Home | Webstore
Latest News: OOTP 26 Available - FHM 11 Available - OOTP Go! Available

Out of the Park Baseball 26 Buy Now!

  

Go Back   OOTP Developments Forums > Prior Versions of Our Games > Franchise Hockey Manager > FHM - General Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-15-2013, 02:50 AM   #41
thepete
Minors (Double A)
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave1927p View Post
Love to see a goalie go from an 8 one year to a 6.5 the next.

Yes, but you still have to separate what a goalie can control (his SV%) and what he can't (the volume of shots). One important factor as to how good a goalie is (ie his rating) should logically be his even strength SV%, not GAA or wins or other stats that are more influenced by the team in front of him.
thepete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2013, 12:45 PM   #42
Mordrehl
Minors (Triple A)
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ciccarelli View Post
I did want to mention one more (very minor) thing before I went on: There seem to be these "elite wunderkinds" with fully developed attributes at the age of 14 being developed in hockey nations with extremely low prestige (such as China, New Zealand, UAE, England, etc.), but they appear to be players with potentials of 1 or 2, which means the computer doesn't notice them (and may be able to be exploited by human players).
Both of them however, are doomed ... temperment, coaching and determination stats will probably mean they perform poorly at the NHL level despite their other skills
Mordrehl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2013, 07:51 PM   #43
Ciccarelli
Major Leagues
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 316
We’re ten years into yet another soak (new patch) and I’m still seeing a lot more of the same things that plagued the last version of the game (AI signing and cutting prospects, AI hoarding 30-and-over players for the minor league system, reserve rosters at the AHL and ECHL level, game not generating nor developing enough quality talent [as evidenced by a majority of players in the NHL over the age of 26], players being rushed WAY too quickly to the professional level [especially those without CHL rights], etc), but, as I had stated, it looks like there wasn’t much done to those parts of the game in the latest patch.

What I’m going to do is take control of another team (I’ll do the Pens, not because I’m boring, but because they’re one of the worst teams in the league this season) for the purpose of manipulating prospects during the draft. My test is to see if the AI ignores their original draft boards in favor of players whom I magically boost in terms of player potential right before they select players (which, technically, the AI should know nothing about, as they will have no advance scouting on these players). I’m also going to be looking at the player aging attribute and seeing what kind of relationship it has with player decline (is there rhyme or reason to the attribute [i.e. the age when a player starts declining] or does it simply signify that the players with a higher attribute have a lesser chance of declining when “player rolls” are done?)
__________________

As I join the Pens organization, I am greeted with several disturbing revelations:





Really? 74 contracts? Also note that players under the age of 25 are a minority in this organization, which shows me two things:

1. The game is still not generating quality talent in future years.
2. The AI still has this massive propensity to hoard past-peak players who have no business getting an NHL contract.

Look at all of these marginal players (i.e. players with an ability of 5 or 5.5) that the Pens have decided to sign instead of looking at their system and saying “I don’t need these players. They will simply rot on a reserve roster.”





There were also two more players I couldn’t fit on here that fit this description: 35-year-old defenseman Juraj Mikus and 44-year-old defenseman Ilkka Mikkola. If you eliminate the contracts of all the players that are not dressed at any level of the team (excluding the 19-year-old prospect), the Pens would have 46 players under contract, which is in line with what they should be having (doesn’t say anything about overall roster management, but it prevents the inane hoarding of marginal 30-and-over players who shouldn’t be anywhere near an NHL contract).

- I also noticed that Mikael Granlund, after a disappointing, but still solid 20 goal and 52 point campaign, has signed a contract extension with the Pens. Here are his numbers over the past five seasons:

2018/19 – 82 GP, 24 G, 64 Points, +4
2019/20 - 76 GP, 24 G, 71 Points, +4
2020/21 - 82 GP, 21 G, 55 Points, +4
2021/22 - 82 GP, 27 G, 72 Points, +4
2022/23 - 82 GP, 24 G, 52 Points, +4

A good modern-day comparison would be Mike Ribeiro; a second-line center in his early 30’s who’s capable of putting up about 20 goals (25 in Granlund’s case) while offering solid playmaking abilities and help on the power play. Ribeiro was signed by the Coyotes this past offseason to a four-year deal with a $5.5 million cap hit and a limited no-movement clause (could you call it overpayment? Probably, but the free agent market drives up the price of a LOT of talent. Just ask David Clarkson). One would expect Mr. Granlund to get at least a decent raise from the $2.26 million he earned this season; and he was rewarded with an eight-year contract extension… worth $625,000 per season.





The probable culprit being that Granlund’s overall ability is 6.5 (which would signify a fringe NHL player in this game). Another baffling thing is that Granlund got a no-movement clause, despite signing for such a low amount. Does this mean that the AI is recognizing his role on the team or that the AI doesn’t know what the hell it’s doing? I really can’t tell.
I also question why Granlund would even accept this kind of an offer. The man is a top-six forward at the NHL level (current ability be damned) and willingly accepts about a 65% pay cut that all but locks him up for the rest of his playing career (it will take him to 39). This makes zero sense. It’s like if Ribeiro got offered this kind of a deal from the Capitals during the season, with the same no-movement clause, and gladly accepting it. What kind of reaction would that get? Not only utter shock by the fans, but the contract might get investigated by the NHL for possible collusion because of Ribeiro signing for well below his market value.

Meanwhile, Derek Stepan has been on the decline for a few years now, with an overall ability of 6.5 as well, while getting sparse time on the fourth line and second power play. He’s also fought a few injuries this year and played 58 games, scoring only 12 goals and 19 points in that time. He made $1,172,250 this season, so common logic states that he should be in line for either a drop to the league minimum or a move to a European league to finish out the rest of his career. Instead, he receives a two-year extension from the Pens… along with an $800,000 raise.





I cannot comprehend. At All. Granlund, a top six forward gets a pay cut while Stepan, a fourth-line specialist visibly on the decline, gets a 75% pay raise?

- In terms of player scouting, why is it so bare-bones? A game like this should live and die by scouting, but it oddly has an extremely minor impact on the game. Here’s a few things I don’t understand:

- Why can’t I scout by league as well as by region? What if, instead of scouting the whole amateur area of Western Canada, what if I wanted my scout to focus on the WHL or BCHL?
- Why can’t I filter whom I scout by age, position or draft eligibility?
- Why can’t I get a report on the players my scout has analyzed? What players does he find to be extremely overrated? What about potential underrated “gems”? Why can’t he give me a list of some of the top prospects he found in the league (and perhaps those he has found in other leagues as well)?
- Why can’t the scouts give me a list of the top players THEY feel are in the draft (not just HNN’s report)? This was something that irked me about EHM as well.

These things aren’t revolutionary, but simple things in EHM that helped to flesh out the game; to give it “life” (it was fascinating to see if my scouts would lead me in the right direction for a top prospect or if they would all outright miss and he would become nothing more than a fringe player. What if they manage to see the “true” potential of an underrated player and he ends up becoming a quality NHL forward out of the 7th round? Once again, this was all stuff that happened, albeit rarely, in EHM).

- I wish player practice was more fleshed out as well instead of “hey let’s assign this guy a primary and secondary attribute.” Why can’t a coach suggest to me what he feels a player should learn and what his weaknesses are (ex. Aleksey Orlov’s ability to control the puck and get it out of the defensive zone is a massive liability. He needs more offensive training)? Why can’t the coach tell me if a player is improving or simply stagnant in his development (perhaps the player is not taking well to his instruction and style of play and gets sent to his “doghouse”)?

I’ll stop with the ideas for now, but you get my drift. These areas are the biggest disappointment, for me, in this rendition of FHM.
________________________________________

2023 NHL DRAFT

- The Pens have the fifth pick in this draft, so I’m going to avoid manipulating draft-eligible talent until I have selected my player.

1. Joe Holbert, RW, Peterborough Petes (OHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 11.0 (Offensive Potential – 800 / Defensive Potential – 753) – 68 GP, 62 G, 106 Points, +23

2. Oakley Murray, RD, Seattle Thunderbirds (WHL) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 9.5 (Offensive Potential – 738 / Defensive Potential – 797) – 47 GP, 7 G, 30 Points, +17

3. Martin Drobny, LW, PSG Zlin U20 – Ability 6.0 / Potential 9.5 (Offensive Potential – 771 / Defensive Potential – 799) – 40 GP, 30 G, 68 Points

4. Michael Clark, C, Prince Albert Raiders (WHL) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 10.5 (Offensive Potential – 822 / Defensive Potential – 777) – 63 GP, 15 G, 41 Points, 210 PIM, -4

- Before my pick, I just wanted to state something: Why can’t I filter the players I want to select by scout analysis? Why can’t I get scout’s recommendations on players to select?

5. Simon-Richard Lacroix, RD, Cape Breton Screaming Eagles (QMJHL) – Ability 6.5 / Potential 10.5 (Offensive Potential – 706 / Defensive Potential – 748) – 67 GP, 3 G, 41 Points, 138 PIM, -16

6. Ryan Khafipour, LW, Red Deer Rebels (WHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 9.0 (Offensive Potential – 783 / Defensive Potential – 731) – 53 GP, 25 G, 50 Points, +36

- And now for the “fun” part: Where I manipulate talent to see if their draft stock suddenly improves or if it stays the same (as it should, as the AI has no advance scouting on these changes). For this, I’m going to go for players who currently have poor ability and not much potential to speak of (and, subsequently, had poor production in their respective seasons).

I will be manipulating the potential of six players and will take them to the absolute limit in terms of potential (1000 for offensive and defensive potential). I’ll be doing a player playing in the CHL (Jason Fullerton, LD, Medicine Hat Tigers [WHL]), a player from Europe (Valdemar Olsson, C, Northern Sweden U18), a player in a non-CHL affiliated Junior League (Maxim Many Bears, RW, Gloucester Rangers [CCHL]), an American-born high-school player (Jeff Miller, C, Western US Jr. B), a goaltender (Oleg Mikhailov, G, Russian Third Division) and a player from a non-major hockey nation (Renato Nemeth, RD/LD, Hungarian U18). I’m also going to make variables in their aging attributes to see if it has any effect on how they decline (I’m guessing that it has to do with declining speed, not at the age at which it hits).

- I’ve noticed that once I changed the potential of the players in the editor, their potential ratings have skyrocketed through the roof (Mikhailov, Fullerton, Miller now have potentials of 10, Olsson and Nemeth have a 10.5 and Many Bears has an 11). Doesn’t look good right now.

7. Renato Nemeth, RD/LD, Hungarian U18 – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.5 (Offensive Potential – 1000 / Defensive Potential – 1000 / Aging - 10) – 26 GP, 1 G, 23 Points

- …And the AI suddenly sees that the player whom all of them have probably never scouted before as a superstar in the making. Sigh.

8. Jason Fullerton, LD, Medicine Hat Tigers (WHL) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.0 (Offensive Potential – 1000 / Defensive Potential – 1000 / Aging - 6) – 43 GP, 0 G, 7 Points, +3

9. Jeff Miller, C, Western US Jr. B – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.0 (Offensive Potential – 1000 / Defensive Potential – 1000 / Aging - 14) – 48 GP, 12 G, 22 Points

10. Valdemar Olsson, C, Northern Sweden U18 – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.0 (Offensive Potential – 1000 / Defensive Potential – 1000 / Aging - 20) – 48 GP, 12 G, 22 Points

11. Maxim Many Bears, RW, Gloucester Rangers (CCHL) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 11.0 (Offensive Potential – 1000 / Defensive Potential – 1000 / Aging – 8 ) – 48 GP, 12 G, 22 Points

- An odd thing I noticed was that when I manipulated the aging to 1, 2 or 3, his potential absolutely fell off the face of the map (as in potential 3.0). When I put it at 4, his potential did not change (I feel that this still doesn’t mean anything, since as it stands, players seemingly can’t develop past the age of 25). Maybe this attribute does signify when a player’s potential drops off the face of the map (i.e. they’ve reached their peak).

12. Oleg Mikhailov, G, Russian Third Division – Ability 3.5 / Potential 10.0 (Goaltending Potential – 1000 / Aging - 15) – 16 GP, 13 W, 1 L, 1.94 GAA, .927 SV%

- And thus proves that the AI takes no consideration into neither a player’s statistics, what level he is playing at, nor their own scout’s projections of a player when they make their personnel decisions. What I did was a gross exaggeration (and who knows if they even develop to their full potential), but it proves that the AI is WAY too pinpoint in drafting players. I changed their potentials in the middle of the draft and STILL they were able to see that they had such a potential (it even showed in the basic ratings). It may be preliminary, but this seems to mean that it doesn’t matter what kind of scouts we have, the game will always project a players potential with nearly 100% accuracy (unless they don’t develop and hit the age of 25 or just the point where their potential just falls off the face of the map).

Not a good revelation.

13. Kyle Feasey, C, Windsor Spitfires (OHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.0 (Offensive Potential – 763 / Defensive Potential - 713) – 68 GP, 22 G, 47 Points

14. Curtis Santi, RW, Edmonton Oil Kings (WHL) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 10.0 (Offensive Potential – 749 / Defensive Potential - 735) – 72 GP, 33 G, 63 Points

15. Johan Eriksson, C, Linkopings HC J20 – Ability 5.0 / Potential 9.0 (Offensive Potential – 736 / Defensive Potential - 706) – 35 GP, 15 G, 38 Points

16. Philippe Gordon, RW, Kemptville 73’s (CCHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 8.5 (Offensive Potential – 786 / Defensive Potential - 762) – 52 GP, 27 G, 56 Points

17. Dominic Foster, LD/RD, Brandon Wheat Kings (WHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 8.0 (Offensive Potential – 685 / Defensive Potential - 729) – 49 GP, 1 G, 13 Points, +7

18. Justin Langan, RD, Blainville-Boisbriand Armada (QMJHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 9.0 (Offensive Potential – 689 / Defensive Potential - 725) – 27 GP, 5 G, 15 Points, +8 (Injured with Triceps Tendinitis for four months of season)

19. Vitaly Solovyov, C, Serebryanie LVI St. Petersburg (YHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 9.5 (Offensive Potential – 730 / Defensive Potential - 676) – 59 GP, 15 G, 49 Points

20. Paul Houck, LD/RD, Gatineau Olympiques (QMJHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 9.5 (Offensive Potential – 712 / Defensive Potential - 755) – 57 GP, 2 G, 33 Points, -13

21. Damon McKnight, LW, Windsor Spitfires (OHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 9.5 (Offensive Potential – 732 / Defensive Potential - 722) – 68 GP, 27 G, 55 Points, +6

22. Matt Davison, RD, Brockville Braves (CCHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 7.5 (Offensive Potential – 697 / Defensive Potential - 725) – 56 GP, 10 G, 30 Points

23. Miroslav Agnet, C, HC Kosice J20 – Ability 4.0 / Potential 9.0 (Offensive Potential – 734 / Defensive Potential - 748) – 40 GP, 7 G, 22 Points

24. Harnam Unknown LD, Calgary Mustangs (AJHL) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 7.0 (Offensive Potential – 694 / Defensive Potential - 752) – 55 GP, 6 G, 15 Points

25. Aleksandr Lapchenkov, RW, Ladia Togilatti (YHL) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 7.0 (Offensive Potential – 733 / Defensive Potential - 700) – 54 GP, 15 G, 33 Points

26. Artie O’Gallwan, LW, Cedar Rapids RoughRiders (USHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.5 (Offensive Potential – 705 / Defensive Potential - 647) – 59 GP, 24 G, 46 Points

27. Daniel Malm, C, Stockholm U18 – Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.5 (Offensive Potential – 726 / Defensive Potential - 659) – 28 GP, 29 G, 60 Points

28. Syarhey Asipovich, LW, Lokomotiv Yaroslavl (KHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.5 (Offensive Potential – 704 / Defensive Potential - 643) – 54 GP, 7 G, 12 Points, -4

29. Pier-Luc Benoit, C, Victoriaville Tigers (QMJHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 8.0 (Offensive Potential – 673 / Defensive Potential - 632) – 68 GP, 39 G, 70 Points, +5

30. Iisakki Viiru, C, Northern Finland U18 – Ability 4.5 / Potential 7.0 (Offensive Potential – 682 / Defensive Potential - 714) – 26 GP, 23 G, 58 Points

- Oh dear… where do I begin? Hate to say it, but the AI needs some massive tweaking in this department. It appears that the AI can see a player’s “true” potential and ignore all other variables, such as what league a player played in and how he performed (as emphasized by those six players I manipulated. With statistics like that, those players should not even be sniffing the NHL draft (although you could make the argument for a late-round selection of a guy like Mikhailov, who did well in limited time in the Russian Third Division).

Not even them, but I’m noticing players who are performed poorly (some significantly declining in terms of production), but were not penalized by scouts in terms of potential. Players like Syarhey Asipovich (held his own at the age of 17 in the KHL) and Pier-Luc Benoit (almost 40 goals and a point-per-game at the age of 18. He’s also 6’4, so the scouts should be oozing about his size and the potential to develop strength at the NHL level) should be drafted significantly higher (league bonus?) while players like Michael Clark (15 goals and 41 points [declined from 23 goals and 47 points], extremely undersized at 5’10 and 149 pounds, extremely undisciplined. Had very poor linemates, though), Philippe Gordon (point-per-game pace at a league not too reputable [CCHL], defensive ratings are subpar and offensive ratings are mediocre so far), Dominic Foster (1 goal and 13 points in 49 games, poor even for a defenseman at the CHL level. Would be arguable if he had good defensive attributes, but his defensive attributes are mediocre to below-average. Third-pairing defenseman on his team. He’s also a bit undersized at 5’10) and Miroslav Agnet (22 points in 40 games at the U18 level is worthy of a first round selection?), among many others are drafted way too high because their “true” potential has them slated to be NHL regulars.

- Also a dumb question, but I can’t seem to find my scout’s projections of players who are draftable. I see 1-5 stars listed for some of them on the NHL Draft Log (probably scouting projections for players), but what good does it do me when I can see their projections after the draft is finished?
Ouch. Now to see how the aging attribute works.
________________

MORE OBSERVATIONS

- The first overall pick from the KHL Draft of this year, Oleksandr Holovko, was cut by Spartak Moscow as of July 2. The same goes for the second pick in that draft, Denis Rozikov. And the ninth pick in the draft… and the tenth pick… and the twenty-third, as well. How did their tenures go? They get a tour of the facilities then receive a certificate that reads “Former Member of the KHL” and a complimentary fruit basket. Looks like this isn’t just an NHL problem; 34 is truly the new 17.

- The second overall pick from the NHL Draft last season, Paul Sutherland (Ability 6.0 / Potential 10.0), was cut by Minnesota while legions of over-30 players with an ability of 5.5 or lower populate their contract list. You may continue to be as baffled as I am. Actually, I can see how that conversation with the GM went: “Listen, Jimmy, I know you’re getting older and you’re trying, but my scouts said you were going to be this great player and you haven’t become that in the past year. The Wild want to go in a different direction and we don’t feel you have the experience to become a part of it. Yes, I know you were the second overall pick last year, but what have you done for us lately? You know who else was #2? The Nazis. That’s why they lost the war, Tommy. Get me Ville Peltonen on line two.”

- It looks like the 2023 NHL Draft was an endless draft, for whatever reason. I auto-finished the draft with the computer after the first round, so it looks like the AI is skipping the seven-round limit and just drafting everybody that’s eligible.








I cringe for the utter wasteland I fear I will encounter once more.
Ciccarelli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2013, 10:05 PM   #44
Empach
Minors (Double A)
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 125
These are invaluable findings. I really hope the devs are all over this thread, it's essential information for the development of the game.

Very disappointing that the AI detected your freshly edited players. Great idea for a test though.
Empach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2013, 10:06 PM   #45
Bruins86
Minors (Double A)
 
Bruins86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 133
Great work here, a lot of very troubling finds but at least they are being found and hopefully taken care of soon.

I think the problem with players declining rapidly is due to the aging attribute, i put it to 15 on a lot of bruins players one savegame and they don't seem to be declining to quickly. I am only like 4 or 5 seasons in because my computer is a bit slow.

Last edited by Bruins86; 10-15-2013 at 10:10 PM.
Bruins86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2013, 03:16 AM   #46
Anton
Minors (Double A)
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 133
Someone should be paying this guy. In human dollars.
Anton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2013, 03:23 AM   #47
korfy
Bat Boy
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8
Great work. I hope it will be addressed ASAP.
korfy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2013, 03:46 AM   #48
Alessandro
Hall Of Famer
 
Alessandro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 6,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ciccarelli View Post

11. Maxim Many Bears, RW, Gloucester Rangers (CCHL)


Alessandro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2013, 05:13 AM   #49
thepete
Minors (Double A)
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 110
Quote:
- In terms of player scouting, why is it so bare-bones? A game like this should live and die by scouting, but it oddly has an extremely minor impact on the game. Here’s a few things I don’t understand:

- Why can’t I scout by league as well as by region? What if, instead of scouting the whole amateur area of Western Canada, what if I wanted my scout to focus on the WHL or BCHL?
- Why can’t I filter whom I scout by age, position or draft eligibility?
- Why can’t I get a report on the players my scout has analyzed? What players does he find to be extremely overrated? What about potential underrated “gems”? Why can’t he give me a list of some of the top prospects he found in the league (and perhaps those he has found in other leagues as well)?
- Why can’t the scouts give me a list of the top players THEY feel are in the draft (not just HNN’s report)? This was something that irked me about EHM as well.

These things aren’t revolutionary, but simple things in EHM that helped to flesh out the game; to give it “life” (it was fascinating to see if my scouts would lead me in the right direction for a top prospect or if they would all outright miss and he would become nothing more than a fringe player. What if they manage to see the “true” potential of an underrated player and he ends up becoming a quality NHL forward out of the 7th round? Once again, this was all stuff that happened, albeit rarely, in EHM).

- I wish player practice was more fleshed out as well instead of “hey let’s assign this guy a primary and secondary attribute.” Why can’t a coach suggest to me what he feels a player should learn and what his weaknesses are (ex. Aleksey Orlov’s ability to control the puck and get it out of the defensive zone is a massive liability. He needs more offensive training)? Why can’t the coach tell me if a player is improving or simply stagnant in his development (perhaps the player is not taking well to his instruction and style of play and gets sent to his “doghouse”)?

I’ll stop with the ideas for now, but you get my drift. These areas are the biggest disappointment, for me, in this rendition of FHM.
Agree 100%. The greatest problem with the game is how little 'managing' you actually do.
thepete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2013, 06:48 AM   #50
PromisedPain
Minors (Double A)
 
PromisedPain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Finland
Posts: 198
Thanks for pointing these things out. Maybe the dev team will realize that the game doesn't need new features yet, instead they should focus on fixing the player development. I won't touch the game with more buggy features, but fixing the player development would actually make me play the game.
PromisedPain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2013, 11:24 AM   #51
Splitter24
Hall Of Famer
 
Splitter24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Willsboro, NY
Posts: 2,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ciccarelli View Post
18. Jesse Ventura, C, Spokane Chiefs (WHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 7.5 (Offensive Potential: 686 / Defensive Potential: 609)
This player alone should've been highlighted in your observations.
__________________

Currently Reading: The Sympathizer by Viet Thanh Nguyen


"Well, the game is afoot. I’ll take anal bum cover for 7,000." - "Sean Connery" SNL Celebrity Jeopardy

R.I.P. Tommy Holmes 1917-2008
Splitter24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2013, 01:05 PM   #52
YZG
Moderator
 
YZG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessandro View Post



Not uncommon kind of names in NA native nations: Robin Big Snake - Wikipédia
__________________
FHM researcher for names, Eastern and Central Asia (including the Asia League and the Kazakh Championship)
YZG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2013, 02:55 PM   #53
Ciccarelli
Major Leagues
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anton View Post
Someone should be paying this guy. In human dollars.
I prefer my payments to be transferred to my offshore account in the Cayman Islands, thank you very much. The porterhouse steaks at Capital Grille don't pay for themselves, ya know?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessandro View Post


That's the main reason why I picked him (c'mon, who can go wrong with a guy whose last name in Many Bears?) But as YZG said, it is a Native American name. If you remember the original EHM, Colton Yellow Horn became utterly dominant for a while (I'm still waiting on Kaspars Daugavins to become a stud player).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Splitter24 View Post
This player alone should've been highlighted in your observations.
So glad somebody picked up on Jesse Ventura. The best part was that he played his career with Washington, of all teams.


Last edited by Ciccarelli; 10-16-2013 at 02:58 PM.
Ciccarelli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2013, 05:32 PM   #54
havefun
Bat Boy
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9
nice work, now let's hope it isn't falling on deaf ears
havefun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2013, 05:32 PM   #55
Alessandro
Hall Of Famer
 
Alessandro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 6,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by YZG View Post
Not uncommon kind of names in NA native nations: Robin Big Snake - Wikipédia
Yeah but Many Bears is even better
Alessandro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2013, 04:16 PM   #56
jayze302
Minors (Double A)
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 116
Is anyone else bothered by the complete silence by the devs on this topic? I do not want to bring up the "game broken vs playable debate" but this thread (after reading every word) basically points out why I DO NOT PLAY this game right now.

Why are these bugs not being addressed? When I play a sports sim like FM, OOTP, and now FHM, I expect to be able to play out 20+ years and have an enjoyable experience. But that just is not possible.

Where the heck are the developers to comment on this BS?

Keep up the good work Dino, we will get someone to answer for these issues soon, I hope!
jayze302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2013, 08:19 PM   #57
Ciccarelli
Major Leagues
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 316
I somehow always get carried away with this stuff, even if I don't do it full-time. It's like I'm writing a dissertation on the subject right now. Ouch.
_________________________

2023 NHL DRAFT


1. Joe Holbert, RW, Peterborough Petes (OHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 11.0 (Offensive Potential – 800 / Defensive Potential – 753) – AGING =8 -> 12

YEAR ONE – New York Islanders (NHL), 75 GP, 6 G, 24 Points, +7 – Ability 6.0/ Potential 11.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO - New York Islanders (NHL), 82 GP, 31 G, 62 Points, -5 – Ability 8.0/ Potential 11.0 (+2 Ability)
YEAR THREE - New York Islanders (NHL), 82 GP, 21 G, 68 Points, +16 – Ability 8.5/ Potential 11.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – New York Islanders (NHL), 82 GP, 26 G, 68 Points, +18 – Ability 8.5/ Potential 11.0 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – New York Islanders (NHL), 82 GP, 40 G, 76 Points, +4 – Ability 9.5/ Potential 11.0 (+1 Ability)
YEAR SIX – New York Islanders (NHL), 82 GP, 36 G, 62 Points, -9 – Ability 9.5/ Potential 11.0 (No change)
YEAR SEVEN – New York Islanders (NHL), 74 GP, 30 G, 56 Points, -13 – Ability 10.0/ Potential 11.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – New York Islanders (NHL), 66 GP, 27 G, 52 Points, -5 – Ability 10.0/ Potential 11.0 (No change)
YEAR NINE – New York Islanders (NHL), 82 GP, 36 G, 71 Points, +19 – Ability 10.0/ Potential 10.0 (-1 Potential)
YEAR TEN - New York Islanders (NHL), 60 GP, 21 G, 43 Points, +6 – Ability 9.5/ Potential 9.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)

2. Oakley Murray, RD, Seattle Thunderbirds (WHL) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 9.5 (Offensive Potential – 738 / Defensive Potential – 797) – AGING = 11 ->13

YEAR ONE – Anaheim Ducks (NHL) / New York Rangers (NHL), 71 GP, 3 G, 10 Points, +4 (Traded to New York in February) – Ability 6.5/ Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO - New York Rangers (NHL), 74 GP, 3 G, 20 Points, -3 – Ability 7.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - New York Rangers (NHL), 71 GP, 5 G, 21 Points, -2 – Ability 7.0 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR FOUR – New York Rangers (NHL), 72 GP, 4 G, 34 Points, +20 – Ability 7.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – New York Rangers (NHL), 82 GP, 8 G, 37 Points, +26 – Ability 7.5 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR SIX – New York Rangers (NHL), 69 GP, 5 G, 28 Points, +24 – Ability 8.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – New York Rangers (NHL), 52 GP,3 G, 12 Points, +11 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – New York Rangers (NHL), 82 GP,2 G, 24 Points, +21 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR NINE – New York Rangers (NHL), 68 GP,1 G, 30 Points, +16 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR TEN - New York Rangers (NHL), 82 GP,2 G, 40 Points, +9 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.5 (-1 Potential)

3. Martin Drobny, LW, PSG Zlin U20 – Ability 6.0 / Potential 9.5 (Offensive Potential – 771 / Defensive Potential – 799) – AGING = 10 -> 11

YEAR ONE – Arizona Coyotes (NHL), 81 GP, 6 G, 16 Points, -9 – Ability 6.5/ Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO – Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 82 GP, 8 G, 18 Points, +3 (Traded to Edmonton in September) – Ability 6.5/ Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR THREE - Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 82 GP, 16 G, 34 Points, -18 – Ability 7.0/ Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 74 GP, 15 G, 33 Points, +6 – Ability 8.0/ Potential 9.5 (+1 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 73 GP, 26 G, 51 Points, +2 – Ability 8.5/ Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 78 GP, 21 G, 42 Points, +6 – Ability 9.5 / Potential 9.5 (+1 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 64 GP, 16 G, 46 Points, -10 – Ability 9.5 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR EIGHT – Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 82 GP, 34 G, 45 Points, +1 – Ability 9.5 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 70 GP, 21 G, 40 Points, +4 – Ability 9.0 / Potential 9.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)
YEAR TEN - Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 80 GP, 25 G, 49 Points, +21 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)

4. Michael Clark, C, Prince Albert Raiders (WHL) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 10.5 (Offensive Potential – 822 / Defensive Potential – 777) – AGING = 12 -> 14

YEAR ONE – Florida Panthers (NHL), 56 GP, 0 G, 5 Points, -7 – Ability 6.0/ Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR TWO - Florida Panthers (NHL), No games played – Ability 7.5/ Potential 10.5 (+1.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Florida Panthers (NHL), 65 GP, 3 G, 9 Points – Ability 8.0 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Florida Panthers (NHL), 82 GP,8 G, 16 Points, 133 PIM, +1 – Ability 8.0 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – Florida Panthers (NHL), 82 GP,22 G, 38 Points, 212 PIM, -5 – Ability 8.0 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR SIX – Florida Panthers (NHL), 82 GP,22 G, 48 Points, 197 PIM, +8 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Florida Panthers (NHL), 82 GP,30 G, 64 Points, 200 PIM, +6 – Ability 9.0/ Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – Florida Panthers (NHL), 63 GP,19 G, 45 Points, 138 PIM, +13 – Ability 9.0/ Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Florida Panthers (NHL), 82 GP,32 G, 65 Points, 240 PIM, +27 – Ability 9.0/ Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Florida Panthers (NHL), 82 GP,30 G, 67 Points, 198 PIM, +8 – Ability 9.0/ Potential 10.5 (No change)

5. Simon-Richard Lacroix, RD, Cape Breton Screaming Eagles (QMJHL) – Ability 6.5 / Potential 10.5 (Offensive Potential – 706 / Defensive Potential – 748) – AGING = 10 -> 11

YEAR ONE – Pittsburgh Penguins (NHL), 5 GP, 0 G, 2 Points – Ability 7.0 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO – Columbus Blue Jackets (NHL), 67 GP, 1 G, 26 Points, -17 (Traded to Columbus in June) – Ability 7.5 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Columbus Blue Jackets (NHL), 73 GP, 7 G, 36 Points, +1– Ability 8.0 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Columbus Blue Jackets (NHL), 79 GP, 1 G, 32 Points, 119 PIM, +16– Ability 8.0 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – New York Rangers (NHL), 66 GP, 3 G, 35 Points, +20– Ability 8.5 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – New York Rangers (NHL), 66 GP, 5 G, 32 Points, +8 – Ability 9.0 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – New York Rangers (NHL), 66 GP, 4 G, 29 Points, +5 – Ability 9.5 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – New York Rangers (NHL), 73 GP, 7 G, 32 Points, +4 – Ability 9.0 / Potential 9.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)
YEAR NINE – New York Rangers (NHL), 62 GP, 4 G, 28 Points, +9 – Ability 9.0 / Potential 9.0 (No change)
YEAR TEN - New York Rangers (NHL), 72 GP, 6 G, 42 Points, +23 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)

6. Ryan Khafipour, LW, Red Deer Rebels (WHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 9.0 (Offensive Potential – 783 / Defensive Potential – 731) – AGING = 10 -> 13

YEAR ONE – Binghamton Senators (AHL) / Ottawa Senators (NHL), 15 GP, 0 G, 2 Points, -1 – Ability 6.0/ Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO - Ottawa Senators (NHL), 82 GP, 6 G, 12 Points, -8 – Ability 6.5/ Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Ottawa Senators (NHL), 82 GP, 3 G, 26 Points, +7 – Ability 7.0/ Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Ottawa Senators (NHL), 82 GP, 14 G, 56 Points, +22 – Ability 7.5/ Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Ottawa Senators (NHL), 79 GP, 18 G, 48 Points, -11– Ability 8.0 / Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Ottawa Senators (NHL), 82 GP, 36 G, 76 Points, -13– Ability 8.5 / Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Ottawa Senators (NHL), 75 GP, 20 G, 59 Points, -8– Ability 9.5 / Potential 9.0 (+1 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – Ottawa Senators (NHL), 67 GP, 21 G, 48 Points, +4– Ability 9.5 / Potential 9.0 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Ottawa Senators (NHL), 67 GP, 26 G, 59 Points, +12– Ability 9.5 / Potential 9.0 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Ottawa Senators (NHL), 67 GP, 23 G, 67 Points, -6– Ability 9.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Potential)

7. Renato Nemeth, RD/LD, Hungarian U18 – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.5 (Offensive Potential – 1000 / Defensive Potential – 1000 / Aging - 10) – AGING = 10

YEAR ONE – Utica Comets (AHL) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR TWO - Utica Comets (AHL) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR THREE – Kalamazoo Wings (ECHL) / Utica Comets (AHL) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Kalamazoo Wings (ECHL), No games played – Ability 3.5 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – Kalamazoo Wings (ECHL), No games played – Ability 4.0 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Kalamazoo Wings (ECHL), No games played – Ability 4.5 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Kalamazoo Wings (ECHL), No games played – Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (-6 Potential)
YEAR EIGHT – Albany Devlis, (AHL) (Signed in free agency by New Jersey) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (+.5 Ability , +.5 Potential)
YEAR NINE – South Carolina Stingrays (ECHL), No games played– Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (-.5 Ability , -.5 Potential)
YEAR TEN – Providence Bruins (AHL) / South Carolina Stingrays (ECHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (No change)

8. Jason Fullerton, LD, Medicine Hat Tigers (WHL) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.0 (Offensive Potential – 1000 / Defensive Potential – 1000 / Aging - 6) – AGING = 6

YEAR ONE – Medicine Hat Tigers (WHL) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR TWO - Medicine Hat Tigers (WHL) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR THREE – Cincinnati Cyclones (ECHL) / San Francisco Bulls (ECHL) (Traded to San Jose in mid-January, after he turned age 21) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (+.5 Ability / -6.5 Potential)
YEAR FOUR – San Francisco Bulls (ECHL) , No games played– Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – UBC Thunderbirds (CIS) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change) RELEASED
YEAR SIX – Mississippi Surge (SPHL) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change)
YEAR SEVEN – RETIRED

9. Jeff Miller, C, Western US Jr. B – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.0 (Offensive Potential – 1000 / Defensive Potential – 1000 / Aging - 14) – AGING = 14

YEAR ONE – KOOVEE Tampere (Suomi-Sarja) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change) RELEASED
YEAR TWO - KOOVEE Tampere (Suomi-Sarja) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR THREE - KOOVEE Tampere (Suomi-Sarja) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR FOUR – Keupa HT Keuruu (Suomi-Sarja) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 10.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Keupa HT Keuruu (Suomi-Sarja) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR SIX – Keupa HT Keuruu (Suomi-Sarja) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR SEVEN – Keupa HT Keuruu (Suomi-Sarja) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 10.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – Red Ducks Waasa (Suomi-Sarja) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR NINE – EHC Niesky (Oberliga) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR TEN – Bietigheim Ironmen (DEL2) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)

10. Valdemar Olsson, C, Northern Sweden U18 – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.5 (Offensive Potential – 1000 / Defensive Potential – 1000 / Aging - 20) – AGING = 20

YEAR ONE – Hartford Wolfpack (AHL) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR TWO – Greenville Road Warriors (ECHL) / Hartford Wolfpack (AHL) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR THREE - Greenville Road Warriors (ECHL) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Greenville Road Warriors (ECHL), No games played – Ability 3.5 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – Greenville Road Warriors (ECHL), No games played – Ability 4.0 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Greenville Road Warriors (ECHL), No games played – Ability 4.0 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR SEVEN – Greenville Road Warriors (ECHL), No games played – Ability 4.5 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – Greenville Road Warriors (ECHL), No games played – Ability 4.5 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Greenville Road Warriors (ECHL), No games played – Ability 4.5 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Greenville Road Warriors (ECHL), No games played – Ability 4.5 / Potential 10.5 (No change)

11. Maxim Many Bears, RW, Gloucester Rangers (CCHL) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 11.0 (Offensive Potential – 1000 / Defensive Potential – 1000 / Aging – 8 ) – AGING = 8

YEAR ONE – Rochester Americans (AHL), No games played – Ability 3.0 / Potential 11.0 (No change)
YEAR TWO - Rochester Americans (AHL), No games played – Ability 3.5 / Potential 11.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Rochester Americans (AHL), No games played – Ability 3.5 / Potential 11.0 (No change)
YEAR FOUR – Rochester Americans (AHL), No games played – Ability 4.0 / Potential 11.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Kalamazoo Wings (ECHL), No games played – Ability 4.0 / Potential 4.0 (-7 Potential) RELEASED
YEAR SIX – Kalamazoo Wings (ECHL) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)
YEAR SEVEN – Guelph Gryphons (CIS) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change)
YEAR EIGHT – Guelph Gryphons (CIS) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Fayetteville FireAntz (SPHL) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Fayetteville FireAntz (SPHL) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change)

12. Oleg Mikhailov, G, Russian Third Division – Ability 3.5 / Potential 10.0 (Goaltending Potential – 1000 / Aging - 15) – AGING = 15 -> 14 (Broken kneecap injury… probable culprit?)

YEAR ONE – Iowa Wild (AHL) / Minnesota Wild (NHL), 17 GP, 5 W, 10 L, 2.76 GAA, .921 SV% – Ability 3.5 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR TWO - – Iowa Wild (AHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 10.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Iowa Wild (AHL) / Minnesota Wild (NHL), 5 GP, 3 W, 2 L, 2.40 GAA, .932 SV% – Ability 5.0 / Potential 10.0 (+1 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Iowa Wild (AHL) / Minnesota Wild (NHL), 20 GP, 9 W, 6 L, 2.41 GAA, .928 SV% – Ability 5.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – Iowa Wild (AHL) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 10.0 (+1 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Minnesota Wild (NHL) / Carolina Hurricanes (NHL), 60 GP, 28 W, 27 L, 2.76 GAA, .919 SV% (Traded to Carolina in January) – Ability 6.5 / Potential 10.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Carolina Hurricanes (NHL), 60 GP, 33 W, 14 L, 2.24 GAA, .929 SV% – Ability 7.0 / Potential 10.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – Carolina Hurricanes (NHL), 54 GP, 20 W, 21 L, 2.37 GAA, .924 SV% – Ability 7.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Carolina Hurricanes (NHL), 57 GP, 25 W, 25 L, 2.16 GAA, .934 SV% – Ability 7.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Carolina Hurricanes (NHL), 26 GP, 14 W, 5 L, 1.74 GAA, .943 SV% – Ability 7.5 / Potential 10.0 (+.5 Ability)

13. Kyle Feasey, C, Windsor Spitfires (OHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.0 (Offensive Potential – 763 / Defensive Potential - 713) – AGING = 10 ->15

YEAR ONE – Windsor Spitfires (OHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO - Windsor Spitfires (OHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 8.0 (No change)
YEAR THREE – Springfield Falcons (AHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Columbus Blue Jackets (NHL), 82 GP, 5 G, 9 Points, -5 – Ability 5.5 / Potential 9.0 (+1 Potential)
YEAR FIVE – Columbus Blue Jackets (NHL), 82 GP, 5 G, 12 Points, +4 – Ability 6.0 / Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Columbus Blue Jackets (NHL), 75 GP, 8 G, 18 Points, -7 – Ability 6.5 / Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Columbus Blue Jackets (NHL), 82 GP, 16 G, 27 Points, -6 – Ability 7.0 / Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – Columbus Blue Jackets (NHL), 82 GP, 23 G, 43 Points – Ability 7.0 / Potential 9.0 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Ottawa Senators (NHL), 82 GP, 22 G, 46 Points , 114 PIM, -5 (Traded to Ottawa in June) – Ability 8.0 / Potential 9.0 (+1 Ability)
YEAR TEN - Ottawa Senators (NHL), 82 GP, 31 G, 62 Points, 121 PIM, -6 – Ability 8.0 / Potential 9.0 (No change)

14. Curtis Santi, RW, Edmonton Oil Kings (WHL) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 10.0 (Offensive Potential – 749 / Defensive Potential - 735) – AGING = 12 -> 13

YEAR ONE – Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 7 GP, 0 G, 4 Point – Ability 6.5/ Potential 10.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO - Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 82 GP, 4 G, 10 Points, -3 – Ability 7.0/ Potential 10.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 67 GP, 17 G, 35 Points, +7 – Ability 7.5/ Potential 10.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 78 GP, 38 G, 65 Points, +10 – Ability 8.0/ Potential 10.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 82 GP, 34 G, 70 Points, +7 – Ability 9.0 / Potential 10.0 (+1 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 76 GP, 45 G, 79 Points, +25 – Ability 10.0 / Potential 10.0 (+1 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 82 GP, 43 G, 74 Points, +10 – Ability 10.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR EIGHT – Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 63 GP, 33 G, 58 Points , +11– Ability 10.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 82 GP, 43 G, 72 Points , +1– Ability 10.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 72 GP, 26 G, 43 Points , +3– Ability 10.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)

15. Johan Eriksson, C, Linkopings HC J20 – Ability 5.0 / Potential 9.0 (Offensive Potential – 736 / Defensive Potential - 706) – AGING = 11 -> 14

YEAR ONE – Manchester Monarchs (AHL) – Ability 5.0/ Potential 9.0 (No change)
YEAR TWO - Manchester Monarchs (AHL) / Los Angeles Kings (NHL), 46 GP, 4 G, 17 Points, -21 – Ability 5.5/ Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Manchester Monarchs (AHL) / Los Angeles Kings (NHL), 76 GP, 18 G, 36 Points – Ability 5.5/ Potential 9.0 (No change)
YEAR FOUR – Buffalo Sabres (NHL), 82 GP, 6 G, 9 Points, -9 (Traded to Buffalo in August) – Ability 6.0/ Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Buffalo Sabres (NHL), 82 GP, 14 G, 38 Points, -3 – Ability 6.5/ Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Buffalo Sabres (NHL), 76 GP, 21 G, 45 Points, -2 – Ability 8.0 / Potential 9.0 (+1.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Buffalo Sabres (NHL), 82 GP, 24 G, 58 Points, +1 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – Buffalo Sabres (NHL), 82 GP, 37 G, 98 Points, +44– Ability 8.5 / Potential 9.0 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Buffalo Sabres (NHL), 82 GP, 35 G, 73 Points, +10– Ability 8.5 / Potential 9.0 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Buffalo Sabres (NHL), 73 GP, 28 G, 53 Points, -3– Ability 8.5 / Potential 9.0 (No change)

16. Philippe Gordon, RW, Kemptville 73’s (CCHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 8.5 (Offensive Potential – 786 / Defensive Potential - 762) – AGING = 13-> 14

YEAR ONE – Charlotte Checkers (AHL) – Ability 4.0/ Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR TWO - Charlotte Checkers (AHL) – Ability 4.5/ Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE – Florida Everblades (ECHL) / Charlotte Checkers (AHL) – Ability 4.5/ Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR FOUR – Florida Everblades (ECHL) – Ability 4.5/ Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – Charlotte Checkers (AHL) – Ability 5.0/ Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Charlotte Checkers (AHL) – Ability 5.5/ Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – St. Johns IceCaps (AHL) / Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 46 GP, 6 G, 8 Points, -14 – Ability 6.0/ Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) RELEASED/UFA
YEAR EIGHT – Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 75 GP, 14 G, 32 Points, +2 – Ability 6.0/ Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR NINE – St. Johns IceCaps (AHL) / Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 62 GP, 21 G, 32 Points, -14 – Ability 6.0/ Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR TEN - St. Johns IceCaps (AHL) / Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 47 GP, 10 G, 16 Points, -3 – Ability 6.0/ Potential 8.5 (No change)

17. Dominic Foster, LD/RD, Brandon Wheat Kings (WHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 8.0 (Offensive Potential – 685 / Defensive Potential - 729) – AGING =12

YEAR ONE – Brandon Wheat Kings (WHL) – Ability 4.5/ Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO - Brandon Wheat Kings (WHL) – Ability 5.0/ Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE – South Carolina Stingrays (ECHL), No games played – Ability 5.0/ Potential 8.0 (No change)
YEAR FOUR – South Carolina Stingrays (ECHL), No games played – Ability 5.5/ Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Hershey Bears (AHL) – Ability 6.0/ Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Hershey Bears (AHL) – Ability 6.0/ Potential 8.0 (No change)
YEAR SEVEN – Washington Capitals (NHL), 27 GP, 2 G, 7 Points, +11 – Ability 7.0/ Potential 8.0 (+1 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – Washington Capitals (NHL), 68 GP,1 G, 8 Points, -17 – Ability 7.0/ Potential 8.0 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Washington Capitals (NHL), 63 GP, 0 G, 13 Points, -19 – Ability 7.5/ Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TEN - Washington Capitals (NHL), 82 GP, 1 G, 18 Points, -13 – Ability 7.5/ Potential 7.5 (-.5 Potential)

18. Justin Langan, RD, Blainville-Boisbriand Armada (QMJHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 9.0 (Offensive Potential – 689 / Defensive Potential - 725) – AGING = 8

YEAR ONE - Blainville-Boisbriand Armada (QMJHL) – Ability 6.0/ Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO – Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 82 GP, 3 G, 9 Points, +4 – Ability 7.0/ Potential 9.0 (+1 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 69 GP, 2 G, 20 Points, +3 – Ability 7.5/ Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 76 GP, 5 G, 30 Points, 119 PIM, +14 – Ability 7.5/ Potential 9.0 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 80 GP, 2 G, 21 Points, 150 PIM, +2 – Ability 8.0/ Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability, -1 Potential)
YEAR SIX – Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 82 GP, 14 G, 50 Points, 68 PIM, +29 – Ability 8.0/ Potential 8.0 (No change)
YEAR SEVEN – Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 76 GP, 8 G, 27 Points, -5 – Ability 7.5/ Potential 7.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)
YEAR EIGHT – Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 82 GP, 7 G, 47 Points, +10 – Ability 7.5/ Potential 7.5 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 73 GP, 4 G, 27 Points, +4 – Ability 7.5/ Potential 7.5 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 51 GP, 2 G, 19 Points, -9 – Ability 7.0/ Potential 7.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)

19. Vitaly Solovyov, C, Serebryanie LVI St. Petersburg (YHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 9.5 (Offensive Potential – 730 / Defensive Potential - 676) – AGING = 15

YEAR ONE - Serebryanie LVI St. Petersburg (YHL) - Ability 4.5 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR TWO – Yunior Kurgan (YHL) - Ability 5.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Zauralie Kurgan (VHL) - Ability 5.0 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR FOUR – Zauralie Kurgan (VHL) - Ability 5.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Zauralie Kurgan (VHL) - Ability 5.5 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR SIX – Neftyanik Almetievsk (VHL) - Ability 6.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Neftyanik Almetievsk (VHL) - Ability 6.0 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR EIGHT – Neftyanik Almetievsk (VHL) - Ability 6.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR NINE – Neftyanik Almetievsk (VHL) - Ability 6.5 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Neftyanik Almetievsk (VHL) - Ability 6.5 / Potential 9.5 (No change)

20. Paul Houck, LD/RD, Gatineau Olympiques (QMJHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 9.5 (Offensive Potential – 712 / Defensive Potential - 755) – AGING = 9

YEAR ONE – Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL), 3 GP, 0 G, 0 Points – Ability 5.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO – Gatineau Olympiques (QMJHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE – Toronto Marlies (AHL) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Toronto Marlies (AHL) / Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL), 3 GP, 1 Assist – Ability 6.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL), 61 GP, 1 G, 22 Points, +22 – Ability 7.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX –Montreal Canadiens (NHL), 77 GP, 3 G, 17 Points, -12 (Traded to Montreal in September) – Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.0 (- 2.5 Potential)
YEAR SEVEN – Montreal Canadiens (NHL), 76 GP, 2 G, 25 Points, -3 – Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability, +.5 Potential)
YEAR EIGHT – Montreal Canadiens (NHL), 73 GP, 3 G, 26 Points, +11 – Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Montreal Canadiens (NHL), 82 GP, 4 G, 27 Points, -7 – Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Montreal Canadiens (NHL), 71 GP, 3 G, 12 Points, -3 – Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)

21. Damon McKnight, LW, Windsor Spitfires (OHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 9.5 (Offensive Potential – 732 / Defensive Potential - 722) – AGING = 8

YEAR ONE – Windsor Spitfires (OHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO – Hershey Bears (AHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Hershey Bears (AHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR FOUR – Reading Royals (ECHL) / Hershey Bears (AHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Utica Comets (AHL) / Vancouver Canucks (NHL) , 62 GP, 6 G, 22 Points, +2 – Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (-4 Potential) RELEASED/UFA
YEAR SIX – Utica Comets (AHL) / Vancouver Canucks (NHL), Four games played, -5 – Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (No change)
YEAR SEVEN – Worcester Sharks (AHL) / Springfield Falcons (AHL) / San Jose Sharks (NHL), 44 GP, 9 G, 20 Points, +8 (Signed as free agent by San Jose, Traded to Columbus in February) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (No change)
YEAR EIGHT – Springfield Falcons (AHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Springfield Falcons (AHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (No change)
YEAR TEN – Gwinnett Gladiators (ECHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)

22. Matt Davison, RD, Brockville Braves (CCHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 7.5 (Offensive Potential – 697 / Defensive Potential - 725) – AGING = 7

YEAR ONE – Idaho Steeleads (ECHL) / Texas Stars (AHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO - Idaho Steeleads (ECHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 7.5 (No change)
YEAR THREE - Idaho Steeleads (ECHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Lake Erie Monsters (AHL) / Colorado Avalanche (NHL), 4 GP, 1 Assist – Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (+.5 Ability, -2 Potential)
YEAR FIVE – Lake Erie Monsters (AHL) (Traded to Tampa Bay in June) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)
YEAR SIX – Syracuse Crunch (AHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (No change)
YEAR SEVEN – Syracuse Crunch (AHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (+.5 Ability, +.5 Potential)
YEAR EIGHT – Syracuse Crunch (AHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)
YEAR NINE – Syracuse Crunch (AHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (No change)
YEAR TEN – Saryarka Karaganda (VHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)

23. Miroslav Agnet, C, HC Kosice J20 – Ability 4.0 / Potential 9.0 (Offensive Potential – 734 / Defensive Potential - 748) – AGING = 10

YEAR ONE – Severstal Cherepovets (KHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 9.0 (No change) RELEASED
YEAR TWO – EHC Bad Tolz (Oberliga) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE – Lizards Erfurt (Oberliga) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 9.0 (No change)
YEAR FOUR – EHC Riessersee (DEL2) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – EHC Riessersee (DEL2) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 9.0 (No change)
YEAR SIX – EHC Riessersee (DEL2) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – EHC Riessersee (DEL2) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (-4.5 Potential)
YEAR EIGHT – Heilbronner Spatzen (DEL2) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 6.0 (+.5 Ability, +.5 Potential)
YEAR NINE – Heilbronner Spatzen (DEL2) – Ability 5.5/ Potential 5.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)
YEAR TEN – EC Redbull Salzburg Red Bulls (EBEL) – Ability 5.5/ Potential 5.5 (No change)

24. Harnam Unknown, LD, Calgary Mustangs (AJHL) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 7.0 (Offensive Potential – 694 / Defensive Potential - 752) – AGING = 11

YEAR ONE – Albany Devils (AHL), No games played – Ability 4.0 / Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO - Albany Devils (AHL), No games played – Ability 4.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change)
YEAR THREE - Albany Devils (AHL), No games played – Ability 4.5 / Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Albany Devils (AHL), No games played – Ability 5.0/ Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Hartford Wolf Pack (AHL) (Traded to New York In January) – Ability 5.5/ Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Hartford Wolf Pack (AHL) / New York Rangers (NHL), One game played – Ability 6.0/ Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Hartford Wolf Pack (AHL) / New York Rangers (NHL) / Vancouver Canucks (NHL) / Arizona Coyotes (NHL), 43 GP, 2 G, 10 Points, -3 (Claimed off waivers by Vancouver in February, Traded to Arizona two weeks later) – Ability 6.5/ Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – Arizona Coyotes (NHL) / Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL), 63 GP, 3 G, 20 Points, +17 (Traded to Toronto in December) – Ability 6.5/ Potential 7.0 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL), 75 GP, 2 G, 21 Points, -25 – Ability 6.5/ Potential 6.5 (-.5 Potential)
YEAR TEN – Toronto Marlies (AHL) / Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL), 25 GP, 1 G, 12 Points, +6 – Ability 6.5/ Potential 6.5 (No change)

25. Aleksandr Lapchenkov, RW, Ladia Togilatti (YHL) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 7.0 (Offensive Potential – 733 / Defensive Potential - 700) – AGING = 11 -> 14

YEAR ONE – Ladia Togilatti (YHL) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO – Lokomotiv Yaroslavl (KHL) / Salavat Yulayev Ufa (KHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Salavat Yulayev Ufa (KHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change)
YEAR FOUR – Salavat Yulayev Ufa (KHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – Salavat Yulayev Ufa (KHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Salavat Yulayev Ufa (KHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Salavat Yulayev Ufa (KHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change)
YEAR EIGHT – Salavat Yulayev Ufa (KHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Salavat Yulayev Ufa (KHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change)
YEAR TEN – Utica Comets (AHL) (Signed by Vancouver as free agent in July)– Ability 5.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change) RELEASED/UFA

26. Artie O’Gallwan, LW, Cedar Rapids RoughRiders (USHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.5 (Offensive Potential – 705 / Defensive Potential - 647) – AGING = 14

YEAR ONE – Syracuse Crunch (AHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR TWO - Syracuse Crunch (AHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 8.5 (+1 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Syracuse Crunch (AHL), One game played / Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 6 games played – Ability 6.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 66 GP, 6 G, 21 Points, +10 – Ability 6.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 82 GP, 18 G, 34 Points, -13 – Ability 6.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 50 GP, 17 G, 39 Points, +1 – Ability 7.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 82 GP, 25 G, 72 Points, -6 – Ability 7.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR EIGHT – Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 74 GP, 14 G, 40 Points, -18 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.5 (+1.5 Ability)
YEAR NINE – Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 80 GP, 20 G, 54 Points, +3 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 68 GP, 20 G, 52 Points, +8 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.5 (No change)

27. Daniel Malm, C, Stockholm U18 – Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.5 (Offensive Potential – 726 / Defensive Potential - 659) – AGING = 13 -> 15

YEAR ONE – Worcester Sharks (AHL) / Lake Erie Monsters (AHL) (Traded to Colorado in February) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) RELEASED
YEAR TWO – Salavat Yulayev Ufa (KHL) / Brynas IF (Allsvenskan) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR THREE – Skelleftea AIK (SHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Skelleftea AIK (SHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – Skelleftea AIK (SHL) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Skelleftea AIK (SHL) – Ability 6.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Skelleftea AIK (SHL) – Ability 6.5 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR EIGHT – Skelleftea AIK (SHL) – Ability 7.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR NINE – Skelleftea AIK (SHL) – Ability 7.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Skelleftea AIK (SHL) – Ability 7.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change)

28. Syarhey Asipovich, LW, Lokomotiv Yaroslavl (KHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.5 (Offensive Potential – 704 / Defensive Potential - 643) – AGING = 12 -> 15

YEAR ONE – Lokomotiv Yaroslavl (KHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO - Lokomotiv Yaroslavl (KHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Lokomotiv Yaroslavl (KHL) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Lokomotiv Yaroslavl (KHL) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – Lokomotiv Yaroslavl (KHL) – Ability 6.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Dinamo Minsk (KHL) – Ability 6.5 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR SEVEN – Dinamo Minsk (KHL) – Ability 7.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – Dinamo Minsk (KHL) – Ability 7.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Dinamo Minsk (KHL) – Ability 7.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Dinamo Minsk (KHL) – Ability 7.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change)

29. Pier-Luc Benoit, C, Victoriaville Tigers (QMJHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 8.0 (Offensive Potential – 673 / Defensive Potential - 632) – AGING = 11 -> 12

YEAR ONE – Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 72 GP, 3 G, 10 Points, -4 – Ability 5.5/ Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO - Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 82 GP, 5 G, 34 Points, +1 – Ability 6.0/ Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 62 GP, 15 G, 35 Points, +3 – Ability 6.0/ Potential 8.0 (No change)
YEAR FOUR – Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 80 GP, 17 G, 52 Points, +8 – Ability 6.5/ Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 80 GP, 18 G, 51 Points, +19 – Ability 8.0 / Potential 8.0 (+1.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Los Angeles Kings (NHL), 82 GP, 26 G, 69 Points, +14 (Traded to Los Angeles in June) – Ability 8.0 / Potential 8.0 (No change)
YEAR SEVEN – Los Angeles Kings (NHL), 82 GP, 24 G, 72 Points, 101 PIM, +16 – Ability 8.0 / Potential 8.0 (No change)
YEAR EIGHT – Los Angeles Kings (NHL), 82 GP, 12 G, 46 Points, +9 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR NINE – Los Angeles Kings (NHL), 82 GP, 15 G, 64 Points, +20 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Potential)
YEAR TEN - Los Angeles Kings (NHL), 82 GP, 14 G, 44 Points, -7 – Ability 8.0 / Potential 8.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)

30. Iisakki Viiru, C, Northern Finland U18 – Ability 4.5 / Potential 7.0 (Offensive Potential – 682 / Defensive Potential - 714) – AGING = 8 -> 9

YEAR ONE – Hamilton Bulldogs (AHL) - Ability 5.0/ Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO – Tappara Tampere (SML) - Ability 5.5/ Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability) RELEASED
YEAR THREE - Tappara Tampere (SML) - Ability 5.5/ Potential 7.0 (No change)
YEAR FOUR – Tappara Tampere (SML) - Ability 6.0/ Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Tappara Tampere (SML) - Ability 6.5/ Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Tappara Tampere (SML) - Ability 6.5/ Potential 7.0 (No change) (Changed to 6.5 / 6.5 after his 24th birthday)
YEAR SEVEN – Tappara Tampere (SML) - Ability 6.5/ Potential 6.5 (-.5 Potential)
YEAR EIGHT – Tappara Tampere (SML) - Ability 6.5/ Potential 6.5 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Montreal Canadiens (NHL), 67 GP, 4 G, 26 Points - Ability 6.0/ Potential 6.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)
YEAR TEN – Hamilton Bulldogs (AHL) - Ability 6.0/ Potential 6.0 (No change)

___________________________

NOTES/OBSERVATIONS

- Jeff Miller, one of the six players I had manipulated in the draft, was released by the team that drafted him one year after the draft. It’s as if the AI has different hard-set philosophies for drafting and roster management. There’s the one side that can read the players “true” potential during the draft and select the best player available, statistics and scouts be damned. There’s another side that hoards up every player that it can possibly get its grubby little hands on.

It doesn’t matter the nationality, age or position. If they’re a player in the database, they will be signed. I also have been noticing unplayable leagues, like Austria’s EBEL, Italy’s Serie A and Poland’s elite league, unable to get to their minimum roster limits, probably because the larger teams are gobbling up everything in sight).

And then there’s the side of roster management that completely ignores age and potential, simply looking at current ability to make roster decisions (like cutting players).

The man had the potential to be an absolute stud at the NHL level, with proper development. Every single team would be chomping at the bit to get that kind of player into their prospect pool. Instead, the AI cuts him (and no other team is interested in him besides a team in a non-major Finnish League) because they simply see “Current Ability: 3.0” and no other variables (like, perhaps, the 10.0 potential the game has accurately portrayed him as having). Meanwhile, a 36-year-old European player with no experience playing in North America (whom should have no business having an NHL contract, let alone being deemed better than a young prospect) is deemed a greater asset to the NHL club because the AI sees “Current Ability: 5.0” instead of looking at his age, his declining attributes and the fact that he has no playing experience in North America.

- It looks like, despite manipulating the potential ability to 1000, none of the players came even close to their potential. The only player who even ended up becoming an NHL regular was the goaltender, Mikhailov. Everybody else barely developed at all; some players not playing a single game for years on end (Many Bears, Olsson and Nemeth) and one player retiring at the ripe old age of 23 (Fullerton). It’s good that every single player doesn’t reach their potential in this game, but the way the game goes about it is odd. There’s no true variety to player development. If you rush the player to the professional leagues (NHL, KHL, etc.), the player has a FAR greater chance of reaching his full potential (Players like Khafipour, Clark, Benoit, Langan, and Santi come to mind). If the player uses a more conventional route to develop (i.e. playing in the NCAA, European minor league system, AHL/ECHL, etc.), it’s like the kiss of death: The player will usually not develop, for whatever reason (lack of coaching or the fact that most of those leagues are non-playable).

Once again, it just seems weird that the AI is rewarded for rushing its prized prospects to the professional level while those that take a cautious, meticulous approach (giving them quality playing time in a non-playable league) are mostly punished by having the development of their prospects stagnate.

- Another thing that is very strange is the amount of young players who didn’t get playing time at one point or another. It mostly happened with the six players I manipulated, but there were other players that suffered the same fate (Clark had one year where he didn’t play at all, Unknown didn’t play a single game for four years, Lacroix, Houck and Santi spent the first year of their careers rotting on an NHL bench, and Foster spent several years on a reserve roster in the ECHL). It’s like the AI doesn’t take potential ability into consideration when arranging their lines (as in, let’s give the players with what we perceive to have the best potential quality ice time in the hopes that they will reach their potential), but simply goes on overall ability (a 5.5 rated 32-year-old is rated better than a 5.0 19-year-old player). The worst part about this is that most of these players weren’t affected by the lack of playing time or being on the bench, but developed at or close to their full potential.

- I’m also noticing a lot of young players being traded ad nauseum. Lacroix and Drobny got traded in their second year, the second overall pick Murray got traded in the middle of the first season. And then there’s Daniel Malm, who was also traded during his first season, but had the distinction of being released by the Avalanche several months after they traded for him (once again, great asset management by the AI). It just seems odd how the AI will play “hot potato” with a good amount of players before they turn 20. I don’t know if the other AI teams are recognizing the player’s potential when they are trading for them, but the teams that have the prospects shouldn’t be giving them up without a substantially high return in the first place (probably higher than their trade value, since they offer more to the team in potential value than they do in a trade).

- I’m getting a decent bit of crashes when I try to look at certain player contracts (a minority of them, doesn’t matter if they’re in juniors, in free agency or in a professional league). I can’t find any rhyme or reason to it, which is odd. All I know is I try clicking on their contract tab in the player page, and then the game crashes.


________________________

AGING ATTRIBUTE

- Jason Fullerton had his aging attribute at 6 and his potential fell to where his current ability was in year three, which shows me that the game sees him as reaching his peak or that he’s just stopped all forms of development at the age of 21. If it’s the former, then development speed needs to be much faster (or start with their abilities higher when they’re created in the database) on guys with a low aging attribute. If it’s the latter, then it’s just completely unrealistic. From what I’ve seen, the aging attribute appears to symbolize when a player’s potential falls off of a cliff (I see some development from players after this drop, but it’s minimal) at certain ages:

1 –Player peaks/stops developing at age 16
2- Player peaks/stops developing at age 17
3- Player peaks/stops developing at age 18
4- Player peaks/stops developing at age 19
5- Player peaks/stops developing at age 20
6- Player peaks/stops developing at age 21
7-Player peaks/stops developing at age 22 *PHYSICAL PEAK AGE HARD-CODED AT 22*
8- Player peaks/stops developing at age 23
9- Player peaks/stops developing at age 24
10- Player peaks/stops developing at age 25 *PLAYER PEAK AGE HARD-CODED AT 25*
11- Player peaks/stops developing at age 26
12- Player peaks/stops developing at age 27
13- Player peaks/stops developing at age 28
14- Player peaks/stops developing at age 29
15- Player peaks/stops developing at age 30
16- Player peaks/stops developing at age 31
17- Player peaks/stops developing at age 32
18- Player peaks/stops developing at age 33
19- Player peaks/stops developing at age 34
20- Player peaks/stops developing at age 35

I’m looking at past posts in this thread and was mentioning that the players whose potential “mysteriously” dropped before the age of 25 were beginning to suffer attribute decline. It looks like the aging attribute stops the player from developing and begins regression (or the chances of attributes regressing). This is especially prevalent for a player’s physical attributes (happening way too often and way too early. I’m seeing some players starting to decline at the ages of 23 and 24…)

I understand the idea in theory, when a player should be at or simply stopping player development entirely (thus beginning a player’s “peak”) There are a few giant issues with it though:

1. The development of a player automatically stops when a player hits his birthday (and it’s visible to the AI and human eye as the players potential plummets after it hits this arbitrary mark)

2. The peak, in a majority of cases, is WAY too short. Players do not simply decline once they hit their peak (It looks like a lot of players follow the Jonathan Cheechoo development curve. Have one big year then start regressing gradually until they become obsolete. The “Cheechoo” model is extremely rare and shouldn’t be the norm in the game). Let’s say the average player plays at peak performance for about five years. During that time, there may be some fluctuation in attributes (but mostly by one or two points, give or take), but they don’t begin wholesale regression of attributes, making them reserve roster fodder by the time they hit 30-31.

You might need another attribute to signify the beginning of when a player should start suffering player decline (let’s call this “decline”) and an attribute to signify the speed in which they decline (let’s call this one “aging”). In theory, let’s say Oakley Murray, the second pick in the draft, has three hidden attributes which will “guide” his development curve:

Development peak: I’m considering this “peak” what the aging attribute already signifies, so he’ll start at 11.

Decline: When the player will begin to risk attribute decline (1-20 attribute. 1 signifying he’ll begin decline at 22-23 [and no, the development shouldn’t stop when a player simply turns 22 or 23], 20 signifying he’ll begin decline at 41-42.) For consistency purposes, let’s put this at 11 as well.

Aging: Signifies the speed (or chances) in which a player will lose attributes (1-20 again. 1 signifying he will fall off the face of the map [Think going from 8.5 to 5.5 in one year], 20 signifying the extremely rare “ageless wonder”). Once again, let’s put this one at 11.

What this will mean is that Murray will stop developing (whether or not he reaches peak potential) at the age of 25-26; he’ll remain at peak level until he begins his chances to start declining at the age of 32-33. With the 11 decline attribute, this will probably mean that he’ll steadily regress until he’s out of the league by the time he’s 36-38, depending on how well he does in his player “rolls.”

I know, I don’t want to get all carried away in theory, so I’ll stop there. It’s just interesting what I see, is all.

- One thing I seemed to notice is that, for certain players, the aging attribute (which I honestly thought was static) improved for some players, with a couple improving the attribute by several points (like Holbert, Murray and Khafipour) while I noticed one player’s attribute had declined (Mikulchik) by one, which I am assuming was due to a severe injury. This is pretty cool, if that’s the case. I’d like to see the effect of an injury be more pronounced though (instead of losing simply one point in aging, perhaps a chance of losing multiple points in aging and attributes in areas affected by the knee, such as reflexes, blocker and skating), but that’s a bit more complex. I’m just trying to figure out if there are any other things that increase the aging attribute besides simply staying healthy, in some respects.

- The one thing that continues to irk me is the idea of a flat player (and physical) peak age. In a sense, it’s counter-intuitive to the aging attribute that is currently built into the game. Suppose someone has an aging attribute over 10 (meaning they should peak AFTER the age of 25). The game is probably reading the hard-coded player peak age (25) instead of allowing the player to organically grow (or regress) at his own rate. I’m noticing a lot of players who don’t reach their potential (and I know it’s their true potential because the ability ratings are near-pinpoint) because it seems like, no matter what, most players start declining at the age of 25 (some before that, if the aging attribute is below ten). It hurts the game for one obvious reason: By hard-coding one singular peak age, you defeat the purpose of an aging “attribute” and stunt the already-limited talent pool of the database (by causing a majority of players to simply stop developing once they hit the age of 25, regardless of the aging attribute).

And now I just hope they look the stuff I’m mentioning immediately. Yeah, I’m some “new guy” with less than 50 posts whose coming in like a hot shot writing glorified “essays” about how this game is a mess, but I was an avid player of EHM back in the day (in fact I was a beta tester for EHM 07, under a different username) and the idea of player development has fascinated me, so I (hopefully) have some idea of what I’m talking about. Otherwise the only thing I can really do right now is analyze stat leaders (and that could very well be a mess in itself… not too eager to dive back in right now). I need a drink or fifteen.

Last edited by Ciccarelli; 10-17-2013 at 08:23 PM.
Ciccarelli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2013, 08:47 PM   #58
thepete
Minors (Double A)
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 110
Great and somewhat depressing work yet again, man.
thepete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2013, 02:57 AM   #59
Alessandro
Hall Of Famer
 
Alessandro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 6,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ciccarelli View Post
I was an avid player of EHM back in the day (in fact I was a beta tester for EHM 07, under a different username)
What was it
Alessandro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2013, 06:40 AM   #60
Smetana
All Star Starter
 
Smetana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,071
Great work! Let's hope it's being read.
Smetana is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:01 PM.

 

Major League and Minor League Baseball trademarks and copyrights are used with permission of Major League Baseball. Visit MLB.com and MiLB.com.

Officially Licensed Product – MLB Players, Inc.

Out of the Park Baseball is a registered trademark of Out of the Park Developments GmbH & Co. KG

Google Play is a trademark of Google Inc.

Apple, iPhone, iPod touch and iPad are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries.

COPYRIGHT © 2023 OUT OF THE PARK DEVELOPMENTS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2024 Out of the Park Developments