Login

BDonini · 09-12-2019, 11:01 PM

09-12-2019, 08:50 PMefiug Wrote:
09-12-2019, 08:43 PMcharlieconway Wrote: (click here for expanded image)

The activity of the top 30 skaters (by points) and the top-5 goalies (by SV%) of the season. For what it's worth, there weren't as many IAs here as I recalled.
I don't know if this is going to sway anyone's opinion one way or another, but I figure it can only help to have as much info as possible.

---

No idea if this is aimed at me or not, but in case it is, I was probably played more than I expected this past season. It's not about that.

Yeah I mean you look at that and 3 of the Top 6 in points and nearly 4 out of the top 5 goalies are inactive, Its not unreasonable to want all of those spots to be filled with active

3 of the top 5, 3 of the top 10, 5 of the top 15 and 5 of the top 20

the way you frame things matters

***Acsolap*** · 09-12-2019, 11:35 PM

Quote:No idea if this is aimed at me or not, but in case it is, I was probably played more than I expected this past season. It's not about that.

No it wasn't aimed at you. Anyone that feels like they aren't getting their "due" playtime is able to either speak to their General Manager or ask for a trade. People rarely if ever ask for a trade and I'd rather see more movement between the J teams than curtail something that is a useful tool for what essentially amounts to nebulous reasons.

Credit to Ml002, King, Wasty, Carpy, Bruins10, Rum_Ham, Turd Ferguson, Ragnar and Enigmatic for the sigs.
Forge

Player page | Player updates

vbottas17 · 09-13-2019, 12:27 AM

Is it cool to say this is a good idea? I really want to be SHL cool...

***SpartanGibbles*** · 09-13-2019, 04:41 AM

09-12-2019, 11:01 PMBDonini Wrote:
09-12-2019, 08:50 PMefiug Wrote: Yeah I mean you look at that and 3 of the Top 6 in points and nearly 4 out of the top 5 goalies are inactive, Its not unreasonable to want all of those spots to be filled with active

3 of the top 5, 3 of the top 10, 5 of the top 15 and 5 of the top 20

the way you frame things matters

Not only what Donini said here but how many of those marked as inactive were inactive at the beginning of the season? People have lives outside of the site and maybe they have had a rough month, maybe they decided 2 weeks ago they are done and just ghosted, maybe they keep procrastinating onsite stuff but are still all over the team LR.

With the current structure some are not incentivized to update/post after becoming capped if they feel they are not going for every tpe opportunity.

Avakael · 09-13-2019, 04:43 AM

I hate this, but only because everyone else likes this and someone has to be contrarian.

That said, you're guaranteed some drama down the line when someone is marked inactive by accident, or longer than they should be- and when someone isn't marked inactive when they should have been.

***golden_apricot*** · 09-13-2019, 05:24 AM

09-12-2019, 04:38 PMBDonini Wrote:
09-12-2019, 04:10 PMgolden_apricot Wrote: What if it scaled vs total TPE?

Still not a great idea...it's difficult to see it in Reddit seasons because most teams end up with many active or semi active rookies but as those players go up or go IA and we go through a few smaller drafts there will be some teams who need IA's just to fill their roster. If this applied to capped IA players it could possibly end up working.

Also need to take the new upcoming budget into account, players in the 201-350 TPE range need to be paid more than IA players in the 155-200 range...taking their attributes down would just create a situation where teams are paying more for players of the same level as players in the lower salary bracket so adjustments would need to be made there.

Finally, it would have to be a certain amount of TPE removed rather than a certain number of attributes since removing attributes affects players disproportionately. A player with a lot of stats in the 70s would be losing much more TPE than a player with most stats in the 60s if we're directly removing attributes.

1. If i understand your argument right I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of what this change would achieve. Yes filling your roster with IAs is needed but this would stop teams for loading up on capped IAs while at the same time benching their active rookies which defeats the purpose of the J.

2. I dont think you phrased this argument correctly because as written just says "you will pay more for 200-350 TPE actives than 150 TPE IAs" which should be the case, so im not sure what you are trying to say?

3. Stats affect the sim not TPE, is it more harsh? Yes but it will have a much larger affect which is the goal this suggestion tried to achieve.

***SpartanGibbles*** · 09-13-2019, 08:09 AM

09-13-2019, 05:24 AMgolden_apricot Wrote:
09-12-2019, 04:38 PMBDonini Wrote: Still not a great idea...it's difficult to see it in Reddit seasons because most teams end up with many active or semi active rookies but as those players go up or go IA and we go through a few smaller drafts there will be some teams who need IA's just to fill their roster. If this applied to capped IA players it could possibly end up working.

Also need to take the new upcoming budget into account, players in the 201-350 TPE range need to be paid more than IA players in the 155-200 range...taking their attributes down would just create a situation where teams are paying more for players of the same level as players in the lower salary bracket so adjustments would need to be made there.

Finally, it would have to be a certain amount of TPE removed rather than a certain number of attributes since removing attributes affects players disproportionately. A player with a lot of stats in the 70s would be losing much more TPE than a player with most stats in the 60s if we're directly removing attributes.

1. If i understand your argument right I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of what this change would achieve. Yes filling your roster with IAs is needed but this would stop teams for loading up on capped IAs while at the same time benching their active rookies which defeats the purpose of the J.

2. I dont think you phrased this argument correctly because as written just says "you will pay more for 200-350 TPE actives than 150 TPE IAs" which should be the case, so im not sure what you are trying to say?

3. Stats affect the sim not TPE, is it more harsh? Yes but it will have a much larger affect which is the goal this suggestion tried to achieve.

1. A team cannot load up on capped IA's during a season as there is a limit to 2 IFA's over 200 TPE per team. I think I can vouch for any other J GM here(and feel free to tell me off if you do not agree) we are never going to bench active rookies for Inactives. We want to keep our teams as active as possible and we hate when people go inactive.

2. I believe Donini is refering to the fact that IFA's are paid in a budget based on their TPE level. Above 200 is 1M, below is 500K. To deflate the tpe or attributes of inactives leads to teams paying more money for IFA's that could be spent on rookies contracts or Active Free Agents. If someone passes a contract tier through this you would be paying more for a player unless the contract system was entirely reworked around this suggested change.

3. The way we track stats is directly tied to a players TPE earned. Unless you take away TPE from their build our system of updating will flag them as needing an audit. This also would punish inactive players based on their build choices and not on how much TPE they have earned. Part of the reason we have a TPE cap in juniors is so we have a more level playing field for new players.

I also don't like the idea of punishing a team when a player goes inactive. The teams that have been doing well in the past few seasons were not built on a bunch of inactives, they were built of strong active players. As someone who has been updating those teams, the ones who are normally at the top of the SMJHL are the ones with the most updates. Making inactives less effective would just widen that gap between teams that are doing well and teams that have lost key players to inactivity.

prettyburn · 09-13-2019, 08:53 AM

I haven't read this whole thread, so maybe this has been adjusted - but basing this all on a "check-in" in the offseason means that someone who's gone on vacation for a week or two could be marked as inactive... I don't hate the concept overall, but we'd have to figure out a better way to handle that, IMO.

ArGarBarGar · 09-13-2019, 08:58 AM

09-12-2019, 11:01 PMBDonini Wrote:
09-12-2019, 08:50 PMefiug Wrote: Yeah I mean you look at that and 3 of the Top 6 in points and nearly 4 out of the top 5 goalies are inactive, Its not unreasonable to want all of those spots to be filled with active

3 of the top 5, 3 of the top 10, 5 of the top 15 and 5 of the top 20

the way you frame things matters

That doesn't negate the point being made, though.

Alonzo Garbanzo Final Tallies (Among Defensemen):
2nd in Goals (208), All-Time Assists Leader (765)*, All-Time Points Leader (973), 3rd in Hits (2587), All-Time Blocked Shots Leader (1882)*
*All-Time Leader Among All Skaters
Player Profile | Update Thread
[Image: IeEV7Iv.png]

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us