Quote:
Originally Posted by greenOak
While it's true that your scout is the more accurate you're scout will be, my take on this situation is still correct and imo listening to the other opinion in this thread would be bad for the OP. These drops have nothing to do with not developing your players properly, and everything to do with randomness (even if there is less uncertainty the higher the scouts ratings are) in scouting projections. If we could get the save file, I would bet my life savings on Connor McDavid ending up being a 9.5 (maybe a 9.0 or 10.0), rather than an 8.5 like the OP's scouts suggest the vast vast majority (if not 100%) of the time assuming he gets 3rd line + minutes for his career. Suggesting that this drop OP experienced is due to improper development is simply wrong. Note it is possible to ruin a players development by rushing them too quickly to the NHL, but this won't be true in McDavid's case. I know you can certainly play 5.5 and 6.0 overall players in the NHL without hurting their development.
Certain players are naturally overrated in FHM, and certain players are naturally underrated - even by the best of scouts. You can have a 20/20 scout show a player rated 4.0/4.0 but if his potentials are 750/750 (which are static) as long as you don't ruin his development, he is going to turn into a 8.5/8.5 every single time. This actually seems to be a relatively common scenario - look at your first round picks and you'll probably find some are rated terribly by even the best of scouting departments. If you actually look at their true potentials, you'll find that they will be very good. Just because better scouts are more accurate than worse scouts, the draft rankings, draft position, your assistant GM, and a players trade value, will give a better gauge of a players potential.
|
OK, but by your example - by your going into the players file via commissioner status, otherwise you would
never know what their potential is... So your betting the house on Conner McDavid puts you in the same boat as the LA Kings who bet the house on Lauri Tukonen 10 yrs ago with the 11th pick - but was a complete bust at the NHL level despite having every "potential" skill set needed for success at that level. Rico Fata comes to mind as another top ten draft pick that never went anywhere while players below him went on to have great careers... That is what is wrong with your hypothesis - your "cheating" the system by going into the commissioner mode and not letting the randomness occur - if thats the way you play fine - I would just be up front about it when dispensing advice to other players who may toe the line when it comes to gamesmanship.