[skunt3m]

I am just a player, so don't take my word as gospel here:

-Yes, there are a lot of players rated based on templates. This is partly due to the scope of the project (tens of thousands of players) and partly based on how FHM works.

-As you've probably already realized, attributes in FHM are (mostly) based on rate stats. Getting open correlates with a player's shots per minute. Shooting accuracy correlates with goals per shot. Someone like Zach Hyman isn't an elite shooter in the real NHL, but in FHM he has an 18 in shooting accuracy because, as a very selective shooter, he consistently has a high shooting percentage. In other words, attributes in the game are based on results, not theoretical/observable skills.

-I say "mostly" because researchers have to a) project a player's production b) try and separate the player's production from the positive/negative effects of his linemates/coaches/icetime c) try and account for sample size, etc, etc... tough to get granular unless it's a player with a long history of consistent production.

-So in the case of, let's say, a young sniper just getting to the NHL, a) the researcher might know nothing about the player other than that he's a goalscorer, b) can only guess at how the player will translate/who he will play with... a rating of 15 is approximately NHL average in FHM. What he can safely guess is that the player will shoot more than average (16) and score more than average (16). In FHM that might equate to 20-25 goals with first line ice time and average linemates. Beyond that, might as well use a template, right?