scoop

Given that Dexter Lane is actually retired, I'll have to change that pick. Gonna go with Slava Aleksei.

Ahh, that is correct. I had been meaning to look in the trade forum, just hadn't gotten around to it.

Luka Volkov should be on your roster, correct? Also Ironside's scoring should be at 70, not the 80 listed in the index. I don't like this emoji. also @Beketovwhere is the emoji that's one of my faves

Safe to assume attributes are not all correct and will be updated before the season starts?

I lied about not having any reacts to see if I could get a like and now I feel bad that I did so I also liked everything in this thread.

@Beaviss this'll hurt Boner's fantasy season quite a bit probably but I still think your team is likely gonna dominate

I am also out of reacts give me a like too please

Done

cheers emoji

'bout time someone stops Canada

scored more goals than the other team

I'm sure some of you here have come to recognize me as the spreadsheet stats guy. I kept the career stats for a long period of time, I started the playoff history spreadsheets, I've recently updated by Continental Cup count spreadsheet, and I've done other stuff too. I've just recently decided to begin work on a new spreadsheet that is ultimately unnecessary, but might help me in coming up with some trivia questions that will almost assuredly require you to look at it. I won't say what it is, but I have in the past started a discussion on something similar, and it is somewhat close to the Continental Cup spreadsheet, in terms of the data that it will contain; it will be more extensive, but not quite as deep, though I may develop in further depending on effort required, motivation, and public desire. While I do say that this spreadsheet will be unnecessary, I would say the same about the Continental Cup spreadsheet, but I don't consider the work I've done there to be a waste of time. I feel the same way about this current undertaking, though I haven't actually started yet, and if it proves to take more time than I'd like (which it might), I may scrap it. But we'll see.

5

@Green

Dexter Lane and Markus King @Donno100

I already took Shepard. The second post in this thread has the updated teams so you can see there which players have been taken.

Lol my b

Agreed, a list would make things easier for new guys. When I get home from work tomorrow morning I'll put one together. But I selected Canmore with my last pick. You can look at the second post in this thread for the updated teams to see who has been picked. Sorry for the inconvenience

John Locke is retired

Good riddance Don't get me wrong, I like Ahma, but I'm not exactly a fan of his "Davos only" attitude.

I'll take Jack Shepard and Jasper Canmore @Donno100 you are up Also to everyone in this group, I'm going to be updating my first post in this thread (the very first reply) with the draft results so we can keep better track of who has been selected, so things can run more smoothly. Obviously I may still fall behind a bit, but this'll take some of the pressure off Bushito trying to keep up with all the leagues. @Green @Pandar @Velevra @Exlaxchronicles

Not @Velevra, it's, me

I know, I just thought my post might come across as me suggesting we should mess with it.

I disagree with this, but I think maybe that's in part because of my general philosophy of building balanced players. Hypothetically, let's say we have a 300 TPE vs 900 TPE player. Lets say I'm building a RW Old scale: 300 TPE CK = Checking: 40SK = Skating: 85ST = Strength: 70PH = Puck Handling: 80PA = Passing: 75SC = Scoring: 85 DF = Defense: 80 900 TPE (180 Banked) CK = Checking: 90SK = Skating: 99ST = Strength: 99PH = Puck Handling: 99PA = Passing: 90SC = Scoring: 99 DF = Defense: 99 New Scale 300 TPE CK = Checking: 40, no changeSK = Skating: 80, down from 85ST = Strength: 70, no changePH = Puck Handling: 80, no changePA = Passing: 75, no changeSC = Scoring: 85, no change DF = Defense: 75, down from 80 Total decrease in attribute points: 10 900 TPE (150 banked, down from 180) CK = Checking: 90, no changeSK = Skating: 90, down from 99ST = Strength: 90, down from 99PH = Puck Handling: 90, down from 99PA = Passing: 85, down from 90SC = Scoring: 95, down from 99 DF = Defense: 90, down from 99 Total decrease in attribute points: 45 (with 30 fewer banked TPE) Granted, I could bank fewer TPE to get the attributes higher, but at 900 TPE, I'm definitely going to be at a point where I want to be saving up for depreciation, which is also going to hit that player harder, because it's more difficult (in relation to the old update scale, as well) to recover the lost attributes going back from 87 to 90 than it is from 77 to 80. Don't get me wrong, I think players with these kind of attributes (particularly looking at the old scale 900 TPE player I built above) should be difficult to achieve and should be reserved for the best. Especially with the amount of TPE being earned going up, the harsher scale is good. But I don't think that this scale does what you suggest in widening the gap between the best and the average players. Now, a scale looking something more like this might do the trick (if that were to be what we wanted to see) 40 -> 60 --- 1 TPE per point 60 -> 70 --- 2 TPE per point 70 -> 80 --- 3 TPE per point 80 -> 90 --- 5 TPE per point 90 -> 99 --- 8 TPE per point Total TPE to get an attribute from 40 to 99: 192 (Note: with the original scale, it took 112 TPE to go from 40 to 99; with the current scale, it takes 185) I don't really think we need to tinker with the update scale, though. I think it's fine as is. I just personally thought that, when we changed it, we should've changed it to something more like this.

?