S48 Brett Slobodzian Trophy Voting

[Kendrick 4,741]

2 minutes ago, der meister said:

 

Yeah. Fair point. I understand the difference between the two, but by the same token, it *is* a little silly to have two different things. 

Not really. Several leagues do it in real life as well. One is the Most Outstanding regardless of the team or position. The other is Most Valuable to his teams success. They aren't even the same category.

[der meister 3,186]

Just now, Kendrick said:

Not really. Several leagues do it in real life as well. One is the Most Outstanding regardless of the team or position. The other is Most Valuable to his teams success. They aren't even the same category.

 

Eh. I'm 50/50 on it. I'm fine with it here, but it seems redundant, especially when there are awards such as best defensive defender that should exist and don't. 

[Kendrick 4,741]

3 hours ago, der meister said:

 

Eh. I'm 50/50 on it. I'm fine with it here, but it seems redundant, especially when there are awards such as best defensive defender that should exist and don't. 

I pitched that in the BOG, but @Victor actually hinted that its a wasted award when you break it down. He can give you a lowdown on that

[der meister 3,186]

6 hours ago, Kendrick said:

I pitched that in the BOG, but @Victor actually hinted that its a wasted award when you break it down. He can give you a lowdown on that

 

Forwards have so many more awards than defenders. Separating best offensive and best defensive defender just makes too much sense. Do a Bobby Orr and a Doug Harvey, you know? 

[Victor 10,938]

1 hour ago, der meister said:

 

Forwards have so many more awards than defenders. Separating best offensive and best defensive defender just makes too much sense. Do a Bobby Orr and a Doug Harvey, you know? 

The main issue is that hits and blocked shots would be the metric to judge by and they, especially blocked shots, aren't usually related to a defenceman's skill, but rather how shit their team is.

[boubabi 4,725]

19 hours ago, Draper said:

 

I am kind of surprised that Sandro/Karnage haven't gotten more votes.

Business as usual

[der meister 3,186]

5 minutes ago, Victor said:

The main issue is that hits and blocked shots would be the metric to judge by and they, especially blocked shots, aren't usually related to a defenceman's skill, but rather how shit their team is.

 

And the lack of tracking in the GA/TA department.

[Victor 10,938]

1 minute ago, der meister said:

 

And the lack of tracking in the GA/TA department.

well that's because that sim version is a clusterfuck

[evrydayimbyfuglien 600]

 

1 minute ago, der meister said:

 

And the lack of tracking in the GA/TA department.

You mean I'm not the only one who wishes this was tracked?

[der meister 3,186]

1 minute ago, Victor said:

well that's because that sim version is a clusterfuck

 

Isn't there a version 3.x out now? Has that been tried? 

[Victor 10,938]

1 minute ago, der meister said:

 

Isn't there a version 3.x out now? Has that been tried? 

That's v2 but with annual subscription fee.

[boubabi 4,725]

Making this an open vote is just as credible as the all star vote in the nhl. 

[evrydayimbyfuglien 600]

12 minutes ago, boubabi said:

Making this an open vote is just as credible as the all star vote in the nhl. 

Do you think that 32 more hits, 9 less PIMS, 13 more shot blocks (especially when we're talking numbers as low as they are) are "more outstanding" than 15 more points, 3 more game winning goals, a +26 better +/-?

 

Edit: I misread the stats originally.

Edited May 13, 2016 by evrydayimbyfuglien

[Victor 10,938]

Just now, evrydayimbyfuglien said:

Do you think that 32 more hits and 13 more shot blocks (especially when we're talking numbers as low as they are) are "more outstanding" than 15 more points, 3 more game winning goals, a +6 better +/-, and 17 less PIMs?

that last bit is probably Karnage's best chance

[evrydayimbyfuglien 600]

Just now, Victor said:

that last bit is probably Karnage's best chance

Yeah, and I read the stats wrong, Karnage had 9 less PIMs. 

[Victor 10,938]

Just now, evrydayimbyfuglien said:

Yeah, and I read the stats wrong, Karnage had 9 less PIMs. 

Oh nevermind, then Reencarnacion's PIM king crown is safe.

 

M-O-P M-O-P

[der meister 3,186]

31 minutes ago, Victor said:

That's v2 but with annual subscription fee.

 

Well that's bullshit.

[Kendrick 4,741]

Doesn't get the votes he wants and doesn't lead by popular opinion, whines about the system. Broken record

[Will 4,660]

5 hours ago, der meister said:

 

Well that's bullshit.

 

Yeah, we've really  tried to get v2 working so we can get TAs/GAs and that jazz for you guys but we just can't it produce decent results the way the league is. We're talking like, consistent 15-goal games

 

Based on my testing and research on STHS forum, the only way we can get realistic results is to bring attributes way down and make high attributes (like 80+) much harder to get to. Basically a 99 in something is a lot more effective in the new version than in the one we're on, and that's why the scoring is so ridiculous when we try to test on the new version - because so many people very high attributes, and our small roster sizes mean we're often playing against CPU's with 40s in everything. Thus, I have concluded that the only way v2 will ever work for us is if we drastically reduce attributes somehow. 

 

I tested this by reducing everyone in the league's Passing and Scoring attribute by 25 points and actually I got some results fairly similar to what you would expect on the current sim. 

 

 

[evrydayimbyfuglien 600]

4 minutes ago, Draper said:

 

Yeah, we've really  tried to get v2 working so we can get TAs/GAs and that jazz for you guys but we just can't it produce decent results the way the league is. We're talking like, consistent 15-goal games

 

Based on my testing and research on STHS forum, the only way we can get realistic results is to bring attributes way down and make high attributes (like 80+) much harder to get to. Basically a 99 in something is a lot more effective in the new version than in the one we're on, and that's why the scoring is so ridiculous when we try to test on the new version - because so many people very high attributes, and our small roster sizes mean we're often playing against CPU's with 40s in everything. Thus, I have concluded that the only way v2 will ever work for us is if we drastically reduce attributes somehow. 

 

I tested this by reducing everyone in the league's Passing and Scoring attribute by 25 points and actually I got some results fairly similar to what you would expect on the current sim. 

 

 

Would there be any chance we could see the index for some of these test sims so we can see the numbers, too? I'm just curious what it all looks like.

[Will 4,660]

Yeah I can try to test a full-season and upload it later

[evrydayimbyfuglien 600]

5 minutes ago, Draper said:

Yeah I can try to test a full-season and upload it later

No rush

[Devise 4,475]

On 5/13/2016 at 7:53 AM, Victor said:

well that's because that sim version is a clusterfuck

 

Stop saying that please. This is one area I at least recognize the push for change. Sterling and Jardy did a series of a few tests without playing with much sliders. We really haven't given it the deep dive it deserves to see if we can actually get it to work. Part of that is our own lazyness tbh. I'm not saying that means it will work, but in that same token it works perfectly fine for the NHL rosters. So obviously there is SOMETHING we aren't doing. I don't know why we haven't just contacted Simon ourselves and said "hey, we are sick of using the old sim engine but whenever we do test sims with the new one it messes with our stats. Considering our support to your service over the years, help us out would ya?"

[Devise 4,475]

On 5/13/2016 at 1:55 PM, Draper said:

 

Yeah, we've really  tried to get v2 working so we can get TAs/GAs and that jazz for you guys but we just can't it produce decent results the way the league is. We're talking like, consistent 15-goal games

 

Based on my testing and research on STHS forum, the only way we can get realistic results is to bring attributes way down and make high attributes (like 80+) much harder to get to. Basically a 99 in something is a lot more effective in the new version than in the one we're on, and that's why the scoring is so ridiculous when we try to test on the new version - because so many people very high attributes, and our small roster sizes mean we're often playing against CPU's with 40s in everything. Thus, I have concluded that the only way v2 will ever work for us is if we drastically reduce attributes somehow. 

 

I tested this by reducing everyone in the league's Passing and Scoring attribute by 25 points and actually I got some results fairly similar to what you would expect on the current sim. 

 

 

 

Just read this after I posted. I think it would be interesting if we were able to get it to work with lower attributes, if we then changed the update scale (made it harsher more quickly, such as at 60-70 it starts going from 1-2 etc.) and then just had people re-distribute their current TPE levels at the new scale. If we mathed it out correctly the only change we should actually see is lower attribute numbers, but the stats on in the sim should stay the same. 

[Devise 4,475]

Also triple post because fuck it. I'm confused by some of the people making comments about how Sandro/Karnage should have more votes. I mean, I agree they had great seasons. But it isn't like Edwin is robbing them here. The dude had the most points by 12, had the most goals (Karnage was 10 goals off him) and still potted 330+ hits, good for second in the league. Karnage was a beast physically this season, and he rightfully dominates the two way forward category by a country mile. While Clegane had a very strong season, it wasn't one of those unfathomable ones that some goalies have had, and even still he has the second most votes, with almost 10. 

 

Maybe I'm crazy but it isn't that strange to me that the person leading this award vote is arguably the most deserving candidate statistically.