Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rainsilent

My thoughts on endurance

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

So, this is an interesting discussion. While I would generally agree with Rain wholeheartedly here, Riversdale Heroes is newly promoted in my Buzzer GHL, and are keeping pace at the top of the conference in their first GHL season. I.e. Keeping pace with my team, that I built in completely opposite way - 100% focus on speed and skill, and that is the current East champion.

Granted, we are only 30 games in, and I am confident there is an early-season boost to newly promoted teams - so this would be more accurate after another 30 games.

But - Riversdale also managed to replicate my 5 promotions in 5 seasons from the LIHL, and they do play in a defensive style opposed to my all-offence. Very close comparison of two completely differing team styles that seems to suggest that both are viable. For context, Riversdale is not entirely skill-less in the GHL. They have a few players with 90+ shooting and passing - but considerably fewer than I do. 

Don't get me wrong, I would still prefer my team-building approach 10 times out of 10, but this is worth a closer look.

Edited by AlexanderRasputin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Riversdale has 5 players rated 85 overall,plus 2 above that mark. The rest of the lineup is worse than that. Look around the league, do the overall rating for teams, and you'll see that, on offense, the team is pretty much average, if not worse.

As for the early season boost, i wouldn't be so sure. Go ask the Big Ducks or any team that promoted GHL in the East. 

Edited by flowbish1

RIversdale Heroes, Buzzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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.

Edited by rainsilent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Every season, on every league for the last seasons,i've set up team points record whenever i got into a league, except SHL where i finished second, equal in point. The formula has always been the same, except with stronger players.
As for your assement that i have serious offensive firepower, let me laugh at this. You haven't look at other teams properly. Most old teams in the league have 6 to 10 players rated 86 or more. Don't tell me that my lone 87 winger is top 6, never mind the rest of the offense.

This team has been built from the ground up that way, and endurance is at the core of its design. Passing and shooting come last for forwards and center, way behind traits and my prime ratings. 

So, you'll never hear me saying shooting and mainly passing are worthless skills, but hey, given my experience with the game, i won't say so.

See ya on the ice, soon.

Edit : My best centerman is about 85th in overall amongst all playing center in the world, and my best winger isn't that much better in the forward group. My argument isn't agains't offensive abilities, it's the conception that endurance is worthless.

 

Edited by flowbish1

RIversdale Heroes, Buzzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn’t be so cocky about the boost thing, both of you, my friends.
 

Not taking anything away from the Riverdale results - they are impressive. But Superb missed out on any good free agents and have close to an SHL-level team, as do Natashquan and the other promoted team in the East. That is why they are bad, no boost will help them.

In the West, you are conveniently overlooking the fact that Metairie, another promoted team, has more points than Riverdale, and a CONSIDERABLY better defensive record, 2nd best in the conference, in fact. And they have a slightly better squad, but not that much better. Certainly not one built on some particular strategy, just the best they could get at the moment. 
 

So let’s wait and see. From my observations, the boost, if it exists, drops off around mid season, so very soon we will find out who is making the correct arguments. I am looking forward to it. 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The promotion boost.

I think "something exists", but I'm not sure exactly what I would call it or how much it helps... and there are other factors at play.  I have kind of viewed it as a momentum carryover.  We all know that teams and players can be streaky so it's possible that some teams who have recently promoted are still riding that hot streak.  We saw it last season in Cage where an SHL level team was top of the league after the first 15-20 games, then fell back to Earth and was relegated.  But like I said, there are other factors here.  I have also seen recently promoted teams maintain a solid level of play throughout the season because they built a good enough team that works within their tactics.  And we have also seen recently promoted teams who do nothing in the offseason and win <10 games, so the momentum doesn't necessarily help everyone.

Who knows what is really happening.  I think part of the beauty if this game is that every manager forms their own opinions based on observations, but none of us really know for sure what is happening behind the scenes.  It gives everyone a unique experience.


*BISCUIT - SEASON 16 - TARNISHED SILVER BISCUIT PLATE CHAMPION*

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, flowbish1 said:

As for your assement that i have serious offensive firepower, let me laugh at this. You haven't look at other teams properly.

 

I have. You put way too much stock into overall and not enough into actual skills. As a result, you don't actually know what you are going on about here. You have at least 4 quality top 6 forwards skill wise on your team. They are 85, 84, 82 and 85 in overall. You don't need a high 80s overall player to have a quality top 6 GHL player. Add two quality power forwards or two way players, which you have, and you have two quality top 6 GHL lines. You need the right skill set. My GHL team, since the reset, has relied on a player as a top 6 winger and they only recently reached 84 overall. Most other GHL teams have their entire top 6 made up of high 80s. My GHL team currently, overall skill wise, is one of the worst in the GHL being 12th in the conference and 23rd overall out of 28 teams. Yet here I am 5th in the standings competing game in and game out with the best skilled teams in the league. Trust me when I say I know what I am talking about when it comes to what makes a top 6 GHL forward skill wise. Take a look a the images I included and see for yourself.

 

Screenshot (48).png

Screenshot (49).png

Screenshot (50).png

Screenshot (52).png

Screenshot (51).png

 

As I keep saying, yet hardly anybody actually listens, player skill is more important than overall. Instead a majority of managers chase after the higher overall players with an attitude along the lines of if they only had that player then their team would be good. Or managers gripe about how they can't compete with the 'top' teams or GHL teams because their players are better overall. Hello?

 

Screenshot (53).png

Screenshot (54).png

 

I'm going up against teams with significantly better rosters overall wise than what I have and yet I am still a strong team in the GHL. What more proof do I need to show for people to start listening when I say that it isn't overall that matters?

 

Quote

it's the conception that endurance is worthless.

 

I've built a team with no endurance (almost every player in red endurance numbers at the BHL level where it is easy to get players with blue endurance) and used the defensive tactic that required endurance with that team. My team still dominated defensively with my team not having any endurance. I'm more than willing to bet that can be repeated at the GHL level with the same results. Have no player with greater than ~70 endurance but with otherwise good skills for the tactic. I'm pretty sure you will still be a strong defensive team. Thus it is as near worthless a trait as there currently is.

 

As for you saying that you are ignoring the offensive skills let me point out that you are still getting at least a few very skilled offensive players for the level, even if you aren't deliberately looking at those skills. Thus what you are insinuating here isn't true at all.

 

11 hours ago, AlexanderRasputin said:

From my observations, the boost, if it exists, drops off around mid season, so very soon we will find out who is making the correct arguments.

 

This is why this claimed boost of yours doesn't exist. Go to your team page. Look at your roster tab. You see overall then confidence and then health left to right at the far right correct? That middle one, at the beginning of the season, where is it at compared to later in the season? What do you think the impact and significance of that is? Without confidence boosted up games are wild and crazy. I've seen meh AI SHL teams soundly beat top rate GHL teams in a preseason friendly. Something that they would never likely do if the GHL team's confidence was up. I was able to soundly beat a quality GHL team with a moderately good SHL team in season two playoffs in the old format because the team confidence of the GHL team was in yellow crisis while mine was good. The entire reason bad teams can get off to a hot start at any level is because they get off to that hot start due to no team having confidence built up which boosts their confidence which allows them to potentially continue that streak until the better teams build their own confidence. At that point they then will fall back to earth.

 

1 hour ago, Paul T said:

We saw it last season in Cage where an SHL level team was top of the league after the first 15-20 games, then fell back to Earth and was relegated.

 

The team got off to a hot start, which built the confidence of the team faster than every other team. Once the better teams got their confidence up the team in question got shelled like they should have.

Edited by rainsilent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, rainsilent said:

This is why this claimed boost of yours doesn't exist. Go to your team page. Look at your roster tab. You see overall then confidence and then health left to right at the far right correct? That middle one, at the beginning of the season, where is it at compared to later in the season? What do you think the impact and significance of that is? Without confidence boosted up games are wild and crazy. I've seen meh AI SHL teams soundly beat top rate GHL teams in a preseason friendly. Something that they would never likely do if the GHL team's confidence was up. I was able to soundly beat a quality GHL team with a moderately good SHL team in season two playoffs in the old format because the team confidence of the GHL team was in yellow crisis while mine was good. The entire reason bad teams can get off to a hot start at any level is because they get off to that hot start due to no team having confidence built up which boosts their confidence which allows them to potentially continue that streak until the better teams build their own confidence. At that point they then will fall back to earth.

Disagree. This isn't even a valid argument the way you put it - and I am trying very hard to find points to agree with. 

"boosts their confidence which allows them to potentially continue that streak until the better teams build their own confidence" - not buying this. Why would weaker, and not only weaker, but newly promoted teams, consistently (read, every season) build confidence higher than established GHL teams, as opposed to those teams doing it first?

Also, the argument of "anyone can beat anyone" isn't reliant on confidence. My Buzzer team's confidence is Perfect, and I'm in 1st - and today I lost 7-4 to a newly promoted team in a relegation spot whose confidence is - shocking - "Uncomfortable", without underestimation involved. They outplayed me, plain and simple. And this happens all the time, nullifying the argument you've made. 

I maintain there is some kind of "momentum boost", as Paul put it. It's clearly minor enough that effective team-building is still vastly more important - but it exists.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AlexanderRasputin said:

Disagree. This isn't even a valid argument the way you put it - and I am trying very hard to find points to agree with. 

 

It is a valid argument. You just don't believe in it thus you don't see anything too it.

 

8 minutes ago, AlexanderRasputin said:

"boosts their confidence which allows them to potentially continue that streak until the better teams build their own confidence" - not buying this. Why would weaker, and not only weaker, but newly promoted teams, consistently (read, every season) build confidence higher than established GHL teams, as opposed to those teams doing it first?

 

Because of something called randomness. It doesn't happen every season. It happens randomly. Every once in a while a newly promoted team does it. Almost every instance, if they don't have a quality line up, they fall back into obscurity over the rest of the season.

 

8 minutes ago, AlexanderRasputin said:

Also, the argument of "anyone can beat anyone" isn't reliant on confidence.

 

No. It isn't and I wasn't saying that it was either. I was saying that the early season randomness is exasperated with low confidence.

 

8 minutes ago, AlexanderRasputin said:

My Buzzer team's confidence is Perfect, and I'm in 1st - and today I lost 7-4 to a newly promoted team in a relegation spot whose confidence is - shocking - "Uncomfortable", without underestimation involved. They outplayed me, plain and simple. And this happens all the time, nullifying the argument you've made. 

 

No. It doesn't nullify the argument whatsoever. It actually contributes to it in a way you aren't paying any attention to. Maybe you failed to notice that you had four players in your lineup that are building confidence due to relatively recent trades for those players. Sure enough 3 of those 4 players had relatively bad games. Of which a lack of built up confidence was a contributor. That impacted the lines that they were on and sure enough one of those lines got absolutely stomped on. -3 for all players on the line. Yes, your team got massively outplayed but you aren't bothering to look into why at all. A part of why is even right in front of you staring at you in the face.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, rainsilent said:

 

It is a valid argument. You just don't believe in it thus you don't see anything too it.

I could easily say the same about you and your side of this argument. 

 

Because of something called randomness. It doesn't happen every season. It happens randomly. Every once in a while a newly promoted team does it. Almost every instance, if they don't have a quality line up, they fall back into obscurity over the rest of the season.

Wrong. It does happen every season, and has happened in Buzzer GHL every single season I've followed it. If you want examples, I've got examples. 

 

No. It isn't and I wasn't saying that it was either. I was saying that the early season randomness is exasperated with low confidence.

Exacerbated. Exasperated is what this conversation is making both you and now me.

 

No. It doesn't nullify the argument whatsoever. It actually contributes to it in a way you aren't paying any attention to. Maybe you failed to notice that you had four players in your lineup that are building confidence due to relatively recent trades for those players. Sure enough 3 of those 4 players had relatively bad games. Of which a lack of built up confidence was a contributor. That impacted the lines that they were on and sure enough one of those lines got absolutely stomped on. -3 for all players on the line. Yes, your team got massively outplayed but you aren't bothering to look into why at all. A part of why is even right in front of you staring at you in the face.

Also disagree completely. The question was about TEAM CONFIDENCE - mine was Perfect, the other team's was Uncomfortable. In fact, he has two players with Uncomfortable confidence, and two with Good - at least equivalent to mine. So unless you are now accepting that Team Confidence suddenly doesn't matter and only individual player confidence does - thereby nullifying your previous argument - this element of it is void. You choose.

 

Edited by AlexanderRasputin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, AlexanderRasputin said:

 

 

No. You couldn't say the same about my view regarding your side of the argument. In the past Anders said that there was no boost to newly promoted teams. I'm inclined to believe him since he did put the code of the game together as well as had no beneficial reason to lie about it. Your view also has no supporting evidence in game either. It is based strictly off of assumption. My argument actually has some in game evidence backing it no matter if you give it any credibility or not. Some in game evidence is more substantial than an assumption that there is a hidden buff in the code for specific teams.

 

You are trying to make the question team confidence when it isn't about team confidence. It was about confidence on the whole. Both team and individual confidence matters. You are trying to force an argument that isn't true by redirecting the discussion. Don't try to force words in my mouth either.

 

He only played 3 players with low confidence. Now look at the players in question, where they played and how they played. Jason, 1st line in a defensive Dman role, likely on a stay at home line and had a good game with a 75 rating but not an impact player in the game and was a +0 for the game. Low team and player confidence doesn't eliminate the possibility that a player can have a good game. Sutter, 3rd line winger playing as a sniper and likely not playing on an offensively focused line. Possibly a poor role choice and had a bad game. The other winger on the line also had a bad game but the center on the line had a great game. The line, on the whole, had little impact on the game though. Dupej, 4th line winger in a power forward role. Had an ok game and his line didn't have much of an impact either. Of his players that didn't have built up confidence only one had a good game. Just like you. The difference is you went 1 out of 4 with a few of those players that didn't play well playing in key positions in the lineup. He went 1 of 3 playing well with the 1 being in a key position in the lineup.

 

You were playing with greater risk with more players in key roles still building confidence than he was. The lack of built up confidence either way means a greater chance for a bad game. Either confidence not being built up doesn't guarantee a bad game nor does it eliminate the chance of a good game. It simply opens up the possibility of results to a wider spectrum. Hence how low confidence takes the randomness that you already get and makes it go wild with results earlier in the season. What happened in your game was a proverbial perfect storm. You opened the door enough for the possibility of that happening with risky decision making and you got bit for it. Had you not made such risky decision making in terms of your lineup set up or even not made the trades at all you would have likely trounced the team like you did in the first game the two teams played.

 

Do you really not realize that your team's 3-0-0-5 record since you made the first trade is, in large part, due to those trades and the resulting impact of having players with low confidence in key positions in the lineup despite your team on the whole having rather high confidence? Your teams performance has been very up and down with Haulk, in a key position in the lineup, struggling with consistency since the trade for him when the player you had before and traded for Haulk was doing very well. I don't doubt that Haulk will eventually settle in but until then his lack of built up confidence is going to be a negative impact to your team.

 

Let us also not overlook the fact that that is actually a solid GHL team skills wise that beat you. No, not great by any stretch but still solid. There are teams above that team in the standings doing more with less talent. The manager is going a good job in general. They just aren't doing as good a job optimizing the lineup and utilizing the players that they have as they could be.

 

Finally, may I introduce Occam's razor. When two theories exist trying to explain the same thing the one that is more likely accurate is the one with the fewest assumptions. My theory is based on the fact that a lack of built up confidence, either team or player, has an observable negative impact and a significant one early in the season when no teams have any built up confidence. This can be reliably and repeatedly tested in game easily. Your theory is the assumption that there is a hidden code in the game that provides a boost to new teams in the GHL. This is an assumption that cannot be reliably proven in game.

Edited by rainsilent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate your legitimately decent analysis of my game. And I am fully aware that trades and resulting players with lower confidence can influence games - it is clearly happening with me, which is why I usually make these kinds of blockbuster trades at the beginning of the season to give players time to settle. But this discussion isn't about my team. 

That does not in any way invalidate my point that it isn't due to Team Confidence, but rather, something else, that newly promoted teams tend to be very successful in the first half of the season.

If Anders categorically says there is no boost or momentum boost, then so be it. I have not seen this so I will withhold my opinion for now. 

Your breakdown is correct on the player side, but the fact that my (stronger) team's confidence is Perfect and Indians' (weaker) team's confidence was Uncomfortable, and yet they not only beat me, but also beat two other Top 5 teams in their last 10 (Wintersville and Medicine Hat) suggests to me that Team Confidence is NOT as key of a driver to these first-half streaks as you seem to think. 

Let me give you another clear example. Current Buzzer GHL East:

1. Warman Fighters - Confidence: PERFECT
2. Highland Blazers - Confidence: UNCOMFORTABLE
3. Metairie Buccaneers (newly promoted) - Confidence: OK
4. Hazard Blizzard - Confidence: GOOD
5. Riversdale Heroes (newly promoted) - Confidence: OK
6. Medicine Hat Cougars - Confidence: OK
7. Wyoming Lynx - Confidence: PERFECT
8. Nottingham Foresters - Confidence: GOOD

Interesting picture this paints, does it not? 33 games in, did the newly promoted teams that are in high positions (point spread is within 5 points of the lead) gain confidence faster than the other GHL teams - as per your assertion?

No, they did not. 

And all the other teams there with them in the top 8 are top-tier. Wyoming took the league many times and Foresters have won the cup. Whereas you've seen the lineup that Riversdale has, as an example. It cannot be compared to those teams - and, at least according to in-game data, is not boosted by higher confidence. 

So, either Riversdale team-building IS, in fact, extremely effective - which you deny, and which I do not think allows for THIS kind of success at this point, OR there is something going on behind the scenes that is not Confidence-related. 

And, as a parting example, when I was in the BHL and in the middle of about a 20-game win streak, my team's confidence was Uncomfortable. I even remember laughing about it somewhere on the forums. So I would take any Confidence indicators with a monumental grain of salt. 


 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, rainsilent said:

I've built a team with no endurance (almost every player in red endurance numbers at the BHL level where it is easy to get players with blue endurance) and used the defensive tactic that required endurance with that team. My team still dominated defensively with my team not having any endurance. I'm more than willing to bet that can be repeated at the GHL level with the same results. Have no player with greater than ~70 endurance but with otherwise good skills for the tactic. I'm pretty sure you will still be a strong defensive team. Thus it is as near worthless a trait as there currently is.

Yeah, a rebound year dropping off from the SHL (almost like a 3rd BHL year in a row!) and outright dominating as it should have been, no other team in your conference was even close to yours. I'd like to get one of those years to confirm my taughts too.  And yet, i had a better BHL season than yours, while i was coming in from the CHL.

Edited by flowbish1

RIversdale Heroes, Buzzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2020 at 2:30 PM, AlexanderRasputin said:

That does not in any way invalidate my point that it isn't due to Team Confidence, but rather, something else, that newly promoted teams tend to be very successful in the first half of the season.

 

At best for you, it doesn't support your point because there is no hard evidence whereas there is actual hard evidence backing confidence. Let me ask you a question. Did you ever take a statistics class in math?

 

On 4/6/2020 at 2:30 PM, AlexanderRasputin said:

Your breakdown is correct on the player side, but the fact that my (stronger) team's confidence is Perfect and Indians' (weaker) team's confidence was Uncomfortable, and yet they not only beat me, but also beat two other Top 5 teams in their last 10 (Wintersville and Medicine Hat) suggests to me that Team Confidence is NOT as key of a driver to these first-half streaks as you seem to think. 

 

At least be responsible about it by looking at and breaking down why rather than just blindly claiming it as proof.

 

On 4/6/2020 at 2:30 PM, AlexanderRasputin said:

Let me give you another clear example. Current Buzzer GHL East:

1. Warman Fighters - Confidence: PERFECT
2. Highland Blazers - Confidence: UNCOMFORTABLE
3. Metairie Buccaneers (newly promoted) - Confidence: OK
4. Hazard Blizzard - Confidence: GOOD
5. Riversdale Heroes (newly promoted) - Confidence: OK
6. Medicine Hat Cougars - Confidence: OK
7. Wyoming Lynx - Confidence: PERFECT
8. Nottingham Foresters - Confidence: GOOD

Interesting picture this paints, does it not? 33 games in, did the newly promoted teams that are in high positions (point spread is within 5 points of the lead) gain confidence faster than the other GHL teams - as per your assertion?

No, they did not.

 

How can you be sure when you don't bother looking into the details of what happened so far and what is currently going on? Your not analyzing a single thing. Your just seeing something happen and using it as confirmation bias for what you think might be going on without bothering to investigate one little thing. This doesn't even touch on the fact that for every 1 or 2 examples a season you could claim as confirmation there are 4 or 5 that show otherwise. So is it selective boosting where only certain teams get it?

 

On 4/6/2020 at 2:30 PM, AlexanderRasputin said:

So, either Riversdale team-building IS, in fact, extremely effective - which you deny

 

I never did deny this. In fact, if you go back and read what I typed you would find that I have been hinting at good team building. Again you are putting words in my mouth that I am not saying. Stop. It is disrespectful.

 

On 4/6/2020 at 2:30 PM, AlexanderRasputin said:

And, as a parting example, when I was in the BHL and in the middle of about a 20-game win streak, my team's confidence was Uncomfortable. I even remember laughing about it somewhere on the forums. So I would take any Confidence indicators with a monumental grain of salt.

 

Read up on team and player confidence. It will help you understand moments like that if you are willing to be open about them and think logically about it.

 

 

 

If you still don't get it, go ahead and ask for me to explain it if you want. Better yet, ask Anders.

 

On 4/6/2020 at 4:02 PM, flowbish1 said:

Yeah, a rebound year dropping off from the SHL

 

Wrong year. It was the first year I was in the BHL. You could have put in at least a minimal effort and looked at the endurance ratings of a handful of the players before making the assumption of which season it was.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like someone’s becoming quite exacerbated ;) .
 

An ad hominem argumentative approach is fun, but generally an indicator that an individual is aware he is losing an argument, and to save face, has no choice but to keep making vague personalized statements such as “Did you ever take a statistics class?”, or “Do you even read, bro?”

Sure, I took statistics. I took a Logic class once too. It’s helping me a little - not everyone is blessed with as much innate logical ability as you are throwing around, but, you know, I don’t walk into walls and can put a spoon in my mouth.  Also, my mom taught me to never deny arguments flat out without providing supporting evidence to the contrary - and also about some complicated thing called a RE-LE-VANCE fallacy. What about you?
 

And see, I like arguments, so I’ll happily continue this. I mean, most of your side comes down to “read this” or “read that” to both me and our friend flowbish1 - who I think will agree with me when I say you clearly trashed his Endurance-based team-building approach as ineffective. Isn’t this how this argument started? Your “hints at good team-building” were probably just too intellectual for us to understand, and that’s why he got argumentative. 

But we’re past that now. My points are directly addressing your assertion that the aforementioned “momentum boost” is simply newly promoted teams gaining Team Confidence faster than other teams, and placing higher in the standings due to that. You shot down my assertion that there is momentum boost using this EXACT point. I provided very clear evidence how that cannot be possible this season. Not sure how much clearer this can be. And not sure what other evidence you want me to provide short of digging into game code to give literal examples. Because at the end of the day you can’t do it either, so your vaunted logical chains are built on the same kind of observation-assumption pairing as mine - no matter how many more words you use to explain it. 
 

As to Occam’s Razor - I think you misunderstand the principle. It is actually more like “the simplest explanation is usually correct”. And code to boost promoted teams is way simpler than some convoluted system of Team and individual player confidence that is also affected by trades to varying degrees, and not shown reliably in standings AND very vague in what it actually does - yet provides pretty consistent results, it seems, when even Paul can back me up.
 

Personally, I think Occam’s Razor is trash and mainly used by pseudo-philosophers in playground arguments. You can argue that a bearded man in the sky is throwing lightning bolts instead of understanding electromagnetism using Occam’s Razor on its own just as successfully as here. 
 

On topic, your assertion that Team Confidence has an observable negative impact when poor is not only dubious (see the Uncomfortable team in 2nd place etc), but also irrelevant at the beginning of the season when ALL teams should have similar low confidence and results should be determined using other variables. And this part IS actually observable directly, rather than assumptions like in my team’s case. 

You can now hide behind “not enough research, plebs” and “mmm, perhaps if you read the LITERATURE we could converse at an appropriate intellectual level” - type comments. That’s a little like responding “well, why don’t you go study the UNIVERSE” to someone asking about the exact distance to the Moon. Going way out of scope. Another cool playground tactic.

At the end of the day, your theory is wrong and there is a great chance mine is too. The difference between us is I entertain that possibility instead of hiding behind walls of faulty logic.

 

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, rainsilent said:

Wrong year. It was the first year I was in the BHL. You could have put in at least a minimal effort and looked at the endurance ratings of a handful of the players before making the assumption of which season it was.

Sorry, i was sure it was that one, it was your most dominating year in BHL

On 4/6/2020 at 4:02 PM, flowbish1 said:

I've built a team with no endurance (almost every player in red endurance numbers at the BHL level where it is easy to get players with blue endurance) and used the defensive tactic that required endurance with that team. My team still dominated defensively with my team not having any endurance.

 

So let's compare our 1st BHL season :

Yours was coming off the heel of 2 seasons in the CHL, where you almost got promotion on your first try, and then went on to finish 1st with 205pts (then the league record), 366 GF and 167 GA. The BHL season went quite well, as you finished 1st again, in an exciting 3 way finish to the season. 179 pts, 315GF and 197 GA. You claim a defensive domination, since your team was 3rd in GA (between 188,190,200 and 215 oppponents), and a Corsi (who had been introduced in the mid-season or so) of 56.9%. 

Mine was coming off the heel of a single CHL season, i'd say my best year ever, where i finished 1st, with a 224 pts record season which still stands (73-2-1-4) with 374 GF and 106 (!) GA. I then jumped to the BHL, finishing again 1st, setting again a new league record with a 69-3-2-6 season, with 334 GF and 157 GA, all better numbers than you did. The Corsi was 60.8%. I didn't finish in a 3 way, the closest in my conference being 37pts behind and i went 16pts above the 1st guy in the East. I also had a 45 GA advance over 2nd place. Two other team had as many GF as i did, and only 1 team was ahead of the three of us.

Mine were dominant numbers, yours were pretty good.

Had you chosen more players with high endurance, you could have approached these numbers. Also, consider this: i didn't drop off from the SHL ,unlike your team, when i got there in less season than you did. I finished with as many PTS as first place, but came second because we had a 1 goal spread in GA-GF, so i went 2nd, then on to GHL.

I'd say endurance played a large role in our different results, since you seem to be a pretty good team builder and used the same defensive system as i did. Endurance is one of the most important thing i look for for my players, and it can and does work pretty well if you use it correctly. It isn't a useless rating.

 

Edited by flowbish1

RIversdale Heroes, Buzzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, flowbish1 said:

Also, consider this: i didn't drop off from the SHL ,unlike your team, when i got there in less season than you did.

 

This isn't relevant at all. That said, the only reason I did drop from the SHL is that I tried to be too clever and the game said, 'nope, not happening.' I deliberately built my SHL team to be flawed in a handful of ways. One major way was lack of forwards that could pass the puck. Another was lack of depth on D. I was deliberately trying to finish 10th. I was 10th in the standings with 10 games to go and over 10 points up on 11th when the team suddenly stopped playing after going 3-2 in the prior 5 games and beating the 3rd place team in the most recent game. Team confidence went from blue/good instantly to yellow/crisis after beating the 3rd place team for no reason and my team went 0-0-2-8 and then lost the playoffs in 3 straight. The only thing that changed to explain what happened was the sudden flip in team confidence but there was no warning of that flip coming. For the record, the team started the season very poorly too going 4-1-1-10 in its first 16 games. Almost the entirety of the rest of the season my team was around .500.

 

The reason for finishing 10th that season was so that I could take a run at promoting the next year and have a shot at drafting Dieter Haulk while getting the best possible draft pick in the SHL the season before.

 

As for you reaching the SHL faster than me. I have been experimenting with several things with this team with no aim of deliberately promoting each season. In fact, promoting the first season from the IIHL was an unintended accident. My team was ill suited to the tactics I was using yet still beat the teams it faced in the playoffs. Had things gone to what I was planning I would have actually stayed in the IIHL. Rather I've had the approach with this team of if I promote cool, if not just as good because I have been experimenting with it. For example, that first season in the CHL? I deliberately tested how a more skill focused lineup would do in a less skilled tactic. Turns out better than I was expecting. They struggled but still performed well enough in general for the team to still be near the top of the standings.

 

Quote

I'd say endurance played a large role in our different results, since you seem to be a pretty good team builder and used the same defensive system as i did.

 

I don't think it did at all. My starting goalie didn't exactly play well for the entire season (only a 74 performance rating for the season behind a team that was statistically lights out defensively) whereas my team D was really strong once they got used to the tactic even though they had a lack of endurance. The team D is what carried the team to come from behind and eventually take the 1st place spot. With about 15 games to go, I was 3rd and about 20 points behind.

 

Quote

Endurance is one of the most important thing i look for for my players, and it can and does work pretty well if you use it correctly. It isn't a useless rating.

 

I will give this one concession regarding endurance. According to the help page endurance does help with training. How much it does help I don't know. I don't think we will ever find out unless Anders directly says. Outside of that, for players I just don't see it having much relevance at all. I had an absolutely lights out defensive team once they got used to the tactic despite having a team wide poor endurance rating. I don't see that as a good thing either. I don't see it as a good thing that I can have players with ~70 endurance playing 20 minutes a night at the GHL level while training on hard and they don't get tired. That should be exhausting to those players should it not? To me, the only players that should be capable of 20+ minutes a night without getting fatigued by it at the GHL level are the ones that have around 85 endurance at least. Players with 99 endurance should be able to near 30 minutes a night a la what Ryan Suter was capable of for years.

 

On 4/7/2020 at 11:20 PM, AlexanderRasputin said:

Looks like someone’s becoming quite exacerbated ;) .

 

It isn't I.

 

Quote

An ad hominem argumentative approach is fun, but generally an indicator that an individual is aware he is losing an argument, and to save face, has no choice but to keep making vague personalized statements such as “Did you ever take a statistics class?”, or “Do you even read, bro?”

 

Not why I was asking the question. It was a genuine question for a legitimate reason thus it wasn't ad hominem in the slightest. You are taking it way beyond what I was intending.

 

Quote

Sure, I took statistics.

 

So you understand that this game engine is a multivariate probability distribution engine correct? The one or two successful teams at the onset of a season aren't extreme statistical outliers just because they are successful. This is bound to happen with some regularity because of the randomness of the probability distribution. Never mind the fact that most of them usually have, at least, decent teams with a few notable holes in the lineup. It is going to be a naturally occurring thing that "bad" teams are going to start out quickly every season. Which ones it is is going to be luck of the draw if you will. The fact that one or two newly promoted teams manage to do it a season with respectable teams shouldn't be getting your attention. The only newly promoted teams that should be catching your attention are the ones with mostly 70s-80 overall players that get off to those hot starts. I have seen one newly promoted team that fits that description actually do that.

 

If it was a regular thing for them too, I would think that your idea might actually have some merit. As it is, you are saying that all newly promoted teams have some boost to them simply because one gets off to a fast start that they almost always don't sustain while the rest stay near the bottom of the standings the entire year. This is why I don't put much, if any, legitimacy to your view. If they all aren't benefiting from it then it can't just be a newly promoted team boost. It has to be something else. The something else that I see explaining it is the finicky thing that is player and team confidence. With every team starting the season with low confidence a team that manages to get off to a hot start and build confidence quickly will lead to a positive feedback loop where they will jump ahead thanks to that building confidence. Such a start isn't restricted to teams that have been in the GHL for a season or more. It is available to any team and any team can get that hot start.

 

This is why I asked about taking a statistics class. You should be able to recognize these patterns if you really did.

 

Quote

 I provided very clear evidence how that cannot be possible this season.

 

Have you really? I just see speculation that a new team started hot so it must have the new team boost to its performance that new teams get with no actual hard evidence. I've countered with the notion that because all teams start with low confidence that teams that can build their confidence with a hot start starts a positive feedback loop wherein they continue to build up confidence faster than slower starting teams which puts them further ahead due to better play that only drops off once those slower starting teams catch up confidence wise. You even say yourself; "at the beginning of the season when ALL teams should have similar low confidence and results should be determined using other variables" Those other variables is the randomness of the sim engine on crack because all teams have low confidence. The teams that manage to get off to hot starts are going to build player and team confidence quicker than other teams. In the crazy randomness that is the sim engine early in the season that could be any team. Again, once the other teams catch up confidence wise those not as good teams that managed the hot starts are going to be caught and surpassed by the better teams.

 

Quote

As to Occam’s Razor - I think you misunderstand the principle. It is actually more like “the simplest explanation is usually correct”.

 

That is the general simplification passed around of what Occam's razor actually is. I gave the actual principle as originally defined.

 

Quote

Personally, I think Occam’s Razor is trash and mainly used by pseudo-philosophers in playground arguments.

 

Scientists use it regularly to predict which is the most likely result to an experiment into the unknown. A massive majority of the time Occam's Razor is correct. You are welcome to think it is trash all you want. The science community sees it as an accurate and valuable predictor. The engineering community use it as a very useful troubleshooter.

 

Quote

On topic, your assertion that Team Confidence has an observable negative impact when poor is not only dubious (see the Uncomfortable team in 2nd place etc)

 

You clearly didn't read the help threads I suggested you read. If you had you wouldn't hold this view. The uncomfortable mostly references recent game results. The bar updates slowly over time and it is still blue. The meaning of all that is that the team is feeling uncomfortable over the results of the few recent games while the team confidence in general is still ok/good. What that means is that the team is entering into, or in the midst of, a streak of poor quality play from the team. Short of a disaster the team should play its way out of that slump. When it does you will see the bar still be blue but it should say ok or good instead.

 

But hey, what do I know? I hide behind walls of faulty logic right? They happen to be the same walls that are spelled out in the help section of the forum.

Edited by rainsilent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You never even went close to drafting Dieter Hawk. Talk about long term planning and vision, your plan didn't work at all, but since you built a flawed team, you are now bringing up excuses.

My teams have cut a swath of destruction all the way up the GHL, yours didn't at all. I also experiment with stuff, like everyone, and i could start making excuses as for why i didn't finished first in SHL or why i feel my team is in bad funk right now, but i won't.

That was expected, you're pretty good at moving up the goalpost and making excuses. You also choose to ignore hard evidence right in your face and bring it all back to the only viewpoint you accept, yours.

See ya on the ice, 

Ciao!


RIversdale Heroes, Buzzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m going to avoid quoting and quoting - but it is interesting that you addressed everything except the actual point I was making: that your “promoted teams that do well, do so because they gain Team Confidence faster” cannot be true, simply on the basis of what we see in the standings, in the example I provided. I appreciate that you took my last comment to heart and entertain the possibility of being wrong.
 

Whether the reason behind the early season success of teams such as Metairie and Riversdale is the “boost” or something else that is unknown, is not the point - I clearly said I had no knowledge of what it is, just that it exists. And it must exist, because such success is consistent - I’ve been seeing it for seasons now, and not only in Buzzer. Your vaunted Occam’s Razor, as I stated, even points toward this being caused by one element, rather than vague elements of randomness.
 

Regardless, Occam’s Razor is an entirely tertiary element to actual science - in fact, there have been plenty of studies questioning its validity, especially stand-alone, because theories shouldn’t be distinguished by making FEWER assumptions, but rather DIFFERENT ones. There is no direct correlation between simplicity and truth. Maybe there was in the 14th century, but certainly not in the 21st. So I wouldn’t lean on it quite so hard. 
 

And as to the help files. I read them, but this is again you whipping out the relevance fallacy. What you are pointing out about recent confidence etc, while correct, doesn’t in any way address either my earlier assertion or support your own. It’s a separate stand-alone fact. It doesn’t explain why teams with better lineups and higher confidence than Metairie and Riversdale are lower than them in the standings. 
 

Again, I am completely fine with entertaining the possibility that the “boost” I mentioned is something entirely different to anything I’ve said. It’s just not anything you’ve said, either. 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create a GM profile or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create a GM profile

Sign up for a GM profile in our community. It's free & easy!

Create a GM profile

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...