• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

2020-21 Season and Draft Discussion

Thunder

Well-known member
I assumed that 0.940 and onward were getting the same 0.006point(s) for every0.001SV% as the 0.93 to 0.939 bracket.
Just that they were not getting a bigger bonus than 0.0006 and that the next bonus was the shutout.

I'm only understanding now that 0.940 gets 0.0000 while 0.939 get 0.0006

Now it finally makes sense as to why you would say a goaltender is penalised for being better.

Seems like a no-brainer that at the very least the 0.0006 be extended all the way to 1.000
 

Thunder

Well-known member
Guess my brain was not fully awake when I read Iceman's post this morning.
Post was well written and could not have been clearer.

Oh well, COVID era really brought some challenges mentally, some times stuff just don't process.
 

Iceman

Active member
I hope most of us are able to maintain that calmness during this discussion...I don't want to see anybody quit over this! Tone's definitely harder to tell in writing. Personally I'm not angry at all. I just think there's a problem/mistake with using this system to reward lower save percentages and not higher ones.

The whole debate of "Do we want goalies to be valued higher/lower/same as skaters?" seems to me like an off-season kind of issue. And while we may disagree on that philosophically, that's really up to whoever started the league and runs it. Either way, the point value system at least has some logic behind it.

The specific save percentage issue, I feel (just my opinion) seems like a mistake/problem rather than a philosophical issue. For whatever reason, it was decided that save percentage was something that deserved bonus points. Okay, that's fine (I would personally agree). But I just see no logical way to justify rewarding it at good levels and saying it's worth 0 at better levels.

So to me, that's a fix that should be considered in-season (similar to how we just changed the games played max IN-SEASON, because it made logical sense to do so).

I'll toss out a few suggestions because I dislike people who complain about something without proposing a way to fix it. LOL...
 

axlsalinger

Well-known member
Just remember that the Max GP isn't a "rule change" per se, it's actually keeping the same rule in place since this is now a 56-game season, and not an 82-game season. Obviously it would make no sense whatsoever to implement that change to lower max GP next off-season, since the NHL should be going right back to 82 games.
 

Iceman

Active member
I totally hear you about the butterfly effect, so I don't want to pretend to have perfect answers. I have no experience being commissioner on fantrax. But here are a few possibilities that seem like logical options to me:

1) The save percentage system was clearly designed to go up in steady increments. It would seem logical to continue those same increments from .940 - .949, .950 - .959, etc, all the way up to .999. It would also seem logical that the bonus points given continue the same steady increase they have at the lower levels.

2) If there are fears that somehow the better goalies will be rewarded TOO much by the above system, then at the very least, putting in one final category with a larger range, like .940 - .999 with a corresponding bonus would make sense. No goalie would be denied a benefit while performing better than a different goalie who was rewarded.

3) If there is fear that goalies are ALREADY too highly rewarded, removing the save percentage bonuses entirely would at least be a logical way to level the playing field. I don't favour this option, but it's better than rewarding the middle tier of save percentage performance and not the higher end.
 

Iceman

Active member
Just remember that the Max GP isn't a "rule change" per se, it's actually keeping the same rule in place since this is now a 56-game season, and not an 82-game season. Obviously it would make no sense whatsoever to implement that change to lower max GP next off-season, since the NHL should be going right back to 82 games.
Totally agree. I guess I'm just saying that there is a reason to do some things in season (and a precedent set for doing that), if it makes no sense whatsoever to leave something as it was previously set. That's how I feel about the existing save percentage system, though I always leave open the possibility that I could be missing something.
 

axlsalinger

Well-known member
I've asked a couple of people involved in the creation of the league, and no one seems to remember exactly who came up with these settings in the first place lol. Even though I have a feeling that there is a reason for the way it's set up, I can't justify leaving it as is without that explanation.

There was a big debate on the board back then that save percentage was basically the only stat worth monitoring for goalies. While that is still debatable to some extent, they were right that it's by far the most important stat.

Unless some new info comes in, we will definitely add additional scoring to cover that .940-.999 window.
 

trujaysfan

Well-known member
I've asked a couple of people involved in the creation of the league, and no one seems to remember exactly who came up with these settings in the first place lol. Even though I have a feeling that there is a reason for the way it's set up, I can't justify leaving it as is without that explanation.

There was a big debate on the board back then that save percentage was basically the only stat worth monitoring for goalies. While that is still debatable to some extent, they were right that it's by far the most important stat.

Unless some new info comes in, we will definitely add additional scoring to cover that .940-.999 window.
Wasnt the year 1 goalie scoring based on year end sv % for a goalie who played 10 or more games?

That system was gamed and the reason fergy? Won that year over ME?

With the current system wouldnt it make more sense to get rid of save % and just go pure svs made and goals against. Save % would over value a relief appearance.
 

axlsalinger

Well-known member
Yeah, Blueman gamed the system to beat M.E. in Year 1. I can't remember the exact math, but the system was tweaked to fix that problem in year 2. This current system seems pretty convoluted but does work pretty well. No idea why they didn't add save % points for that upper tier.
 

The Green Hornet

Well-known member
it is definitely weird that there is seemingly an arbitrary cut off where save percentage is no longer calculated. its something that needs to be very carefully adjusted not to throw the scoring out of whack. it really needs to wait for the off-season though, we have had this goalie scoring system for 9 years. every team and player was drafted under the valuation of it, so the idea that it is so broken it needs to be fixed in the middle of an ongoing season is ridiculous
 

Thunder

Well-known member
I've already stated my position that any scoring changes in a cash league should happen in the off-season.

Like Axl said, the GP changes should not be considered a scoring change or a rule change.
Any other GP calculation other than proportion for a 56 GP season would have been a change though, like lowering the minimum to take into consideration COVID or something. That would have been a change that would have had to be discussed prior to the start of the season.
We didn't do that so no problem here.

As for the 0.940 to 1.000 window, any change made right now would be considered a scoring change, regardless of how much sense it makes.
Although because it makes so much sense, I would not have any problem with an immediate change if we would only extend the bonus from the 0.930 - 0.939 bracket.

0.006point(s) for every 0.001SV% from 0.930 - 1.000

I would be strongly against any other scoring changes than that before next off-season.

I would also support the status quo until next off-season, as we've already "bet" our money on the present rules, however flawed, and that also means something.

Either way I do not care.
 
Last edited:

Thunder

Well-known member
Damn if McDavid / Draisaitl keeps on having performances like last night against the Sens, there is no catching Kritter / HP 😨
 

Markett

Member
Hey guys,
On another issue, I just saw an hour after roster lock that the Devils won’t be playing their next three games normally scheduled for February 2, 4 and 6. I know we’re pretty strict about that usually and we’re responsible for checking our roster before but from what I saw, the league announced it at around 6:20, not even an hour before our roster lock. This includes two games against Pittsburgh and one against NYR.

What do we do about that? It is a COVID related issue but I know I’m not the only one who put NJ players on their active roster this week.
 

axlsalinger

Well-known member
It's gonna be a problem all season for all leagues. Once lock time passes, just like an injury there's nothing we can do about it.
 

Markett

Member
I know that. I inquired about it just before the games started, well one game had started, thinking I’d get an answer fast but nobody did. I know we all got our lives going on and it’s not easy to get ahold of everyone. I guess, so close to the roster lock, I thought we were still able to do something about it. I understand the situation. I’m not mad about it but I certainly wish I’d seen that before, being in the race for no5. But I know I’m not the only one.
Cheers
 

BG

Well-known member
If we are discussing options for goalie scoring , I wonder what the purpose of the SV% bonus was? SV% is effectively awarded in the GA(-0.55) and SV(+0.055) stats.
 

trujaysfan

Well-known member
If we are discussing options for goalie scoring , I wonder what the purpose of the SV% bonus was? SV% is effectively awarded in the GA(-0.55) and SV(+0.055) stats.
Exactly... sv % would inflate sub appearances
 
Top