Player development in Historical

Righty Groove · 11-03-2017, 08:28 AM

Hello!

I'm playing historical, a lot. And I'm using player development (not re-calc). I'm noticing that player development is kind of random, sometimes?

For example, I drafted Mike Bossy 1977, and when he was 26-27, he had topped as a 3.5 guy. Very good, some 50-goal seasons, etc.

But, on other games, when I *don't* have Bossy, he makes it as a 4.5 guy, *much* better.

Similar things happened to Dave Gilmour, Dino Ciccarelli and others. Larry Murphy was good but kind of meh, for me. Again, a 3.0/3.5 guy, as was Dale Hawerchuk, while Gilmour and Dino were 4.5/5.0 guys.

I'm at commissioner mode, so *I think* it's not a scouting error. I mean, I don't think that those 4.5/5.0 guys on other teams are nore really 4.5/5.0

What am I doing wrong in player development? They play *a lot*, they're the stars of the team... I hire the best Ass Coaches I can find, and I leave training for my assistants. Is that the problem? Training for the assistants?

JeffR · 11-03-2017, 11:42 PM

What do the coaching staff's actual coaching skills look like, particularly their ability to work with prospects? That's one place where things could go wrong. The guys with superstar-level potential have the longest distance to travel from their 17-year-old level to their NHL prime, and in some cases (Bossy, for example), a relatively short time to do it (their aging atttribute is low because their real career was relatively abbreviated.) So a bad couple of years development-wise can have a significant impact, as can substandard coaching over a longer period.

Defencemen are a slightly different case; if their defensive skills don't develop fully that can have a significant impact on their overall rating. Make sure you don't neglect those.

Righty Groove · 11-04-2017, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffR

What do the coaching staff's actual coaching skills look like, particularly their ability to work with prospects? That's one place where things could go wrong. The guys with superstar-level potential have the longest distance to travel from their 17-year-old level to their NHL prime, and in some cases (Bossy, for example), a relatively short time to do it (their aging atttribute is low because their real career was relatively abbreviated.) So a bad couple of years development-wise can have a significant impact, as can substandard coaching over a longer period.

Defencemen are a slightly different case; if their defensive skills don't develop fully that can have a significant impact on their overall rating. Make sure you don't neglect those.

I signed the best coaches available, they were at least 'average' in prospect coaching. Maybe not the best, I guess, but...

But I'll try to pay more attention to that, thanks.

11-03-2017, 08:28 AM	#1
Righty Groove Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 262	Player development in Historical Hello! I'm playing historical, a lot. And I'm using player development (not re-calc). I'm noticing that player development is kind of random, sometimes? For example, I drafted Mike Bossy 1977, and when he was 26-27, he had topped as a 3.5 guy. Very good, some 50-goal seasons, etc. But, on other games, when I don't have Bossy, he makes it as a 4.5 guy, much better. Similar things happened to Dave Gilmour, Dino Ciccarelli and others. Larry Murphy was good but kind of meh, for me. Again, a 3.0/3.5 guy, as was Dale Hawerchuk, while Gilmour and Dino were 4.5/5.0 guys. I'm at commissioner mode, so I think it's not a scouting error. I mean, I don't think that those 4.5/5.0 guys on other teams are nore really 4.5/5.0 What am I doing wrong in player development? They play a lot, they're the stars of the team... I hire the best Ass Coaches I can find, and I leave training for my assistants. Is that the problem? Training for the assistants? Last edited by Righty Groove; 11-03-2017 at 09:16 AM.

11-03-2017, 11:42 PM	#2
JeffR FHM Producer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Kelowna, BC Posts: 16,623	What do the coaching staff's actual coaching skills look like, particularly their ability to work with prospects? That's one place where things could go wrong. The guys with superstar-level potential have the longest distance to travel from their 17-year-old level to their NHL prime, and in some cases (Bossy, for example), a relatively short time to do it (their aging atttribute is low because their real career was relatively abbreviated.) So a bad couple of years development-wise can have a significant impact, as can substandard coaching over a longer period. Defencemen are a slightly different case; if their defensive skills don't develop fully that can have a significant impact on their overall rating. Make sure you don't neglect those.