|
Post by todd on Sept 1, 2009 11:30:00 GMT -5
while looking for prospects to try trade for to become Aeros, I noticed a few bizarre stats. EX: Mikhail Grabovski's stats 55sc 60df Then i thought maybe there were two mikhail Grabovski's because i knew and watch one for 2 years and knew he liked to hang around the other teams blue line, maybe they got confused. so i took a look at sportsnets bio....... forecaster.faceoff.com/faceoff/hockey/player.cgi?4874Skilled, offense-oriented center it says so, No there isnt two Grabovski's. So then i was wondering why my 1st round pick David Booth is so poor at DF44.... forecaster.faceoff.com/faceoff/hockey/player.cgi?4515Tell me why Booth is 44df and Grabovski is 60df Nowhere does it say that Booth is a one way player but it says Grabovski is a one way player basicly Just a thought, Maybe we could come up with something to help this................................................................................................................Aeros Rule!
|
|
|
Post by todd on Sept 11, 2009 10:10:32 GMT -5
no one else think this?? i traded for a prospect who is one of the fastest skater in the nhl.....57 sk, Great face off man 47fo... I just think that maybe the best things the player does well should be correct, when being created. i know they are not gonna be stars but at least get the right stats. What is scouting for if this doesnt happen?
|
|
|
Post by ds on Sept 11, 2009 12:34:31 GMT -5
I think what you're forgetting is the development cycle.
Yes, sure his FO could probably be a touch better and had I created him initially at center it would have been; that stat will be reviewed when I move him. (as per the forum post indicating that the FO stat gets reviewed, when it's noted, and wingers get moved to center.)
But what is irritating as all hell is this assumption that because a player is 'good' in the NHL in 2009, he's going to instantly step into a BuHL pro roster spot right after being created in 2004. Or have these strengths that rival seasoned pro players right away. This appears to be a concept that eludes people in retro leagues where there are manual or sim re-rates. (and NHL roster packs aren't strictly followed)
What if that "Key young player who should be 70OV across the board because a subjective online profile somewhere lists him as being strong in all faucets of the game" is created at all 70's across the board with a 99PO? Where does he go from there? 80's across the board? 90's across the board? Suddenly we're sitting in a league with a bunch of 80OV 20 year olds and a looming ratings ceiling that should be rarely hit - if ever. One thing that has notoriously killed fantasy leagues in the past are moments where teams become chalked with all ages superstars. It becomes stagnant.
Part of this switch over to more Player Points and a serious look at how farm teams develop young players is to put you in control of how a player develops over time. A PO greater than 70 all but guarantees that a player will get better (unless he has a dreadful season) until his PO hits a certain threshold. (I forget the exact number drafted, but believe it or not there is a structured re-rate plan drafted specifically for handling core-stats and PO.) Come off season you're going to have the chance to pour points into any player on your roster and chances are that certain limits will be adjusted. Should you choose to use those points to push up key stats for young utility players, good on you, it's a good idea to hit those players early in their careers so they do turn into the types of players you envision them to be. I'm pretty sure that NHL teams send their prospects to training camps and have them work extra time with trainers all the time. Usually to get stronger, faster and improve eye-hand coordination. (Things that notoriously get better as a player progresses the early stages of their career. Very few players start out with that signature speed and flare right from the gate at 18 or have the Faceoff ability of Brind'Amour or Perrault out of high school. They have to work on it.)
As for scouting, in the period of time leading up to the draft there was ample opportunity to provide scouted draft lists, with ratings, that would have an influence on how the players would be created. (For those of you who remember, I released a draft list with all the players I could find ratings for and some of the ratings were blocked out by question marks.) If memory serves me correctly, no one jumped on the opportunity to submit those lists. No, I don't mean the flurry of last minute off the board lists, but the full scouted lists.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Sept 11, 2009 22:22:56 GMT -5
No, All i am saying is some major stats should be reviewed thats all. Just a idea, Thats all. Some players are bang on ex: Malkin has great PH. Green has Great SC. Greg Stewart CK is good and thats what he is good at, Also the reason i drafted him is that i wanted a checking forward. If he rated with bad CK and good FO then i would feel that that is wrong, not just for me everyone that is trying to upgrade there team. Im just saying that whatever the player is best at, That stat should be his best. ex: Grabovski's DF and SC are a bad rating, I feel that his SC and DF should be reversed. Im not saing you should change it but if i drafted Grabovski it would have been because he can score not cause i wanted a two way player. for example in this years draft, Id be choked if i passed on letang and took Steve Downie cause i wanted a goon and his rating were wrong and he wasnt a goon at all. Just a thought Guys.
|
|