Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5104Re: [hockeydisk] update on new disk

Expand Messages
  • D. Atkinson
    Sep 27, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      No. The skaters should have a 1.7x chance of getting injured over a season. Which should scale, since the injury rating is against the season GP (48), not the extrapolated GP. Should be good.

      On 9/27/2013 4:04 PM, Bill Corfield wrote:
      For example, our league doesn't track any usage except goalie usage...

      So, we would do nothing to the disk with regard to skaters whatsoever? Wouldn't every skater have a massive injury rating/likelihood? 

      Sorry for all the questions...

      Bill Corfield


      -----Original Message-----
      From: D. Atkinson <boomhound@...>
      To: Bill Corfield <corfieldb@...>
      Cc: hockeydisk <hockeydisk@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Fri, Sep 27, 2013 7:02 pm
      Subject: Re: [hockeydisk] update on new disk

      This means to run the disk as is, with 48 games played, but calculate usage away from the disk.
      So, use the disk as is, but, for example, for Vinnie Lecavalier, who played 39 games, handle his usage (GP limits) as 39x1.7, or 66 GP. Do usage limits offline, not on the disk in the GP field.


      On 9/27/2013 3:56 PM, Bill Corfield wrote:
      What does this mean exactly?
      What I would recommend is to scale usage offline, using the 1.7x GP guideline, but don't change it on the disk


      Bill Corfield


      -----OriginalMessage-----
      From: D. Atkinson <boomhound@...>
      To: Bill Corfield <corfieldb@...>
      Cc: hockeydisk <hockeydisk@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Fri, Sep 27, 2013 5:56 pm
      Subject: Re: [hockeydisk] update on new disk

      I'm debating whether to issue a "pro-rated" disk or not. Not all ratings scale linearly in the game, so a simple 1.7x won't solve all issues. Definitely need to take all relevant stats up the 1.7x factor, just moving GP up will give crazy results. I'd like to test a 1.7x translation to ensure no wild behavior, but that would take time, and I know people want to get on with their seasons. What I would recommend is to scale usage offline, using the 1.7x GP guideline, but don't change it on the disk. Changing it on the disk will effect results, as many are proportional to "per game" calculations.
       

      On 9/27/2013 2:52 PM, Bill Corfield wrote:
      Thanks for the update Dave...

      A question many of us are pondering is how to best use the new disk, which is based on the 48 NHL season, for a full 82 game apba schedule. 

      Some ideas I've heard include multiplying all of the counting stats and GP by 1.7 to bring it up to a full 82 game season. Another idea is to just multiply the GP stat, and leave everything else alone. 

      Would you please comment in detail on what your best recommendation is for a league wanting to use this new disk for a full 82 game schedule? 

      Your efforts are very appreciated. Thank you!

      Bill Corfield/CCHL


      -----OriginalMessage-----
      From: D. Atkinson <boomhound@...>
      To: hockeydisk <hockeydisk@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Fri, Sep 27, 2013 5:11 pm
      Subject: [hockeydisk] update on new disk

       
      Currently at the very end of the testing period. Got to a conversion
      point that was acceptable, now just cleaning up some loose ends (like
      goalie assists). Hope to migrate to combined disk over the next 4-5
      days, and get the draft disk out to the team for error checking. If all
      goes well. Hope to release final disk by Oct 8, barring any major error
      finds.
      I really wanted to get this year's disk out earlier than in the past,
      and with Ken's great new rating vote system, I had the rating info much
      earlier than past years. However, you can blame Bettman and the lockout,
      as the short season made the testing difficult. The variabilities on the
      numbers are much higher than past seasons, so getting convergence on the
      disk has been a headache. I can't say that I'm thrilled with the disk
      this year, it is reasonable, but not spectacular, mainly because the
      variability numbers on a short season are just too large. Extra testing
      was needed just to ensure that changes weren't random variations of a
      small sample size (read: short season) or real effects. I did the best I
      could, and it's a good disk (but probably not a great disk). Sorry.
      Blame Bettman. We won't have this problem again now for a few years, so
      we'll let it go and move on. I'll you all know how progress is going and
      give you a solid fix on the release date in a few days when I finish the
      migration. Hang tight, we're getting close.
      Thanks!

      d



    • Show all 10 messages in this topic