Team/Player Chemistry/Matchups

[dmacpgh82]

the biggest thing in hockey is team chemistry, and i wonder how this will be worked into the game.* anyone who has seen this past nhl season knows that pittsburgh and philly both stuck gold with their top lines and how well they played.*
*
they way i see this working could also be built into how well or poor a player does against his opponents and how much extra time it takes for a line to "click".* such as the example of pro evolution soccer (pes), where a player has their main raitings but also sub ratings when dealing with all other players.* to keep this as simple as i can i will just say lw1-c1-rw1-d1-d1-g1 as the attacking team, and lw2-c2-rw2-d2-d2-g2 as the defending team.*
*
maybe lw1 and rw1 have been on the same team and line for a few years and their chemistry ratings are pretty solid, but c1 is new to not just that line, but that team, well his chem. ratings would be low.* however say in the game he makes a successful pass to any other player, well then his passing and chem. rating with that other player goes up.* then say the attacking tem scores on g2, then their scoring ability against that goalie goes up in additional to their own base scoring rating.* maybe the c2 develops into a good back checker against the lw1, then his defending ability against him increases.* say g2 really has rw1 number and lets nothing get by, well rw1 scoring ability against g2 goes down.* Say that your lw1 has g2 ead to rights and lights him up, that would factor into lw1 scoring ability against g2.* This could also go as deep as to what kind of shot.* Maybe rw1 has zero chance with a wrist shot, but lw1 slapper has almost a certain chance of going in.* this could also build up what type of shot the player likes to take.* Passing-checking-saving could be the same way,. And also factor into the players sub style, maybe your c1 develops into a skilled playmaker who is great at a flip pass and has a insane snap shot, youw lw1 has a slap like a cannon, and can sail the puck across the ice like no one else, and maybe your rw1 isn’t the scoring machine you want, but his checking on the forecheck keeps the puck in and his short tape to tape passes are the best in the league.* Your d1 men also have great reach and skating to keep the puck in the attacking zone.
*
you get the idea, it is a way to develop your lines and really build a strong team.* this could lead to building a clutch goalie against a top scoring line, shutdown d-men, or even a quick strike forward line, and all other possiblites.* it also could help to develop the classic playoff clutch hero too, maybe you have a 3rd, 4th line player who really explodes in the playoffs or gets that ever needed clutch goal.
*
this could also play into building not just team rivalries but also individual ones too.* maybe your c1 is always rubbed out by d2 an cannot figure him out, then it becomes a key matchup, same with the example above of the rw1 vs g2, in a sense of when rw1 scores on g2, its a you better "keep that puck" kind of feeling for rw1.*
*
i know that this level of rating system could be very hard to do or resource consuming, but maybe not have this system be default but an option as to how deep you want the ratings systems to go.* but i think this would be a great way to really showcase the way hockey is by building chemistry and not just having the highest rated players out there.*
*
maybe you have a 99 rated c, but his chem. rating with his wingers is only 75 & 64, yeah that line will still be an average chem rating of 79, but maybe the 2nd line wings have a chem rating of 88 and 92 with that 99 rated center, even though their ratings might be significantly lower than the top two wingers.* however that is a call you would make, do you put lower rated players with that center or do you stick it out and let that top line develop?
*
The chem. possibilities are endless, but it is possible for you to build your lines, make a great pp/pk combo and dive into one of the great aspects of hockey which are the matchups and chemistry.
*
This pot may seem scattered and all over the place, but I hope you get the idea.

[RchW]

the biggest thing in hockey is team chemistry, and i wonder how this will be worked into the game.

It may be big but talent and good goaltending would be two perhaps more important.

The Leafs apparently have great team chemistry but it had no effect on their suckage the last few years.

[joefromchicago]

The idea of "team chemistry" is way overrated. In general, if a team is playing well, there's a tendency to claim that its members have "chemistry," when, in fact, all they have are a bunch of good players. There have been plenty of successful teams that have had lousy "chemistry" and plenty of lousy teams that have had great "chemistry." Tinker, Evers, and Chance didn't care for each other at all (Tinker and Evers didn't even speak to each other for years), but they formed the core of a Cubs team that won four pennants in five years. The Yankees teams of the 1970s were notoriously dysfunctional, but the "Bronx Zoo" won three straight AL titles and two world series. On the other side of the coin, if Jim Bouton can be believed, the 1969 Seattle Pilots sound like they were a real fun bunch of guys, but they still stunk.

Nobody cares if a losing team has "chemistry," largely because nobody cares if the players on a losing team are having a good time while they're losing, but everyone wants to know what the secret to a winning club is -- and the answer often is "team chemistry," which is about the same thing as saying "beats me, I don't have a clue." The fact, however, is that winning teams win because they play better than their competitors, and that's usually because they have better players than their competitors. It doesn't take a chemist to figure that out.

[dave1927p]

joefromchicago, as a longtime hockey fan (and player) i strongly disagree. I really don't believe in "Team Chemistry" but "Line Chemistry" certainly is a major factor. The fact is people do care about losing teams that have a line or players that works - for example Lupul and Kessel seem to have great chemistry, they both make each other better players; however, they couldn't build chemistry with a centre (Connelly didn't work out surprisingly and neither did bozak) but now as a GM you look for that missing piece. Players that have the chemistry with their linemates are a big piece of what makes champions. There's been alot of good players too that haven't been able to play with other good players. But in the end, the superstars make all their linemates better, and that's what makes them superstars.

RCH, skill and line chemistry are the key. The leafs have had no chemistry over the last little while... i don't know why you think they do.

I really hope that chemistry plays apart in the game because it truely is one of the factors for a winning team.

[joefromchicago]

It's too easy to say "this line plays well together, they must have chemistry" or "this line doesn't play well together, they must not have chemistry." Nobody, for instance, says "this line plays really terribly, but at least they have great chemistry" or "this line plays great, but they have lousy chemistry." "Chemistry," then, is just another term for "playing well." It's redundant. It's the same as saying "this line plays well because they're playing well." The term has little meaning.

It's true that some players just "click" when playing together, but that's because their skills complement each other. Put a playmaking center with a grinding left wing and a sharpshooting right wing together, and you end up with a line like Trottier-Gillies-Bossy. That was a great line because they were three great players whose skills meshed, not because they had any sort of nebulous "chemistry." The Red Wings' Production Line had "chemistry" because it had three hall-of-famers, not because Howe, Lindsay, and Abel were such good pals, and when Delvecchio replaced Abel, the "chemistry" remained the same because Delvecchio was a hall-of-fame caliber player himself.

[yzerwing]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

The idea of "team chemistry" is way overrated. In general, if a team is playing well, there's a tendency to claim that its members have "chemistry," when, in fact, all they have are a bunch of good players. There have been plenty of successful teams that have had lousy "chemistry" and plenty of lousy teams that have had great "chemistry." Tinker, Evers, and Chance didn't care for each other at all (Tinker and Evers didn't even speak to each other for years), but they formed the core of a Cubs team that won four pennants in five years. The Yankees teams of the 1970s were notoriously dysfunctional, but the "Bronx Zoo" won three straight AL titles and two world series. On the other side of the coin, if Jim Bouton can be believed, the 1969 Seattle Pilots sound like they were a real fun bunch of guys, but they still stunk.

Nobody cares if a losing team has "chemistry," largely because nobody cares if the players on a losing team are having a good time while they're losing, but everyone wants to know what the secret to a winning club is -- and the answer often is "team chemistry," which is about the same thing as saying "beats me, I don't have a clue." The fact, however, is that winning teams win because they play better than their competitors, and that's usually because they have better players than their competitors. It doesn't take a chemist to figure that out.

In all fairness, you can't compare team chemistry from baseball to hockey. In baseball, everyone hits for themselves and fields the ball themselves. In hockey you have to use your teammates to move the puck either out of your own end, or in the opposing end. You also have to cover for your teammates constantly if they move out of position. Good chemistry in hockey allows you to know where your teamate will be, and what he will do, in any given situation.

So while in baseball, two players could hate each other and still do their job. Where as in hockey if two guys don't get along, it is going to effect how they help each other out in various situations. In baseball you don't need to like someone in order to throw the ball to them, which is the only team action in baseball.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by yzerwing

Good chemistry in hockey allows you to know where your teamate will be, and what he will do, in any given situation.

This illustrates my point. One could just as easily say "a good player in hockey knows where his teammates will be and what they will do in any given situation." You don't need to resort to a meaningless term like "chemistry" when what you're really describing is an aspect of playing the game well.

Originally Posted by yzerwing

So while in baseball, two players could hate each other and still do their job. Where as in hockey if two guys don't get along, it is going to effect how they help each other out in various situations. In baseball you don't need to like someone in order to throw the ball to them, which is the only team action in baseball.

I really don't know any stories about hockey teams that were as dysfunctional as some baseball teams, although I've heard that Ovechkin isn't very well-liked by his teammates and that some Canuck players resent the perceived special treatment of the Sedin brothers. But then, as RchW pointed out above, that applies to bad teams as well as good teams. A team or line can have great "chemistry" and still stink. Since that's the case, "chemistry" doesn't add anything to our understanding of what makes a team or a line good or bad. It's just a meaningless term.

[Malte Schwarz]

We don't use separate chemestry ratings. To determine how well the different players are playing together, the game-engine will use their regular attributes. It will be one of the Coach/Gm tasks to find out which players fit together. Of course, it will work to put your best overall players in the first line, but if you take a closer look to your players attributes, it will be possible to optimize your lineup. Another important aspect will be that a line has to be well-rehearsed, therefore it will not be wise to change the lines constantly.

[Javs]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

This illustrates my point. One could just as easily say "a good player in hockey knows where his teammates will be and what they will do in any given situation." You don't need to resort to a meaningless term like "chemistry" when what you're really describing is an aspect of playing the game well.


I really don't know any stories about hockey teams that were as dysfunctional as some baseball teams, although I've heard that Ovechkin isn't very well-liked by his teammates and that some Canuck players resent the perceived special treatment of the Sedin brothers. But then, as RchW pointed out above, that applies to bad teams as well as good teams. A team or line can have great "chemistry" and still stink. Since that's the case, "chemistry" doesn't add anything to our understanding of what makes a team or a line good or bad. It's just a meaningless term.

You keep referring to baseball. Baseball and hockey are so different it isn't even funny. Hockey is truly a team sport and yes chemistry does matter. Dressing room chemistry is a small aspect of true "Team Chemistry". The most important aspect of "Team Chemistry" is how well players play together on the ice. Yes "good players" will know where to go on the ice to make good plays, but sometimes an average player will play outstanding if he plays with the right players, just as a great player can become average if he plays with the right players.

An individuals performance in baseball has much less influence on how well he plays compared to hockey. So please stop comparing the two.

[dave1927p]

Originally Posted by Malte Schwarz

We don't use separate chemestry ratings. To determine how well the different players are playing together, the game-engine will use their regular attributes. It will be one of the Coach/Gm tasks to find out which players fit together. Of course, it will work to put your best overall players in the first line, but if you take a closer look to your players attributes, it will be possible to optimize your lineup. Another important aspect will be that a line has to be well-rehearsed, therefore it will not be wise to change the lines constantly.

Putting your best players on the first line simply isn't how hockey works...there certainly is another element in chemistry. That seems fine for the first version but i do hope for further chemistry elements added in a future version as it is so present in hockey. So many talented players couldn't play on some lines or even clubs for that reason. What makes a generational talent is that he can make chemistry with anyone.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Javs

You keep referring to baseball. Baseball and hockey are so different it isn't even funny. Hockey is truly a team sport and yes chemistry does matter. Dressing room chemistry is a small aspect of true "Team Chemistry". The most important aspect of "Team Chemistry" is how well players play together on the ice. Yes "good players" will know where to go on the ice to make good plays, but sometimes an average player will play outstanding if he plays with the right players, just as a great player can become average if he plays with the right players.

An individuals performance in baseball has much less influence on how well he plays compared to hockey. So please stop comparing the two.

That's your opinion and I disagree. I've played both and although different in execution baseball requires as much or more chemistry than hockey. I for one will continue to compare all sports. Hockey is by no means unique.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by Javs

You keep referring to baseball.

My last two posts I talked about nothing but hockey -- including the post to which you were responding. Honestly, I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to write this, except perhaps to give you another opportunity to ignore what I say.

Originally Posted by Javs

The most important aspect of "Team Chemistry" is how well players play together on the ice. Yes "good players" will know where to go on the ice to make good plays, but sometimes an average player will play outstanding if he plays with the right players, just as a great player can become average if he plays with the right players.

"Chemistry" is a meaningless term when applied to sports. You could just as easily substitute the phrase "pixie dust" for "chemistry" and it would mean the same thing. No doubt a player's performance can be affected by how well his teammates perform, but that has nothing to do with an amorphous concept like "chemistry" and everything to do with how well they're playing. A play-making center, for instance, will get more assists if he's put on a line where the wingers can score. That's not because there's more "chemistry" on that line, it's because there's more talent on that line. Put Sidney Crosby between two scrubs and all the "chemistry" in the world isn't going to make that line anything more than the "Sidney-Crosby-and-two-scrubs" line.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by dave1927p

Putting your best players on the first line simply isn't how hockey works

Well then it's a good thing Malte didn't say that.

[Hoiles]

Originally Posted by Malte Schwarz

Another important aspect will be that a line has to be well-rehearsed, therefore it will not be wise to change the lines constantly.

Doesn't this in effect mean "chemistry"? Meaning players will perform better when combined with specific players (in this case, due to familiarity rather than pre-specified ratings).

[JeffR]

Originally Posted by Hoiles

Doesn't this in effect mean "chemistry"? Meaning players will perform better when combined with specific players (in this case, due to familiarity rather than pre-specified ratings).

Well, we're just splitting hairs about definitions now. Call it experience, familiarity, chemistry, or whatever, what Malte's talking about is something with a clear cause-and-effect, rather than some mysterious X-factor that makes certain players better when they're together (e.g., the way freeware EHM handled it - assign a guy a number, if somebody else matches his number, boom, they've magically got "chemistry.")

[Hoiles]

Yeah I like how line combos work as described. Linemates need to be chosen properly to form a cohesive unit, but aren't affected by some random "chemistry" rating that needs micromanaging.

It would be nice if there are certain players who, in special cases, help someone play better (e.g. brothers) or worse (e.g. some guy who slept with his wife). But it's not a necessity for a first version IMO, it's more like a storylines-type super-immersion feature.

[RchW]

Mediocre players who play well on great teams exist in all sports. It's less about chemistry and more about dominance wearing down the opponent which allows these guys room to move. I cringe when I hear the overused term "character guy" in hockey. Invariably he is a guy who looked way better than his talent on a championship contender, then gets traded or signed for more money than he's worth and reverts to form when not associated with dominance. Same in baseball the "good bat off the bench" never won a WS unless he was on a good/great team anyway.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by Hoiles

Yeah I like how line combos work as described. Linemates need to be chosen properly to form a cohesive unit, but aren't affected by some random "chemistry" rating that needs micromanaging.

Agreed. I like the idea of giving an advantage to a line that sticks together over time. It makes a lot of sense, too.

In general, I'd say I like about 95% of all the ideas that the hockey game development team has announced so far. Maybe they can be persuaded to take over OOTP baseball

[Javs]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

"Chemistry" is a meaningless term when applied to sports. You could just as easily substitute the phrase "pixie dust" for "chemistry" and it would mean the same thing. No doubt a player's performance can be affected by how well his teammates perform, but that has nothing to do with an amorphous concept like "chemistry" and everything to do with how well they're playing. A play-making center, for instance, will get more assists if he's put on a line where the wingers can score. That's not because there's more "chemistry" on that line, it's because there's more talent on that line. Put Sidney Crosby between two scrubs and all the "chemistry" in the world isn't going to make that line anything more than the "Sidney-Crosby-and-two-scrubs" line.

Wrong. You must have never played the game.

[dave1927p]

lupul and kessel sure could score this year...yet for some strange reason the skilled passer in Tim Connolly didn't work out on their line.

Call it whatever you want, but there's another tangible in the game and it's just unpredictable.