Quote:
Originally Posted by Penfold75
Not sure what your point is about the research that is done to be honest. There is a lot of work put in by the researchers who are volunteers and do the work in their own time.
If you think there is an issue with the research maybe you should volunteer yourself.
|
I provided statistically derived data sets for every player since the beginning of professional hockey... I more than did my part.
The historical research is spotty and far too "opinion" oriented, rather than stats oriented (relative / normalized stats, not absolute values). You'll often find real life all-stars hardly able to crack starting lineups because someone either forgot to rate a player, or just didn't use any statistical basis for their ratings.
The biggest issue with the modern game research, is consistency and scale. Look at the elite players generated by the game engine in a custom game and you rarely see ratings beyond 17s and 18s, and perennial MVPs are often 4.5 rated players.
In the modern research games there are way too many 3.5 and 4 players, even at the junior level. In general the players have a much higher overall rating than what the engine produces.
It's not about hard work. It's not about recognition. It's about scaling the player ratings to what the game engine expects in order to produce results that consistently reflect real world results.
The other major wild card is the salary cap. I'm convinced FHM has a hard time managing rosters with such a rigid budget.
Screenshots as promised