Login

Leoben · 04-06-2021, 06:49 PM

Edmonton spoiling the Eastern Conference shutout.

*Flowseidon* · 04-06-2021, 07:01 PM

04-06-2021, 06:48 PMBlasoon Wrote: Newish user but I do think that publishing votes and explanations with two to three sentences as to why would be a good factor for accountability. I get why not, but man, it would really help to see why people are voting the way they are.

I agree. We will be moving to that next season

SlashACM · 04-06-2021, 07:01 PM

04-06-2021, 05:18 PMEricNCSU Wrote: So lemme get this straight... Eller and Goodman tied for votes...

Eller won 40% of his games and let in 3+ goals a game.

Goodman won 80% of his games and let in less than 2 goals a game. Literally LEAD THE LEAGUE in GAA....

In what universe does this make sense?

This is one of the less egregious emissions imo. Whiteman had a good season, but saw less games and started against easier opponents. 3 starts against hamilton and 3 against edmonton are tough games, but 6 against wpg and 4 against nola make it really easy to pad those stats.

Eller was the starter and saw more easy games as well as more hard ones, and the ratio of difficult to easy teams played is much more near 50% than Goodman who was skewed heavily towards easy.

dankoa · 04-06-2021, 07:02 PM

Is this legitimately the last time the all star committee hired any new members?

Just dug through the job postings section and this is the most recent mention of the shl committee I can find, no wonder it’s the same old shit every season when they’ve not had a single person who might be motivated to put more effort in join the team in 2 irl years lmao

**RomanesEuntDomus** · 04-06-2021, 09:01 PM

04-06-2021, 05:40 PMFlowseidon Wrote: Heads up, I'm just removing the quote block because it's getting pretty massive at this point. Want to try and keep things a little more clear.

1. So, some background here. When I was coming into the role, I was seeing a lot of complaints around a WCW type of setup being too restrictive, and in that case, Centers who might be more deserving would be left off for a winger who may not have had as good of a season, just because there's more room for wingers. The reasoning I choose the wildcard forward is essentially that it allows some flexibility for that 3rd forward to go to who people would consider the next most valuable. Now, maybe that gets messier with the ranked choice that we're doing, and I'm certainly open to that discussion for the types of in terms of systems, do you have specific suggestions for where to look, systems you think would be good, or resources I should check out?

2. We have been using the indexes. Those do have both the standard and advanced stats. I think moving to a more formalized document is a good idea, and something that could be used to make things easier on the committee members and help them get the right players. Would someone on the All-Star committee mind PMing me a link to theirs? I'll take a look and work on adapting that for next season on my own end.

3. It's been by and large nominate and then vote. This is a failure on my part, and talking with people here/disc/PMs has really shown I can't allow this to continue. I can commit to implement this suggestion and try to move discord and generating more discussion through the season and as it comes time to nom/vote on everything. I agree that fostering the discussion is necessary, and honestly the top priority of all this.

I agree that there needs to be an evaluation of putting in the effort. I have been tracking some statistics over the past couple seasons in terms of voting etc, but I think with the move forward into more open discussion, etc that I will be able to more accurately track who is and isn't putting in the efforts needed.

I can only point back to my post from last season for a lot of these: https://simulationhockey.com/showthread....pid2985250

1. The thing is, the system is pretty hard to understand from the outside because some things about it aren't really intuitive. And I think that even extend to the people who do voting because they seem to interpret it differently too, which became clear last season. Is it "better" to get votes in the #3 Winger spot or as the #1 Wildcard? Is it better to put people in the order you see them or to vote tactical? If a Center gets a lot of Wildcard votes, does he end up in the Center or the Wildcard category or does it depend on the competition? And there are a lot of other questions like that. It's a bit tough to explain but it just looks super messy both from the voting and from the analysis standpoint if you have Wildcards that sometimes fall into one category and sometimes the other.

What you could do instead is for example:

- Simply have people vote for the 9 best Forwards. Maybe have a run-off vote if you end up short on Centers somehow. I would say this is both the easiest system and the one that gives the most flexibility and there would be nothing wrong in ending up with 5C and only 4W for example if the Centers did so well in a season.
- Go back to the W-C-W format. If you aren't one of the 3 best Centers then tough luck but in a system that's supposed to honor the best of the best, I don't think that's too much of a problem. Do they really have it that much worse than the other positions anyway? The pure numerical competition is exactly the same as for Wingers and Defenders, Centers get the fewest spots but there also are only half as many of them as there are W and D so it evens out. If anything it's the Wingers who suffer if you start giving their spots to the Centers.
- Keep the Wildcard-spots but they aren't an extra category in the voting process, they just appear in the results. The details would depend on whether you vote on 9F or 3C-6W but honestly I don't think the Wildcards are needed at all.

2. You should probably talk to reid about his stat-sheet but I'd assume that he'd have no problem sharing it. I can definitely recommend it, it's a great ressource!

3. What exactly is the difference between the nominating and the voting phase in this case? But yeah good to hear that you acknowledge that there needs to be more discussion, that is crucial here for sure. And regarding the individual voters... Looking through the votes from the last two seasons there were at least 2-3 cases where the homerism was super blatant, where you only need to look at the ballots to know that one of the voters was on Edmonton and another on Buffalo. Giving your teammate a bit of an edge when it is a close call is understandable, but in these cases the bias was so obvious that I think you should really reconsider having people like that on the committee.

04-06-2021, 07:01 PMSlashACM Wrote:
04-06-2021, 05:18 PMEricNCSU Wrote: So lemme get this straight... Eller and Goodman tied for votes...

Eller won 40% of his games and let in 3+ goals a game.

Goodman won 80% of his games and let in less than 2 goals a game. Literally LEAD THE LEAGUE in GAA....

In what universe does this make sense?

This is one of the less egregious emissions imo. Whiteman had a good season, but saw less games and started against easier opponents. 3 starts against hamilton and 3 against edmonton are tough games, but 6 against wpg and 4 against nola make it really easy to pad those stats.

Eller was the starter and saw more easy games as well as more hard ones, and the ratio of difficult to easy teams played is much more near 50% than Goodman who was skewed heavily towards easy.

Yeah I kinda have to defend them on this one as well, there are good arguments not to have Goodman in here, most importantly that he played less than half of TEX' games. And the fact that he missed so many at the very least opens up the possibility that his starts were cherry-picked and against easier competition. Plus GAA is more or less purely a team stat at this point since we switched to FHM. I'm not saying that a player with relatively few starts can't win an Award or make it on the All-Star team, but in order to do that they'd have to set themselves apart from the competition more than Goodman did this season. Plus I would argue that <50% isn't enough games in any case, I would want at least around 40 or so for a goalie to be considered, not 31.

Nerio · 04-07-2021, 01:13 AM

i'm just happy to be on a team Cheers

EricNCSU · 04-07-2021, 01:48 AM

So let me get this straight.. you had a tie in votes with a player you had already deemed ineligible... how did you let that happen? What kind of total screw job led to that decision?

Also, can we drop the whole "easier opponents" horseshit? I'm getting real goddamned tired of it. There's a big enough difference between 3.35 GAA and 1.85 GAA that it's not just the fucking schedule.

SlashACM · 04-07-2021, 02:50 AM

04-07-2021, 01:48 AMEricNCSU Wrote: So let me get this straight.. you had a tie in votes with a player you had already deemed ineligible... how did you let that happen? What kind of total screw job led to that decision?

Also, can we drop the whole "easier opponents" horseshit? I'm getting real goddamned tired of it. There's a big enough difference between 3.35 GAA and 1.85 GAA that it's not just the fucking schedule.

Eller faced almost 3000 shots to Goodman's 700... Of course White let less goals in.

*Mutedfaith* · 04-07-2021, 05:58 AM

04-06-2021, 07:02 PMdankoa Wrote: Is this legitimately the last time the all star committee hired any new members?

Just dug through the job postings section and this is the most recent mention of the shl committee I can find, no wonder it’s the same old shit every season when they’ve not had a single person who might be motivated to put more effort in join the team in 2 irl years lmao

I did the same thing, but assumed pople have been hired in different ways.

At least I hope that's true.

**RomanesEuntDomus** · 04-07-2021, 06:59 AM

04-07-2021, 01:48 AMEricNCSU Wrote: So let me get this straight.. you had a tie in votes with a player you had already deemed ineligible... how did you let that happen? What kind of total screw job led to that decision?

Also, can we drop the whole "easier opponents" horseshit? I'm getting real goddamned tired of it. There's a big enough difference between 3.35 GAA and 1.85 GAA that it's not just the fucking schedule.

Just to be clear Slash and I just voiced our own personal opinions here, neither one of us is on the All-Star Committee. The vote I was referring to was in regards to my role on the Awards Committee.

And that "big enough difference" you are referring to in regards to GAA does indeed exist, it's called being on one of the best teams in the league vs. being on one of the worst. GAA was a valuable stat in the STHS era but in FHM it's importance has greatly diminished because your GAA strongly correlates with the quality of the team in front of you. Goalies on good teams have good GAA's even if their performance is meh and goalies on bad teams have bad GAA's even if they play great.

FuzzSHL · 04-07-2021, 07:56 AM

04-07-2021, 01:48 AMEricNCSU Wrote: So let me get this straight.. you had a tie in votes with a player you had already deemed ineligible... how did you let that happen? What kind of total screw job led to that decision?

Also, can we drop the whole "easier opponents" horseshit? I'm getting real goddamned tired of it. There's a big enough difference between 3.35 GAA and 1.85 GAA that it's not just the fucking schedule.

I would like to direct this comment back to S53 SMJHL and S56 SHL.

Let's start with S53 in the J. Detroit had a record of 41-7-2, which is fucking insane of a record. Their starting goalie? An astounding 1.92 GAA with a save percentage of .901 while facing 648 shots for an average of...19.6 shots against per game. He also had 3 shutouts. Now, let's look at Carolina. They had a record of 18-29-3, which, let's be completely honest with ourselves here, is not in the same fucking universe as a 41-7-2 record. Now, what about their starting goalie? 2.95 GAA, .920 save percentage, while facing 1406 shots for an average of.....35.15 shots against per game. He had 2 shutouts. In this discussion, should we be looking at GAA? Absolutely not. Why? Well, on one hand you have a dominant team who limits the opposition's shot totals. When you are facing less than 20 shots per game, you're probably going to have a low GAA. So we look at save percentage, which is more of an individual metric when it comes to goalies than GAA is. Strictly comparing these two goalies it is obvious that despite the GAA, Carolina's goalie had a better individual season while Detroit had the better team season.

Let's jump over to S56 in the SHL, where we're going to revisit the Kata Vilde vs Knox Booth discussion. In terms of the league's starting goalies, Vilde was #1 in save percentage while Booth was #2. Both started the same amount of games and were in the same conference, so schedules looked very similar. Vilde had a GAA of 1.65 with 9 shutouts while Booth had a GAA of 2.64 with 2 shutouts. Looks like Vilde had the better season, no? What about their save percentage? Vilde had .936 while Booth had .934. Okay, seems like Vilde is objectively the better goalie here. But....wait, what about the teams in front of them? Calgary was 38-8-4 while Los Angeles was 24-22-4. Wow, okay, that's quite the difference. What kind of shot totals did they face? Vilde faced 1147 shots for an average of 26.07 shots per game while Booth faced 1780 for an average of 40.45 shots per game. This is where the argument shifts towards Booth having the better individual season once you start putting all of the stats together. Booth faced a significantly higher and harder workload than Vilde and put up a save percentage that was two thousandths of a difference from Vilde's.

We can not ignore quality of competition here, either. Is it tiring to hear that certain teams have an easier time? Yes, yes it is. Does that mean we can ignore the fact that facing New Orleans and facing Baltimore last season is not as close of a competitive difference as it was the season prior? Absolutely not.

We all have the stats available to us, but we can't just take them for face value. If we are going to have any sort of actual discussion surrounding these sort of decisions we have to know how to properly think about the stats that we have available to us, especially when it comes to goalies.

Aleksi Kettu

*Carpy48* · 04-07-2021, 08:04 AM

I'm sure I have commented on this a few times in the past so I don't need to do the same again. However I wonder how much these all-star teams and player awards will mean when it comes to players getting in the Hof later and people look at how many cups and individuals awards players have gotten. Makes you think about that a little...

Either way congrats to my team mates that made it.

*Mutedfaith* · 04-07-2021, 08:16 AM

04-07-2021, 07:56 AMFuzzSHL Wrote:
04-07-2021, 01:48 AMEricNCSU Wrote: So let me get this straight.. you had a tie in votes with a player you had already deemed ineligible... how did you let that happen? What kind of total screw job led to that decision?

Also, can we drop the whole "easier opponents" horseshit? I'm getting real goddamned tired of it. There's a big enough difference between 3.35 GAA and 1.85 GAA that it's not just the fucking schedule.

I would like to direct this comment back to S53 SMJHL and S56 SHL.

Let's start with S53 in the J. Detroit had a record of 41-7-2, which is fucking insane of a record. Their starting goalie? An astounding 1.92 GAA with a save percentage of .901 while facing 648 shots for an average of...19.6 shots against per game. He also had 3 shutouts. Now, let's look at Carolina. They had a record of 18-29-3, which, let's be completely honest with ourselves here, is not in the same fucking universe as a 41-7-2 record. Now, what about their starting goalie? 2.95 GAA, .920 save percentage, while facing 1406 shots for an average of.....35.15 shots against per game. He had 2 shutouts. In this discussion, should we be looking at GAA? Absolutely not. Why? Well, on one hand you have a dominant team who limits the opposition's shot totals. When you are facing less than 20 shots per game, you're probably going to have a low GAA. So we look at save percentage, which is more of an individual metric when it comes to goalies than GAA is. Strictly comparing these two goalies it is obvious that despite the GAA, Carolina's goalie had a better individual season while Detroit had the better team season.

Let's jump over to S56 in the SHL, where we're going to revisit the Kata Vilde vs Knox Booth discussion. In terms of the league's starting goalies, Vilde was #1 in save percentage while Booth was #2. Both started the same amount of games and were in the same conference, so schedules looked very similar. Vilde had a GAA of 1.65 with 9 shutouts while Booth had a GAA of 2.64 with 2 shutouts. Looks like Vilde had the better season, no? What about their save percentage? Vilde had .936 while Booth had .934. Okay, seems like Vilde is objectively the better goalie here. But....wait, what about the teams in front of them? Calgary was 38-8-4 while Los Angeles was 24-22-4. Wow, okay, that's quite the difference. What kind of shot totals did they face? Vilde faced 1147 shots for an average of 26.07 shots per game while Booth faced 1780 for an average of 40.45 shots per game. This is where the argument shifts towards Booth having the better individual season once you start putting all of the stats together. Booth faced a significantly higher and harder workload than Vilde and put up a save percentage that was two thousandths of a difference from Vilde's.

We can not ignore quality of competition here, either. Is it tiring to hear that certain teams have an easier time? Yes, yes it is. Does that mean we can ignore the fact that facing New Orleans and facing Baltimore last season is not as close of a competitive difference as it was the season prior? Absolutely not.

We all have the stats available to us, but we can't just take them for face value. If we are going to have any sort of actual discussion surrounding these sort of decisions we have to know how to properly think about the stats that we have available to us, especially when it comes to goalies.

Yes, but in the S53 SMJHL season, people also claimed having a lot of PIMS automatically disqualifies you for MVP.

dankoa · 04-07-2021, 08:31 AM

04-07-2021, 08:04 AMCarpy48 Wrote: I'm sure I have commented on this a few times in the past so I don't need to do the same again. However I wonder how much these all-star teams and player awards will mean when it comes to players getting in the Hof later and people look at how many cups and individuals awards players have gotten. Makes you think about that a little...

Either way congrats to my team mates that made it.

i think that’s what pisses me off most, these teams are actually used to add to someone’s hof resume and the decision on whether they make it in so how utterly redundant the all star committee has been over the last few seasons could end up screwing someone over down the line

*Carpy48* · 04-07-2021, 08:39 AM

04-07-2021, 08:31 AMdankoa Wrote:
04-07-2021, 08:04 AMCarpy48 Wrote: I'm sure I have commented on this a few times in the past so I don't need to do the same again. However I wonder how much these all-star teams and player awards will mean when it comes to players getting in the Hof later and people look at how many cups and individuals awards players have gotten. Makes you think about that a little...

Either way congrats to my team mates that made it.
i think that’s what pisses me off most, these teams are actually used to add to someone’s hof resume and the decision on whether they make it in so how utterly redundant the all star committee has been over the last few seasons could end up screwing someone over down the line

That just tells me that somethings needs to improve here. What has happened in the past is in the past now and it "might" have screwed some people's careers over (potentially). In that case you can only hope that the HoF committee looks even deeper.

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us