Nykonax

1. I'd like to get a few points 2. Our boy Aky 3. Hopefully 1st, but as long as we're in playoffs I'm happy 4. Mexico, I GM'd them back in the 60's so would like to beat them 5) I'd like to win a championship. I've lost in the finals every M season I've been in I think 6) The Canucks are probably going to suck, as long as we don't make any dumbass UFA signings I dont care about their performance

Hi All, I have nothing better to do so I'm back with another statistical analyses. I have come a long way since my last one using basic bitch Z-scores, taking 2 more whole statistic classes in University since then! So I figured what better to do than to procrastinate real work and reuse code from my most recently submitted university assignment and apply it to the VHL. This time we are using decision trees! Decision trees can be thought of as statistical flowcharts, and are usually used for classification problems (example: here is some information about a mushroom, based on all this previous information about mushrooms, is this one going to be poisonous?), but it can also be used for regression predictions. Essentially they look at a bunch of previous data and it's outcome, and then decides the most important parameters and uses those in a flowchart to determine the expected outcome. In our case, I have scraped the last 6 seasons of VHL Hybrid player attributes (STHS ones from Portal) and the stats from that season, and will be using it to build essentially a flowchart to predict how many points players will get. Anyways, here's the flowchart. Sorry darkmode users This can be interpreted like a flowchart. Look at the question, if the answer is yes, go left, if the answer is no, go right. The top number in the circle is the expected number of points, the bottom number is the % of people in the category. For example, if you have a PH > 82, ST < 80, and SK > 80, you would expect to score 67 points (right, left, right). It's interesting to see what variables the model sees as important cutoff points, DF and SC don't appear at all in here, whereas its only PH/SK/ST. My theory on this is that these attributes aren't really tied to anything and have their own ratios, allowing you to increase them much higher, making your STHS attributes higher relative to your TPE compared to someone upgrading DF and SC. Now is this accurate? Eh, kind of, depends how much of a margin of error you're willing to accept. Here's a histogram of the differences of the actual points from the prediction. Each bar represents 5 points. So for example, about 40 predictions were 5 under, while >60 were 5 over. If you want exact numbers, 22% of predictions were within 5, 43% within 10, and 74% within 20. Which honestly I think isn't bad, considering the variability of STHS. Especially at the higher ends where you're predicted a max of 86 points but still end up in the 100's or 120's. We can run the same analyses on goals and assists: Goals: 27% of predictions within 3, 43% within 5, 72% within 10 Assists: 22% within 3, 36% within 5, 59% within 10 Conclusion: I can make a pretty bad prediction of how many points you'll score. But if you're willing to accept a margin of error of 40 points, I have a 98.5% chance of predicting how many points you'll get successfully. For real though, I think it's interesting to see what variables the tree chooses as important, as traditional attributes aren't really present, as it puts more emphasis on PH, SK, and ST. My theory on this is that these attributes can be upgraded with good ratios compared to SC and DF, which means if you're spending your TPE on these while someone is spending there's on SC and DF, you'll have a higher PH/SK compared to their DF/SC, which means you have more effective STHS attributes for your TPE. I think this can give some interesting insight to build paths and advice, as it may be beneficial to get as much STHS attributes as possible, even if they aren't the optimal ones, as you'll just end up statchecking other players. I'd like to follow this up with VHLM analysis, but not sure how reliable that will be considering the more changing nature of player attributes during the season. Also if anyone is wondering why I didn't just use regression, it's cause these are cooler. (And I can't write as much on regression). But here's a regression model anyways Adjusted R-squared = 0.5369 Also if anyone wants the dataset let me know and I can send you it

@Enorama

shl thunderdome shut down so you came here, nice

cant believe you guys fired cow smh. grats @Zetterberg

Player Information Username: Nykonax Player Name: Eno Velvson Recruited From: Returning Age: 50 Position: C Height: 75 in. Weight: 220 lbs. Birthplace: Canada Player Page @VHLM GM

stonks

think hylands or adv won in the mid 70s?

good riddance

where my 2018 gang at @Esso2264

@Esso2264 run it back?

@Kylrad would you like to hear about our lord and saviour: point tasks?

just a quick response to this: is less parity actually a good thing? I think people would be kinda upset if the same teams are winning every season. Like in SHL for a long time it was just Hamilton and Buffalo winning, along with Chicago a few times. I don't think the people not on those teams had fun, especially after like the 10th season in a row of it being the exact same. And you can argue that they deserve to win because of good management, which I think is fair, but it still ruins enjoyment for people. could say the same thing about VHL, people were PISSED that Vancouver three-peated (obviously in large due to meta, but I think people would've been much less pissed if Vancouver only won 1/3 of the finals). I think the same would go for Moscow, they just keep losing so no one cares. If they won 5 straight people probably wouldn't like it. is upping the cap and giving teams longer contention windows and more obvious contenders a good idea? I personally like the balance in the VHL and the idea that like a few teams in the playoffs can win it every year, rather than just the one or two obvious stronger teams.

sorry, grumpy old inactive boomers only.

The problem with increasing cap by too much in my opinion is that teams aren't going to use that space to sign the low 400 tpe players out of the goodness of their heart, they are going to use that space to just sign more high TPE players or give their players more bonuses. Especially under a system where TPE matters way more, giving teams the option to sign more high TPE players and form super teams just decreases parity while not really helping the low TPE people without teams. Sure, they'll eventually end up on a bottom feeder team that has no good players because the good players left to teams that have new cap space for them. But that's not really fun or a change we would want. I think some teams would even just refuse to sign these players given the extra cap because it literally just makes your team worse. If you have a 6-4-1 of good players and like 3 mil extra cap space, you aren't signing a 400 TPE 7th forward or 5th Dman if you are trying to win. It just ruins your lines and the player isn't good enough to make up for it. It makes way more sense to use that cap space on bonuses to help your players fight regression or buy more TPE. Obviously it's not good that GM's would do this over signing active members, and we could mandate teams with cap space to sign these players, but then that just ruins the point of team-building flexibility that a higher cap brings. This is being worked on.

True but also gives free wins unless he's on fiora

@O4L meowy christmas :3

@O4L

@O4L

@O4L

$1