|
I should point out one thing here, since I think it's leading to some people drawing incorrect conclusions about the development system: editing potentials to 1000 for 18-year-olds who'd peaked at the 3.0 (NHL-relative) level isn't a valid test of the system. Players who were generated with that kind of potential would have five years of attribute development at that point, usually with starting stats that are higher than average. Typically, at 18 they would have attributes at least 50-100% higher than the 3.0 guys.
And aside from the edited 3.0's starting their post-18 development at a lower beginning point, that also means that the attributes that govern development speed are atypically low for a player that age. So as 18-year-olds they're far behind normal high-potential players, roughly at the level of a Junior B player, and then can't progress at a normal rate because some key attributes are undeveloped. Given those handicaps, it's not surprising that they never come anywhere close to their potential before their time runs out. And it's not really evidence that the development system is broken in this regard, because that kind of player will almost never happen naturally (I don't want to say never, but the odds are extremely long against it, and we're tuning early skater development a little more, for other reasons, which will make it even more unlikely.)
|