VanIslander wrote:

---

Philippe27 wrote:

---

I think more fighting but less 10 minute misconducts, those were ridiculous early in the year.

---

  Bitchin' 'bout the refs even in simulation hockey. Woo, hooo!

---

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaap

Well, this thread has gotten quite large. But I managed to wade through it all to give my two cents.

Basically, I wanna talk about only a couple things:
1.) Scoring ratings and how they should be objectively determined. (a suggestion)
2.) Goaltending concerns from my POV
3.) Fights

1.)So, to begin I think that offensive and defensive ratings such as SC, PA, PC, DF (scoring passing, and puck control) should have a statistical bearing to them. I think probably whatever system you are using, (formula or whatever) is good, but I think some merit has to be given to what team they play on. Basically all teams GF/G and GA/G should be ranked 1-30 at years end. Then, rank the teams in their actual standings from 1-30 overall and see if there are some teams that are winning but dont score alot or dont let in alot and adjust the appropriate rating category. It would be some kind of a ratio, im not sure what but it would be added to the formula as an extra incentive to each (or possibly only SC and PA) for players on low GF/G or GA/G teams that are still successful.

Here is an example. Say CGY finished 7th overall in the league, but had the best GA/G in the league the ratio would be something like.

For overall standings teams ranked 1-10 would get a 5
Ranked 11-20 a 10
Ranked 21-30 a 15

Then for GA/G (and GF/G) if you were lowest 10 (1-10) GA/G you would rank a 5
11-20 a 10
21-30 a 15

So Calgary fits in both the top brackets so it would be 5/5 which would be 1 pt increase on the ratings of the defensive categories.

If your team finished 1st in the league but your GA was bottom 10 then the ratio would be 5/15 and the increase would only be .3333 of a rating (which may or may not be enough to increase it)

The same could be done the same for the offensive categories. OBVIOUSLY I didnt do an end all be all formula, but I think something like this should be done for teams, you could just do it for all 30 teams and then the players on those teams in the NHL get these adjustments to their ratings. It would have to be done on a scale that goes negative too though, which mine didnt, maybe it could be 5 for top 10, 0 for middle 10 and -5 for bottom 10 teams in those rankings systems?

Once its added to the formula and its tweaked and tested it would be really easy to use and I think its something that makes sense, cause everyone knows a player like Marian Gaborik would probably score alot more on a more offensive team. Thats not his fault, its the coaching system there. So an adjustment is warranted.


2.) I agree with NJD when he says that 8 "superstar" goalies should be the max at this point in time. Theres no way theres more than that, I think it should be about 5 superstar goalies. I wont name who I think those 5 are but for the most part their stats can attest to it.

3.)Fighting I agree with CLB, should be on par with the NHL. It should be looked at, but I am not sure how Id go about adjusting that cause I dont know how that works, but I dont want to see guys like Alex Tanguay or some crap fighting. Realism.

It is a stat. Ive been mulling over the idea more and more and Ill produce something that makes a bit more sense possibly sometime tonight or tomorrow.

Basically it would be a stat that discovers which teams are successful in a defensive system that quite often limits their more offensively creative players the points they would get on other teams. I believe that these players should get a boost in the offensive categories because the other statistics used dont do them merit.

It would only be 5 or so teams that fall into this category, teams like CGY and DAL and DET this year too, all defensively successful teams whos players would likely STATISTICALLY THRIVE under most other systems.

More to come... Im trying to find a way to unveil this quirk with a mathematical equation.

But why are teams scoring less goals? Could it be there players aren't as talented? By moving their scoring ratings up because the team didn't score as much kind of defeats the purpose of rating guys based on how good they actually perform.

I can understand your idea for things like PC (pp time) and DF (pk time) based on their teams rankings (how well they performed) But for scoring and passing I think it defeats the purpose and rewards the unskilled teams.

Sabres wrote:

---

I actually dont think that there should be a negative implication by this ratio anymore. Ive thought about it, and if a guy puts up the points then he deserves the rating.

If the player does put up the points, in our system, he will get the ratings.

But the fact remains that some players dont get a "fair shot" at putting up the points to warrant a rating in our system. To me, these players are the ones on defensive teams.

How is that unfair?

---

But then do you boost a guy like Radulov who has I think the best goal per minutes played production in the NHL just because he's not getting a fair shot?

i agree with tampa hear whose to say guys like langkow, morrow, lehtinen, lombardi WOULD produce in other system that are free flowing. dont you think that coaches and g.ms aquire guys to fit their system and if he g.m gives the coach someone who doesnt fit the system the coach changes his system a little bit.. like the oilers and sykora lowe got him hear and mact had to change his style a lil an trust hemsky and sykora together even tho they are horrid defensively..iginla has led the league in goals before so should his scoring have been 99?