rainsilent

Members
  • Content Count

    582
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    88

rainsilent last won the day on March 31

rainsilent had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About rainsilent

  • Rank
    GamePlanHockey Advisor

Profile Information

  • Playing What GM Games
    Gameplanhockey

Recent Profile Visitors

6,385 profile views
  1. Not a case in point at all. First, 30 games is wholly insufficient. Get back to me after a few seasons of success and I will take it as a proven case in point if it actually shows the argument to be valid. Otherwise it will just be another statistical outlier that I see happen every once in a while. Second, there are very good GHL quality top 6 role players on the team in the top half of that roster getting quite a collection of points. Thus there very much is solid GHL level offensive talent on that team. On this basis alone it does not even actually show me anything at all like you are claiming that it does. While the team on the whole is modestly skilled offensively there is still serious GHL level offensive talent on that team. I've had this very discussion about offensive skills not mattering in the past with another manager who thought they could prove to me that they didn't matter at all. They tried 5 seasons straight to win in the GHL with no GHL level offensive talent at all. They scratched their way into the playoffs once and were a bubble demotion team the rest of the time before they gave up*. This was back when elite GHL level offensive talent in fast leagues was pretty much all 99s across all of the skills (and pretty much everyone had a few of them) and this manager never had anyone with one offensive skill 85 or greater. That said they did stack the team defensively as much as possible to counter act their lack of offensive skills. Ditch all players with any offensive attributes greater than 85 and I will start to take your attempt seriously. You will have an easier time of it than the other manager did if you give it a go sooner rather than later. The only thing you are managing to do at the current moment is show what can be done with a limited roster so long as you have some idea on how to use the pieces you have properly. It is a very good job you are doing but it is nowhere near achieving what you are claiming that it is. * Edit: They gave up as in they quit the game. With a PM saying that I didn't know what I was talking about and was a bad influence spreading lies. Edit 2: For the record, I think Alex's view that new teams to the GHL get a boost is complete nonsense too.
  2. The way I see spirit is along the lines of what is described here from 7:50 to about 8:05 and I'd rather have a team that fits what is said here than pretty much any other kind of team. Basically I see spirit as how much effort the player puts into the play, how willing they are to give the extra effort, et cetera. I'd rather have a team like the 2000 Wild or the late Bruke lead Flames team where they are known for how hard working and playing the team is, how committed they are, how willing to do the extra stuff, et cetera. That is just how I like my teams though and how I would rather my teams be known for no matter how they otherwise might play.
  3. So the opposing goalie stole 2 of those games. Oof.
  4. Were you at least close in those games? How did your team on the whole and players individually play?
  5. While there might be some truth to it there is a massive negative drawback that goes along with it. Holding on to those players is an active restriction to what you can do in FA while also being an active handicap to your teams performance. You are holding on to a player, bringing several detrimental side effects to your team in the process, just for a, most of the time, modest trade value. It isn't worth holding back your team because of that. Yet the reason the latter part of 2 and the entirety of 3 is true at all is because managers hoard players that don't work for them when they shouldn't. If they let them go to FA the FA pool would have many more players in it and so long as you went in looking for what you needed rather than strictly the best overall player there wouldn't be many bidding wars. The only getting lucky there would be would be in outbidding for the top players. Which, to be honest, should be how that sort of goes anyways. It is literally a self perpetuating issue. The fact that there is no real cap crunch for the really deep GHL teams only serves to add to it. If I had this same mindset I never would have gotten any of my current 4th line players. A 4th line that is, performance wise, one of the best 4th lines around. I traded better overall players for Stubna, Stang and Reason. I traded those players because they weren't working in the role that I had them filling. I didn't trade for Stubna, Stang and Reason knowing, or even thinking, that they would be as good as they are. I traded for them thinking that they had the skill set to perform good enough on the 4th line for the duration of the contracts that they were on. Meaning that they would fill that role until I let them go and filled their spots with better players. Some of those players were from AI teams. The rest Anders created because the player pool that was generated at the start was strictly to fill the teams meaning that there were no extra players to go around at any level. As I said above though, if managers weren't hoarding players that they didn't need or players that weren't performing for them the FA pool wouldn't be nonexistent. Top end players would still be a rarity, as they should be, but quality 2nd and 3rd line players would be notably more abundant if managers didn't unnecessarily hoard players. This is really going to become a pointed problem in the GHL the further we go because teams with great depth are allowed to keep their rosters due to players not increasing their salary demands enough. It was a serious problem in the past and it will be a problem in the future too if the two faster leagues are any indication.
  6. I hate games like that Paul. I get that they will happen but I still hate them none the less. You did end up getting the consolation of a 1-0 loss rather than a bad blowout.
  7. Quite a cool graph you put together and quite interesting results. I know for a while my team in Biscuit was a slow starter nearly every season. One season my team was so slow out of the gate that I wasn't out of the bottom 4 by the 15 game mark and wasn't in a playoff position until after the halfway mark. I don't look at it in terms of quarters. I look at it in terms of individual streaks. The only time I have ever had a streak happen to one of my teams that I didn't really see coming due to the trend in how my team was playing was 2 seasons ago with my Buzzer team. After winning 5 of the last 7 or 8 games, including one win against the 3rd ranked team in my conference, my team just randomly tanked the last 10 games of the season with team confidence randomly going from blue/ok to yellow/crisis.
  8. The only thing I can say in regards to late season collapses is that every team tends to go through hot and cold streaks. Long runs, like the one my team is currently on, are rare and teams usually go 5-10 games to the good, then back and forth for a number of games, then 5-10 games to the bad, then back and forth again before the process repeats. Players tend to do the same with some players more up and down than others. The best I hope for in those regards is that my team doesn't enter a slump going into the playoffs. If anything I would rather my team be digging out of a slump going into the playoffs rather than starting to fall into one. That way falling into a slump late in the season doesn't bother me so long as I have around 10 games before the playoffs so my team can dig out of it. Ideally you would want to start to get on a hot streak going into the playoffs but we have no control over that. Edit: Just to note; 5-10 games is not the winning or losing streaks themselves. It is the general trend that the team is going in terms of play.
  9. Alex I don't think your backup is good enough to really be a good backup at the GHL level. He is a really good overall goalie regarding his skill set but 86 reflexes is bad when a lot of the shooters facing you have 95+ shooting. This is because a number of managers resign pretty much everyone on their roster, usually until they get really old, no matter their actual performance. It is, frankly, a stupid practice. If your team has issues why are you going to keep bringing back the same players and the same team and expect something different? If there is an issue with the performance of a player trade them or let them go when their current contract is up. I don't mean to bad mouth Erzac but his team is a prime example. After his S1 championship his team has been struggling to get the results despite the talent. At what point do you stop banging your head against the wall and accept that you need to change up the roster in some way? You don't have to go chasing 'better' overall players to get better results either. If I had his team I would have turned over almost the entire lower half of that roster a season ago because many of them are just playing poorly for whatever reason. Too many managers get too overall focused and also get too locked up in the team that they have. As for your goalie issues, I think it is down to a lack of endurance in both goalies. Your backup is actually playing rather well on the whole. When both goalies have low endurance giving adequate rest for your starter is quite difficult when the backup has an occasional bad game. When my buzzer team was in its second season, down in the IHL, my starter and backup both had low endurance and a chain reaction happened where both goalies ended up yellow tired. Both of them got hurt in the next game that they started. In my opinion, finding a goalie you wouldn't mind splitting starting time with Amick would be the way to go. Try to get a two goalie system where your second goalie has more endurance and can play a few extra games like what I have with Wilcot.
  10. I don't. I look at it to see if a player is comfortable in their role if they are struggling. Beyond that, it is interesting to look at. As for your team doing well defensively and losing by 3 goals, look at a few things. Did your goalie have a bad game? Alternately, do the game and player stats match up with that? Your team can still play well but be outdone by a few skilled players. Or the opposing team's special teams can get all of the goals effectively bypassing your team's D.
  11. Edit 3: Everything finally updated.
  12. Personally, I agree with you on Rask vs Thomas.
  13. Ah, sorry. Freddy is a top 10 goalie in the league when at his best. The team in front of him is only 2nd to the Red Wings in terms of how bad it is defensively and yet he gets the stats that he does. Frankly, that is incredible. Without his goaltending the Leafs wouldn't have made the playoffs those three years that it has with him. There is a reason that the only backup that has been remotely decent behind him is McElhinney. If Freddy weren't an elite goalie talent the Leafs would be taking the spot of the Oilers in the joke of the league department. In all fairness, that is top 20 all time with what looks a 200 game filter applied. Look at Andrew Hammond's career stats. 56 games played, .923 save percentage and 2.31 GAA. While he isn't an elite goalie, I don't think he has gotten a fair chance to stick in the NHL either. I see him as another Thomas Greiss at best. It doesn't help that the teams he has gone to since he left Ottawa have had either established backups or had someone from seemingly nowhere show up and play amazing. That said, in terms of that list. While not all are all time greats, and are a byproduct of the era to some degree, that doesn't mean that they aren't highly skilled goalies. Looking at that list, only two players stand out as potential question marks or otherwise statistical outliers. Kuemper and Khudobin. Schneider has been effectively killed career wise by injuries. Lehner is a world class elite talent that is fighting mental demons. Lundqvist has been finally caught by age as it looks like he can barely move around in net compared to in the past. I could go through each. Outside of home plate save percentage, general save percentage is the best stat to look at for goalie performance in general in my opinion. It is the only one that otherwise gives a relative clue as to how good the goalie is actually performing. If you look through goalie stats by era you will find that the best goalies of the era are almost always the ones with the best save percentages. GAA can vary wildly but save percentage is rather constant. Granted, save percentage can be inflated to some degree as well however constant numbers can't be ignored. Ultimately though, we are trying to split the hairs of greatness. Like players, goalies don't get great stats consistently by accident.
  14. He doesn't. His career playoff save percentage is only .918. Absolutely incredible for the time but it doesn't come close to Rask's .927. Edit: Brodeur has a career playoff save percentage of .919. Edit 2: Career playoff stats of every goalie with more than 10 games from the past century ranked by save percentage; http://www.nhl.com/stats/goalies?reportType=season&seasonFrom=19191920&seasonTo=20192020&gameType=3&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,10&sort=savePct&page=0&pageSize=50