Create Account

Let's talk about parity... again
#31

I believe parity is an issue, but it's not because we keep seeing the same teams making the finals, sure that's part of it, but I think the lack of parity has a huge impact on individual players. In sths you could be a 1000 tpe guy on a rebuilding team and pick up 40+ points, in fhm those same players are lucky to break 25. We did not realize when we moved to fhm that it would be so drastic. When a player on a rebuilding team can't even feel like they are performing decently they aren't likely to want to stay for a rebuild to finish. Add to that the fact that sub 800 tpe players are a detriment to their team on the ice and we have an issue that increases the length of time a rebuild takes and hurts the players involved when it comes to stats.

When we made the initial update scale we didn't fully understand what builds would work in the shl, we didn't spend a ton of time on 600 tpe players and a lot of assumptions were made. The originally proposed scale would have been way worse, as shocking as that sounds, we made major changes to the original proposal to make it more even, but I don't think we went far enough to help semi actives and lower tpe players be useful. I think the solution is to move to a scale that allows players to get to a reasonable level in all ratings for relatively cheap, then the grind begins to become elite.

[Image: DrunkenTeddy.gif]



[Image: CsnVET2.png]  |  [Image: sXDU6JX.png]
Reply
#32

01-31-2021, 11:38 PMDrunkenTeddy Wrote: I believe parity is an issue, but it's not because we keep seeing the same teams making the finals, sure that's part of it, but I think the lack of parity has a huge impact on individual players. In sths you could be a 1000 tpe guy on a rebuilding team and pick up 40+ points, in fhm those same players are lucky to break 25. We did not realize when we moved to fhm that it would be so drastic. When a player on a rebuilding team can't even feel like they are performing decently they aren't likely to want to stay for a rebuild to finish. Add to that the fact that sub 800 tpe players are a detriment to their team on the ice and we have an issue that increases the length of time a rebuild takes and hurts the players involved when it comes to stats.

When we made the initial update scale we didn't fully understand what builds would work in the shl, we didn't spend a ton of time on 600 tpe players and a lot of assumptions were made. The originally proposed scale would have been way worse, as shocking as that sounds, we made major changes to the original proposal to make it more even, but I don't think we went far enough to help semi actives and lower tpe players be useful. I think the solution is to move to a scale that allows players to get to a reasonable level in all ratings for relatively cheap, then the grind begins to become elite.
As someone in charge of and on a rebuilding team through the entire FHM swap, I think you hit the nail on the head Teddy. Before with Simon even if your team was bad you could have an all star caliber season with a high tpe player. You just don't see this in FHM. I went from 50 points in my last STHS season(roughly 1500+TPE at the time) to 28-30 each season after until our team started getting more pieces up. I won't lie that I hate that my players peak seasons were likely tanked by the timing of the switch but in general the FHM change has been a massive positive for the league that outweighs my personal gripes. It's hard to tell a team we are getting better when players can't see more individual success like before until a team improves overall.

While I haven't been able to contribute as much to the new update scale discussions, I love that HO and the Owners are taking steps to make things better for the league.

[Image: spartangibbles.gif]
[Image: qGhUIfY.png]  Outlungus   Usa Monarchs  [Image: PlcJv9V.png]
Reply
#33

A couple of thoughts:

- I think I initially underestimated the effect the new contract/cap system would have. There's really no more room for super teams moving forward, barring creative accounting through cap retention.

- I hope that if there's to be a change to the update scale, what's able to be accomplished at the top end stays the same. So it would be feasible to have the same attributes as someone elite in S56 or S57, but the tpe cost is more top heavy, thereby making lower tpe builds viable.

[Image: 9ZNnX19.png]


Canada | Player Page | Grizzlies | Player Updates | Inferno
Reply
#34

01-31-2021, 02:10 PMACapitalChicago Wrote:
01-31-2021, 01:43 PMst4rface Wrote: Parity is a problem here and I told that already when SHL switched from STHS to FHM. However - I don't believe that SHL will change to other simulation engine, because we just had one big change. And second - since I play for Buffalo Stampede, I don't really even want that. I am on one of the best teams ever (if not the best) and while I'm here - I don't really care about what's going on with simulatuon engine and parity with other teams. Long story short - I think there's plenty users like me who are happy with team they are on, because they have good teammates and they are contenders. However - would be cool to have parity fixed.

Wait is this an actual take
Yes, it is his actual take and there’s nothing wrong with it either. Is he supposed to feel incredible guilt about Buffalo being good because he was drafted here? Get a grip.

[Image: sIjpJeQ.png]





Reply
#35

02-01-2021, 12:51 PMWannabeFinn Wrote:
01-31-2021, 02:10 PMACapitalChicago Wrote: Wait is this an actual take
Yes, it is his actual take and there’s nothing wrong with it either. Is he supposed to feel incredible guilt about Buffalo being good because he was drafted here? Get a grip.

Whole lotta assumptions from one little comment. Living up to that kekw name

[Image: 59269_s.png]


S66 Damian Littleton


[Image: CsnVET2.png] || [Image: wu5MVvy.png]|| [Image: c8B2LE3.png]
Battleborn | Barracuda | Usa
Reply
#36

02-01-2021, 01:07 PMACapitalChicago Wrote:
02-01-2021, 12:51 PMWannabeFinn Wrote: Yes, it is his actual take and there’s nothing wrong with it either. Is he supposed to feel incredible guilt about Buffalo being good because he was drafted here? Get a grip.

Whole lotta assumptions from one little comment. Living up to that kekw name

[Image: aH_rFAG0Dxo.jpg]



RETIRED

Reply
#37

02-01-2021, 01:07 PMACapitalChicago Wrote:
02-01-2021, 12:51 PMWannabeFinn Wrote: Yes, it is his actual take and there’s nothing wrong with it either. Is he supposed to feel incredible guilt about Buffalo being good because he was drafted here? Get a grip.

Whole lotta assumptions from one little comment. Living up to that kekw name
I’m just going off what he posted. Don’t think you’re contributing anything to this thread, might be time to clock out.

[Image: sIjpJeQ.png]





Reply
#38

02-01-2021, 01:35 PMWannabeFinn Wrote:
02-01-2021, 01:07 PMACapitalChicago Wrote: Whole lotta assumptions from one little comment. Living up to that kekw name
I’m just going off what he posted. Don’t think you’re contributing anything to this thread, might be time to clock out.
He just asked a simple yes or no question and you're out here telling people to get a grip. Might be time to step back a bit

[Image: mazatt.gif]

[Image: KhdDH3Q.png] [Image: q4PM2XX.png]
Reply
#39

02-01-2021, 01:54 PMMazatt Wrote:
02-01-2021, 01:35 PMWannabeFinn Wrote: I’m just going off what he posted. Don’t think you’re contributing anything to this thread, might be time to clock out.
He just asked a simple yes or no question and you're out here telling people to get a grip. Might be time to step back a bit

Let’s not act like ACap’s “simple yes or no question” had no ill intentions - his comment was bait to try and get people to meme/chirp St4r’s take on parity lol




[Image: fishyshl.gif]
Thanks to everybody for the sigs :peepoheart:

[Image: czechpp.png][Image: czechup.png]
Reply
#40

02-01-2021, 02:00 PMfishy Wrote:
02-01-2021, 01:54 PMMazatt Wrote: He just asked a simple yes or no question and you're out here telling people to get a grip. Might be time to step back a bit

Let’s not act like ACap’s “simple yes or no question” had no ill intentions - his comment was bait to try and get people to meme/chirp St4r’s take on parity lol

Not agreeing with Acap's statement in any way but if the point of his post was to get a reaction out of people, it wasn't working until now.
Reply
#41

01-31-2021, 03:03 PMCitizen of Adraa Wrote:
01-31-2021, 02:46 PMTommySalami Wrote: A re-build easily takes 2-3 seasons longer now. The current 1300-2000 is the old 800-1500.

When you hit 1500+ in STHS you were doing it for longevity, not to make your player better.

What I am trying to say is that the act of getting the picks/prospects/calling them up takes the same time as it did with STHS. But yeah, when those callups only need to hit 800 TPE to be decent compared to the 1300 now + the talent pool gets smaller since less people hit 1300, the time to being decent is considerably shorter.


It is absolutely a myth that you need to be 1300+ TPE to be a contributing player in FHM. WPG made the semi-finals last season with:
1. A 700 TPE player who got 39 pts
2. A 700 TPE player who got 25 pts and had the most hits of any forward
3. 2 other sub 800 TPE players who played meaningful roles and had decent seasons for their TPE level

So, if we could do it ... why can't anyone else?

[Image: grogu111-A11.jpg]
norway                             IIHF Team Norway                          norway
Reply
#42

02-01-2021, 02:07 PMMuerto Wrote:
01-31-2021, 03:03 PMCitizen of Adraa Wrote: What I am trying to say is that the act of getting the picks/prospects/calling them up takes the same time as it did with STHS. But yeah, when those callups only need to hit 800 TPE to be decent compared to the 1300 now + the talent pool gets smaller since less people hit 1300, the time to being decent is considerably shorter.


It is absolutely a myth that you need to be 1300+ TPE to be a contributing player in FHM. WPG made the semi-finals last season with:
1. A 700 TPE player who got 39 pts
2. A 700 TPE player who got 25 pts and had the most hits of any forward
3. 2 other sub 800 TPE players who played meaningful roles and had decent seasons for their TPE level

So, if we could do it ... why can't anyone else?

You guys definitely can and did do it, but a part of your Cinderella run was avoiding the HAM/BUF/CHI trio until the Conference Finals. You do deserve credit for beating LAP and EDM however so I’m not trying to be too negative, but it’s the games against these teams with near 2k-tpe players on all three lines is where the 800 tpe players get absolutely shelled. In WPGs 5 game series against HAM for example, the average shots per game were 40.4-22.8 in favour of HAM. Making those 800 tpe players perform less like AHL players and more like 3rd-4th liners should be the ultimate goal of the update scale change and would ultimately result in a more balanced league.

Using this as a reference, FHM All Players, 800 tpe players are the equivalent to an 8th/9th defencemen like Martin Marincin, or a decent AHL Forward like Zac Dalpe.

Basically our current update scale is asking users with the skill levels equivalent to good AHLers to come play big minutes against lines of like MacKinnon (2k tpe), Draisaitl (1.9K tpe), or Panarin (1.8k tpe).




[Image: fishyshl.gif]
Thanks to everybody for the sigs :peepoheart:

[Image: czechpp.png][Image: czechup.png]
Reply
#43

02-01-2021, 02:28 PMfishy Wrote:
02-01-2021, 02:07 PMMuerto Wrote: It is absolutely a myth that you need to be 1300+ TPE to be a contributing player in FHM. WPG made the semi-finals last season with:
1. A 700 TPE player who got 39 pts
2. A 700 TPE player who got 25 pts and had the most hits of any forward
3. 2 other sub 800 TPE players who played meaningful roles and had decent seasons for their TPE level

So, if we could do it ... why can't anyone else?

You guys definitely can and did do it, but a part of your Cinderella run was avoiding the HAM/BUF/CHI trio until the Conference Finals. You do deserve credit for beating LAP and EDM however so I’m not trying to be too negative, but it’s the games against these teams with near 2k-tpe players on all three lines is where the 800 tpe players get absolutely shelled.  In WPGs 5 game series against HAM for example, the average shots per game were 40.4-22.8 in favour of HAM. Making those 800 tpe players perform less like AHL players and more like 3rd-4th liners should be the ultimate goal of the update scale change and would ultimately result in a more balanced league.

Using this as a reference, FHM All Players, 800 tpe players are the equivalent to an 8th/9th defencemen like Martin Marincin, or a decent AHL Forward like Zac Dalpe.

Basically our current update scale is asking users with the skill levels equivalent to good AHLers to come play big minutes against lines of like MacKinnon (2k tpe), Draisaitl (1.9K tpe), or Panarin (1.8k tpe).

And yet in that HAM series our best line was our 3rd line with a 1200 TPE player and 2 sub 800 TPE wingers.

[Image: grogu111-A11.jpg]
norway                             IIHF Team Norway                          norway
Reply
#44

02-01-2021, 02:07 PMMuerto Wrote:
01-31-2021, 03:03 PMCitizen of Adraa Wrote: What I am trying to say is that the act of getting the picks/prospects/calling them up takes the same time as it did with STHS. But yeah, when those callups only need to hit 800 TPE to be decent compared to the 1300 now + the talent pool gets smaller since less people hit 1300, the time to being decent is considerably shorter.


It is absolutely a myth that you need to be 1300+ TPE to be a contributing player in FHM. WPG made the semi-finals last season with:
1. A 700 TPE player who got 39 pts
2. A 700 TPE player who got 25 pts and had the most hits of any forward
3. 2 other sub 800 TPE players who played meaningful roles and had decent seasons for their TPE level

So, if we could do it ... why can't anyone else?

I don't think anyone is saying it's impossible, but it's certainly not a myth, the odds were absolutely stacked against you guys and it's impressive you made it that far, but there have been very few examples like this one. People do exaggerate a bit for effect, but there is a real issue here for those low tpe players when they aren't insulated by high tpe linemates.

[Image: DrunkenTeddy.gif]



[Image: CsnVET2.png]  |  [Image: sXDU6JX.png]
Reply
#45
(This post was last modified: 02-01-2021, 02:44 PM by RomanesEuntDomus.)

While I do think that the parity problem is a bit more severe than a lot of people wanna admit, I also agree that if changes to the update scale are coming, then that plus waiting for the effects of the cap changes to kick in will probably suffice for now.

Still, I don't think we should underestimate the lack of variety and competition there is right now. It isn't so much an issue within a season where it's fine to have very good and very bad teams (although I still think the difference is too big there as well), but a season-to-season issue. As has been pointed out before, there is too little change within the top-teams from year to year and most importantly, rebuilds have been made so much harder on two fronts at once. Teams need to have more quality on their roster than before to be competitive, and the way to that level of quality is more painful for the people already on the team than before because their individual numbers suffer much more from being on a weaker team than they did on STHS. Simply saying "git gud" and telling the bottom-feeder teams to just worker harder is a bit of a slap in the face of all those who got fucked by the timing and the specifics of the engine switch. Nobody intended it to be that way (I hope), but we kinda killed upwards mobility as Teddy alluded to.

I think we all agree that STHS was too random and things fluctuated too much there. The problem is that when we switched to FHM, we took one snapshot out of all this randomness, which was how things looked at the end of S52, and basically cemented this snapshot as the new status quo for the foreseeable future. Whoever happened to be good at that specific point got to remain good for the foreseeable future, whoever was bad at that point remained bad. And a lot of that depended not on the skill of the GMs, but on timing and the luck of the draw. It's not like the teams who were bad in S52 were always terrible due to their shitty management, teams like Tampa Bay, West Kendall or Minnesota were among the top teams in the league just a few seasons prior. They all won their respective conferences between S46 and S48 but by the team the sim change rolled around after S52 they had entered into a rebuilding phase which screwed them.

At the other end of the spectrum, the good teams just got to stay good and are almost exactly the same ones today as they were five seasons ago. Of the top-four teams in each of the Conferences after the first FHM-season, three are still there today. That's not to say that there is no mobility at all, teams like Texas or Chicago have climbed nicely whereas teams like New Orleans and New England have entered rebuilds since. But there are just so few of these Movers these days, and their progress is much slower. We didn't see any full turnarounds yet since the start of the FHM era, only one team moving from the bottom to the midfield and one moving from the midfield to the top and that's about all there is.

And then there is one last issue on top of those things that I think nobody has really mentioned yet, which has nothing to do with us needing to prop up bad teams or anything. And that thing is the predictability and lack of excitement in the playoffs. The fact that our regular seasons are boring and predictable at this point might suck, but it could be somewhat migitated if at least the playoffs were exciting and gave us some upsets and cinderella stories from teams that might not be at the very top of the league, but are at least somewhat good. But that still isn't happening. This is how the finals looked in each of the FHM-seasons so far:

S53: #2 Seed vs #2 Seed - Winner #2
S54: #2 Seed vs #2 Seed - Winner #2
S55: #1 Seed vs #2 Seed - Winner #1
S56: #1 Seed vs #4 Seed - Winner #1
S57: #1 Seed vs #2 Seed - Winner #2

So in five playoffs so far, the Winner was always a #1 or #2 seeded team. In fact, only one out of ten finals participants was not a top-two seed - and that #4 seed that made it were the Stampede in S56, when the Great Lakes thunderbowl was already in full swing and a #4 seed in that conference was basically as good as a #1 or #2 in the other. Be it with four teams in the playoffs per conference or six, the #3 to #6 seeded teams are only an afterthought right now with no real chance of winning. So the issue isn't just that the top-teams dominate the bad teams, it's that the midfield and even the good teams are dominated almost as much by those a tier above. I admit that the sample size is rather small on this issue, but I think that the data is pointing towards a problem here as well.

I do kinda like the idea of 16 teams playoffs by the way, not because I think that it will make much of a difference in regards to the outcome but because it gives a lot more people in the league something to fight for. And of course if would also allow us to rid of the current clusterfuck-y system which is another very good thing.
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)




Navigation

 

Extra Menu

 

About us

The Simulation Hockey League is a free online forums based sim league where you create your own fantasy hockey player. Join today and create your player, become a GM, get drafted, sign contracts, make trades and compete against hundreds of players from around the world.