Stats

Spartacus70 · 11-16-2018, 09:36 AM

After few others tests (1980-83), it appears that if you look at the teams stats the only important stats is the numbers of shots.
Exemple : in my 1981-82 game I have a variation of 0.3% (shots%) and 15 shots/game between the best and worst team.
In NHL 1981-82 : 5.5% shots% difference and 7.67 in shots/game.

In fact, the bests teams (and/or players) in FHM just shoots more and consequently score more.
In real life, the best teams don't outshouts so much, but their talented players waste less opportunities.

In term of stats, the shooting (choices, distributions, outcomes) looks a little bit broken. The most important attribute for now is Getting Open for producing shots, since the others shooting attributes are maybe not sufficiently spread. I mean for Attackers we have Shooting Range between 7 and 10 for most and avrg of 15 in accuracy. For Defenders the differences are even smallers for the regular NHL guys.

Something similar can be said about the keepers : in historical the bad goalies are suppose to be worst than the are in game!

JeffR · 11-17-2018, 01:52 AM

The shot totals for top and bottom teams in some leagues do tend to be a little farther from the mean than real results, that's mainly an issue with ratings that need to be adjusted a bit more.

But in general, yes, shot differentials will be higher for the best teams; that's as it should be, and the reason we have stats like Corsi and Fenwick that are built on the premise that shot numbers provide useful information about how well a team is playing.

It's not accurate to say "the best players just shoot more and score more." In a typical game, the 20 guys with the highest shot totals will included maybe half, possibly fewer, of the top 20 goal scorers.

Your assumptions about how ratings generate shot totals are wrong. For one, you've completely left out the influence of the pass/shoot preference; and you're also not considering how non-shooting-related attributes like puckhandling and the various skating ratings contribute to scoring chances.

Spartacus70 · 11-21-2018, 03:35 PM

Here, cause I don't want to harass you, I prefer to refer to my others posts answers. They are related.

11-16-2018, 09:36 AM	#1
Spartacus70 Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Sao Paulo, Brasil Posts: 208	Stats After few others tests (1980-83), it appears that if you look at the teams stats the only important stats is the numbers of shots. Exemple : in my 1981-82 game I have a variation of 0.3% (shots%) and 15 shots/game between the best and worst team. In NHL 1981-82 : 5.5% shots% difference and 7.67 in shots/game. In fact, the bests teams (and/or players) in FHM just shoots more and consequently score more. In real life, the best teams don't outshouts so much, but their talented players waste less opportunities. In term of stats, the shooting (choices, distributions, outcomes) looks a little bit broken. The most important attribute for now is Getting Open for producing shots, since the others shooting attributes are maybe not sufficiently spread. I mean for Attackers we have Shooting Range between 7 and 10 for most and avrg of 15 in accuracy. For Defenders the differences are even smallers for the regular NHL guys. Something similar can be said about the keepers : in historical the bad goalies are suppose to be worst than the are in game!

11-17-2018, 01:52 AM	#2
JeffR FHM Producer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Kelowna, BC Posts: 17,434	The shot totals for top and bottom teams in some leagues do tend to be a little farther from the mean than real results, that's mainly an issue with ratings that need to be adjusted a bit more. But in general, yes, shot differentials will be higher for the best teams; that's as it should be, and the reason we have stats like Corsi and Fenwick that are built on the premise that shot numbers provide useful information about how well a team is playing. It's not accurate to say "the best players just shoot more and score more." In a typical game, the 20 guys with the highest shot totals will included maybe half, possibly fewer, of the top 20 goal scorers. Your assumptions about how ratings generate shot totals are wrong. For one, you've completely left out the influence of the pass/shoot preference; and you're also not considering how non-shooting-related attributes like puckhandling and the various skating ratings contribute to scoring chances.

11-21-2018, 03:35 PM	#3
Spartacus70 Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Sao Paulo, Brasil Posts: 208	Here, cause I don't want to harass you, I prefer to refer to my others posts answers. They are related.