Jump to content

MattLumberjacks's Photo


  • 374

  • 1577

    Profile Views
  • 0

  • 147


#32219 Fishbowl Power Rankings Season 12

Posted by MattLumberjacks on January 14, 2018 - 12:02 AM

Back again with the new power rankings for Fishbowl season 12, on day 5.


I decided to change the formula slightly. Rather than only considering the best goalie, I've decided to weigh a teams best goalie at 0.75 and second best goalie at 0.25. Formula used for overall is:

[(average offence) * 12 + (average defence) * 12 + (best goalie) *0.75 + (second best goalie) * 0.25]/25



1. Larson Knights - Kelvin "unknown forum name"

Off: 90.67 Def 92.33 Glt:89.75 Ovr: 91.43

Previous position: 2nd, playoff 2


2. Hawkeye Revolution - Marcel Proust "MProust/Haradim"

Off: 89.42 Def: 92.17 Glt: 91.5 Ovr: 90.82

Previous position: 3rd, playoff 4


3. Horn lake Hooligans - Mike Grubb "Mickg34"

Off: 89.17 Def: 90.67 Glt: 95.25 Ovr: 90.13

Previous position: 1st + Golden cup winner


4. Pinewood Lumberjacks - Matt H "Mattlumberjacks" aka "me"

Off: 89 Def: 90.83 Glt: 90.75 Ovr: 89.95

Previous position: 10th


5. Cuba City Eagles - Mare Maro "unknown forum name"

Off: 89.17 Def: 89.33 Glt: 89 Ovr: 89.24

Previous position: 4th, playoff 2


6. Wynward Wildfire - Matthew Bernsten

Off: 88.33 Def: 89.83 Glt: 91.75 Ovr: 89.19

Previous position: 9th


7. Wildwood Violent Rush - Juho Kainulainen "Keskustankeisari"

Off: 88.75 Def: 89.5 Glt: 90.5 Ovr: 89.18

Previous position: 6th, playoff 2


8. Wolfe Wolves - Marcel Cloutier "unknown forum name"

Off: 87.58 Def: 90 Glt: 89.5 Ovr: 88.82

Previous position: 7th, playoff 3


9. Cedar Rapids Panthers - Mauri Nieminen " unknown forum name"

Off: 89.17 Def: 88.17 Glt: 90 Ovr: 88.72

Previous position: 5th, playoff 3


10. Urbancrest Comets - Noah High "unknown forum name"

Off: 88.33 Def: 88 Glt: 95.5 Ovr: 88.46

Previous position: 14th


11. Sellwood Spirits - Misco Grossi " unkown forum name"

Off: 87.75 Def 88.17 Glt: 88.75 Ovr: 87.99

Previous position: 11th


12. Molson Monkeys - Nathan Macdonald "unknown forum name"

Off: 87.42 Def: 88 Glt: 90.75 Ovr: 87.83

Previous position: 13th


13. Montmorency Vortex - computer (previously ineffableleafs)

Off: 86.92 Def: 87.83 Glt: 92.5 Ovr: 87.58

Previous position: 8th, playoff 2


14. Batchawana Battlin Bears - Joe Leconte "forum name unkown"

Off: 86.92 Def: 87.5 Glt: 91.5 Ovr: 87.38

Previous position: SHL 1st


15.Blenheim Pirates - Martin J. "unknown forum name"

Off: 87.08 Def: 86.67 Glt: 91.5 Ovr: 87.06

Previous position: 12th


16. Morden Defenders - Justin Camara "JMonkey"

Off: 85.08 Def: 87.83 Glt: 89.75 Ovr: 86.59

Previous position: SHL 2nd

#32178 Player Size (Height/Weight) can change?

Posted by MattLumberjacks on January 11, 2018 - 12:49 PM

Lmao, must have hit his head to hard.

#32172 Salary cap overstepping

Posted by MattLumberjacks on January 11, 2018 - 10:56 AM

Yes, your situation will be the same once the season starts. Your only way out if you want to make any moves is to shed the 2m in a trade (might take a while to find a willing trade partner) or to lose some salary by releasing players. Honestly though, most teams I see this happen to end up keeping their team throughout the season and often earn back promotion as their players are that much better than everybody else - that said, I've also watched some spectacular relegations for other teams in the same situation.


Also, this should be in questions.  ;)

#31413 v1.3.2

Posted by MattLumberjacks on November 28, 2017 - 10:36 AM

  Like these?


edit: Emoji's don't show :(

#31358 v1.3.2

Posted by MattLumberjacks on November 25, 2017 - 09:15 PM

At one point: had 4 goalies injured at the same time.  4!

Didn't get a pic-pix, because was busy sleeping, or doing nasty stuff. 

Even fired the assistant trainer, as it was suspected that he was tying their skates together.


Getting lots of improvement on LIHL and IHL teams, less on the big "G" teams. 

Lol, that's hilarious considering how uncommon goalie injuries are.

#31338 The Humor Therapy Thread

Posted by MattLumberjacks on November 24, 2017 - 04:25 PM

This is the perfect thread for me. Btw, it was a  over-payment on my part for a role player that I planned on probably only keeping this season. 


Attached File  ouch.PNG   42.44KB   0 downloads


And here are the players involved with the trade.


Attached File  croft.PNG   69.12KB   0 downloadsAttached File  lowe.PNG   72.87KB   0 downloads

#31016 v1.3.2

Posted by MattLumberjacks on November 08, 2017 - 10:57 AM

Teams are randomly populated, but the initial distribution is pretty fair.

#31007 v1.3.2

Posted by MattLumberjacks on November 08, 2017 - 01:03 AM

Is that something that the game engine is working towards balancing out organically? I feel that would be a good distribution of skill. Like in real life, distribution of skill is more like a diamond (majority of players in the middle, less players at the extreme top and bottom) but right now there seems to be a similar numbers for players 99-90, 89-80, 79-70. Obviously there aren't as many 90+ overall players as 79-70, but I feel like there is still a really high total of elite players.


I think that that is what he is working towards with these occasional player development decreases and balances. But since people are used to fast development, we get threads with posts complaining that their player development feels like it has completely stalled. In my opinion, it's a thing we have to wait multiple seasons in order to see the effects, but most people (including myself) get impatient with the slower development and feel cheated that the young teams we recently assembled to challenge top place for several seasons might no longer be as good as we expected. Honestly, it's a tough call, but I think in the long run, player distribution would look a lot better.

#30943 v1.3.2

Posted by MattLumberjacks on November 06, 2017 - 08:50 PM

No need to argue... let's "debate". :)


1) It adds a different complexion to the game if players don't progress absurdly fast. 

From what I noticed before, players that increased absurdly fast were few and far between.  Most of my mid-20s players were only increasing 1 rating every year as it was.  It took some scouting to determine which players were increasing 3-4 per year.


2) I disagree, I think scouting is even more important as not every player will grow to be competent. You have to now check performance, stats and also try to figure out if he ended up being boosted by other, better prospects.

Agree to an extent.  My point was that it was just one more thing to take into account.


3) Good.

I meant the opposite here.  Managers had to make better long term decisions with the old improvement rates.


4) That'll revert over time once all the current McDavids retire.

Agree - point taken.


5) Again, that'll revert over time.

Don't agree here.  From what I've seen, at least in the lower leagues, it takes a 1st round draft pick a few years to be able to compete in the league they were drafted.  If progress is slower now, it will take longer.  If you promote, they will become useless.  The only real benefit is if you relegate, then you have a solid young player in a lower league (and most managers quit after relegation and their young players get plucked via trade).


6) That's how it currently works, but a lot of guys just really stand out.

Perhaps.  Again, my view point is from BHL level.  It's cool to sign a player knowing you might be able to keep him if you promote.  But I totally see where lowering the progression would benefit GHL since you don't want every team to have 5-10 super-studs.  I can see how GHL managers would be all for this.  And again, if it's better for the game, then I'm on board and will adapt.  Just offering perspective.


Nah man, it's well past the point of debate, it's a full-on quibble... And I'm gonna try and stay in the context of how player improvements have recently been altered slightly, with players requiring to be in a league of similar competition to continue their growth.


1) You're still gonna see most young guys improving 1-3 overall a year. The recent change will have the biggest effect on the top young guys who are starting at ~80 overall and all becoming stars in a year. There's currently roughly a good affiliate level for every league that is filled with talent just below league level. Except in the GHL where the average player is above 85 overall (I could probably say a higher overall) and the affiliates are meant to be around 75 overall. This will change over time to be closer as the talent level in the GHL slowly drops. The 80 overall shouldn't be able to make the jump to 85 overall in a single season unless the manager sacrifices another player from his roster to grow his top prospects faster. In other leagues, they will still be playing similar competition.


2) I'm gonna disagree even though we are in agreement just because we are having a quibble. ;)


3) Disagree. If you know most your prospects are going to massively improve, you'd be a fool to not sign them to a longer term deal. That's not better long-term decisions, that should just be automatic most of the time. Now if players aren't growing as fast, you can't just throw money at a 20-year old to get him for 8 years for a bargain at the end of his deal. You have to think, should this guy still be a major asset to my team in 8 years? 4 years? etc. by looking at his performance, comparing his growth rate with past players and checking his stats. What I am getting that is now managers actually have a decision to make whereas most of the time before, a longterm given was a given. I should note that again I am talking about GHL, in lower leagues I think the decision process will be the same as you are always aiming for promotion within 1-3 seasons and you already have to think about the consequences for deals of different terms.


4) Again, I disagree just because we are in an all-out war with this quibble.


5) I mean what would you prefer, that LIHLers eventually make the GHL? I've played in the IHL and signed LIHL draft picks, in the BHL and signed IHL draft picks, etc. If we are being realistic, most players should only be able to make the league they were drafted in and maybe in their prime, make a team 2ish leagues above where they were drafted. As much as I would love talking LIHL draftees to the GHL, it's not realistic. And as a side note, I have noticed 1 (maybe 2) LIHL draftees eventually get some GHL time. But never as a star and these players are very rare.


6) Same point as above. 

#30941 v1.3.2

Posted by MattLumberjacks on November 06, 2017 - 01:11 PM

I'm gonna argue all of these points.


Regarding player's development:


First and foremost, I am down for whatever Anders decides is best for the game and will adapt accordingly.  That being said, I always like to add perspective where I can.  So with that, here's some perspective from a BHL manager with no GHL experience.  Maybe I would feel differently if I were in a higher league (soon enough!)... or maybe I wouldn't... who knows.


I don't like player development being slowed down for the following reasons:

1) I feel it adds another layer of complexity to the game (discussed in points 2 - 4).


2) Scouting players is a bigger part of the game when certain players increase at rapid rates.


3) Managers have to make better long-term contract decisions.  Sure, it's great to sign a rapidly increasing player long-term, but he may become concerned at any point over league, salary, etc.


4) Having a young (less skilled) vs. old (more skilled) team was a strategy.  If players don't increase as much, there is no point in having a younger team. Before the appeal was that the young team would eventually develop into a skilled team.  Now it would make more sense to just sign older players to short term contracts instead of investing in younger players.


5) The value of draft picks will decrease.  Many managers were already trading draft picks for better/already established players.  This will happen more often now. 


6) It adds more excitement overall when certain players increase rapidly.  Perhaps the solution isn't to decrease production across the board, but to differentiate the hidden "Potential" trait so that some players still see an increase 5-6 ratings per year, while others increase 1 notch over the span of 2-3 years.



In terms of "slow down", here's what I noticed on my team.  I tracked the progression bars and took into account the days between testing, then prorated that for an entire season.  One prospect was increasing at 3.5 Overall ratings per year and is now increasing at 1.5 ratings per year.  Another player in early 20s was increasing 5 ratings per year and is now increasing 2 ratings per year.  Another players in early 20s was increasing 2 ratings per year and now would increase 1 rating every 2.5 years.  The slow down, at least for my team, seems to be more than 1/2....

 1) It adds a different complexion to the game if players don't progress absurdly fast.


2) I disagree, I think scouting is even more important as not every player will grow to be competent. You have to now check performance, stats and also try to figure out if he ended up being boosted by other, better prospects.


3) Good.


4) That'll revert over time once all the current McDavids retire.


5) Again, that'll revert over time.


6) That's how it currently works, but a lot of guys just really stand out.

#30912 Anders What's With All the Untouchables on CPU Teams?

Posted by MattLumberjacks on November 05, 2017 - 10:51 AM

Did the team recently lose a human manager? It takes a little while for a human's untoucables to become moveable again.

#30860 Fishbowl Power Rankings Season 11

Posted by MattLumberjacks on November 01, 2017 - 07:32 AM

Lol why can't I get your team right. But I see why, most teams had a bunch of assigned players and few goalies while you have 2 assigned players and a number of goalies, so I mistakenly grabbed your best affilĂ®ate rather than goalie. I'll fix that later today.

#30852 Fishbowl Power Rankings Season 11

Posted by MattLumberjacks on October 31, 2017 - 10:45 PM

Here, I had some free time so I decided to once again do the Fishbowl Power Rankings for this new season.The formula is the same for total overall average as past season (offensive players + 2 * defensive players + best goaltender)/25. Rather than just chose the top players from each team, I selected players in order as your regular lineup or a swap of players if there is a stronger injured player and then filled any remaining holes with the top scratched/affiliated players. I've also done an average for height (in cm as it's easier) excluding goalies as I was curious.


1. Larson Knights - Kelvin.

off: 89.58 def: 92.17 goal: 93 ovr: 90.96

Average height:

off: 187.58 def:186.83 avg: 187.93

Previous position: 4th, Golden Cup


2. Horn Lake Hooligans - Mike Grubb

off:88.75 def: 90.83 goal: 98 ovr: 90.12

Average height:

off: 187.25 def:187.12 avg: 187.22

Previous Position: 3rd


3. Hawkeyes Revolution - MProust

off: 88.67 def: 90.83 goal: 91 ovr: 89.8

Average height:

off: 187.5 def: 183.5 avg: 186.17

Previous position: 1st


4. Cuba City Eagles - Mare Maro

off: 88.42 def: 89.33 goal: 89 ovr: 88.88

Average height:

off: 185.17 def: 185.83 avg: 185.39

Previous position: 6th


5. Montmorency Vortex - ineffableleafs

off: 87.33 def: 89.17 goal: 94 ovr: 88.48

Average Height:

off: 185.67 def: 181.5 avg: 184.28

Previous position: 8th


6.Wynward Wildfire - Matthew Bernsten

off: 87.58 def: 89 goal: 88 ovr: 88.28

Average height:

off: 185.5 def: 192 avg: 187.67

Previous position: SHL 1st


7. Pinewood Lumberjacks - MattLumberjacks

off: 87.67 def: 88.5 goal: 90 ovr: 88.16

Average height: 

off: 189.58 def: 186.17 avg: 188.44

Previous position: 12th


8. Wolfe Wolves - Marcel Cloutier

off: 87.33 def: 88.67 goal: 91 ovr: 88.12

Average height: 

off: 182.42 def: 184.83 avg: 183.22

Previous position: 12th


9. Wildwood Violent Rush - Keskustankeisari

off: 86.92 def: 89 goal: 91 ovr: 88.08

Average height:

off: 190.42 def: 180.33 avg: 187.06

Previous position: 5th 


10. Urbancrest Comets - Noah High

off:  87.58 def: 87.33 goal: 96 ovr: 87.8

Average height:

off: 186.58 def: 187 avg: 186.72

Previous position: 2nd


11/12. Cedar Rapid Panthers - Mauri Nieminen

off: 88.92 def: 85.17 goal: 90 ovr: 87.16

Average height: 

off: 187.75 def: 187.83 avg: 187.78

Previous position: 12th


11/12. Sellwood Spirit - Misco Grossi

off: 87.58 def: 87.33 goal: 89 ovr: 87.16

Average height:

off: 191.75 def: 192.17 avg: 191.89

Previous position: 10th


13. Molson Monkeys - Nathan Macdonald

off: 86.17 def: 87.83 goal: 90 ovr: 87.12

Average height: 

off: 181.17 def: 180 avg: 180.78

Previous position: SHL 2nd


14. Portland Cyclones - Zach Furness

off: 85.83 def: 87 goal: 91 ovr: 86.6

Average height: 

off: 179.67 def: 175.67 avg: 178.33

Previous position: 14th


15. Bleinheim Pirates - Martin J.

off: 85.92 def: 85.67 goal: 92 ovr: 86.04

Average height: 

off: 188.92 def: 179.17 avg: 185.67

Previous position: 7th


16. Jolly Rattlers - computer

off: 85.83 def: 85.67 goal: 88 ovr: 85.54

Average height: 

off: 186.83 def: 192.17 avg: 188.61

Previous position: 13th


League average team overall: 88.025

Leave average team height: 186.03

#30827 Roster limit

Posted by MattLumberjacks on October 31, 2017 - 12:48 AM

Imo, I don't think that would work as well. If we consider just lowering the cap, that wouldn't have affected the situation Senet got into in Dangles. He had over 50 guys, but kept adding more as there was always somebody that could be sent down and last I checked, while he had over 50 guys, he had over 7m in free space remaining. A different % would make a better than reducing the salary cap difference, but then at a number like 50% I see teams being forced between having some decent backups and a small prospect pool or else a decent prospect pool and some weak, injuries take me out of the competition, backups. I think managers should be able to have a chance to acquire a decent prospect pool and some viable backup players. A lower % than 50% would definitely work, but it'd take some trial and error to get perfect.


With a roster limit, we can just check for teams that strike a good balance between the regular roster players, prospects and backup players but don't have an enormous number of players and then decide what the cutoff should be. Looking around at teams, I'm agreeing that a limit of 40-45 guys would be good.


I don't think it would at all limit promoted teams from sticking in the new league. If they gave away 1-ways and promotion clauses like candy and are forced to hit the roster limit and still not have a viable team in their new league, then that was bad management in the previous year and they should suffer the consequences of too many bad contracts. If they just barely sign enough viable players, then they'd be in a similar situation to a team that might have a preference of many strong backup players rather than lots of prospects which would be a competitive team. If they didn't give anybody promotion clauses or 1-ways, then they'd basically be rewarded by being able to do what they want in the first season.

#30812 anders, can you take a look at reputation

Posted by MattLumberjacks on October 30, 2017 - 10:31 AM

Its based on wins, total games and promotions.