Goalie ratings concerns

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

RE: Goalie ratings concerns

Philippe27 · Guru

Florida Panthers wrote:

Philippe27 wrote:

Yes I know there will be but you don't want the top goalie becoming a below average goalie. A guy like Brodeur if you sim 10 seasons thould always be a top 5 goalie, not go from 1st to 15th.

Why? Why should he always be a top 5 goalie? He's not always going to be a top 5 goalie in the NHL... run it 10 times and likely you'd see that 8 times (nothing more than a guess on my part) that he WILL be a top 5 goalie. But there's nothing wrong when those 2 times happen that he does tank the season. Because it does happen in the NHL. Not a lot... but it does.

I'll run it right now and give you an update in 30 minutes.
and no I'm not saying making it 13 will make a difference but if you make it 18-20 like I do in my set of ratings it does make a difference.

BryceBruins · BRHL2 Co-Commish

While I understand the points, I think the main argument is how OVERRATED top goaltenders are in the NHL, and FHL. Sound ludicrous? If regular season success is your barometer, sure it's important, but if you look at PLAYOFF success (which we cant critique yet in BRHL) lets compare Vezina winners and how their teams did in the NHL the last 10 years.

2006 - Kiprusoff
2005 - lockout
2004 - Brodeur
2003 - Brodeur***
2002 - Theodore
2001 - Hasek
2000 - Kolzig
1999 - Hasek**
1998 - Hasek
1997 - Hasek
1996 - Carrey

Only 1 Vezina winner won the cup (Brodeur in 2003), only one other made the finals (Hasek in 1999). And I think everyone would agree when the Sabres went they were a "longshot" to get that far.

Don't get me wrong, every team would be thrilled to have the Vezina winner between the pipes. But how much of a difference is there between a Rick DiPietro and a Miika Kiprusoff? Sure their is some, but is it 3 or 4 ov or 8 or 9? Judging by how RARELY the top goalie wins the cup in a given season I'd argue its more the 3-4ov range, which is what we have it at now.

Sure their are under/overachievers, and maybe more than most this season, although I'd chalk that up more to EVERYONE starting with an even slate and some elite goalies being on the weaker teams where GENERALLY that doesn't happen in the NHL. In recent years how many weak teams have had great goalies? Florida with Luongo, anyone else? They don't spring to mind, Kolzig in Washington maybe.

Outside of Montreal who's vastly overachieved with their platoon goalies? What other team has? Atlanta and Philly both had good teams to start with and ultimately started terribly because they went in with Denis and Toskala as their starters and no good backups. Detroit's rode Emery all season, but Nabby has been there to spell him, and they've performed a bit better than expected. But outside of Montreal their hasn't been an unexplicable case of goalies ruling the league. Alot of backups have inflated numbers. Why? because quite often after coming in after the starter gives up 5 goals, they face 10 shots without letting any in, call it a sim quirk.

I know that all the key attribtes are based on statistical performance, I don't have the formula as Ken (BRHL commish) works the tender ratings, and by and large I think they work well. Their's always going to be outliers, lik Tim Thomas, or Kippers poor save percentage, but by and large I think they work very well.

BryceBruins · BRHL2 Co-Commish

Philippe27 wrote:
I'm not saying making it 13 will make a difference but if you make it 18-20 like I do in my set of ratings it does make a difference.

But then unless you have a star goalie you have no chance to win anything. Based on their 05-06 stats how would Brodeur be 18-20ov higher than Sanford?

Brodeur               Sanford
.911 sp%            .908 sp%
2.57 gaa             2.66 gaa
1 SO/14gm         1 SO/11gm

Hell it could be argued that we have Brodeur overrated in the BRHL this season. To have a 20ov difference between them is SOO ridiculous, especially if you consider the teams in front of them on 05-06 if one wanted to make the statistical argument they could argue Sanford was the better goalie in 05-06

That's my main problem with 95% of the ratings packages out there, its liek someone only wants the stars to be important, when in all actuality, statistically, the difference between a star player and a 3rd liner is no where near as great as one would think. How many guys would put up 60-70 points simply playing top line (Shawn Horcoff last year for example). The goal of the BRHL ratings is to have depth, and not 3 stars and a good goalie and win everything with AHLers plugging your other lines. If you're looking for a league like that, (for those familiar the ZBHL was horrid for that when I was there), then you're not going to like our ratings. If you like to build a complete team like an NHL GM, then you'll love our ratings, as you have to build a complete roster.

-- Edited by BryceBruins at 16:12, 2007-02-26

Philippe27 · Guru

BryceBruins wrote:

Philippe27 wrote:
I'm not saying making it 13 will make a difference but if you make it 18-20 like I do in my set of ratings it does make a difference.
But then unless you have a star goalie you have no chance to win anything. Based on their 05-06 stats how would Brodeur be 18-20ov higher than Sanford?

Brodeur Sanford
.911 sp% .908 sp%
2.57 gaa 2.66 gaa
1 SO/14gm 1 SO/11gm

Hell it could be argued that we have Brodeur overrated in the BRHL this season. To have a 20ov difference between them is SOO ridiculous, especially if you consider the teams in front of them on 05-06 if one wanted to make the statistical argument they could argue Sanford was the better goalie in 05-06

That's my main problem with 95% of the ratings packages out there, its liek someone only wants the stars to be important, when in all actuality, statistically, the difference between a star player and a 3rd liner is no where near as great as one would think. How many guys would put up 60-70 points simply playing top line (Shawn Horcoff last year for example). The goal of the BRHL ratings is to have depth, and not 3 stars and a good goalie and win everything with AHLers plugging your other lines. If you're looking for a league like that, (for those familiar the ZBHL was horrid for that when I was there), then you're not going to like our ratings. If you like to build a complete team like an NHL GM, then you'll love our ratings, as you have to build a complete roster.

-- Edited by BryceBruins at 16:12, 2007-02-26

I don't know if it was 18-20 because the league that uses my ratings has site problems now but I do put huge difference betwene top goalies and average goalies.

In my ratings, I make the stars important but I also make a role player important, a guy like Begin will have low scoring but maybe an 82DF while a guy like Kovalchuk will have a DF in the 60's, this ensures players play where they're supposed to play.
Yes I get your point that a lot of players would get 60-70 pts playing top line but Horcoff did it in the NHL so he should be able to in BRHL and a guy like Perezhogin didn't in the NHL so he shouldn't be able to unless he plays with very very good linemates.

If you say anyone can do what Horcoff did then why not make ratings based on Points per ice time instead of points per game?

BryceBruins · BRHL2 Co-Commish

if you did it on points per icetime you would have damn near everyone on a teams 4 lines with 3 or 4 ov of each other.

But what are the ratings statistically based on? Are they pulled out of a hat or purely subjective? Unless you have stats tied to ratings there is no way to subjectively rerate players because people get overrated. Hell I'd overrate Oilers, and I know you overrate Habs players.

The scale can be adjusted somewhat, but even if a guy has an 82df if he cant do anything else well he'll be a PK specialist at best. doesnt mean he can take a shift on your top 3 lines and be productive or do his role, that line will get lit up.

Philippe27 · Guru

BryceBruins wrote:

if you did it on points per icetime you would have damn near everyone on a teams 4 lines with 3 or 4 ov of each other.

But what are the ratings statistically based on? Are they pulled out of a hat or purely subjective? Unless you have stats tied to ratings there is no way to subjectively rerate players because people get overrated. Hell I'd overrate Oilers, and I know you overrate Habs players.

The scale can be adjusted somewhat, but even if a guy has an 82df if he cant do anything else well he'll be a PK specialist at best. doesnt mean he can take a shift on your top 3 lines and be productive or do his role, that line will get lit up.

A guy with high DF, high It and SP is perfect for a 3rd line and he should be in the 80's in those so he can fill his role. A guy like Crosby should have 95 passing because he is that much better than everyone else, he shouldn't have only 10-15 PA pts more than an average passer because that's just not enough to make Crosby a special player like he is in the NHL.

BryceBruins · BRHL2 Co-Commish

I think all it comes down to is what someone considers average-above average-good-great-elite-legendary

Some ratings consider above average to be 80 which i think is ridiculously high. Generically speaking I would use these

Average = 65
Above average = 70
good = 75
great = 80
elite = 85
legendary = 90

without looking at the ratings I don't think anyone had legendary stats last season, nor do they this season. One coudl argue Crosby's PA may be in that area and it'll likely be in the 90 range. But to yoru example of Begin, is he a great defensive player as an 82 would suggest? I'd say he fits between the good-great, and based on his PK time and blocked shots last year, I'd say he's slotted in appropriately.

Yet I still don't understand the griping on goalies, and the supposed huge difference wetween Sanford and Brodeur statistically in 05-06

-- Edited by BryceBruins at 16:44, 2007-02-26

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

All I know is we all drafted and started this league with the understanding that ratings would be as they are now. It's outrageous that we're even talking about changing something this important at this stage.

BLORP

Philippe27 · Guru

BryceBruins wrote:

I think all it comes down to is what someone considers average-above average-good-great-elite-legendary

Some ratings consider above average to be 80 which i think is ridiculously high. Generically speaking I would use these

Average = 65
Above average = 70
good = 75
great = 80
elite = 85
legendary = 90

without looking at the ratings I don't think anyone had legendary stats last season, nor do they this season. One coudl argue Crosby's PA may be in that area and it'll likely be in the 90 range. But to yoru example of Begin, is he a great defensive player as an 82 would suggest? I'd say he fits between the good-great, and based on his PK time and blocked shots last year, I'd say he's slotted in appropriately.

Yet I still don't understand the griping on goalies, and the supposed huge difference wetween Sanford and Brodeur statistically in 05-06

-- Edited by BryceBruins at 16:44, 2007-02-26

I think that scale you have there is where we disagree. If a guy has 90 which makes him legendary then he should be amongst the best almost all the time.
Thornton had 90PA and he's got like 48 assists. That's gonna be only a little more than half of what he had in the NHL

Philippe27 · Guru

Florida Panthers wrote:

All I know is we all drafted and started this league with the understanding that ratings would be as they are now. It's outrageous that we're even talking about changing something this important at this stage.

BLORP

Yeah good point but we've changed other things. I wanna get this debate out and if the conclusion is that they won't change then I'm gonna build on that and they better not change a year from now.
But then again it's hard to build on these ratings because there is such a huge luck factor.

-- Edited by Philippe27 at 17:12, 2007-02-26

BryceBruins · BRHL2 Co-Commish

Oh I can outright tell you we'll be using BRHL ratings for the duration of the league, while things may be tinkered with throughout the years, you will not see any large scale changes to teh ratings.

BryceBruins · BRHL2 Co-Commish

Steve Begin
05-06 NHL paces - .144gpg - ,158apg
BRHL paces - .154gpg - .154apg

not bad especially since he's essentialy been in the same role as he was in Montreal, though he's playing with ROberts who's better than anything he had last year in montreal and that'll likely rise a bit down the stretch

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

Philippe27 wrote:

I think that scale you have there is where we disagree. If a guy has 90 which makes him legendary then he should be amongst the best almost all the time.
Thornton had 90PA and he's got like 48 assists. That's gonna be only a little more than half of what he had in the NHL

And again... so what? This is not the NHL. Just because Joe Thornton got a whack more assists in the NHL does not mean he's going to get as many here. He is still one of the top assist men in the BRHL2 though. Especially since getting assists is definitely dependant on who you have to score with. Not that Havlat's not a good goal scorer, but there's also really nobody on the other side.

My point again though, is so what? Having that 90 PA should not make him some automatic assist leader for the league.

You seem to want players to essentially be guaranteed to produce at the levels their characteristics indicate. There's no guarantees in the NHL, so why should there be here? Martin St. Louis was a shadow of his former self the season after winning the Hart.

The way that I see it, things in the BRHL2 is mirroring the way that NHL scoring and goaltending happens quite well. It's not the same players under/overachieving, but that's to be expected.

Philippe27 · Guru

Florida Panthers wrote:

Philippe27 wrote:

I think that scale you have there is where we disagree. If a guy has 90 which makes him legendary then he should be amongst the best almost all the time.
Thornton had 90PA and he's got like 48 assists. That's gonna be only a little more than half of what he had in the NHL

And again... so what? This is not the NHL. Just because Joe Thornton got a whack more assists in the NHL does not mean he's going to get as many here. He is still one of the top assist men in the BRHL2 though. Especially since getting assists is definitely dependant on who you have to score with. Not that Havlat's not a good goal scorer, but there's also really nobody on the other side.

My point again though, is so what? Having that 90 PA should not make him some automatic assist leader for the league.

You seem to want players to essentially be guaranteed to produce at the levels their characteristics indicate. There's no guarantees in the NHL, so why should there be here? Martin St. Louis was a shadow of his former self the season after winning the Hart.

The way that I see it, things in the BRHL2 is mirroring the way that NHL scoring and goaltending happens quite well. It's not the same players under/overachieving, but that's to be expected.

I don't want it to be guaranteed but at least close. A guy like Crosby should be top 5-10 scoring cuz he is a special player.
Otherwise why would I bother trading Briere for Crosby when Crosby will only be a better player 60% of the time (I'm making that number up but that's about it), it should be more like 80-90%.