Quote:
Originally Posted by greenOak
You are right when you draft a player who is say 6.0a/9.0a, you don't know what his true potential is. When he drops to a 6.0a/8.5a, half way through the season there are essentially two explanations. The first being that this player was simply never as good as a 9.0 potential and the 8.5 is a more accurate representation. The second being that your player still is actually a 9.0 and your scouts projection is off.
However, what this is not, is poor development of a player causing an actual drop in potential. Ruining a players development doesn't show up in a reduction of potential until the player is ~25 years of age, and then it is a reduction to his current overall ability. It would look something like 4.0/9.0 -> 4.0/9.0 -> 4.5/9.0 -> 4.5/9.0 -> 4.5/9.0 -> 4.5/4.5 (as an arbitrary example). These drops that go like 4.0/9.0 -> 4.5/8.5 -> 5.0/8.0, don't represent improper development but rather your scouts reassessment of that player, which are sometimes closer to their true ratings and sometimes not.
In the case of McDavid, it is easy for me to know it is the latter based on his reputation, and for me previous play-throughs of the game. This is one reason I prefer drafting with CPU generated players. However, it is often easy to know whether or not these random drops are accurate based on other factors in the game. Sizeable drops (say by 2 potential points or more) are often bogus. If the AI is still willing to trade a heap of stuff for your declined player, your scouts are probably wrong. If said player was high on the draft list and now your scouts think he is garbage, your scouts are probably wrong. If the CPU drafted the player high, and your scouts think he sucks, your scouts are probably wrong. And finally, if you're player is a 5.5/5.5 or something and still improving in the development report, you can be sure your scouts are wrong about his projection.
To elaborate, like I said I drafted Jyrki Antonen in my dynasty - he was a 4.0c/8.0c when I drafted him and now he is a 4.0a/4.0a. I don't know what his true ratings are, but despite my scouts ****ty opinion of him I can be sure his ratings are very good. For one, he was in the top 5 of the draft rankings which usually contain the best players. Opposing teams will still give up a lot of stuff (according to my assistant GM) in exchange for him. And lastly despite apparently reached his crummy potential, he still improves every month in the development report screen. So because of all of this, I can be reasonably sure that his true ratings are still quite good, and that I should ignore my scouts opinion. I'm not sure whether or not he'll end up being an 8.0/8.0, worse or better, but I am quite confident he'll turn into a good player.
|
We mostly agree here
except that having played this game extensively I can pretty definitely say there is regression in some players before reaching their peak age. I believe it is a random number generator hidden in the stats to attempt to recreate the Lauri Tukonen or Rico Fata's of the world. Again in this conversation we seem to be concentrating on the top 5% of the top players in the world, I see it more in the 6.0/6.5 players not reaching their potential but I cannot absolutely say its true, it just occurs too often for randomness to apply IMHO.
Again I really think the depth of the investigation by your scouts determine the "garbage or gold" question. I have never held much esteem for the AI trading as I can fleece it pretty easily. What I notice is every so often I have players who I trade away that suddenly become Alex Ovechkin clones while holding a 6.5 rating! I haven't figured that one out yet
But it rarely lasts more than one season before they return to the type player who I traded away.
Your Jyrki Antonen example is what I'd kill for the scouts details that scouted him. I will have players with similar ratings and eventually after scouting him to the point the scouts will not scout him anymore saying he has been extensively scouted. I will go one step further and have his potential scouted and invariably it will go up a half point or so - its almost like I'm forcing the scout to change his opinion, which is what I find immersive and lifelike... nothing like challenging someones opinion and forcing the ego to step aside!
Finally I don't know but I have not had a top scout with a rating players potential of 19 or 20 do what you say in reporting junk about top prospects. I have seen them take 9.0 or 10.0 and drop them to an 7.5 or 8.0 yes, but invariably they are younger and do rise back up, usually because of the playing time allotted to them (IE; 1-2 line minutes) at the appropriate level AHL/juniors...
I'm glad we could discuss this - I see your point and while maybe its our playing styles being different give us a different perspective on the game anybody reading this will be able to gauge for themselves what works for them - and that is what the forums should be doing - promoting interest and the game!
