Stop over paying Goaltenders .............

[Gaikoku-hito 1,990]

 

As I was think of something to write a quick few words to get the sweat tpe of this week; I started to think about goaltending and it current state in the VHL as I think we are starting to see a tend or a new meta appearing.

 

Yup, The new meta seems to be using a sub 1000TPE goaltender as they are or at least look to be better overall through the regular season than a 1000+ TPE goaltender. (shock)

 

While I haven`t collected all the data from the past four season including when the league adjusted the goaltenders but it seems either not enough was done or it has effected the high earning tenders more than the low earners. It will like be my full media spot next week once I finish data collects but here is a quick look at what I have seen so far:

 

S91 – Only two goaltender below 1000TPE in the top 10 of GAA in the league meaning the high earners dominated the league with 80% being in the top 10. Haven`t looked at wins or Sav% yet so I am not sure what this actually means.

 

S92 – Three goaltenders under 1000TPE meaning around 70% again were high earning tenders, but all three finished 1-2-3 in the GAA standings.  

 

S93 – Five goaltenders under 1000TPE; and if I remember correctly this might have been where the league adjusted goaltenders sliders; if that is the case the better revert them back since that is 50% of the league leaders being under 1000TPE; actually even worse when you consider the highest one of the five only had 650 TPE. These goaltenders also finished 1-2-3-4 in the GAA standings.

 

S94 – Again five goaltenders under 1000TPE reached the top 10 with two finish 1-2 in the GAA department. Again making it 50% and starting to show a trend maybe?

 

S95 – Worse season by far with 8 of the top 10 goaltenders in GAA being under 1000TPE with the second highest being at 676TPE as the Panda is close enough to almost count as a 1000TPE goaltender but that means having a low earning goaltender earning 3M or under is better than a goaltender earning more; at least in the regular season.

 

Like I have said while I have`t looked at all the data yet as I have only collected GAA as the current data point the trend doesn`t look promising and is pointing to the fact that goaltending in the regular season in the VHL simple doesn`t seem to matter!!

 

I hope I am proven wrong next week when I finish collecting the data but I have my doubts …….

 

 

P.S. Yes, I am aware that maybe using 1000TPE as the upper limit might have been a bad choice data collection wise when 50% of the starting goaltenders in the league are currently under 800TPE but it doesn`t change my observations that much as only Red Panda this season would come off the list if I used the 800TPE base line instead. Even if I took the league average 686TPE for a starter in the league it once again is only Red Panda coming off the list in two seasons S94 & S95 so the tend is still very real!!

[Triller 1,592]

These kind of things will likely keep me from ever creating a goalie.  I know there isn't certainty in a 1000+ TPE player but it feels more tangible than it does for goalies.

 

I wonder how it would go if you build an 800 TPE goalie and banked everything afterwards for the small depreciation hits and then drop the banked 400-500 TPE on the last season for a 1200-1300 TPE run.  Skip the weird gap lol

[N0HBDY 1,108]

Goalie hybrid attributes imo are the next step for nerfing these cheap meta goalies

[scoop 3,382]

I think the update scale needs to be looked at. I would say that it too heavily punishes players at the top

 

As it stands, it takes 190 TPE for a goalie to improve a single attribute from 0 to 99 (yes, I know goalies start at 35, but those attribute points still matter)

 

0 to 90 requires 110 TPE

90 to 99 requires 80 TPE

 

That needs to be evened out a little bit more. 91% of the attribute points cost only 58% of the TPE. I think that's part of the problem, because the difference between 90 and 99 is hardly worth it.

 

My proposal would look something more like this

 

35 to 50: 1 TPE

50 to 80: 3 TPE

80 to 99: 5 TPE

 

0 to 90 requires 155 TPE

90 to 99 requires 45 TPE

 

Let's say a goalie just evenly distributes TPE into the seven goalie attributes. Here is the difference in builds at various TPA levels

 

Current update scale

	600 TPA	800 TPA	1000 TPA	1200 TPA
SK	85	90	94	97
SZ	85	90	94	97
AG	85	90	94	97
RB	85	90	94	97
SC	85	91	94	97
HS	85	91	94	97
RT	86	91	94	98

 

My proposed update scale

	600 TPA	800 TPA	1000 TPA	1200 TPA
SK	73	81	87	93
SZ	73	82	87	93
AG	73	82	87	93
RB	74	82	88	93
SC	74	82	88	93
HS	74	82	88	94
RT	74	82	88	94

 

 

[Pifferfish 428]

14 hours ago, N0HBDY said:

Goalie hybrid attributes imo are the next step for nerfing these cheap meta goalies

I think it's less that there are cheap meta goalies and more so the fact that there was a major lull in goalie creation from big earners due to a big push in S85-S87. Now that the league can use some high earners in net I think a bump could come. Also this analysis uses GAA which is factually the WORST goalie stat for tracking performance. Like, have a decent build and play for the team that gives up the least shots against and you can top that stat. SV% would have given a more honest evaluation of this phenomenon.

[Pifferfish 428]

9 minutes ago, scoop said:

I think the update scale needs to be looked at. I would say that it too heavily punishes players at the top

 

As it stands, it takes 190 TPE for a goalie to improve a single attribute from 0 to 99 (yes, I know goalies start at 35, but those attribute points still matter)

 

0 to 90 requires 110 TPE

90 to 99 requires 80 TPE

 

That needs to be evened out a little bit more. 91% of the attribute points cost only 58% of the TPE. I think that's part of the problem, because the difference between 90 and 99 is hardly worth it.

 

My proposal would look something more like this

 

35 to 50: 1 TPE

50 to 80: 3 TPE

80 to 99: 5 TPE

 

0 to 90 requires 155 TPE

90 to 99 requires 45 TPE

 

Let's say a goalie just evenly distributes TPE into the seven goalie attributes. Here is the difference in builds at various TPA levels

 

Current update scale

	600 TPA	800 TPA	1000 TPA	1200 TPA
SK	85	90	94	97
SZ	85	90	94	97
AG	85	90	94	97
RB	85	90	94	97
SC	85	91	94	97
HS	85	91	94	97
RT	86	91	94	98

 

My proposed update scale

	600 TPA	800 TPA	1000 TPA	1200 TPA
SK	73	81	87	93
SZ	73	82	87	93
AG	73	82	87	93
RB	74	82	88	93
SC	74	82	88	93
HS	74	82	88	94
RT	74	82	88	94

 

 

Only issue with this scale is at the level of the M, goalies would have a really hard time.

[scoop 3,382]

16 minutes ago, Pifferfish said:

Only issue with this scale is at the level of the M, goalies would have a really hard time.

Skaters already have to deal with this, because of hybrid attributes. Roughly speaking, 1 TPE = 0.3 to 0.6 attribute points.

 

But also, my overall proposal would not be limited to goalies.

 

The numbers could certainly be tweaked on either scale, but the general idea is that more of the total TPE that it takes to go from 0 to 99 should be shifted to earlier in the build. I don't think it should be linear, but I think the curve is too much where we have it.

 

 

Edited September 5 by scoop

[Pifferfish 428]

6 hours ago, scoop said:

Skaters already have to deal with this, because of hybrid attributes. Roughly speaking, 1 TPE = 0.3 to 0.6 attribute points.

 

But also, my overall proposal would not be limited to goalies.

 

The numbers could certainly be tweaked on either scale, but the general idea is that more of the total TPE that it takes to go from 0 to 99 should be shifted to earlier in the build. I don't think it should be linear, but I think the curve is too much where we have it.

 

 

Well I think it's honestly a good change for goalies considering the nature of how their attributes work.

[tcookie 861]

I don't think GAA is the right stat to use for this argument, although it's entirely possible SV% shows a similar result.

 

Looking at the Top Goalie award and voting results though, I think it's pretty hard to argue a lack of benefit to adding TPE as a goalie.

[Gaikoku-hito 1,990]

7 hours ago, tcookie said:

I don't think GAA is the right stat to use for this argument, although it's entirely possible SV% shows a similar result.

 

Looking at the Top Goalie award and voting results though, I think it's pretty hard to argue a lack of benefit to adding TPE as a goalie.

I was and likely I am still going to do a deeper dive into this using standing GAA as I have already collected the data, Sav%, winning% (maybe) and standings of these teams in-relation to where they ranked goaltending wise. This will give a clear indication that we have an issue of low TPE goaltenders having a boost at least during the regular season.

 

Also Award are only handed out to starting goaltenders and have to meet a game played to even qualify for the awards... so awards are not a good indicator.

[tcookie 861]

2 hours ago, Gaikoku-hito said:

I was and likely I am still going to do a deeper dive into this using standing GAA as I have already collected the data, Sav%, winning% (maybe) and standings of these teams in-relation to where they ranked goaltending wise. This will give a clear indication that we have an issue of low TPE goaltenders having a boost at least during the regular season.

 

Also Award are only handed out to starting goaltenders and have to meet a game played to even qualify for the awards... so awards are not a good indicator.

 

I guess it matters whether you're trying to show 1) if it's a good idea for teams to pay high TPE goalies considering the cap implications, or 2) if it's that low TPE goalies are just as good.

 

I should have assumed 1) given the title and most of the content, and it's an interesting question that looking at GAA and win% and standings definitely gives insight towards. Those are more team-oriented stats than goalie-oriented stats, which makes sense when you're approaching it from a team-building perspective. It is my experience in STHS that goaltending kinda helps, but the team around is way more important. Would be curious what actual data shows there.

 

I would push back against the idea of 2), but that's probably not the right idea anyway

[Gaikoku-hito 1,990]

50 minutes ago, tcookie said:

 

I guess it matters whether you're trying to show 1) if it's a good idea for teams to pay high TPE goalies considering the cap implications, or 2) if it's that low TPE goalies are just as good.

 

I should have assumed 1) given the title and most of the content, and it's an interesting question that looking at GAA and win% and standings definitely gives insight towards. Those are more team-oriented stats than goalie-oriented stats, which makes sense when you're approaching it from a team-building perspective. It is my experience in STHS that goaltending kinda helps, but the team around is way more important. Would be curious what actual data shows there.

 

I would push back against the idea of 2), but that's probably not the right idea anyway

1. My experience and a trend that I am notice is the fact that goaltending doesn`t really matter if the team is really good; at least in the regular season. This is what I was starting to look at through my data collect; which isn`t completed and will likely lead to a Media spot instead of this quick .com article. GAA is rather suggesting that my hutch is some what correct. Yes, It not the best stat to use only as Back-up only get weak teams and GAA is a team stat; which is why I want to collect more data to see if this is actually true.

 

2.

Quote

if it's that low TPE goalies are just as good.

Well, Yes & No!! I guess the point I am looking at is the fact that we have seen teams including this season lead or punch above everyones expectations while having either no goaltender (Bot) or a very low earning goaltender just coming into the league. Which rather suggest that we don`t need a 800+ TPE goaltender so likely having a goaltender in the high 700 TPE range will be more cost effective and allow a team to spend the money else where to be more effective than a team that pays a goaltender 5M - 6M. But the fact that I think the league has a bit of issue with low earning TPE goaltenders allowing their teams a chance to win comparison to team that has more effective option in Goal and offensively. 

 

I guess I stop beating around the bush here and just say what I am thinking:

Toronto leading the conferences is a joke and the league should be embarrassed that a team with 480 TPE goaltender is leading the Conferences. Toronto goaltender has .922sav%, 2.44GAA & 5 SO!! This isn`t the first time that we have seen this!! Suggesting that something isn`t working right with STHS or the gap between tenders isn`t big enough so why pay for a 5-6M goaltender when a 2M goalie is currently killing the league and the NA conference?

 

Yes, I know RL you have your Stewart Skinners etc.... but this isn`t the RL and we are talking more of a David Ayres the E-bug dominating the VHL!!

[Daniel Janser 2,111]

7 hours ago, Gaikoku-hito said:

Well, Yes & No!! I guess the point I am looking at is the fact that we have seen teams including this season lead or punch above everyones expectations while having either no goaltender (Bot) or a very low earning goaltender just coming into the league. Which rather suggest that we don`t need a 800+ TPE goaltender so likely having a goaltender in the high 700 TPE range will be more cost effective and allow a team to spend the money else where to be more effective than a team that pays a goaltender 5M - 6M. But the fact that I think the league has a bit of issue with low earning TPE goaltenders allowing their teams a chance to win comparison to team that has more effective option in Goal and offensively. 

I see your point and I do not necessarily disagree. However, I would like to bring up an example of my personal (painful) experience to counter.

 

In S86 Calgary won the Victor(y) Cup with an IA netminder who earned 716 TPE during his career, but with a very front-heavy team (Landon Wolanin, Leandro Gonçalves and yours truly, amongst others). First round of playoffs was lights out. Next season with basically the same team and Lindbergh (1600+ TPE) in net, Calgary won the CC, but not the Vic Cup.

Now, if we assume that every GM's ultimate goal is the Continental Cup and if we look at the winners of the post-meta seasons, we can see a pattern. IMO you do not pay the netminder for the regular season (there are enough games there to somewhat compensate lackadaisical goaltending), but for the playoff performance.

 

S94: Moscow had power earner Syko (1100+ TPE) in net.

S93: Seattle had Rask between the pipes, who also had 1400+ career TPE

S92: Tucker (1300+ TPE) minded the net for DC

S91: Castle (1700+ TPE) was in crease for Toronto

S90: Prague had Murdock on guard duty (1600+ TPE)

S89: Davos' Summers (1800+ TPE) was a league of his own 

S88: Teno (1700+ TPE) is a netminding Legend for London

S87: Lindbergh (1600+ TPE) for Calgary

S86: Fuhr (1400+ TPE) for Vancouver

S85: Utonium (1200+ TPE) for DC

S84: Wumbo (600+ TPE) for Warsaw (which seems to be the outlier on this list)

S83: Em Em Flex (600+ TPE, but cut his career short and retired after the cup with five more seasons left in his career)

 

I will admit, I only looked at the career TPE, not the TPA/TPE at the time of winning the cup. But I think it still shows that with one exception (Wumbo) the cup winning netminders in the recent past have been max earners or so close to it, it does not make a difference. And since on pays the cap based on TPE not TPA this is why GM's 'overpay' netminders. 

 

BTW: in seven of the twelve seasons mentioned above the Playoff MVP went to a goalie (marked in yellow, Teno won the Kanou in S92 without even making the final).

 

Edited September 6 by Daniel Janser

[Pifferfish 428]

4 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

I see your point and I do not necessarily disagree. However, I would like to bring up an example of my personal (painful) experience to counter.

 

In S86 Calgary won the Victor(y) Cup with an IA netminder who earned 716 TPE during his career, but with a very front-heavy team (Landon Wolanin, Leandro Gonçalves and yours truly, amongst others). First round of playoffs was lights out. Next season with basically the same team and Lindbergh (1600+ TPE) in net, Calgary won the CC, but not the Vic Cup.

Now, if we assume that every GM's ultimate goal is the Continental Cup and if we look at the winners of the post-meta seasons, we can see a pattern. IMO you do not pay the netminder for the regular season (there are enough games there to somewhat compensate lackadaisical goaltending), but for the playoff performance.

 

S94: Moscow had power earner Syko (1100+ TPE) in net.

S93: Seattle had Rask between the pipes, who also had 1400+ career TPE

S92: Tucker (1300+ TPE) minded the net for DC

S91: Castle (1700+ TPE) was in crease for Toronto

S90: Prague had Murdock on guard duty (1600+ TPE)

S89: Davos' Summers (1800+ TPE) was a league of his own 

S88: Teno (1700+ TPE) is a netminding Legend for London

S87: Lindbergh (1600+ TPE) for Calgary

S86: Fuhr (1400+ TPE) for Vancouver

S85: Utonium (1200+ TPE) for DC

S84: Wumbo (600+ TPE) for Warsaw (which seems to be the outlier on this list)

S83: Em Em Flex (600+ TPE, but cut his career short and retired after the cup with five more seasons left in his career)

 

I will admit, I only looked at the career TPE, not the TPA/TPE at the time of winning the cup. But I think it still shows that with one exception (Wumbo) the cup winning netminders in the recent past have been max earners or so close to it, it does not make a difference. And since on pays the cap based on TPE not TPA this is why GM's 'overpay' netminders. 

 

For each season you can estimate about 150 TPE ish from their final and be in the right region. So summer would be around 1000-1200 ish TPE by that estimation. Which still makes your point valid. Look at Malmo for 3 straight seasons. No need to go farther than that sample size. Strong defensive team hides their weakness in net, and a stronger goalie steals more games in the playoffs. I also think it stands to reason that strength of schedule plays a major roll. Your 700 TPE goalie might farm really nice stats against the league's bottom feeders, but the post season is a who's who of the top 8 teams in the league. I seriously wish there was a tracked stat on the portal in the standings for record against teams above .500, would be interesting to see what teams are actually really good.

[Gaikoku-hito 1,990]

7 hours ago, Daniel Janser said:

I see your point and I do not necessarily disagree. However, I would like to bring up an example of my personal (painful) experience to counter.

 

In S86 Calgary won the Victor(y) Cup with an IA netminder who earned 716 TPE during his career, but with a very front-heavy team (Landon Wolanin, Leandro Gonçalves and yours truly, amongst others). First round of playoffs was lights out. Next season with basically the same team and Lindbergh (1600+ TPE) in net, Calgary won the CC, but not the Vic Cup.

Now, if we assume that every GM's ultimate goal is the Continental Cup and if we look at the winners of the post-meta seasons, we can see a pattern. IMO you do not pay the netminder for the regular season (there are enough games there to somewhat compensate lackadaisical goaltending), but for the playoff performance.

 

S94: Moscow had power earner Syko (1100+ TPE) in net.

S93: Seattle had Rask between the pipes, who also had 1400+ career TPE

S92: Tucker (1300+ TPE) minded the net for DC

S91: Castle (1700+ TPE) was in crease for Toronto

S90: Prague had Murdock on guard duty (1600+ TPE)

S89: Davos' Summers (1800+ TPE) was a league of his own 

S88: Teno (1700+ TPE) is a netminding Legend for London

S87: Lindbergh (1600+ TPE) for Calgary

S86: Fuhr (1400+ TPE) for Vancouver

S85: Utonium (1200+ TPE) for DC

S84: Wumbo (600+ TPE) for Warsaw (which seems to be the outlier on this list)

S83: Em Em Flex (600+ TPE, but cut his career short and retired after the cup with five more seasons left in his career)

 

I will admit, I only looked at the career TPE, not the TPA/TPE at the time of winning the cup. But I think it still shows that with one exception (Wumbo) the cup winning netminders in the recent past have been max earners or so close to it, it does not make a difference. And since on pays the cap based on TPE not TPA this is why GM's 'overpay' netminders. 

 

BTW: in seven of the twelve seasons mentioned above the Playoff MVP went to a goalie (marked in yellow, Teno won the Kanou in S92 without even making the final).

 

110% agree that goaltending makes a huge difference comes to Play-offs.