More things, and presumably also stuff.

[Shindigs 1,771]

With Draft Doubles week over in our evil competitor SHL over, I no longer have to do stuff and things there. So it's back to business as usual in my sim leaguing. Which now includes my science experiment of going Poise and Leadership on Bo to test something.

 

So far the test has been interesting in that I was under the impression DI and CK cancelled out and my 64 DI is supposed to essentially cancel out my 66 CK and make Bo no longer hit/take random penalties for no reason. It would appear this is NOT the case however, as Bo has 22 PIM in 13 games so far. Which for reference is only 6 fewer PIM than he had all season as a rookie with 40 CK. So either something has changed since the testing that said CK and DI cancel was done, or that testing was done poorly and lead to incorrect conclusions, or Bo is just getting absolutely Simon:d. Either way, it's interesting and quite unexpected.

 

In other unexpected news, Chicago are doing great! Despite the fact that our 2nd line and 2nd d pairing has 1 bot each with the one dman on the 2nd pairing having like 300-something TPE. Now I'm not saying this is because of Bo's veteran leadership. But I'm also not saying that it isn't because of that. Who knows, maybe we just inherited B-WAR D from a couple season ago as our bot dman? Anything is possible.

 

Or maybe another possible explanation is that Cole Pearce isn't playing like a bot goalie this season. Though I do doubt we can explain us somewhat consistently outshooting good teams *hard* on his goaltending. Because that would be a pretty silly explanation. Even by Simon standards.

 

Overall though it's nice that we're doing as well as we are with as limited a roster as we have. Brings back memories of S83 all over again, and also takes a lot of pressure off. Since if we keep this up there really is little to no reason to try and fill the roster until TDL where we could get an awful lot more bang for our buck. So it's pretty much smooth sailing.

 

For Bo's personal performance so far, outside of being a PIM machine. He's only just scored his first 2 goals last sim. Before that it was all assists all the way. Since Bo mainly just scored goals on the PP last season and was being double shifted on it (which he isn't this season) that's large part in why he isn't off to as explosive a goal-scoring start. Also our PP being like 15% is likely not helping that either, though on the flip side. The reason our PP% wasn't bad to start last season was because Bo was scoring on the PP at almost twice the rate of the rest of the team. So cause and effect, but for actually winning games. I'd rather we use Bo's 30-31 minutes of IT on him playing more ES, than on stat padding on the PP at the end of the day. The double shifting was a cool experiment, and it did a thing. But just wasn't really worth it in the end as it seems.

 

So is this the season Bo will finally win a Beketov? Unlikely, I see Thunder as the winner (and predicted as such) and Kisslinger is off to an insane start sitting up there with the dmen at the top in assists. Though historically in the hybrid era dmen have dominated the Assists leaderboard, so I doubt he will keep it up. Meaning that as long as Bo and Thunder keep battling it out for the Bek, I've got 1 TPE riding on either horse. So it's a win/win.

[jacobcarson877 2,432]

1 hour ago, Shindigs said:

So far the test has been interesting in that I was under the impression DI and CK cancelled out and my 64 DI is supposed to essentially cancel out my 66 CK and make Bo no longer hit/take random penalties for no reason. It would appear this is NOT the case however, as Bo has 22 PIM in 13 games so far. Which for reference is only 6 fewer PIM than he had all season as a rookie with 40 CK. So either something has changed since the testing that said CK and DI cancel was done, or that testing was done poorly and lead to incorrect conclusions, or Bo is just getting absolutely Simon:d. Either way, it's interesting and quite unexpected.

currently working on some more testing, and can confirm so far I've seen very little relationship between DI and PIMs on the whole, although that could mostly be the fact that no one really invests in it.

[Shindigs 1,771]

Just now, jacobcarson877 said:

currently working on some more testing, and can confirm so far I've seen very little relationship between DI and PIMs on the whole, although that could mostly be the fact that no one really invests in it.

There was a test done by, I think it was Eno and Nyko back in the day on strictly just adding DI on a no CK player and up to around 70 DI the returns were decent. I'm more surprised that Bo is hitting as much as a equal CK player with no DI, when he has basically CK = DI. Which is not at all in line with how everyone has said it works.

[jacobcarson877 2,432]

2 minutes ago, Shindigs said:

There was a test done by, I think it was Eno and Nyko back in the day on strictly just adding DI on a no CK player and up to around 70 DI the returns were decent. I'm more surprised that Bo is hitting as much as a equal CK player with no DI, when he has basically CK = DI. Which is not at all in line with how everyone has said it works.

one day I'll buy STHS to do better testing but using hybrid era data this is the obviously flawed relationship between DI and PIMs

[Shindigs 1,771]

46 minutes ago, jacobcarson877 said:

one day I'll buy STHS to do better testing but using hybrid era data this is the obviously flawed relationship between DI and PIMs

I think looking at the DI-CK difference would probably give more useful data. Since if you have players in there with both CK and DI (assuming they do cancel at least somewhat) then that will throw it off a lot.

[jacobcarson877 2,432]

7 minutes ago, Shindigs said:

I think looking at the DI-CK difference would probably give more useful data. Since if you have players in there with both CK and DI (assuming they do cancel at least somewhat) then that will throw it off a lot.

 

you're absolutely correct!

[Shindigs 1,771]

Just now, jacobcarson877 said:

 

you're absolutely correct!

Now that makes a whole lot more sense. I assumed that since most people who take DI do so "accidentally" it would often be on players that just spread attributes in everything and thus had CK too. Seems I was correct in that assumption.

[Gustav 6,322]

9 hours ago, Shindigs said:

I think looking at the DI-CK difference would probably give more useful data. Since if you have players in there with both CK and DI (assuming they do cancel at least somewhat) then that will throw it off a lot.

 

9 hours ago, jacobcarson877 said:

 

you're absolutely correct!

 

 

Hi

 

 

[jacobcarson877 2,432]

7 minutes ago, Gustav said:

 

 

 

Hi

 

 

Yeah I definitely still agree with the point of your article, DI is too good at reducing hits, and not good enough at reducing PIMs. There is certainly still a weak correlation but at least if you invest in just CK you know what you're getting. Even the graph I sent was dominated by players with CK and not much DI, so the obvious correlation between CK and PIMs/Hits showed still.

[Gustav 6,322]

53 minutes ago, jacobcarson877 said:

Yeah I definitely still agree with the point of your article, DI is too good at reducing hits, and not good enough at reducing PIMs. There is certainly still a weak correlation but at least if you invest in just CK you know what you're getting. Even the graph I sent was dominated by players with CK and not much DI, so the obvious correlation between CK and PIMs/Hits showed still.

 

Yeah I honestly have no idea why anyone with build experience would invest in DI. Either you want to hit at the expense of sitting in the box, or you don't. There's no way I know of to have a balance unless you want to have just a little CK or something like that.

[Shindigs 1,771]

9 hours ago, Gustav said:

 

Yeah I honestly have no idea why anyone with build experience would invest in DI. Either you want to hit at the expense of sitting in the box, or you don't. There's no way I know of to have a balance unless you want to have just a little CK or something like that.

This assumes some things that aren't entirely true anymore though. It ignores the case you reach at some point as a max earner where BC becomes the (by far) cheapest source of DF. So the actual relevant comparison here isn't if no CK + no DI is better than CK+DI. It's if BC+PO, allowing you to get significantly more DF. Is better than just peaking lower and getting neither DF, CK or DI. Since you can't just redistribute that TPE elsewhere, as doing so would yeet your depreciation plan. So the relevant comparison is this: Is 11xx TPA peak with no CK and less DF better than 13xx TPA peak with off-setting CK/DI? Which the answer might very well be the former, but that depends on just how useful that extra DF ends up being. Hence trying it out.

 

Also this completely ignores the LD part of Poise, which is no small part in why I'm getting it. Since I'm wanting to try if now that we don't all have 99s in all the good attributes. Maybe LD actually becomes the "least bad" attribute to work on at these TPE levels. Since Bo adding TPE at this point doesn't actually change his cap bracket at all. But even assuming a worst case scenario where LD is so shit Bo getting 99 of it as the captain will only add +1 attribute to teammates. That's still "free" attributes from a cap perspective. Meaning that together with Experience it's one of only 2 ways to get "free" power without paying a cap hit for it. Something that will hopefully have a fair bit of value in this cap hell era.

[Daniel Janser 2,111]

21 hours ago, Shindigs said:

I think looking at the DI-CK difference

I see what you did there

[Gustav 6,322]

2 hours ago, Daniel Janser said:

I see what you did there

After I wrote my CK/DI article someone IMMEDIATELY pointed out that I should have called it DI/CK instead. I don’t disagree because that would have been hilarious. 

[Daniel Janser 2,111]

3 minutes ago, Gustav said:

After I wrote my CK/DI article someone IMMEDIATELY pointed out that I should have called it DI/CK instead. I don’t disagree because that would have been hilarious. 

yeah sometimes one is so focused on the intended message, that convenient puns (which for others are glaringly obvious) will be missed...

[Shindigs 1,771]

8 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

yeah sometimes one is so focused on the intended message, that convenient puns (which for others are glaringly obvious) will be missed...

Yeah, I really don't know how I missed out on talking about wanting to get the biggest DI-CK possible for Bo. Like c'mon it's right there dammit!