can I win most improved please

[scoop 3,254]

The first two seasons of Taylor Mourning's career were quite disappointing, totaling 19 goals and 63 points through 144 games. This season, things have been going much better, and although the pace slowed from where it was at the beginning of the season, he will still eclipse 100 points and has an outside shot at 50 goals. Currently on pace to have more than triple his previous career high in points, Mourning has to be a candidate for most improved. In some seasons, these numbers could result in a no-brainer of a vote, but there are definitely other names to consider.

 

The Dustin Funk Trophy is one of the more difficult ones to pick out the top candidates, because you can't just look at an compare the top few players, you have to look at almost everyone. Not only that, but you have to look at two seasons of almost everyone. In trying to find Mourning's toughest competition for the award, I broke it down into three categories: players who were better (than Mourning); players who were worse (than Mourning); and goalies.

 

Players who were better
Just going from best of the best down to where Mourning ranks, it doesn't take long to find a couple of very serious contenders for the award. Playing in his sixth VHL season, Justin Lose has consistently produced average stats. With career highs of 37 goals and 82 points, he isn't someone you would have likely pegged for the award in your pre-season predictions, but his league-leading 68 goals and 133 points put him in the discussion for sure. Then there is Alex Johnston, who broke into the league the same season as Mourning with a weaker rookie season, but has a better sophomore season at 22 goals and 62 points. This season, he is second in the league with 59 goals and sixth in points at 119. Then there is Jon Webber, who can be easily dismissed but earns a mention by improving upon his career best by over 50 points (assuming he gets a few more points in the remaining games).

 

As far as the two elite players go, it's an interesting debate. Comparing just last season to the current season (which I personally don't think captures the whole picture, but is easier to discuss, Mourning has the highest increase in points with +63, just barely edging out Johnston's +57 and Lose's +56. For Mourning, though, this is a far greater percentage increase, but that is of course easier when you are coming from a lower number. The biggest detractor for Mourning, though, is the fact that improvement in stats for the other two comes more from goals. While going from 19 to 43 goals is nothing to scoff at, Lose has gone from 37 to 68 and Johnston from 22 to 59. Johnston had just three more goals than Mourning last season, but the difference is currently at 16 this season. Mourning does also have the edge in the physical department. As the other two have seen their hits totals drop, he has gone from 118 last season to 290 this season. Could the more all-around improvement be what gives Mourning the edge compared to these two superstars?

 

Players who were worse

When looking at the players who were worse this season, obviously anyone who was better than Mourning last season would be out of consideration. In addition, I don't really need to look at players who have less than, let's say 20 goals and 50 points, because no matter what they are coming from last season, they aren't going to be in the discussion. When it comes down to it, of the players who are having worse season's than Mourning, only one player is coming from down low enough to be considered: Gary Tarantino II.

 

In his last VHL season, Tarantino had just three goals and 11 points. This season, he has 42 goals and 94 points, as well as playing a bit more physical going from three hits to 81. That's quite the improvement, and it would seem now the question is not "Mourning or one of the superstars," but rather "Tarantino or one of the superstars." The problem with this, however, is that Tarantino's last season was Season 79, when he played under seven minutes a game and not even quite a full season. Last season, he took a step back to the VHLE. How to judge that will obviously be up to the voters. I think you have to take into consideration his VHLE statistics, even though it was against weaker competition. I could also see him being deemed ineligible for the award altogether, given that he doesn't have S80 VHL statistics to compare to.

 

Goalies
Thadius Sales and Tater Tot are the only two goalies who someone could look at and think they might contend for the award, but I think they are easily dismissed. Sales is coming off of a down year, posting his worst save percentage (0.910) since his rookie season. Sure, he's going to be a favorite for Top Goalie, but his win and goals against average increases are also due in large part to coming from a non-playoff team to joining the reigning champions. His stats definitely improved, but he's not in the discussion. As far as Tater Tot is concerned, I only mention him because if you just quick glance and see his 0.929 save percentage coming from 0.912, you think "wow, improvement!" That is inflated by his shots against total and he's not in the discussion either.

 

In conclusion, the only contenders in my eyes for the Dustin Funk Trophy are Justin Lose, Alex Johnston, Taylor Mourning, and Gary Tarantino II. So it's either one of the two who went from "average to superstar" or one of the two who went from "poor to star." I personally think Johnston and Mourning have the edge in their respective pairings. I do think it's a tough choice. Where Johnston has a huge edge is looking at goals, but Mourning's improvement of his game as a whole might win over some voters. It will be interesting to see who comes away with it, but I can't imagine it being anyone outside of these four.

 

 

 

 

1041 words; for weeks ending 1/2 and 1/9

[Berocka 2,192]

You have invoked the curse. Anyone who writes an article about why they should win an award never does.

[Shindigs 1,771]

10 hours ago, scoop said:

a bit more physical going from three hits to 81

You call that "a bit"? (Edit: Okay after reading on about the Ice time change it makes more sense)

 

10 hours ago, scoop said:

That is inflated by his shots against total and he's not in the discussion either.

I mean that's not really how SV% works. If anything the fact that he has no defense in front of him makes it even more impressive that his SV% is somehow elite. Comparing goalies to skaters will always be highly subjective though, as they arguably shouldn't be compared in the first place.

[Daniel Janser 1,982]

1 hour ago, Shindigs said:

I mean that's not really how SV% works. If anything the fact that he has no defense in front of him makes it even more impressive that his SV% is somehow elite. Comparing goalies to skaters will always be highly subjective though, as they arguably shouldn't be compared in the first place.

 

Indeed, if I understand it correctly, scoop seems to make the argument that one goalie should be dismissed, because his saving rate went up, playing behind a more competitive defence and in the next sentence he argues an other goalie should be dismissed, improving his save rating, due to having played behind a sieve of a defence and therefore facing more shots...

 

My opinion is the same as Shindigs' it is easier to save a high percentage with a low shot count than with a high shot count...

 

After all in what match is one rather bound to have a shutout? In a game facing one single shot or one where one has to clear 100 shots? I am aware that this is an extreme example, but I think it helps to elaborate my point (and is not any the worse for it)...

[Beketov 8,642]

2 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

After all in what match is one rather bound to have a shutout? In a game facing one single shot or one where one has to clear 100 shots? I am aware that this is an extreme example, but I think it helps to elaborate my point (and is not any the worse for it)...

This is true in theory but you do also have to remember that if you DON’T get a shutout having low shots is gonna hurt more. For example, if you only face 10 shots in a game and let 1 in you have a .900; that’s not super uncommon. However if you face 100 shots (unrealistically high but makes the math easy) you’d have to let 10 goals in for the same S%; that is rather uncommon.

 

In general with STHS facing higher shot totals will definitely hurt your GAA but it can actually be beneficial to your S% because on average you’re gonna let in between 1 and 5 goals anyway (generally speaking) so it’s better to do so having faced more shots.

[Daniel Janser 1,982]

Sure it is 'easier' to get high percentage if you face more shots, as the percentage is more refined with increasing sample size...

 

The challenge one faces with STHS shot stats (and I am leaning out of the window here, so please correct me if I am wrong), is that there is no seperation of high danger shots and Hail Mary attempts.... i.e. it records only quantity and not quality... this is the same in the NHL afaik. However, there we have the visual and can see when a goal keeper is dragging his kicking and screaming team mates to a win, when he just saves anything there is to save and a lot he had no right to clear...  either live in the stadium, in the telly or in Highlight reels... 

 

The point I was trying to make, was that Scoop apparently used the argument 'saving rate went up , because better defence' and in the next sentence 'saving rate went up, because of worse defence'...

 

Lets take an example from real live: The Buffalo Sabres were a... how do I put this politely... non-competitive team in the nineties, losing more games then they won... they had one of the worst defence in the league, yet Hasek won all of his 5 Vezina's playing for them... so clearly hockey experts value a good performance behind a sloppy defence more than a good performance behind an all star defence.

 

[Beketov 8,642]

30 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

The point I was trying to make, was that Scoop apparently used the argument 'saving rate went up , because better defence' and in the next sentence 'saving rate went up, because of worse defence'...

100% it cannot be both. I just meant that on the whole more shots = better S% but lower GAA does tend to happen. It’s certainly not a guarantee but it is a trend similar to a team facing more shots as their D men get more SB. It’s just kinda how the engine is designed.

 

But yeah, we can’t discount 1 goalie for facing too many shots and another for facing too few, one of the other has the be valid.

[Shindigs 1,771]

1 hour ago, Daniel Janser said:

The challenge one faces with STHS shot stats (and I am leaning out of the window here, so please correct me if I am wrong), is that there is no seperation of high danger shots and Hail Mary attempts.... i.e. it records only quantity and not quality... this is the same in the NHL afaik. However, there we have the visual and can see when a goal keeper is dragging his kicking and screaming team mates to a win, when he just saves anything there is to save and a lot he had no right to clear...  either live in the stadium, in the telly or in Highlight reels... 

Usually higher shot count tends to correlate with better shot quality as well. At least over a whole season. On a game by game basis you obviously have the games where the team just decides to shoot from everywhere. But if your team is consistently allowing the most shots in the league, that's a bad D. Bad D gives up grade A chances *cough* Buffalo *cough*. But that assumes the engine actually makes sense, so it's a pretty big leap.

 

As for the low shots = harder to get good stats. Anyone who ever played Goalie in BAP or anything of the sorts knows that you have those games with like 15 shots against, and 5 of them are near impossible cross-crease passes = enjoy your .667. But since STHS shot totals at the VHL level are on the thicc side of things. I'd call it a fair to say it's probably not having that big an impact on season stats. Though theoretically when taken to extremes it's obviously still a thing.

 

1 hour ago, Beketov said:

It’s certainly not a guarantee but it is a trend similar to a team facing more shots as their D men get more SB.

Yeah, but does the relative SB% change? Naturally the total amount of shot blocks goes up with Dzone time. Just like total saves would. But I don't see how that translates to the % being different? But based on your wealth of experience I'm guessing a trend along the same lines even for SV% is a thing that's been found to be true in practice over the seasons?

[scoop 3,254]

3 hours ago, Daniel Janser said:

The point I was trying to make, was that Scoop apparently used the argument 'saving rate went up , because better defence' and in the next sentence 'saving rate went up, because of worse defence'...

The point with Sales was more about his other stats. His save percentage going up really doesn't mean as much to me, because he simply had a down year last season. Still, it is definitely impressive that he's doing better despite scoring being up in general. But it's not even like Sales is facing an inordinately low number of shots. Vancouver may be the top team in the league, but they are middle of the pack in terms of shots allowed.

Edited December 31, 2021 by scoop

[scoop 3,254]

2 hours ago, Shindigs said:

Yeah, but does the relative SB% change? Naturally the total amount of shot blocks goes up with Dzone time. Just like total saves would. But I don't see how that translates to the % being different? But based on your wealth of experience I'm guessing a trend along the same lines even for SV% is a thing that's been found to be true in practice over the seasons?

I mean, look at DCD G just for another example this season.

 

Looking at this historically, teams score more early in the games, but shots taken are relatively even across the periods. I'm sure this has more to do with the score of the game rather than the period, but it seems that teams are less likely to score when they have already scored a lot. Their shot totals don't go down, though. I'm willing to bet that Tater Tot's save percentage is drastically better when he's already given up a lot of goals. Same with DCD G. I don' t know whether it would have more to do with the score difference or just straight up the number of goals allowed.

Edited December 31, 2021 by scoop

[Shindigs 1,771]

2 hours ago, scoop said:

I mean, look at DCD G just for another example this season.

 

Looking at this historically, teams score more early in the games, but shots taken are relatively even across the periods. I'm sure this has more to do with the score of the game rather than the period, but it seems that teams are less likely to score when they have already scored a lot. Their shot totals don't go down, though. I'm willing to bet that Tater Tot's save percentage is drastically better when he's already given up a lot of goals. Same with DCD G. I don' t know whether it would have more to do with the score difference or just straight up the number of goals allowed.

Oh, so kinda along the same lines as that STHS failsafe of the backup goalie getting a SV% boost after the starter is pulled? The game is trying to stop itself from outputting stupid results, so it dynamically pulls back on scoring as the scores inflate? That makes it make more sense then. I mean from a game design perspective it's lazy and horrible, but those are the two favourite words of hockey sim devs. So I don't doubt it's true.

[Dom 1,440]

YEESS! Mourning for most improved player!!