12-13-2019, 06:21 PMDuff101 Wrote: My good sir, while I enjoy the formatting of this piece and the writing, I must ask you a question.

Some of these grades are mad wack. What was your criteria here?

12-13-2019, 06:43 PMmxman991 Wrote:

12-13-2019, 06:21 PMDuff101 Wrote: My good sir, while I enjoy the formatting of this piece and the writing, I must ask you a question.

Some of these grades are mad wack. What was your criteria here?

I tried to focus only on defensive stats. Primary stats were Hits, plus minus, time on ice, penalty’s taken, and shots blocked.

Those were then used in comparison to whichever player led in that category as the player with the most hits, which would slow down opposing players and potentially create defensive turn overs. The player that led in the category was given 100 total points.

Plus minus was a little more difficult as it ranged between +14 and -11 (as of yesterday). That was a point disparity of 25. That meant 14 was worth 100 points and every Minus less than 14 was worth 4 less points. 

Similarly penalty time was harder to calculate and required a new form to calculate how much every minute of penalty time cost you. For a perfect score you needed a player who took 0 penalties. Every minute you had cost you 3.6 points from the maximum.

Time on ice was thrown in because I noticed some players with less ice time had better plus minus in comparison to those with large amounts of ice time and that inflated the plus minus stat.

12-13-2019, 08:08 PMDuff101 Wrote:

12-13-2019, 06:43 PMmxman991 Wrote: I tried to focus only on defensive stats. Primary stats were Hits, plus minus, time on ice, penalty’s taken, and shots blocked.

Those were then used in comparison to whichever player led in that category as the player with the most hits, which would slow down opposing players and potentially create defensive turn overs. The player that led in the category was given 100 total points.

Plus minus was a little more difficult as it ranged between +14 and -11 (as of yesterday). That was a point disparity of 25. That meant 14 was worth 100 points and every Minus less than 14 was worth 4 less points. 

Similarly penalty time was harder to calculate and required a new form to calculate how much every minute of penalty time cost you. For a perfect score you needed a player who took 0 penalties. Every minute you had cost you 3.6 points from the maximum.

Time on ice was thrown in because I noticed some players with less ice time had better plus minus in comparison to those with large amounts of ice time and that inflated the plus minus stat.

I’m more talking on the GK side.