Create Account

A Change is Needed: Player Builds
#1
(This post was last modified: 11-04-2021, 12:42 AM by caltroit_red_flames.)

A clear change is needed in the league. There's some clear issues with the league that make it less fun. I think a major archetype rework is in order.

How did we get here?
As someone who saw the beginnings of the switch to FHM I know what was the talks were that led to our create system. There were a few essential issues that led to it:
1.) Lack of time. For better or worse we had to get this done. Was it rushed? Maybe. But let me be clear, that does not mean people didn't put countless hours trying to find the best solution they could. People worked their absolute asses off to get us into working order with FHM. What I am saying is that we can do things better. We're not scrambling to save the league from STHS's bugs, we're in a spot where we can try to make things better. So let's take that time and do it.
2.) Lack of knowledge on FHM. We knew a little, but now we know a ton more. We know sliders are super important, we know crease clearing defenseman/shadow/goon/enforcer/agitator have special effects on the game, we know that certain combinations of roles are super overpowered, we know that certain attributes like defensive read and checking are absolutely vital regardless of your build.

What is the problem?
Well... I mean look at this:

S53
[Image: fbixhga.png]

S54
[Image: DEXb2Gy.png]

S55
[Image: qBlexDd.png]

S56
[Image: nDMe2e6.png]

S57
[Image: ZDHNAdE.png]

S58
[Image: mrxERg0.png]

S59
[Image: 3GugVUM.png]

S60
[Image: 8uGkXG7.png]

S61
[Image: sPMFsMM.png]

We're seeing the same teams at the top every season. Part of that is these teams are built around great groups of people who create lasting friendships that people want to be a part of. Part of it is that teams tell their players exact builds to make and build their team around a set of builds. Part of it is teams continually attracting top free agents, and I don't blame those teams or players for that, nobody wants to have their peak seasons wasted when they could have a perennial shot at the cup on a team with proven management groups.

What is my proposed solution?
I think we need at least a two pronged solution

1.) Archetypes
Honestly I think the way PBE and ISFL have done this is a great thing to go off of. To use PBE as an example the idea is that you allow player agency by providing a large number of archetypes that are balanced to generally to prevent a meta archetype from emerging. Want to be a power bat? Okay but you're gonna have to sacrifice defense. Want to be a defensive specialist? Okay but your bat is gonna suffer. Want to steal bases? Okay but your power is gonna be garbage. PBE player builds are listed here: https://probaseballexperience.jcink.net/...topic=4023

The great thing about this approach is that you can balance these in a way that prevents OP builds. Defensive Read is supposed to be an overpowered attribute here, so let's see what an example of an SHL Perimeter Shooter and Defensive Forward archetype.

PLEASE DO NOT FOCUS ON THE SPECIFIC NUMBERS. The point here was not for me to create perfect archetypes, it was to illustrate the idea that archetypes can provide player variety while preventing meta builds. Something to pay attention to is that while the defensive forward is still better at defensive read, they can't get defensive read to 20 because we've seen that as an overpowered attribute. Again the number itself is not important. Maybe that should be higher, maybe it should be lower, but the point is showing we can use archetype maxes and mins to help balance over and under powered attributes.


Perimeter Shooter - An offensive minded shooter that stays to the outside. A good shooter but probably weak in puck battles. Excels at getting to open space.
Offensive Ratings
(MIN: 8) (MAX: 12) Screening: 8
(MIN: 12) (MAX: 20) Getting Open: 12
(MIN: 8) (MAX: 12) Passing: 8
(MIN: 8) (MAX: 16) Puckhandling: 8
(MIN: 12) (MAX: 20) Shooting Accuracy: 12
(MIN: 12) (MAX: 20) Shooting Range: 12
(MIN: 10) (MAX: 20) Offensive Read: 10

Defensive Ratings
(MIN: 5) (MAX: 12) Checking: 5
(MIN: 5) (MAX: 8) Hitting: 5
(MIN: 5) (MAX: 12) Positioning: 5
(MIN: 5) (MAX: 12) Stickchecking: 5
(MIN: 5) (MAX: 8) Shot Blocking: 5
(MIN: 5) (MAX: 12) Faceoffs: 5
(MIN: 5) (MAX: 12) Defensive Read: 5

Physical Ratings
(MIN: 8) (MAX: 16) Acceleration: 8
(MIN: 10) (MAX: 18) Agility: 10
(MIN: 5) (MAX: 12) Balance: 5
(MIN: 8) (MAX: 16) Speed: 8
(MIN: 12) (MAX: 20) Stamina: 12
(MIN: 8) (MAX: 18) Strength: 8
(MIN: 5) (MAX: 10) Fighting: 5

Mental Ratings
(MIN: 5) (MAX: 20) Aggression: 5
(MIN: 5) (MAX: 20) Bravery: 5
*Determination: 15
*Team Player: 15
*Leadership: 15


Defensive Forward - The guy you look to for killing penalties, getting in between passing lanes and preventing scoring chances. Probably doesn't hit much but will check players and lift sticks.
Offensive Ratings
(MIN: 8) (MAX: 12) Screening: 8
(MIN: 5) (MAX: 12) Getting Open: 5
(MIN: 8) (MAX: 16) Passing: 8
(MIN: 8) (MAX: 16) Puckhandling: 8
(MIN: 5) (MAX: 10) Shooting Accuracy: 5
(MIN: 5) (MAX: 10) Shooting Range: 5
(MIN: 5) (MAX: 10) Offensive Read: 5

Defensive Ratings
(MIN: 11) (MAX: 16) Checking: 11
(MIN: 8) (MAX: 16) Hitting: 8
(MIN: 12) (MAX: 20) Positioning: 12
(MIN: 12) (MAX: 20) Stickchecking: 12
(MIN: 12) (MAX: 18) Shot Blocking: 12
(MIN: 8) (MAX: 16) Faceoffs: 8
(MIN: 11) (MAX: 16) Defensive Read: 11

Physical Ratings
(MIN: 8) (MAX: 16) Acceleration: 8
(MIN: 8) (MAX: 16) Agility: 8
(MIN: 8) (MAX: 16) Balance: 8
(MIN: 8) (MAX: 16) Speed: 8
(MIN: 12) (MAX: 20) Stamina: 12
(MIN: 10) (MAX: 18) Strength: 10
(MIN: 5) (MAX: 10) Fighting: 5

Mental Ratings
(MIN: 5) (MAX: 20) Aggression: 5
(MIN: 5) (MAX: 20) Bravery: 5
*Determination: 15
*Team Player: 15
*Leadership: 15

2.) Archetype Roles
Another thing I think would help is assigning roles to archetypes. We have two routes we could go. Either you can make archetypes for major roles and allow GMs to play the player in any of their respective minor roles OR we make archetypes for minor roles and players can only be player in that minor role. A major role meaning Offensive Defenseman, Two-way Defenseman, Defensive Defenseman, Enforcer and the minor roles being Playmaking Defenseman, Rushing Defenseman, Quarterback, Point Shooter, etc.

[Image: C2oiDZr.png]

What does this do? It allows us to balance archetypes and therefore create more player agency. Can GMs still create meta teams from this? Maybe. But if that happens we can do some minor reworks to the builds to prevent OP builds. We fix the issues as they come instead of living in the current perpetual state of meta city.

[Image: doubtfulalpha.gif]
[Image: 0XJkcN5.png]
[Image: sN8N4xa.png][Image: 639861613880541184.png] Cal Juice [Image: 639861613880541184.png][Image: RyzkmSj.png]
[Image: Eo2nBCt.png] Tomas Zadina
[Image: snacnei.png] Brady McIntyre
[Image: ice-level.svg]
Reply
#2

liberal sjw moment

[Image: Pythonic.gif] [Image: Championship_Sig.png]


[Image: Eo2nBCt.png] [Image: QtEp67y.png] [Image: 2sRs0Cq.png]

Reply
#3

[Image: IMG_1611.png]

[Image: pppoopoo.gif]
[Image: 7925.png]
Thanks to @karey and @JSS for the sigs!


Former USA Fed Head, Carolina Kraken Co-GM, Tampa Bay Barracuda GM
Reply
#4

I like it, I know ISFL like you said and also WSBL use it and in ISFL it’s worked great (imagine a 100 hands OL). Could definitely be worth a look here



[Image: hPSkjwC.jpeg]
Reply
#5
(This post was last modified: 11-04-2021, 12:52 AM by spooked.)

I 100% agree that there is not enough player agency compared to even what we had in STHS. It has been something I have brought up in HO a few times mostly in passing (I would feel out of my depth to really try to suggest a balanced set of these in the FHM engine), but generally speaking it will take a lot of time for HO/someone to sit down and hammer out anything and frankly there are so many bigger issues at play that this ends up just getting put on the back burner to other things. Hopefully when we get some new hires in we can get someone who is wanting to look into this. Another major roadblock to this is finding the right balance as even with STHS this ended up becoming very much a meta-game league, which would lead me to think that whatever we put in place in regards to something like this, we would almost need to have some amount of focus on balancing and rebalancing these groups to make weak ones stronger and strong ones weaker, which is a whole other aspect that we currently do not have any coverage on. I think that was something we could have done more aggressively in STHS, but again, without some very clear responsibility assigned to that kind of effort, it ends up falling in priority to offseason tasks, issues with rulebook infractions, issues WITH the rulebook, etc.

I personally would love to see something along the lines of what you were suggesting with leveraging the FHM roles to some degree, either group them into 2-3 per archetype so we can maintain some control over player deployment (or do not include the option to use exploitive ones in the first place) or something more general with hardcore balancing to make sure the TPE scales all work out nicely and doesn't just make the most mixed builds the best.

EDIT: There has also been some minor discussions around helping FHM be less daunting to prospective GMs and moving some of that onto player agency is really one aspect I have been trying to voice a little bit as well as more limitations on GMs in lines/roles will really simplify at least some of the decision making.
Reply
#6

11-04-2021, 12:51 AMspooked Wrote: I 100% agree that there is not enough player agency compared to even what we had in STHS. It has been something I have brought up in HO a few times mostly in passing (I would feel out of my depth to really try to suggest a balanced set of these in the FHM engine), but generally speaking it will take a lot of time for HO/someone to sit down and hammer out anything and frankly there are so many bigger issues at play that this ends up just getting put on the back burner to other things. Hopefully when we get some new hires in we can get someone who is wanting to look into this. Another major roadblock to this is finding the right balance as even with STHS this ended up becoming very much a meta-game league, which would lead me to think that whatever we put in place in regards to something like this, we would almost need to have some amount of focus on balancing and rebalancing these groups to make weak ones stronger and strong ones weaker, which is a whole other aspect that we currently do not have any coverage on. I think that was something we could have done more aggressively in STHS, but again, without some very clear responsibility assigned to that kind of effort, it ends up falling in priority to offseason tasks, issues with rulebook infractions, issues WITH the rulebook, etc.

I personally would love to see something along the lines of what you were suggesting with leveraging the FHM roles to some degree, either group them into 2-3 per archetype so we can maintain some control over player deployment (or do not include the option to use exploitive ones in the first place) or something more general with hardcore balancing to make sure the TPE scales all work out nicely and doesn't just make the most mixed builds the best.

EDIT: There has also been some minor discussions around helping FHM be less daunting to prospective GMs and moving some of that onto player agency is really one aspect I have been trying to voice a little bit as well as more limitations on GMs in lines/roles will really simplify at least some of the decision making.
I completely agree that doing this would be a huge undertaking. There'd be a ton of time and effort involved. I also think there are a ton of people who agree that this is an issue for the league who would be willing to put in the time to help fix it.

PBE has a department specifically for testing build balance. Creating a similar department here could be a good first step to getting this to be a reality. The commissioner of PBE Hummus God is always willing to talk about this sort of stuff, I imagine he'd be willing to talk about the sort of responsibilities their balancing department has and the steps they go through each time they implement changes to the archetypes.

[Image: doubtfulalpha.gif]
[Image: 0XJkcN5.png]
[Image: sN8N4xa.png][Image: 639861613880541184.png] Cal Juice [Image: 639861613880541184.png][Image: RyzkmSj.png]
[Image: Eo2nBCt.png] Tomas Zadina
[Image: snacnei.png] Brady McIntyre
[Image: ice-level.svg]
Reply
#7

3) fix regression

[Image: ekovanotter.gif]
thanks @Carpy48 and @frithjofr and @rum_ham and @Julio Tokolosh and @Briedaqueduc for the sigs
Armada Inferno norway
Reply
#8

11-04-2021, 01:01 AMhotdog Wrote: 3) fix regression
True. There are some other things we can do for sure, but I was trying to stay focused on the topic of moving to archetypes.

[Image: doubtfulalpha.gif]
[Image: 0XJkcN5.png]
[Image: sN8N4xa.png][Image: 639861613880541184.png] Cal Juice [Image: 639861613880541184.png][Image: RyzkmSj.png]
[Image: Eo2nBCt.png] Tomas Zadina
[Image: snacnei.png] Brady McIntyre
[Image: ice-level.svg]
Reply
#9

11-04-2021, 12:58 AMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote:
11-04-2021, 12:51 AMspooked Wrote: I 100% agree that there is not enough player agency compared to even what we had in STHS. It has been something I have brought up in HO a few times mostly in passing (I would feel out of my depth to really try to suggest a balanced set of these in the FHM engine), but generally speaking it will take a lot of time for HO/someone to sit down and hammer out anything and frankly there are so many bigger issues at play that this ends up just getting put on the back burner to other things. Hopefully when we get some new hires in we can get someone who is wanting to look into this. Another major roadblock to this is finding the right balance as even with STHS this ended up becoming very much a meta-game league, which would lead me to think that whatever we put in place in regards to something like this, we would almost need to have some amount of focus on balancing and rebalancing these groups to make weak ones stronger and strong ones weaker, which is a whole other aspect that we currently do not have any coverage on. I think that was something we could have done more aggressively in STHS, but again, without some very clear responsibility assigned to that kind of effort, it ends up falling in priority to offseason tasks, issues with rulebook infractions, issues WITH the rulebook, etc.

I personally would love to see something along the lines of what you were suggesting with leveraging the FHM roles to some degree, either group them into 2-3 per archetype so we can maintain some control over player deployment (or do not include the option to use exploitive ones in the first place) or something more general with hardcore balancing to make sure the TPE scales all work out nicely and doesn't just make the most mixed builds the best.

EDIT: There has also been some minor discussions around helping FHM be less daunting to prospective GMs and moving some of that onto player agency is really one aspect I have been trying to voice a little bit as well as more limitations on GMs in lines/roles will really simplify at least some of the decision making.
I completely agree that doing this would be a huge undertaking. There'd be a ton of time and effort involved. I also think there are a ton of people who agree that this is an issue for the league who would be willing to put in the time to help fix it.

PBE has a department specifically for testing build balance. Creating a similar department here could be a good first step to getting this to be a reality. The commissioner of PBE Hummus God is always willing to talk about this sort of stuff, I imagine he'd be willing to talk about the sort of responsibilities their balancing department has and the steps they go through each time they implement changes to the archetypes.

Couple quick things, I can address them further if you'd like. First off the switch to FHM had to happen. There was no way to salvage any relationship with STHS. Look at the league that still uses it. The SC/PA/DF meta is real, not saying we don't have a meta issue, but player agency isn't A BIGGER issue in FHM. It's that players want to win, so we find a funneling of builds in one way or another.

Using PBE as an example, they have 100% meta builds even with archetypes. It doesn't eliminate the meta, go look at the top players. TOP - RP are almost always Flamethrower, SP are almost all Junkball. Catchers are all Handyman. 1B/DH are all BMOC. It leads to MORE builds but just the same amount of diversity in builds if not less.

This is coming from experience as I both helped the FHM transition, the PBE archetypes, and was a (mostly failed) head of the balancing committee. Balance/Parity are one of the hardest things to achieve in sim leagues as you will always have someone who is going to break the mold, find the meta/best for their team to win, then you will have teams copy them from regression builds, rookies, or w/e.

I'm not saying changes need or don't need to be made. Obviously there is a *strength* at the top, but also there are other factors that come into play. You do however have teams, like BAP, TEX, and TBB that broke the mold and worked from the ground up. All this to say, maybe? I'm not sure Arch are the salvation as, you will see 3 Danglers, 3 TWF, 3 PF/Screener on every team. You won't gain more agency, you'll actually put more people into a box, imo.

[Image: sdcore.gif]






Player Page [Image: berserkers.png] [Image: syndicate2.png]Update Page

[Image: sgu3vVP.png]
[Image: 9vq7IEu.png]
Reply
#10

Why not establish a "FHM rework committee" and invite the people who best understand FHM to work for it. You get eager people working on the issue, they get paid (give em PT passes too maybe, let them totally focus on it). Would seem like a good way since there's always going to be the issue of "it's not the biggest issue" or "there's not enough time".

[Image: 65151_s.gif]





[Image: Tqabyfh.png] [Image: OOcGSpM.png]
Reply
#11
(This post was last modified: 11-04-2021, 01:21 AM by caltroit_red_flames.)

11-04-2021, 01:06 AMSDCore Wrote:
11-04-2021, 12:58 AMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote: I completely agree that doing this would be a huge undertaking. There'd be a ton of time and effort involved. I also think there are a ton of people who agree that this is an issue for the league who would be willing to put in the time to help fix it.

PBE has a department specifically for testing build balance. Creating a similar department here could be a good first step to getting this to be a reality. The commissioner of PBE Hummus God is always willing to talk about this sort of stuff, I imagine he'd be willing to talk about the sort of responsibilities their balancing department has and the steps they go through each time they implement changes to the archetypes.

Couple quick things, I can address them further if you'd like. First off the switch to FHM had to happen. There was no way to salvage any relationship with STHS. Look at the league that still uses it. The SC/PA/DF meta is real, not saying we don't have a meta issue, but player agency isn't A BIGGER issue in FHM. It's that players want to win, so we find a funneling of builds in one way or another.

Using PBE as an example, they have 100% meta builds even with archetypes. It doesn't eliminate the meta, go look at the top players. TOP - RP are almost always Flamethrower, SP are almost all Junkball. Catchers are all Handyman. 1B/DH are all BMOC. It leads to MORE builds but just the same amount of diversity in builds if not less.

This is coming from experience as I both helped the FHM transition, the PBE archetypes, and was a (mostly failed) head of the balancing committee. Balance/Parity are one of the hardest things to achieve in sim leagues as you will always have someone who is going to break the mold, find the meta/best for their team to win, then you will have teams copy them from regression builds, rookies, or w/e.

I'm not saying changes need or don't need to be made. Obviously there is a *strength* at the top, but also there are other factors that come into play. You do however have teams, like BAP, TEX, and TBB that broke the mold and worked from the ground up. All this to say, maybe? I'm not sure Arch are the salvation as, you will see 3 Danglers, 3 TWF, 3 PF/Screener on every team. You won't gain more agency, you'll actually put more people into a box, imo.
I assume you're saying this for the benefit of other people? Like I said, I was literally in the Save The SHL server where we talked about all of this. I know STHS wasn't salvageable, in fact I was happy it was going away. I tried making NSHL because I hated STHS so much.

PBE definitely has meta for certain positions as you stated, but I personally see a team with magician at C/SS, BMOC at 1B/3B, streak at 2B/CF and freak at LF/RF as incredibly varied as opposed to what we have right now in SHL where every player is just defensive read/checking to 19. Hell, I can go look at the top TPE right now in PBE and see the top TPE players.

1.) SP - Billy Grier - Control Freak
2.) SP - Lucky El Charro - Junkballer
3.) OF - Arno Drachenberg - Streak
4.) 3B - Dubb City - Streak
5.) OF - Nicky Dimes - Streak

Is it perfect? Of course not, but it's definitely better than what we have here right now.

And I think the issue of 3 danglers, 3 two way forward, 3 power forward/ screener on every team would be fixed with rebalancing. That's what the new department would be for. It's really hard like you said, but that's certainly no reason not to try.

[Image: doubtfulalpha.gif]
[Image: 0XJkcN5.png]
[Image: sN8N4xa.png][Image: 639861613880541184.png] Cal Juice [Image: 639861613880541184.png][Image: RyzkmSj.png]
[Image: Eo2nBCt.png] Tomas Zadina
[Image: snacnei.png] Brady McIntyre
[Image: ice-level.svg]
Reply
#12
(This post was last modified: 11-04-2021, 01:32 AM by SDCore.)

11-04-2021, 01:20 AMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote:
11-04-2021, 01:06 AMSDCore Wrote: Couple quick things, I can address them further if you'd like. First off the switch to FHM had to happen. There was no way to salvage any relationship with STHS. Look at the league that still uses it. The SC/PA/DF meta is real, not saying we don't have a meta issue, but player agency isn't A BIGGER issue in FHM. It's that players want to win, so we find a funneling of builds in one way or another.

Using PBE as an example, they have 100% meta builds even with archetypes. It doesn't eliminate the meta, go look at the top players. TOP - RP are almost always Flamethrower, SP are almost all Junkball. Catchers are all Handyman. 1B/DH are all BMOC. It leads to MORE builds but just the same amount of diversity in builds if not less.

This is coming from experience as I both helped the FHM transition, the PBE archetypes, and was a (mostly failed) head of the balancing committee. Balance/Parity are one of the hardest things to achieve in sim leagues as you will always have someone who is going to break the mold, find the meta/best for their team to win, then you will have teams copy them from regression builds, rookies, or w/e.

I'm not saying changes need or don't need to be made. Obviously there is a *strength* at the top, but also there are other factors that come into play. You do however have teams, like BAP, TEX, and TBB that broke the mold and worked from the ground up. All this to say, maybe? I'm not sure Arch are the salvation as, you will see 3 Danglers, 3 TWF, 3 PF/Screener on every team. You won't gain more agency, you'll actually put more people into a box, imo.
I assume you're saying this for the benefit of other people? Like I said, I was literally in the Save The SHL server where we talked about all of this. I know STHS wasn't salvageable, in fact I was happy it was going away. I tried making NSHL because I hated STHS so much.

PBE definitely has meta for certain positions as you stated, but I personally see a team with magician at C/SS, BMOC at 1B/3B, streak at 2B/CF and freak at LF/RF as incredibly varied as opposed to what we have right now in SHL where every player is just defensive read/checking to 19. Hell, I can go look at the top TPE right now in PBE and see the top TPE players.

1.) SP - Billy Grier - Control Freak
2.) SP - Lucky El Charro - Junkballer
3.) OF - Arno Drachenberg - Streak
4.) 3B - Dubb City - Streak
5.) OF - Nicky Dimes - Streak

Is it perfect? Of course not, but it's definitely better than what we have here right now.

And I think the issue of 3 danglers, 3 two way forward, 3 power forward/ screener on every team would be fixed with rebalancing. That's what the new department would be for. It's really hard like you said, but that's certainly no reason not to try.

Yeah, cal completely lol I know you were around for the whole thing.

You can't go by TPE tho, you should go by top in position.

Lowest ERA - Flame McDonald - RP - Flamethrower - 1100 tpe
2nd - Nolan Windsor - SP - Junkballer - 1700 tpe
3rd - Dasa Ni-Voss - SP - Junkballer - 1200 tpe
4th - McDougal - SP - Junkballer - 1800 tpe

Best WAR last two seasons - Freak
Colon this season
Beauregard last

Billy Grier - Highest TPE in the league was not in a single top or league leader category last season, because Control Freak is the worst of the pitching archs. TPE spread matters a lot less cause of the archs being imbalanced.

Even worse here is we would tie everyone into an even smaller box, so it would be harder at higher TPE, esp if someone decided to go with a lesser role, which there are in FHM.

Again though, I'm not saying something doesn't need to be done, it clearly does, just I don't love the ideas of archetypes.

[Image: sdcore.gif]






Player Page [Image: berserkers.png] [Image: syndicate2.png]Update Page

[Image: sgu3vVP.png]
[Image: 9vq7IEu.png]
Reply
#13
(This post was last modified: 11-04-2021, 01:43 AM by caltroit_red_flames.)

11-04-2021, 01:29 AMSDCore Wrote:
11-04-2021, 01:20 AMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote: I assume you're saying this for the benefit of other people? Like I said, I was literally in the Save The SHL server where we talked about all of this. I know STHS wasn't salvageable, in fact I was happy it was going away. I tried making NSHL because I hated STHS so much.

PBE definitely has meta for certain positions as you stated, but I personally see a team with magician at C/SS, BMOC at 1B/3B, streak at 2B/CF and freak at LF/RF as incredibly varied as opposed to what we have right now in SHL where every player is just defensive read/checking to 19. Hell, I can go look at the top TPE right now in PBE and see the top TPE players.

1.) SP - Billy Grier - Control Freak
2.) SP - Lucky El Charro - Junkballer
3.) OF - Arno Drachenberg - Streak
4.) 3B - Dubb City - Streak
5.) OF - Nicky Dimes - Streak

Is it perfect? Of course not, but it's definitely better than what we have here right now.

And I think the issue of 3 danglers, 3 two way forward, 3 power forward/ screener on every team would be fixed with rebalancing. That's what the new department would be for. It's really hard like you said, but that's certainly no reason not to try.

Yeah, cal completely lol I know you were around for the whole thing.

You can't go by TPE tho, you should go by top in position.

Lowest ERA - Flame McDonald - RP - Flamethrower - 1100 tpe
2nd - Nolan Windsor - SP - Junkballer - 1700 tpe
3rd - Dasa Ni-Voss - SP - Junkballer - 1200 tpe
4th - McDougal - SP - Junkballer - 1800 tpe

Best WAR last two seasons - Freak
Colon this season
Beauregard last

Billy Grier - Highest TPE in the league was not in a single top or league leader category last season, because Control Freak is the worst of the pitching archs. TPE spread matters a lot less cause of the archs being imbalanced.

Even worse here is we would tie everyone into an even smaller box, so it would be harder at higher TPE, esp if someone decided to go with a lesser role, which there are in FHM.

Again though, I'm not saying something doesn't need to be done, it clearly does, just I don't love the ideas of archetypes.
Sounds like the pitching archs need some tweaks! On the other hand if you look at how Farnworth and Simms performed season by season and as max earner SPs from the same draft class on the same team, one flamethrower one junkballer you see this: Farnworth outperformed Simms until this season. Why? Because of differences in pitching style. Simms feeds off of the defense behind him due to ground ball percentage. Farnworth can perform better with a bad defense behind him because his game is based around getting strikeouts. Now that Simms has a defense behind him this season his ERA has improved beyond Farnworth's.

While the pitching archs aren't perfect, control freak is obviously garbage, I think flamethrower and junkballer have advantages that make them both useful. You can't make that argument on SHL. Every player needs defensive read and checking up asap. Shooting attributes don't matter. And there's no opportunity for changing that without archetypes.

[Image: doubtfulalpha.gif]
[Image: 0XJkcN5.png]
[Image: sN8N4xa.png][Image: 639861613880541184.png] Cal Juice [Image: 639861613880541184.png][Image: RyzkmSj.png]
[Image: Eo2nBCt.png] Tomas Zadina
[Image: snacnei.png] Brady McIntyre
[Image: ice-level.svg]
Reply
#14

11-04-2021, 01:10 AMbrickwall35 Wrote: Why not establish a "FHM rework committee" and invite the people who best understand FHM to work for it. You get eager people working on the issue, they get paid (give em PT passes too maybe, let them totally focus on it). Would seem like a good way since there's always going to be the issue of "it's not the biggest issue" or "there's not enough time".
Balancing Department. Their first job would be implementing archetypes, their ongoing job after that would be continually looking for how we can improve build balance.

[Image: doubtfulalpha.gif]
[Image: 0XJkcN5.png]
[Image: sN8N4xa.png][Image: 639861613880541184.png] Cal Juice [Image: 639861613880541184.png][Image: RyzkmSj.png]
[Image: Eo2nBCt.png] Tomas Zadina
[Image: snacnei.png] Brady McIntyre
[Image: ice-level.svg]
Reply
#15

11-04-2021, 01:42 AMcaltroit_red_flames Wrote:
11-04-2021, 01:29 AMSDCore Wrote: Yeah, cal completely lol I know you were around for the whole thing.

You can't go by TPE tho, you should go by top in position.

Lowest ERA - Flame McDonald - RP - Flamethrower - 1100 tpe
2nd - Nolan Windsor - SP - Junkballer - 1700 tpe
3rd - Dasa Ni-Voss - SP - Junkballer - 1200 tpe
4th - McDougal - SP - Junkballer - 1800 tpe

Best WAR last two seasons - Freak
Colon this season
Beauregard last

Billy Grier - Highest TPE in the league was not in a single top or league leader category last season, because Control Freak is the worst of the pitching archs. TPE spread matters a lot less cause of the archs being imbalanced.

Even worse here is we would tie everyone into an even smaller box, so it would be harder at higher TPE, esp if someone decided to go with a lesser role, which there are in FHM.

Again though, I'm not saying something doesn't need to be done, it clearly does, just I don't love the ideas of archetypes.
Sounds like the pitching archs need some tweaks! On the other hand if you look at how Farnworth and Simms performed season by season and as max earner SPs from the same draft class on the same team, one flamethrower one junkballer you see this: Farnworth outperformed Simms until this season. Why? Because of differences in pitching style. Simms feeds off of the defense behind him due to ground ball percentage. Farnworth can perform better with a bad defense behind him because his game is based around getting strikeouts. Now that Simms has a defense behind him this season his ERA has improved beyond Farnworth's.

While the pitching archs aren't perfect, control freak is obviously garbage, I think flamethrower and junkballer have advantages that make them both useful. You can't make that argument on SHL. Every player needs defensive read and checking up asap. Shooting attributes don't matter. And there's no opportunity for changing that without archetypes.

I do understand what you are saying but those things are going to be hard to stop. I'm basically saying unless you mandate certain playing styles per team, you will see teams prioritize players with those stats to max their teams strengths, therefore you will run into the same issue, locking everyone into 1-2 styles/builds. I could be wrong, but experience on sim leagues tells me that people will do what will make their player best and if that's using a higher checking/d read build, well than that is that.

I don't think this will fix a meta, but push us further into one. I could be wrong, hell nobody has ever tried to use roles/tactics in a way that abuses a system to their advantage... right?

[Image: sdcore.gif]






Player Page [Image: berserkers.png] [Image: syndicate2.png]Update Page

[Image: sgu3vVP.png]
[Image: 9vq7IEu.png]
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.