Login

.bojo · 12-07-2016, 02:47 PM

that sounds interesting pandar, but idk how to enforce something like that when all we can do is set the desired playing time.

Plus power plays/penalty kills can vary the time as well.

ArGarBarGar · 12-07-2016, 02:50 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Tomen@Dec 7 2016, 02:47 PM
I know it is only preseason and the sample size is very small(8 games)but this is the playing time for the  forwards currently.

Alonzo Garbanzo Final Tallies (Among Defensemen):
2nd in Goals (208), All-Time Assists Leader (765)*, All-Time Points Leader (973), 3rd in Hits (2587), All-Time Blocked Shots Leader (1882)*
*All-Time Leader Among All Skaters
Player Profile | Update Thread
[Image: IeEV7Iv.png]

Pandar · 12-07-2016, 02:58 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Bojo@Dec 7 2016, 01:47 PM
that sounds interesting pandar, but idk how to enforce something like that when all we can do is set the desired playing time.

Plus power plays/penalty kills can vary the time as well.

Not sure, tbh. Could be something where we start based on desired numbers, and then GMs have to tweak percentages or line compositions to stay under the cap. Numbers would then be confirmed at the end of the season, and GMs who are found to be out of compliance face a penalty in the following season (e.g. Top TPE player of offending category is suspended for a game). Again, just spit-balling. It would be too tough to monitor on a rolling basis, but as a 1-time check at the end of the season, it wouldn't be too bad, I don't think.

This would also add an element of strategy. If GMs see that they're having a hard time complying down the stretch, they might have to bench players/drastically reduce minutes to avoid the penalty. So they could choose to play their top players less early in the season and save them for playoff pushes or "rest" them against weaker opponents where they're not needed as badly.

akamai · 12-07-2016, 03:06 PM

Could we do something like "your top two lines cannot exceed a combined total of X% wanted ice time"?

I don't want to penalize teams who've worked to have depth for bringing on and calling up active players who've just come out of juniors since it will take so long for them to matter, statistically. That said, I don't really want to punish teams who are fielding a roster, period, by inactive signings and chewing gum either, but the buck has to stop somewhere, and it's discouraging to the other teams if a very thin roster with a few stars at the top are beating a team with more actives, more balance, and better depth.

If it's a combo of the top two lines, then yes, you can still have a Minnesota, and yes, you can still have a Manhattan, but it means they're forced to sacrifice some performance out of their next-best line if they choose to play their ice time that way.

***WannabeFinn*** · 12-07-2016, 03:11 PM

hows about we don't enforce any sort or caps or limits and just continue to publicly shame those who go overboard Ninja

Eggy216 · 12-07-2016, 03:17 PM

Quote:Originally posted by akamai@Dec 7 2016, 03:06 PM
Could we do something like "your top two lines cannot exceed a combined total of X% wanted ice time"?

I don't want to penalize teams who've worked to have depth for bringing on and calling up active players who've just come out of juniors since it will take so long for them to matter, statistically. That said, I don't really want to punish teams who are fielding a roster, period, by inactive signings and chewing gum either, but the buck has to stop somewhere, and it's discouraging to the other teams if a very thin roster with a few stars at the top are beating a team with more actives, more balance, and better depth.

If it's a combo of the top two lines, then yes, you can still have a Minnesota, and yes, you can still have a Manhattan, but it means they're forced to sacrifice some performance out of their next-best line if they choose to play their ice time that way.

It's a start, but I could do say 25/25/25/25 on every line and get around that without a problem while keeping a 6 forward system.

Possum Queen · 12-07-2016, 03:20 PM

While I understand and agree with the reasons for putting some sort of limit on ice time, I'd be much more concerned if the teams doing this were succeeding. As it stands, I wouldn't consider them the top teams in the league, and it seems like teams with actual depth are consistently outperforming them.

Pandar · 12-07-2016, 03:54 PM

Quote:Originally posted by akamai+Dec 7 2016, 02:06 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (akamai @ Dec 7 2016, 02:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Could we do something like "your top two lines cannot exceed a combined total of X% wanted ice time"?

I don't want to penalize teams who've worked to have depth for bringing on and calling up active players who've just come out of juniors since it will take so long for them to matter, statistically. That said, I don't really want to punish teams who are fielding a roster, period, by inactive signings and chewing gum either, but the buck has to stop somewhere, and it's discouraging to the other teams if a very thin roster with a few stars at the top are beating a team with more actives, more balance, and better depth.

If it's a combo of the top two lines, then yes, you can still have a Minnesota, and yes, you can still have a Manhattan, but it means they're forced to sacrifice some performance out of their next-best line if they choose to play their ice time that way.[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-Eggy216@Dec 7 2016, 02:17 PM

It's a start, but I could do say 25/25/25/25 on every line and get around that without a problem while keeping a 6 forward system.[/quote]

So you'd probably need it to be that the players of the first two lines cannot exceed some total percent.

This would probably lead to something like no six forwards can account for more than 75% of total EV ice time. Viewed differently, there are 300% points available to forwards (100% * 3 forwards). If you allowed your top 6 to play 75% of EV time, they would account for 225 percentage points. This would allow a GM to do something like:
Line 1: 40
Line 2: 35
Line 3: 25
Line 4: 0

OR double-shift a player and run lines 1 and 2 for lower amounts, but be able to run one or more players from these lines on lines 3 and 4.

If we wanted to base it on individual play instead, we could look at the following example. Let's say that we're okay with a 3 line system for teams on the whole. League average last season was 7.7 PIMs per game per team. So let's round up to 8. That means each game will have 8 minutes of PK time and PP time on average, leaving 44 minutes of 5v5 time. If your best forward gets 50% PP time and 50% (seems to be pretty common based on the lines listed for last season) he'll get 8 minutes of ice-time there. If we'd like a cap of 24 minutes for a forward, that means he could play, at most, 16 of the remaining 44 minutes, which is about 36%. So if you make it that no player can exceed 36% EV strength time, and no more than 100% of PP and PK combined (e.g. Nathan Russell plays 70% PP, he can only play 30% PK), then we would, in theory be right around that 24 minute mark. If you wanted, you could do something like "For every additional 1% of EV time over 36%, a player loses 5% of special teams play, you could help keep it balanced out. E.G. Sean Leonidas plays 40% EV time. This is 4% over 36, so his PP+PK can only be 80%

Blues · 12-07-2016, 04:00 PM

We don't need to change something that isn't negatively impacting the league. End of story.

Blues · 12-07-2016, 04:01 PM

What are the reasons people think it needs to be changed?

***WannabeFinn*** · 12-07-2016, 04:03 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Blues@Dec 7 2016, 04:01 PM
What are the reasons people think it needs to be changed?

McZ hatred

Muerto · 12-07-2016, 04:03 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Blues@Dec 7 2016, 01:01 PM
What are the reasons people think it needs to be changed?

because McZ

Boomcheck · 12-07-2016, 04:10 PM

A bunch of people in the thread are right about teams using high ice time for forwards usually aren't good but may overlook the simple fact that they can still succeed. How? They can make the playoffs. There's plenty of examples but you can definitely make the playoffs spamming a certain line or player. Thing is that usually the majority of the teams deploying these methods get absolutely wrecked in the playoffs due to a lack of depth and are trounced out of the first round.

Even S19'S CoC's NEW team did well in the regular season even with inactives due to CoC logging those monster minutes and putting up ridic numbers, but got bodied in the post-season.

I still think it's an issue though. This also probably is annoying during awards voting and whatnot too.

I don't care for a minimum cap for every player, that's not even the main concern. It's these guys playing 26-28+ mins a game. Just put a cap--Not on % but for the end of the season. That the max a forward can go to is like 23-24.5 or something for AMG and punish the teams if they go over or something.

Also Theo Kane a stud, what a beast

Boomcheck · 12-07-2016, 04:11 PM

McZ's player on Seattle first started playing himself a ridic amount of minutes and probably started this trend

Wally · 12-07-2016, 04:33 PM

Starter and Backup goalies must split each game 50/50 and every team should be awarded participation TPE at the end of every season.

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us