Login

mxman991 · 12-04-2019, 01:49 AM

BOARD REPORT OPINION PIECE
968 words

Rublic · 12-04-2019, 02:01 AM

I'm really enjoying all of your newspapers! there is clearly a lot of effort put in. Keep up the great work!!!! raiders

mxman991 · 12-04-2019, 02:03 AM

[quote pid='2740714' dateline='1575439277']
@Rublic Thanks!
[/quote]

slothfacekilla · 12-04-2019, 03:00 AM

Some controversy in Halifax!

Great stuff as always dude.

Noble · 12-04-2019, 11:43 AM

Might relaunch my magazine after seeing this, you inspired me

Chris-McZehrl · 12-13-2019, 07:40 AM

I really like this work too!

Duff101 · 12-13-2019, 06:21 PM

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?

mxman991 · 12-13-2019, 06:43 PM

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.

Duff101 · 12-13-2019, 08:08 PM

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.

I’m more talking on the GK side.

mxman991 · 12-13-2019, 08:23 PM

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.

For the goal keeper analysis I didn’t independently analyze their goalies as most started their backup a few times. Instead it is a more a team performance of the goalies. I combined their goalies stats from their starts, including GAA, Save %, and Goals Against.

So some teams may have one of the best goalies in the league, however they don’t start every game and if their backup performs too poorly it dragged down the overall GK score.

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us