Has Parity Improved: An Analysis of the FHM Era of the SHL

Has Parity Improved: An Analysis of the FHM Era of the SHL - Printable Version

+- Simulation Hockey League (https://simulationhockey.com)
+-- Forum: League Media (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=610)
+--- Forum: SHL Media (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=46)
+---- Forum: Graded Articles (https://simulationhockey.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=545)
+---- Thread: Has Parity Improved: An Analysis of the FHM Era of the SHL (/showthread.php?tid=131095)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Has Parity Improved: An Analysis of the FHM Era of the SHL - luke - 05-20-2023

NOTE BEFORE I START THE MEDIA

***WE ARE IN A LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE FOR THIS. 18 ITERATIONS OF SOMETHING LEADS TO UNIQUE RESULTS. TAKE IT WITH A GRAIN OF SALT***

Parity? competitiveness? Is the league healthy? Its it going in the right direction? A lot of the questions are being thrown around since we switched to the FHM engine, and for the right reason. The early seasons of FHM is a big learning curve for a lot of people, and the balancing efforts being made to help answer those questions. There have been a lot of changes, expansions twice, TPE scale changes, regression changes, tactics changes. All in the effort to increase parity, in order to make the league better, make it more fun. There has been 18 seasons so far in the FHM era, and these have been the winners so far

HAM - 5
BUF - 2
CHI - 2
TEX - 2
SEA - 2
LAP - 1
ATL - 1
PHI - 1
NEW - 1
NOLA - 1

Out of the 16/18/20 teams in the league at that time(due to expansion), there has been 10 unique winners, so lets say roughly half of the league has won the cup since switching to FHM. That paired with 3 more that have reached the finals but have not won the cup yet(MAN, TBB,WPG), there have been 13/20 teams that have reached the finals of the SHL Cup. Which in a vacuum, is pretty good! 65% of teams has reached the finals atleast once.

Comparison to different leagues.

The 2 biggest comparisons we could do is comparing the SHL with the SHL itself, VHL, and the NHL.

All the last 18 seasons of the respective leagues

Looking at the NHL the splits

Cups
PIT - 3
CHI - 3
TBB - 3
LAK - 2
CAR - 1
ANA - 1
DET - 1
BOS - 1
WSH - 1
STL - 1

COL - 1

Along with MTL,DAL, VGK, NSH, SJS, NYR, NJD,VAN, PHI, OTT,EDM,CGY

So that's 11/32 that won the cup in the past 20 years, but 23/32 that has made the finals the past 18 years. So 34% of the teams won the cup, and 71% of teams that went to the finals. So, less NHL teams won the cup than the SHL, but more teams participated, in a wider variety as well.

So let's take a look at the first 18 seasons in the SHL

Cups
EDM - 4
WPG - 2
WKP - 2
LAP - 2
CGY - 2
MIN - 2
HAM - 1
TEX - 1
SEA - 1

So that's 9 teams out of 6/8/10/12 teams that were in the SHL. Along with MAN,NEW, and TOR making the finals in one of those 18 seasons. So every team was able to make the finals in the first 18 seasons in the league. Even though the distribution looks heavily favored, I also have to remember that there was a lot of expansion, and a lot of rule changes as well, so it's probably not the best 1:1 comparison. But it's something to think about. But, less teams = better chance of reaching the finals.

Ok so let's look at the VHL from S87 - S70. I should note, I have no idea about the VHL, so I am probably missing a lot of context probably

Vancouver - 5
Seattle - 4
Warsaw - 2
Malmo - 2
Calgary - 1
DC - 1
Moscow - 1
Chicago - 1
Riga - 1

Along with 3 teams that reached the finals (HC Davoc, Prague, Helsinki). Also side note, Moscow seems so bad down, 6 finals losses after they won in S70

But anyway, out of the 12-16 teams in the league?, you got 9 unique winners with 3 more teams reaching the finals. So you got lets say 9/16 and 12/16, so 56% Teams Won a cup, and 75% participated in the finals, which seems pretty great. Even with the less teams, you have a good variety of winners, though it looks like Vancouver and Seattle kinda ran the league for a while.

So let's take a look now with all that data

[Image: image.png]

So, taking a step back and looking at everything, I would agree with the statement that winning the Stanley cup is super hard, looking at the drop from made finals to actually winning. But for the SHL, its not quite behind. The biggest difference you can see is the participation in the finals. With the SHL being top heavy, you have a lot less variance of teams making the finals. Which shows to be a bigger problem, because less unique teams make the finals = less of a chance for more teams to win the cup.

So lets take 1 final look, S53-S60 playoff finals and S61-S70 playoff finals

S53 - S61
HAM - 4 finals won | 2 finals lost
NOLA - 1 finals won | 1 finals lost
EDM - 0 finals won | 1 finals lost
BUF - 2 finals won | 3 finals lost
CHI - 1 finals won | 1 finals lost
TEX - 1 finals won | 1 finals lost

S62 - S70
HAM - 1 finals won | 1 finals lost
TEX - 1 finals won | 0 finals lost
LAP - 1 finals won | 1 finals lost
CHI - 1 finals won | 0 finals lost
ATL - 1 finals won | 1 finals lost
TBB - 0 finals won | 1 finals lost
SEA - 2 finals won | 1 finals lost
MAN - 0 finals won | 2 finals lost
PHI - 1 finals won | 0 finals lost
NEW - 1 finals won | 0 finals lost
WPG - 0 finals won | 2 finals lost

So, looking at the first 9 seasons and the last 9 seasons, we are seeing more uptick in more teams reaching the finals, and either winning and losing. Which is encouraging to see.

Broader playoff picture

Ok so lets take a step back from the finals, and let's look at the playoffs as a whole, so we can try to see why there are less unique teams making the finals. And because its a larger data set, ill be taking a look at the SHL, comparing to STHS SHL, and FHM SHL

So, what I am going to compare is League Standings/Seeding to where they end up in the playoffs(whether thats losing in the 1st round, 2nd round, CF, finals).

So, first lets take a look at the STHS era, to get a broader picture of what we were entering the FHM era with. So I pulled S30-S52 data, as I feel thats the good representation of what SHL had at that time. Also important to note that up until S46, it was 1st Round, Conference Finals, Finals. And then S46 and above it was Wild Card , 1st Round, Conference Finals, Finals.

Also another note that there was only 16 teams in the league

[Image: image.png]

So both pictures are the same, but the 2nd picture is with percentages to really show everything equally. So from the pictures, it shows for the most part, that the higher you are in the league standings, the better you’ll be when it comes to reaching the conference finals and making it to the finals, to get a better shot at winning the cup. We also have to remember that's it's only 23 seasons, so the sample size is small, but enough to kinda see a pattern emerging.

So let's compare this to the 18 seasons of FHM.

From S53-S55 it was 8 teams made the playoffs, there was 1st Round, CF, Finals btw

From S56-S59 it was 12 teams made the playoffs, going to 1st Round, 2nd Round, CF, finals

From S60-S70 it was 16 teams made the playoffs, going from 1st Round, 2nd Round, CF, finals

To give context

[Image: image.png]

And I think its pretty clear to see why, there is the issue of less diverse finals teams. The top teams make the conference finals, and consequently the finals the majority of the time. Leading to less diverse finals. Only once did the top team in the league not reach the conference finals, which occurred in S62 where Texas beat Chicago in the 2nd round. But in other ways its not that surprising. If you are 1st in the league then in the first round you are facing the 8th seed in your conference, a team that is rebuilding/tanking, so that is an easy win. So then the real challenge is getting past the conference finals, where you are facing the best team in the different division, in which it is about 55/45 for making or missing the finals.

Though it is important to point out that this inherently is a low sample size, but is the sample size that we have. 1 season counts for 5% of the 23 seasons, meaning if you move one of the cup wins for the 1st League rank to a 1st round loss, all of a sudden 1st League rank goes from 55% -> 50% for making it to the finals. A pretty big swing. So that is something to keep in mind from looking at everything.

So when comparing STHS to FHM that we have so far, its pretty clear, the top teams making the conference finals way more in FHM compared to STHS.

[Image: image.png]

If you are 3rd or 4th in the league, it doesn't look good, as the 1 & 2 in the league mostly take away your chances of making it to the conference or finals. But, as I pointed out before, these are small sample sizes, so we always have to take it with a grain of salt. Like the 5th seed gaining a 22% chance of making the finals in FHM over STHS. Also have to look that it was only 8 teams making the playoffs in STHS, so that can impact playoffs as well.

So lets take a look at what seed the 3rd and 4th seeds lose to

[Image: image.png]

What I immediately see is that it's almost all the higher seeds that beat them. Could it be a coincidence and just a high variance on a 18 season sample? Yeah it can be, that could also help the argument that the 1st and 2nd seeds have an easier time because they aren’t facing the 3rd and 4th seeds as often, but instead the 5th-10th seeds more often than not. Or it means that the 5/6/7 seeded teams are as close as the 3rd and 4th seeded teams. So lets take a look into that.

So lets take a look at all the teams that made it past to the 2nd round or past the 2nd round

[Image: image.png]

From S60-S70, the amount of times a team has made it into the 2nd round, as a lot of us can agree that the 1st round is where a lot of the rebuilding teams can land. So the real accomplishment is getting into the 2nd round.

Average TPE to Playoff Finish

NOTE THIS IS BEING PULLED FROM THE INDEX SO IT IS APPLIED TPE. THERE IS ALSO SCOUTING ERRORS THAT EITHER +1 OR -1 ON YOUR ATTRIBUTES SO THE AVERAGES COULD BE SLIGHTLY TO A LOT OFF

So how much better TPE wise, is it from league rank to league rank. To seed to seed. Well, since the build change, and expansion, i'm going to take from S60-S70, as it will have all of the 20 team seasons, in order to get a more consistent average.

Tableau Link

Lets take a look at this tableau page

Both tabs show the same data, but with the 2nd graph showing trendlines. Clearly, with the regression changes, and a tighter cap, the average TPE for a team went down, but significantly more for teams that either miss the playoffs or lose in the 1st round, and significantly more teams tanking after FHM8.

Parity in the standings

[Image: image.png]

Since we started with 20 teams, these are the amount of times they have gotten above .500 for the past 11 seasons.

Tableau Link
Apologize to some teams with not updated logos, it wasn't in the folder that I made back in S56

Click through the different teams, and it will show the teams rebuilding and shooting up in the standings. Basically look for yourself! There are plenty of teams that both rebuilt successfully, and those who had long standing success this decade! Plus some teams that couldn't seem to get above that rebuilding stage.

But overall, from my point of view, it shows that most teams either have experienced one or multiple of these 4 stages of the SHL lifecycle for this decade

Constant state of rebuilding (MIN)
Good team then rebuilding(BAP, EDM, HAM, LAP,SFP,TBB,TEX)
Rebuilding then good (WPG, NEW, MAN, MTL,NOLA)
Weird middle ground before deciding to do something (CGY, EDM,TOR)
Constant state of being good (BUF, CHI, ATL, SEA, PHI)

Tanking Teams Trouble

If you look at the teams tab(sorry to the teams without the updated logos), I think it becomes a bit more clearer on the tanking teams vs non tanking teams.

[Image: image.png]

As you can see, past the FHM8 change, there is a lot more teams that are going from the .400-.499 win% to .200 - .399 win%. It is somewhat concerning because we are getting to a point where there is a clear top 10, then the 11/12 teams that are almost out of that rebuilding stage. But what is encouraging, is that the top teams are getting to be below the .800 more consistently, with most elite teams are in that .600-.750 range. It is something to look out for as we get more data. But, a large reason why you probably see teams like Philly(Panthers logo), and Winnipeg getting back above .800, is the teams that are tanking in their conference. Instead of 6 teams that were below .500 like you saw in the S63-S67 range, you see 8 teams below .500, with a lot more teams tanking.

Conclusion

Parity has increased, both in the standings and the playoffs, in terms of the number of teams that can do well and win the cup. When you compare S53-S60 times to now, it’s a lot better. The teams in the 4-9 range actually have hope that they can do well in the playoffs which is encouraging to see.

Will it be like STHS? No it won’t be. The sim isn’t that random enough. But, can we get it to be anyone in that 1-9/10 range can win the cup? I’m sure we can if not already there. We will need more data, especially in the FHM8 realm to truly see, but there are some solutions.

Solutions

For me, there are a couple of solutions, each with its merits and disadvantages. If there was one simple answer then I don't think that we would have to be talking about it. There are many different ways you can attack the solution. I'll lay them out here

1 Do nothing

This is 100% an option. Wait and gather more data. We are only 6 seasons into FHM, different cup winners, closer series are already presenting itself. 6 seasons of data is just not enough data to see proper trends. WIth the regression changes back in S63, Cap restrictions in S64, Tier changes in the offseason, and banning test simming, all in the past 8 seasons, it is ok for the wait and see approach, get more data and see whether if you dont have 6/8 teams rebuilding, and more like 4-6 teams rebuilding how the standings/playoffs will be.

2 Restrict Cap More

If you dont want to mess with the players career, this is the best move to go with. If you want to limit the average TPE a team can be without affecting the players TPE growth or regression, this is the only way to do it. You restrict super teams, and allow more distributed TPE. Now, the biggest pull back on that, you are basically punishing teams that rebuild well, as they wont have the cap for everyone. Forcing the teams to either trade good players or letting them walk in FA. This would also have to come with the rebuilding Gms to not blow all their assets on those players, but you know, not all Gm’s are good.

3 Enact Harsher Regression

If you want to mess with the players career, you enact this one. If you want shorter player lifecycles, leading to teams that rebuild with a core to age after, this is probably the one you want to do. But, if you are a top tier GM, or a GM that can get great players for cheap, then the problem will still be there. So on the tier lists of changes, this would probably be the lowest on the list for me.

4 Cap TPE builds

This is the solution you want, if you want to restrict applied TPE in the SHL. basically a hard cap of what STHS’s soft cap was. Its a solution that would allow rebuilding teams to get better quicker because the amount of TPE you can apply in FHM is lower than 2k TPE. Lets say you restrict it to 1500 TPE you can put into your FHM build, it would allow teams to rebuild faster, as they can get closer to the limit faster. The drawbacks for this one, is that once you hit 1500, you really only earn TPE to fight regression, which was basically the point of STHS TPE past 1400 back in the day. Would that make earning to 2000 TPE a bit pointless? Yeah probably. But something to think about.

5. Get better GM’s

Self explanatory

RE: Has Parity Improved: An Analysis of the FHM Era of the SHL - golden_apricot - 05-20-2023

I ain't reading that.

I'm happy for you though

Or I'm sorry that happened to you

RE: Has Parity Improved: An Analysis of the FHM Era of the SHL - honkerrs - 05-20-2023

One time I saw Luke kill a dead bird.

It was already dead and it absolutely was not him but I like to imagine he is the one who did it.

RE: Has Parity Improved: An Analysis of the FHM Era of the SHL - Good_Ole_Kimmy - 05-20-2023

RE: Has Parity Improved: An Analysis of the FHM Era of the SHL - trella - 05-20-2023

Pair a deez nuts

RE: Has Parity Improved: An Analysis of the FHM Era of the SHL - sve7en - 05-20-2023

Quote:3 Enact Harsher Regression

If you want to mess with the players career, you enact this one. If you want shorter player lifecycles, leading to teams that rebuild with a core to age after, this is probably the one you want to do. But, if you are a top tier GM, or a GM that can get great players for cheap, then the problem will still be there. So on the tier lists of changes, this would probably be the lowest on the list for me.

i swear to god

Quote:4 Cap TPE builds

This is the solution you want, if you want to restrict applied TPE in the SHL. basically a hard cap of what STHS’s soft cap was. Its a solution that would allow rebuilding teams to get better quicker because the amount of TPE you can apply in FHM is lower than 2k TPE. Lets say you restrict it to 1500 TPE you can put into your FHM build, it would allow teams to rebuild faster, as they can get closer to the limit faster. The drawbacks for this one, is that once you hit 1500, you really only earn TPE to fight regression, which was basically the point of STHS TPE past 1400 back in the day. Would that make earning to 2000 TPE a bit pointless? Yeah probably. But something to think about.

this is actually something I've wanted to see for a while now, and have been pitching when on occasion. Earning to fight regression is enough of an incentive to max earn and it helps level the playing field while helping the depth situation in the league.

RE: Has Parity Improved: An Analysis of the FHM Era of the SHL - spidey - 05-20-2023

Personally I don't think a change is needed, but I just got back so I am in for whatever the HO would think is best.

Just not harsher restrictions.

RE: Has Parity Improved: An Analysis of the FHM Era of the SHL - spooked - 05-20-2023

The one thing I never see in these conversations that is one of the more large issues to me is how one sided games are with pretty common regularity, I think last season less than 1/3 of MINs game were within 2 goals when I counted... A lot of blow outs one way or the other is not good viewing either. Great article Luke, just adding a take that maybe someone has time to look into a bit cause I think closer games is another part of the issue that I haven't really seen many people talk about much.

RE: Has Parity Improved: An Analysis of the FHM Era of the SHL - golden_apricot - 05-20-2023

05-20-2023, 06:17 PMspooked Wrote: The one thing I never see in these conversations that is one of the more large issues to me is how one sided games are with pretty common regularity, I think last season less than 1/3 of MINs game were within 2 goals when I counted... A lot of blow outs one way or the other is not good viewing either. Great article Luke, just adding a take that maybe someone has time to look into a bit cause I think closer games is another part of the issue that I haven't really seen many people talk about much.

Tonight's News!

Bad team gets blown out regularly.

Tune in to learn more!

RE: Has Parity Improved: An Analysis of the FHM Era of the SHL - spooked - 05-20-2023

05-20-2023, 06:54 PMgolden_apricot Wrote: Tonight's News!

Bad team gets blown out regularly.

Tune in to learn more!

That's the funny thing, it's not just bad teams. A lot of teams are seeing like 12-15 goal games, with score lines like 9-3. I only counted MIN, but you could pretty much pick any sim day and look at the results and see like a good 1/3-1/2 be extremely one sided like unrealistically one sided.

RE: Has Parity Improved: An Analysis of the FHM Era of the SHL - Gooney - 05-20-2023

05-20-2023, 07:02 PMspooked Wrote: That's the funny thing, it's not just bad teams. A lot of teams are seeing like 12-15 goal games, with score lines like 9-3. I only counted MIN, but you could pretty much pick any sim day and look at the results and see like a good 1/3-1/2 be extremely one sided like unrealistically one sided.

aww babys first poop?

RE: Has Parity Improved: An Analysis of the FHM Era of the SHL - golden_apricot - 05-20-2023

05-20-2023, 07:02 PMspooked Wrote: That's the funny thing, it's not just bad teams. A lot of teams are seeing like 12-15 goal games, with score lines like 9-3. I only counted MIN, but you could pretty much pick any sim day and look at the results and see like a good 1/3-1/2 be extremely one sided like unrealistically one sided.

*reads article saying half the league is tanking*

Damn there are a lot of blowouts!

RE: Has Parity Improved: An Analysis of the FHM Era of the SHL - luke - 05-20-2023

05-20-2023, 06:17 PMspooked Wrote: The one thing I never see in these conversations that is one of the more large issues to me is how one sided games are with pretty common regularity, I think last season less than 1/3 of MINs game were within 2 goals when I counted... A lot of blow outs one way or the other is not good viewing either. Great article Luke, just adding a take that maybe someone has time to look into a bit cause I think closer games is another part of the issue that I haven't really seen many people talk about much.

This is goal differential, so how much you win or lose by. Looks like the majority are 1-4 goal type of games. Minnesota is about on par with that, if not blown out a bit more

RE: Has Parity Improved: An Analysis of the FHM Era of the SHL - spooked - 05-20-2023

Looks like I was expecting, 10% of all games being won by 6+ goals is a lot, 18~% when you drop it down to 5+ seems a bit much too. from what I can tell NHL only had 4 games with 8+ goal differential, and 5 at 7, with more games played total. So we probably have a pretty large bias toward blowouts.

RE: Has Parity Improved: An Analysis of the FHM Era of the SHL - Citizen of Adraa - 05-20-2023

So what I see is what I could probably gather from the league myself anyway - we kinda don't have mid table teams at all. Half the league at any given moment is in "fighting for cup" caliber, half the league is pretty much openly tanking or at least freshly out of the position, and we get absolute minimum of sort of "ok, but like round 2 ok" teams, which isn't fantastically realistic compared to the NHL. The way GMs here operate is that we are far more likely to just explode a middling team on the spot, because there is very little punishment for not performing unlike a real GM could face while trying to rebuild/retool, and that then translates into a state where teams are on either extremes of performance, and very rarely in the middle. That then creates the issue of playoffs being seemingly very uncompetetive in round 1, and a lot of blowouts - it's effectively as if you attempted to mash 10 NHL playoff teams and 10 AHL teams and tried to pretend there is ever going to be any competition between them. I think it's more of a symptom of the way the league is, rather than an outright issue with the sim itself, and I think it's going to be very hard to properly fix unless we actively put in rules that would for example allow HO to replace GMs underperforming for large periods of time continuosly, therefore making GMs far less likely to explode a team even if the rebuild hasn't exactly worked to at least hit some .500+ seasons, and to not get fired for underperforming.