Titre: Questions & Answers

Dear Sirs,

If you have
100-80-50 > 130-80-30 and
100-80-50 > 80-80-80

then, starting from

80-80-30

is better to add up

+20-0+20
than
+50 0 0

and

+20-0+20
than 0 0 50.

Then, at some point between 50 and 80, adding strength to the third atribute becomes non-optimal. You would rather add some strength to the first atribute.

But, if this is true that the game engine does not differs the two secondary atributes, then something that is true for the third atribute must be true for the second.

Then, the optimum bundle of skills for a player lies somewhere inside

100 - (50, 80) - (50, 80).

The expression above is the math translation to language text in the guide.

Now, as a mere speculation from a Bayesian economist:

If the guide is 100% correct on this part, I would go for 100-65-65.

Seems reasobale. Have you noticed something else in the guide. When they list the bundles They go left to right on the 2 secondary attys but not for goaltender. They go Goal:Techass that always left me thinking perhaps the wieghting wasn't equal. Though no one has ever said it was not for the 2 secondaries. Any opinion on this observation regaurding the guide?

Good point. I myself did not believe (until this re-view of the guide) that the secondary attys were equally important.

On the other hand, consider this: if the two secondary attys are indeed equally important, the order between them do not matter. Thus, the reverse writing order you pointed is not inconsistent with equal importance for secondary attys. So, no possibility of rejecting any of both hypothesis.

Another point to consider in the player´s building is the fact that the optimum balance of the atributes may be different for goalies, defs, centers and wings.

But here once more we do not have enough information nor empirical data for a conclusion, so I´ll just keep around the 3:2:2 ratio for a while.

I firmly believe the 2 secondary numbers are never the same, and the 3rd # is the lowest of the 3. That's what led me to train my players at 100-80-70 back in the start of season 1. I've since changed to 100-75-50 since my players on the 2-1-1 system did not work as well.

Thought about the position having different builds that are effective. I've found 2 winger builds alone that work. Defense I have 1 build. Goalie mirrors defense. I tried jut 60% pass and my 2 guys got horrible. Just my experience. Reading the guide section on player attys it seems to refer to bundle build for any position then says X bundle is better than Y bundle Not sure I'm interpreting it correctly though.

I've tried position builds as well. My best forward build mirrors my defensemen and goalie build after testing.

Dear TB, if there was something to assure me the 2 secondary atributes are not equal, then I would go on a 100-70-60 basis.

Please note that all these bundles we are talking about lie inside the 100-50-50 to 100-80-80 range that the guide implies.

This is possible, and that´s very important data you collected. But I got to say that a goalie or a Dman with 60% pass to get horrible is disturbing for me.

Wasn't clear it was goalies. Defensemen got better up to 75% pass which is what I build these days for D-men. I don't know what else to tell you. Except I haven't stopped trying different builds in the same position. When I see or think of something different I try a player or 2 at the new build and see how they perform versus the old build. In the end you have to try what you feel comfortable with. But trying a couple guys different at 4:3:2 or 2:1:1 won't hurt much. I'm trying a couple 2:1:1 builds now as so many top clubs are using it at the moment. Can't hurt to retry things again every now and then.

I tried 10:8:7 for Dmen some time ago and it worked very well. I am considering to change it to 3:2:2, let´s see how it gets. 60% pass for a Dman seems little to me but should not be low enough to make him awful. I´ll make some experiments and give you some info on that.

Just remembering, some guy said that, once we are not sure about the ideal ratio, we could deslocate the training rate to fit to the attys quality. This idea also seems pretty logical for me.

I am curious, when you guys talk about your experiences with ratios on D-men, what do you use as the basis for deciding how it affects them? Especially for my 3rd and 4th line D-men, I don't expect them to get a lot of points regardless, so even over the course of 10-15 games, or even longer, a lot of variation there could be put down to luck. You could look at +/-, but that's really a reflection of the whole line, and I find it hard to separate individual performance from that of the line.

So my questions are, how do you evaluate how well an individual is performing (for various positions), and how long do you give it before you conclude that a change in performance is due to a change in ratio, as opposed to short-term luck/variation?

Thanks guys. This has been an interesting discussion to say the least.

The question is, what stats do you track for your players?

I personally have a spreadsheet that i update after league games and track not only the regular stuff, but also Powerplay goals, powerplay points, shorthanded goals, game winning goals, etc. Allows me a MUCH better look at the true quality of my players.

I don't track it as carefully as you do, but I have noticed that the greatest correlation in having a high shooting percentage is playing on the power play. Well, that stands to reason, no great insight there, but the top 4 guys in shooting percentage on my team are the 4 defensemen who play on the power play.

Anyway, if I want to be able to pull things apart and really figure out individual performance, the first thing I need to do is switch up my lines a lot more. Right now I play a pretty static lineups, so it makes sense that it's hard to see through the line's performance to really get at what an individual is contributing.

I think you are right with these kind of questions because first line often doesn't perform as the rest of the lines. And in my case 4th line has some unusual big flow of points.

And I can have a conclusion that whenever my opponent has weak 4th line or he doesn't have any - my 4th line explode. So how can I even think of compare points? Maybe I just have to neglect my 4th line and consider first three, but that is also bad thought because that 4th line eats lot of statistic values and distribution of points goes from head to tail.

haha thanks jorgenius, economics was my best subject in school but wanted a bigger challenge if i was going to do it everyday for work.