Nykonax

oh yeah if you have higher scoring you are probably more likely to score, but there's no difference between like a shot from the slot and a shot from the blue line in chance of scoring.

I think all shots in STHS are considered of the same quality. I think Discipline (poise) is a useless attribute individually, but if a whole team has like 60/70 discipline it's actually pretty good.

seems like S76 (and I'd guess most of the 70s) is pretty normally distributed, otherwise a lot of seasons have a bunch of players in the 0-about 10/15 points range which I guess it just a lot of bots that I didn't filter out for reasons I said above. Gonna talk to my professor about this and find out more about the impacts of it. I don't necessarily think that's true. Pretty sure centres just inherently get more points in STHS, and that even playing field doesn't really exist or matter. Sure they might have 100 less TPA, but there's no need for adjusting based on that, especially since there wouldn't be adjusting for TPE differences. Centres effectively have 100 less TPA, but some players also just straight up have 100-200-500 less TPA than other ones. That's not being adjusted for (and shouldn't), so why should the centre difference be adjusted for? I think the positional adjustment between defenseman and forwards does make sense though, because right now a 150 point season from a forward would have a higher z-score than a 140 point from a defenseman, even though I think nearly everyone would say 140 from a D is much more outstanding than 150 from a forward.

Yeah just points. There's no positional adjustment, although I guess you could just find the z-score of just defenseman and just forwards and then compare those for some sort of positional adjustment. I excluded anyone who played less than 72 games or had 0 points. Low averages or point totals don't necessarily throw off the numbers, they're still valid data points when thought of in context of the problem. If you were to apply this to the NHL, and wanted to know who had the most outstanding season, you wouldn't exclude 4th liners from the calculations. Same can be said about the VHL if you're viewing it as a real league and bots as 4th liners. I removed people with 0 points or less than 72 games mostly because they would've only played like 10 seconds a game and aren't actual players, but rather just random STHS fillers which wouldn't exist in real life.

Hi, I don't usually write articles anymore but I learned something cool in my stats class and wanted to apply it here. So there's this thing called a z-score, which is essentially how many standard deviations away from the mean a datapoint is. However, what's cool about them is that it allows for comparisons between different things. For example, you could compare if your score on the SAT is better than your friends on the ACT. So I think that this could also be applied to different VHL seasons and eras to fairly adjust for the differences. I do want to talk to my prof about this and see how valid this is, especially if VHL scoring isn't normally distributed. But I do think there is still some merit to this, and even if it's somewhat statistically wrong it's still somewhat statistically right so. Anyways, I wrote some python code to calculate the z-scores of each player in each season and then found the highest z-score, which essentially translates to what player had the most outlier season, which you could also say is the most outstanding. However, this is just limited to S49-84 because of data acquisition and index formating. When I have more time I want to gather the data for the earlier seasons, but it's a little more involved. The best season in the last 35 seasons was Joel Jarvi (who @CowboyinAmerica wrote a fantastic article about here) who in S53 scored 162 points and had a z-score of 3.405. The mean z-score is 2.52. The next highest z-score was 3.127, which was Max Molholt's 145 point campaign in S49. I think this is an interesting statistic, and would love to expand it out to earlier seasons and overall careers. Could be very useful in HOF discussions, especially if it does adjust for era like I think it would. If people are curious about the messy code I wrote I'm willing to share it, and I can calculate other stats too (goals, hits, +/-, whatever).

literally 1984

what happens if you don't

will this extend to the loophole where teams just trade their first or second round selections away right away instead of trading the pick before the draft?

its ok almost everyone on the bog is just gonna refuse to vote jerome for awards cause meta even if he has 100000 more points than everyone else

congrats! PS. I am in Halifax and available to babysit for uncapped TPE

I mean yea I agree. It just seems like all the top players are the people who break out of that 700-900 threshold and reach 11/12/1300 TPA. Which I think is very fair and why things are in a good place right now. Welfare allows you to build a reasonably good player, and max earning allows you to build a superstar, which IMO is the way things should be. It's just the worst for people who are above welfare but below absolute max earning, since they can't consistently beat the welfare players but still consistently get beat by the max earners. I don't really know how you'd fix this without nerfing welfare, and I think welfare itself is really healthy right now.

Really? I feel like Welfare is in a good spot right now. I think pre-hybrid it was a little too strong, especially with meta. Now, as a pension-earner myself, with the hybrid attributes it feels like I'm almost capped at about 700/800 TPA. With how the ratio's work, once you get to 80 or so in a stat it starts costing like a week's worth of pension to just get ~0.3 STHS attributes, which honestly feels really bad. Now this is just my experience, and I don't really claim things like press conferences or reviewing, so people can certainly get more TPE. But as a welfare player it feels like I can make a solid team player, I won't be outstanding, but I also won't be terrible, which I think is really healthy. If you look at the top 10 points leaders last season a majority of them were max earners, and only 1 I think could be classified as welfare. Same for S83. The top players are majority composed of max earners, so their work isn't really being devalued. I think the argument can be different for the M, but GM's should be playing max earning players over welfare players anyways, and that's a GM standards discussion not really a welfare one.

whats the average

cause ur desperate for a cup what

shawn glade also traded himself 4 times to win cups

1. Either way I'm burning the house down 2. I like Howl from Howl's Moving Castle. And hell yea he's dope af 4. Probably Grave of the Fireflies. That movie was heartbreaking but I loved it 5. Did I boost @Enorama or did he boost me? 6. Probably maple syrup, I'd be all sticky but it'd taste better 8. I've long known that lava lamps were the preferred weapon of my enemy. And I have just the plan to deal with it.

dil vs hogan rap battle when

grats @thadthrasher, very well deserved. probably the same with kaleeb, i dont think i've ever talked to you but i'm sure you're great

kevin durant approves

@EnoramaFISTED ANALLY BY A CIRCUS MONKEY

whatre your thoughts on it

top 10 rappers eminem was too afraid to diss

how many cups did i win you and i got 0 appreciation posts wtf but ya that dlamb guy is pretty swag

hi everyone, here is team asia which is really only half asian but thats ok. last time I GM'd Asia was like 20 seasons ago and we won silver, so let's get gold this time Sock Monkey @chikn Hasbulla Magomedov @Motzaburger Anton Bielas @Shawner40 Phoebe Bridgers @GrittyIsKing Dens Oden @Snussu Eric White @ErictheFish Boston @CanucksFan Akio Suzuki @Erik David Cobberson @David Cobberson James Marino @Adrest245 Babushka @BrutalBoost Isamu Knievel @TMGSosa Jarno Lappi @aksuko Clueless Wallob @DMaximus Ilya Bryzgalov @Devise Discord can be found here. https://discord.gg/XQ2BBpzw, tag me when you join and I'll get you the role