Tomen*** · 03-25-2019, 08:03 AM

03-25-2019, 07:37 AMgordieboom Wrote:
03-24-2019, 09:46 PMml002 Wrote: The newer versions destroy goalies. Like a .890 or higher sv% is a good season. You almost never see .900 or higher

I have no SimonT knowledge, but when i look at the latest index i see version 3.1.6.6 being used, what version(s) do you mean?

He means sim engine not sim version. SHL uses the 1.5 sim engine for SHL and SMJHL. There are 2.1 2.0 1.5 and another even older Simon T sim engine left.

Thank you all for the amazing sigs & player cards
Germany

3. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 5 (Maximilian Wachter, Alexis Metzler) at 16:25
5. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 6 (Steven Stamkos Jr., Brynjar Tusk) at 19:48
8. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 7 (Brynjar Tusk, Alexis Metzler) at 13:55
9. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 8 (Anton Fedorov, Mikelis Grundmanis) at 15:12
10. Buffalo Stampede , Eduard Selich 9 (Dickie Pecker) at 19:43 (Empty Net)

Boomcheck · 03-25-2019, 04:03 PM

03-25-2019, 05:20 AMBaelor Swift Wrote:
03-24-2019, 09:25 PMBoomcheck Wrote: Shouldn't be so combative when it was simply a question since I wasn't entirely aware. All I know is that there was some media coverage around Florida for trying it early on in the season. These teams have used it but don't stick with it and like I mentioned before, SHL teams don't really tinker much.

I think the 4f-1d model allows for good enough criteria. Maybe this forces teams that don't have many good d-men to go out and get one or potentially call one up.

It seemed like you completely changed what I said - conflating occasionally with consistently - to argue against me. So of course I was irritated that you were trying to argue against something I didn't actually say by putting words in my mouth.

SHL teams don't tinker much... That's not really true. Some don't. Some do.

I think I've lost you on your reasoning to ban a 5F PP. The fact is, it is an occasionally used tactic at the highest level of ice hockey and with the fact that SHL teams primarily run up to 9 active forwards, it's not something that will happen often unless out of necessity. It's not like the Chiefs found some sort of hack - the powerplay was right in the middle of the league, ranked seventh. It was simply a tactic used because of the personnel available.

As I said maybe 10+ seasons ago, I think it's also a bad idea to put exceedingly strict restrictions on strategies that also have no basis in reality. It basically will force every team to build one way, which only compounds on how dry the league can be with little build variety.

I'm saying teams should be punished for not actually getting players of other positions. In fact I want more involvement for d-men in special teams. 4F-1D provides a lot of creativity and is commonly used. If you don't have the personnel to run at least 1 defenseman on each pair and have too many forwards why not just do what New England did? It costs 12M for a position change, bruh i'd be in debt for 2 seasons if I had to pay that.

Chiefs aren't the only team that runs this strat. I never said it was a hack or over powering. I'm saying it's silly given that durability/endurance does nothing. In a league where it costs people 12M to change positions.

The reason it costs 12M is so teams don't flip flop players to fit their team needs in positions. I just don't believe a 5F - OD PP unit should be allowed given how the league is run.

5F-1D is cool. You got a 4F-1D unit and you bring out the extra forward to bring it to 5F - 1D.

**.bojo** · 03-25-2019, 04:06 PM

03-25-2019, 04:03 PMBoomcheck Wrote: 5F-1D is cool. You got a 4F-1D unit and you bring out the extra forward to bring it to 5F - 1D.

am i misreading this. Don't you mean 4f-1d for five skaters on the powerplay

ArGarBarGar · 03-25-2019, 04:13 PM

Wait, how is putting forwards on the PK a major issue? If Minnesota didn't have their top line with such a ridiculous scoring stat would this even be discussed? If not then how does the one collective point they earned on the PK factor into this discussion?

Alonzo Garbanzo Final Tallies (Among Defensemen):
2nd in Goals (208), All-Time Assists Leader (765)*, All-Time Points Leader (973), 3rd in Hits (2587), All-Time Blocked Shots Leader (1882)*
*All-Time Leader Among All Skaters
Player Profile | Update Thread
[Image: IeEV7Iv.png]

**.bojo** · 03-25-2019, 04:20 PM

03-25-2019, 04:13 PMArGarBarGar Wrote: Wait, how is putting forwards on the PK a major issue? If Minnesota didn't have their top line with such a ridiculous scoring stat would this even be discussed? If not then how does the one collective point they earned on the PK factor into this discussion?

it was probably brought up because of minny's successful line, but there's still a decent point being made imo. We have players "locked" to a position behind a 12m paywall to switch between seasons. Powerplay is really the only exception (iirc) where it's allowed to have forwards on the back.

Here's a neat article about 3vs4vs5 fowards on the powerplay. in the 14-15 season it was rarely used: https://hockey-graphs.com/2015/09/29/why...powerplay/

edit: oh i misread pp for pk. But still, you would think you'd put defenders in a defensive situation.

Boomcheck · 03-25-2019, 04:37 PM

03-25-2019, 04:13 PMArGarBarGar Wrote: Wait, how is putting forwards on the PK a major issue? If Minnesota didn't have their top line with such a ridiculous scoring stat would this even be discussed? If not then how does the one collective point they earned on the PK factor into this discussion?

Because this has nothing to do with their scoring. Like bojo said there is that 12M pay wall for positional changes and instead of finding d-men etc, they just drops a forward there. 3 forwards on a pk unit. Not even a forward with defense as a strength. This isn't Sergei Fedorov.

Grapehead · 03-25-2019, 07:21 PM

lmao proposing a rule to stop teams from doing something that didn't even work in the first place, this is top boomcheck

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us