 |
 Home | Webstore
|
|
Latest News:
OOTP 25 Available
- FHM 10 Available
- OOTP Go! Available
Out of the Park Baseball 25 Buy Now! |
|
|
||||
| ||||
10-05-2013, 09:17 PM
|
#21 |
|
Minors (Double A)
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 125
|
I think the devs could eventually develop something to reasonably handle the Russian factor. As I've understood it the Russian factor is largely based on the KHL having a level of hockey and quality of pay similar to that of the NHL, with the additional factor that it is home for Russian players.
Essentially it comes down to developing a robust signing engine that takes into account things such as rate of pay, quality of hockey, likely role (a first pair defenseman in the KHL might become a second pairing in the NHL), desire to move to an unfamiliar country, and likeliness to make the team or be sent to a minor affiliate (likely meaning reduced pay and prestige). When drafting this sign-ability rating (a summation of the above and any other factors that should be considered) would need to be taken into account. A Canadian junior would likely have a 20 in sign-ability, while a Russian like Nichushkin might have, to make up a number, a 10. The scout and the human player would have to judge the players potential vs this sign-ability rating. So a player with a 5 in sign-ability would likely plummet in the draft if this could be implemented properly. Sounds possible to me. Not saying easy, but possible. Last edited by Empach; 10-05-2013 at 09:19 PM. |
|
|
|
10-06-2013, 05:25 PM
|
#22 |
|
Major Leagues
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 316
|
OFFSEASON
For this part, I’ll be looking at different areas of the game: How the AI reacts to the offseason (does it make shrewd moves or does it simply sign everybody it can indiscriminately?), How many teams fill their system to the contract limit? How many rookies get signed immediately after the draft (and how many are quickly released)? What talent is available in free agency? What are the best players in free agency being signed for? For this, I’ll be looking at the rookies from this draft and several teams (Two NHL squads and an AHL squad with reserve roster) to see if they sign accordingly or simply hoard everything in sight. _________________________________________ Rookies signed: 33 as of June 30; 21 1st round picks as of August 1, 53 in first 3 rounds as of August 1. Rookies released after being signed: 2 (LA’s 3rd round pick and SJ’s 2nd round pick from 2022) as of June 30; Three 1st round picks, 19 in first 3 rounds as of August 1. I don’t think I have to make a statement here. The statistics say enough (Note that I’m not even looking into the later picks, due to the fear of just seeing a load of players cut). _________________________________________ PITTSBURGH PENGUINS June 26 – Signed Chris Bridges (2nd round pick from this years draft). July 1 – 46/50 contracts. July 6 – Signs 26-year-old G Maxim Tretiak (Dallas, former 3rd round pick) (49/50 contracts [Traded prospect LD for three players on July 1]) July 10 – Signs 29-year-old LW Jason Siebert (HC Ocelari Trinec), returns Chris Bridges to WHL squad (50/50 contracts) July 20 – Signs 31-year-old C/RW/LW Austin Watson (Syracuse) to one year deal. Pens release C Chris Bridges from contract to make room (50/50 contracts) July 22 – Signs 18-year-old G Fabian Ehrentraut (5th round pick) to deal, assigns him to Wilkes-Barre and released by the team on the same day. July 26 – Signs 18-year-old LW Olli Kananen (4th round pick) to deal, assigns him to Wilkes-Barre and released by the team on the same day. August 1 – Signs 18-year-old RW Krystof Salac (6th round pick) to deal, assigns him to Wilkes-Barre and released by the team on the same day. August 1 – Mike Komisarek announces his retirement (49/50 contracts) August 3 - Signs 18-year-old LD Ian Feran (7th round pick) to deal and released by the team on the same day. VANCOUVER CANUCKS July 1 – 54/50 contracts (expecting some cuts by the season, but who is the question…) July 5 – Signs 21-year-old LW Marc Hurlburt and 23-year-old RW David Lee (both former 1st round draft picks (57/50 contracts) July 19 – Signs 36-year-old RD/LD Adam McQuaid (Elmira Jackals) to one-year contract (58/50 contracts) July 21 – Signs 32-year-old RD/LD Tommi Kivisto (Chicago) and 40-year-old RD Milan Jurcina (St. Johns) to one-year-deals. (60/50 contracts) August 1 –Deryk Engelland (alas, poor defenseman), Chris Stewart, Dan Hamhuis and Drew Doughty announce their retirement (Hamhuis and Doughty played on the NHL team) (56/50 contracts) MANCHESTER MONARCHS July 1 – 14/25 contracts August 1 – 14/25 contracts (only move they made for the month was sending a goalie to their reserve roster). It’s quite obvious, in the case of the NHL teams, that they are simply looking at overall ability instead of looking towards the future (as in the case of signing Austin Wilson, who was immediately assigned to Wilkes-Barre Scranton as depth while releasing their second round pick of this year). What I don’t get is that the NHL teams are STILL signing players, even as their teams are at or way over the maximum contract amount (especially with Vancouver. 60 Players on contract? Really? They’re not even the worst offenders. Winnipeg and Washington both have 62 contracted players, New Jersey has 64 players and Chicago could field three full teams with 69 players under contract [!]). It’s what I believed: The AI has zero knowledge of roster management and is just signing players for the sake of signing them (instead of holding onto their prospects and letting them develop, they are simply excess goods waiting to be cut). It’s like I’m watching one of those reality shows on hoarders, holding on to old and outdated stuff, afraid to get rid of things, but just adding and adding to their “collections” while they can until it overruns them. The AHL team, surprisingly, didn’t do anything, possibly because the NHL teams are signing everybody at will (or they’re just waiting, possibly). ______________________________________________ Top Free Agents (By Potential)  I’ll say it again: what’s the point of the draft and developing from within when there are a glut of top prospects available to be snagged up in free agency? Kartushov was a top draft pick who never went over to North America (and whose rights are still controlled by the NHL team that drafted him), Edwards played for the Coyotes last season, scoring 23 goals and 37 points in 82 games, but was never tendered (and is an unrestricted free agent). Ames and Flache were playing in the KHL for a few years (and whose rights are no longer controlled by an NHL team). Loiselle was a top draft pick who played in the QMJHL after being released by the team that drafted him (since he has no team controlling his rights, that or he was never offered a professional contract. My money is on the former). Haugvaldstad was drafted in the first round of 2022 and played in Nashville’s minor league system (17 games, three points for Milwaukee) before he was released to free agency. And it just goes on and on and on. As for players with the best ability in free agency:  What does it say about the health of the league when your best free agents in their late 20’s and early 30’s have an ability of 7 or lower? The best free agents are, no surprise, the young players that somehow developed after being signed and released (and managed to hop onto a KHL squad, like Flache and Jones [who was on a KHL squad for a few years before being signed by Boston]). I’m going to be keeping my eye on a few players, James Edwards, Viktor Kartushov, Alexandre Flache, Elias Haugvaldstad and Cole Ames (young players who are probably the best free agents available, IMO). I’ll also be looking at a few older players to see how much they actually sign for (will probably be low due to their diminished abilities, but we’ll see if that’s the case). __________________________________________________ ______________ A few days into free agency, I notice that Calgary has just re-signed one of their top players, Artturi Lehkonen.  He had a career year for the Flames with 53 goals and 89 points in a full season of work, winning the Maurice Richard Award and placing third in points. Even though his ability is subpar (6), logic states that he should be in for a massive contract (and subsequent pay raise) for the great season that he’s had. What does he end up signing for: A five-year deal worth $560,000 per season (?). This pretty much proves that statistics have no weight or leverage at all when it comes to AI decision-making, but they focus simply on overall ability (as he got what the average 6 player would get, an NHL contract near the league minimum). Remember, kids: Get over a point-per-game and 50 goals at the NHL level and get the league minimum! This also occurred with Nick Schmaltz, a player with a slightly higher overall and just re-signed with Nashville.  Schmaltz had a bit of a down season compared to past campaigns (where he eclipsed 100 points once and 90 points twice), scoring only 23 goals and 77 points. Even though that’s the case, Schmaltz should’ve been a very hot commodity on the free agent market. But what does he get: A four-year deal worth $670,000 per season. - I’ve been noticing a trend where NOBODY has signed a contract for over $1 million per season (the only player that came close was Magnus Forsman, a 23-year-old defenseman from Vasta Frolunda HC [Allsvenskan] who signed with Nashville for $985,000 per season for three years [and that’s on a two-way deal]) fifteen days into free agency. There are a metric ton of players being signed for the league minimum or slightly more (once again, this shows that the AI only takes into consideration current ability when signing players and not point production, the quality of season a player had, or age and future potential). As for the five players I was trying to keep an eye on: James Edwards – Signs three-year-deal with Colorado Avalanche for $550,000 per season on July 6. Viktor Kartushov – Resigns with Yugra Khanty-Mansiysk for three-year-deal worth $80,000 per season (two-way) on July 19. Alexandre Flache – Signs two-year deal with Edmonton Oilers for $3,830,000 per season on July 16 (first and only player in free agency to get contract over $1,000,000 per season). Elias Haugvaldstad – Still remains an unrestricted free agent as of October 1. Cole Ames – Signs with Peterborough Phantoms (EPIHL) for three-year-deal worth $46,000 per season on July 12. Otherwise, things aren’t looking too good in this league right now. The only thing to do now is see if those prospects actually develop or stagnate… |
|
|
|
|
10-07-2013, 03:12 AM
|
#23 |
|
Major Leagues
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 390
|
Great work.
Now I wait for the next guy posting here that the game is not broken. |
|
|
|
|
10-07-2013, 06:42 AM
|
#24 |
|
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 6,389
|
Hey Dino, I'd add also another aspect: there are a lot of Ruskies/Soviets in the free agency, I'd also say that KHL teams should jump on them, and not leaving them free agents...
|
|
|
|
|
10-07-2013, 01:23 PM
|
#25 |
|
Bat Boy
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8
|
Fantastic work. Unfortunately that's very disturbing findings for the game you were able to get.
I am afraid the game will need huge adjustments to its core (statistics point of vies,salaries,...) I was looking forward to play this game. Badly. But it seems it has long way ahead. Hoping for the best! |
|
|
|
|
10-07-2013, 02:02 PM
|
#26 |
|
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 574
|
Great work Ciccarelli!
|
|
|
|
|
10-07-2013, 08:54 PM
|
#27 | |||
|
Major Leagues
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 316
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
When it actually hammers out the problems it has, I think it'll be a pretty solid game. There is some promise with a few things that I see, so I'm holding out hope for that. Fingers crossed, indeed. |
|||
|
|
|
|
10-08-2013, 04:07 PM
|
#28 |
|
Major Leagues
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 316
|
I wanted to keep it simple, but it ended up evolving into a magnum opus of data. You have been warned...
______________________ 2023 NHL DRAFT 1. Yury Morozov, LD/RD, Yugra Khanty-Mansiysk (KHL) – Ability 8.0 / Potential 12.5 (Offensive Potential: 775 / Defensive Potential: 818) YEAR 2 – Yugra Khanty-Mansiysk (KHL) – Ability 8.0 / Potential 12.5 (No change) YEAR 3 - Yugra Khanty-Mansiysk (KHL) – Ability 8.5 / Potential 12.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 4 – Pittsburgh Penguins (NHL), 79 GP, 7 G, 36 Points (signed with team that drafted him) – Ability 9.0 / Potential 12.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 5 - Pittsburgh Penguins (NHL), 75 GP, 7 G, 31 Points– Ability 9.5 / Potential 12.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 6 - Pittsburgh Penguins (NHL), 82 GP, 6 G, 53 Points– Ability 10.0 / Potential 12.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 7 - Pittsburgh Penguins (NHL), 68 GP, 8 G, 38 Points– Ability 11.5/ Potential 12.5 (+1.5 Ability) YEAR 8 - Pittsburgh Penguins (NHL), 36 GP, 6 G, 23 Points– Ability 11.5/ Potential 12.5 (No change) YEAR 9 - Pittsburgh Penguins (NHL), 60 GP, 5 G, 36 Points– Ability 11.0/ Potential 12.5 (-.5 Ability) YEAR 10 - Pittsburgh Penguins (NHL), 76 GP, 8 G, 45 Points– Ability 10.0/ Potential 12.5 (-1 Ability) 2. Jonathan Berggren, LD, Western Sweden U18 – Ability 5.5 / Potential 9.5 (Offensive Potential: 825 / Defensive Potential: 791) YEAR 2 – Toronto Marlies (AHL) / Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL), 8 GP, 0 Points – Ability 6.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 3 - Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL), 81 GP, 4 G, 33 Points – Ability 6.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 4 - Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL), 74 GP, 3 G, 29 Points – Ability 7.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 5 – Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL), 74 GP, 3 G, 41 Points – Ability 7.0 / Potential 9.5 (No change) YEAR 6 - Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL), 64 GP, 4 G, 38 Points – Ability 7.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 7 - Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL), 78 GP, 6 G, 61 Points – Ability 8.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 8 - Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL), 79 GP, 5 G, 52 Points – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability, -1 Potential) YEAR 9 - Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL), 74 GP, 4 G, 39 Points – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.5 (No change) YEAR 10 - Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL), 51 GP, 6 G, 29 Points – Ability 8.0 / Potential 8.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) 3. Theodore McCoy, G, Belleville Bulls (OHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 10.0 (Goaltending Potential: 836) YEAR 2 – Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 66 GP, 37 W, 21 L, 3.40 GAA, .904 SV% – Ability 5.5 / Potential 10.0 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 3 - Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 43 GP, 25 W, 13 L, 3.02 GAA, .914 SV% – Ability 6.0 / Potential 10.0 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 4 - Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 48 GP, 26 W, 15 L, 3.07 GAA, .910 SV% – Ability 6.5 / Potential 10.0 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 5 – Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 64 GP, 40 W, 18 L, 2.62 GAA, .928 SV% – Ability 6.5 / Potential 10.0 (No change) YEAR 6 - Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 59 GP, 37 W, 16 L, 2.53 GAA, .927 SV% – Ability 7.5 / Potential 10.0 (+1 Ability) YEAR 7 - Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 55 GP, 29 W, 19 L, 2.38 GAA, .928 SV% – Ability 8.5 / Potential 10.0 (+1 Ability) YEAR 8 - Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 64 GP, 30 W, 21 L, 2.51 GAA, .925 SV% – Ability 9.5 / Potential 10.0 (+1 Ability) YEAR 9 - Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 50 GP, 20 W, 17 L, 2.59 GAA, .921 SV% – Ability 9.0 / Potential 10.0 (-.5 Ability) YEAR 10 - Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 73 GP, 33 W, 25 L, 2.39 GAA, .927 SV% – Ability 8.5 / Potential 10.0 (-.5 Ability) 4. Denis Vasilyev, LD, Yugra Khanty-Mansiysk (KHL) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 10.5 (Offensive Potential: 746 / Defensive Potential: 784) YEAR 2 – Yugra Khanty-Mansiysk (KHL) – Ability 7.0 / Potential 10.5 (+1 Ability) YEAR 3 - Yugra Khanty-Mansiysk (KHL) – Ability 7.5 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 4 - Yugra Khanty-Mansiysk (KHL) – Ability 7.5 / Potential 10.5 (No change) YEAR 5 – Yugra Khanty-Mansiysk (KHL) – Ability 8.0 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 6 - Yugra Khanty-Mansiysk (KHL) – Ability 8.0 / Potential 10.5 (No change) YEAR 7 - Yugra Khanty-Mansiysk (KHL) / Lokomotiv Yaroslavl (KHL) – Ability 8.5 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 8 – San Jose Sharks (NHL), 72 GP, 3 G, 31 Points (Signed with team that drafted him) – Ability 9.0 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 9 - San Jose Sharks (NHL), 60 GP, 3 G, 22 Points – Ability 9.0 / Potential 10.5 (No change) YEAR 10 - San Jose Sharks (NHL), 82 GP, 2 G, 35 Points – Ability 8.0 / Potential 10.5 (-1 Ability) 5. Mika Stenroos, LW, Eastern Finland U18 – Ability 4.0 / Potential 9.5 (Offensive Potential: 822/ Defensive Potential: 760) YEAR 2 – Springfield Falcons (AHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 3 - Springfield Falcons (AHL) / Evansville Icemen (ECHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 4 - Springfield Falcons (AHL) / Evansville Icemen (ECHL) / Columbus Blue Jackets (NHL), 40 GP, 1 G, 3 Points – Ability 5.0 / Potential 9.5 (No change) YEAR 5 – Philadelphia Flyers (NHL), 82 GP, 5 G, 17 Points – Ability 5.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability) RELEASED FROM NHL/UFA YEAR 6 - Philadelphia Flyers (NHL), 72 GP, 9 G, 30 Points – Ability 6.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 7 - Philadelphia Flyers (NHL), 76 GP, 7 G, 28 Points – Ability 6.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 8 - Philadelphia Flyers (NHL), 67 GP, 12 G, 33 Points – Ability 7.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 9 - Philadelphia Flyers (NHL), 74 GP, 10 G, 33 Points – Ability 7.0 / Potential 9.5 (No change) YEAR 10 - Philadelphia Flyers (NHL), 82 GP, 14 G, 40 Points – Ability 7.0 / Potential 9.5 (No change) 6. Jimmy Bush, RD, Regina Pats (WHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.0 (Offensive Potential: 686 / Defensive Potential: 754) YEAR 2 – Regina Pats (WHL) / Dallas Stars (NHL), 12 GP, 7 Assists – Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.0 (No change) YEAR 3 – Idaho Steelheads (ECHL) / Texas Stars (AHL) / Dallas Stars (NHL), 3 GP, 1 Assist - Ability 5.0 / Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 4 - Idaho Steelheads (ECHL) - Ability 5.0 / Potential 8.0 (No change) YEAR 5 – Idaho Steelheads (ECHL) - Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.0 (-.5 Ability) YEAR 6 – Worcester Sharks (AHL) (Traded to San Jose in July) - Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (+.5 Ability, -3 Potential) YEAR 7 - Worcester Sharks (AHL) - Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (No change) YEAR 8 - Worcester Sharks (AHL) - Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (No change) YEAR 9 - Worcester Sharks (AHL) - Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (No change) YEAR 10 – Providence Bruins (AHL) / South Carolina Stingrays (ECHL) (Traded to Boston in October) - Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) 7. Mathieu Renaud, LD, Acadie-Bathurst Titan (QMJHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 7.0 (Offensive Potential: 688 / Defensive Potential: 752) YEAR 2 – Philadelphia Flyers (NHL), 6 GP (Traded by St. Louis in mid-July) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 7.0 (No change) YEAR 3 – Adriondack Phantoms (AHL) / Springfield Falcons (Traded to Columbus in February) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 4 – Worcester Sharks (AHL) (Traded to San Jose in November) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change) YEAR 5 - Worcester Sharks (AHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change) YEAR 6 – San Jose Sharks (NHL), 47 GP, 6 G, 18 Points – Ability 5.5 / Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 7 - San Jose Sharks (NHL), 66 GP, 5 G, 31 Points – Ability 6.0 / Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 8 - San Jose Sharks (NHL), 68 GP, 1 G, 25 Points – Ability 6.5 / Potential 6.5 (+.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 9 - San Jose Sharks (NHL), 81 GP, 2 G, 42 Points – Ability 6.5 / Potential 6.5 (No change) YEAR 10 - San Jose Sharks (NHL), 76 GP, 7 G, 39 Points – Ability 6.0 / Potential 6.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) 8. Tyler Robitaille, C, Moncton Wildcats (QMJHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 7.0 (Offensive Potential: 741 / Defensive Potential: 671) YEAR 2 – Colorado Avalanche (NHL), 82 GP, 5 G, 11 Points – Ability 5.0 / Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 3 – Lake Erie Monsters (AHL) / Colorado Avalanche (NHL), 23 GP, 1 G, 3 Points – Ability 5.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change) YEAR 4 - Lake Erie Monsters (AHL) / Colorado Avalanche (NHL), 77 GP, 6 G, 21 Points – Ability 5.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change) YEAR 5 – Manchester Monarchs (AHL) (Traded to Los Angeles in July) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 6 – Los Angeles Kings (NHL) / Carolina Hurricanes (NHL), 58 GP, 14 G, 36 Points (Claimed off waivers by Carolina in January) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (-1.5 Potential) YEAR 7 – Portland Pirates (AHL) / Carolina Hurricanes (NHL) / Arizona Coyotes (NHL), 66 GP, 16 G, 47 Points (Traded to Arizona in February) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (No change) YEAR 8 - Portland Pirates (AHL) / Arizona Coyotes (NHL) / Minnesota Wild (NHL), 78 GP, 29 G, 76 Points (Claimed off waivers by Minnesota in February [Once again, focusing more on ability than on statistics]) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 9 – Iowa Wild (AHL) / Minnesota Wild (NHL), 39 GP, 17 G, 29 Points – Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (No change) YEAR 10 - Iowa Wild (AHL)– Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (No change) 9. Roy Pruitt, RW, U.S. National Development Team (USHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 7.5 (Offensive Potential: 746 / Defensive Potential: 707) YEAR 2 – Merrimack Warriors (NCAA) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 7.5 (No change) YEAR 3 – Utica Comets (AHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 4 - Utica Comets (AHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 7.5 (No change) YEAR 5 - Utica Comets (AHL) / Vancouver Canucks (NHL), 8 GP, 5 G, 6 Points – Ability 5.0 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 6 - Vancouver Canucks (NHL), 82 GP, 25 G, 45 Points – Ability 5.5 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 7 – Providence Bruins (AHL) / Vancouver Canucks (NHL) / Boston Bruins (NHL), 74 GP, 26 G, 43 Points (Traded to Boston in February) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 7.5 (No change) YEAR 8 - Boston Bruins (NHL), 82 GP, 21 G, 45 Points – Ability 6.0 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 9 - Boston Bruins (NHL), 67 GP, 34 G, 52 Points – Ability 6.5 / Potential 6.5 (+.5 Ability, -1 Potential) YEAR 10 - Boston Bruins (NHL), 82 GP, 38 G, 71 Points – Ability 6.5 / Potential 6.5 (No change) 10. Andrey Tyulyapkin, RW, Metallurg Novokuznetsk (KHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 9.5 (Offensive Potential: 747 / Defensive Potential: 710) YEAR 2 – Abbotsford Heat (AHL) / Alaska Aces (ECHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 9.5 (No change) YEAR 3 - Alaska Aces (ECHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 9.5 (No change) YEAR 4 - Alaska Aces (ECHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (+.5 Ability,-4.5 Potential) YEAR 5 – Abbotsford Heat (AHL) / Calgary Flames (NHL) / San Jose Sharks (NHL), 26 GP, 10 G, 16 P (Traded to San Jose in February) - Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (No change) YEAR 6 - San Jose Sharks (NHL), 68 GP, 13 G, 26 P - Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (+.5 Ability, +.5 Potential) YEAR 7 - San Jose Sharks (NHL), 73 GP, 11 G, 24 P - Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (No change) YEAR 8 - San Jose Sharks (NHL), 82 GP, 5 G, 36 P - Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (No change) YEAR 9 – Worcester Sharks (AHL) / San Jose Sharks (NHL), 55 GP, 3 G, 12 P - Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 10 – Abbotsford Heat (AHL) / Calgary Flames (NHL), 2 GP (Traded to Calgary in July) - Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (No change) 11. Jeffrey Haith, RD, US High School – Ability 5.0 / Potential 9.5 (Offensive Potential: 658 / Defensive Potential: 713) YEAR 2 – Providence Bruins (AHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 3 - Boston Bruins (NHL), No games played – Ability 6.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 4 - Boston Bruins (NHL), 65 GP, 4 G, 30 Points – Ability 6.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 5 - Boston Bruins (NHL), 57 GP,5 G, 29 Points – Ability 7.5 / Potential 9.5 (+1 Ability) YEAR 6 - Boston Bruins (NHL), 61 GP, 9 G, 35 Points – Ability 7.5 / Potential 9.5 (No change) YEAR 7 - Boston Bruins (NHL), 55 GP, 8 G, 31 Points – Ability 8.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 8 - Boston Bruins (NHL), 33 GP, 2 G, 18 Points – Ability 9.0 / Potential 9.5 (+1 Ability) YEAR 9 - Boston Bruins (NHL), 80 GP, 4 G, 44 Points – Ability 9.0 / Potential 9.5 (No change) YEAR 10 - Boston Bruins (NHL), 67 GP, 4 G, 44 Points – Ability 9.0 / Potential 9.5 (No change) 12. Max Adams, LD, Saskatoon Blades (WHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 9.5 (Offensive Potential: 677 / Defensive Potential: 705) YEAR 2 – Saskatoon Blades (WHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 9.5 (No change) YEAR 3 – Elmira Jackals (ECHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 9.5 (No change) YEAR 4 - Elmira Jackals (ECHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 9.5 (No change) YEAR 5 - Elmira Jackals (ECHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 4.0 (-5.5 Potential) YEAR 6 - Elmira Jackals (ECHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (+.5 Ability, +.5 Potential) YEAR 7 - Elmira Jackals (ECHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (No change) YEAR 8 - Elmira Jackals (ECHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (No change) YEAR 9 – Sibir Novosibirsk (KHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (No change) YEAR 10 – HK Nitra (Extraliga) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 4.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) 13. Zack Paletta, LW, Red Deer Rebels (WHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 7.5 (Offensive Potential: 725 / Defensive Potential: 725) YEAR 2 – Red Deer Rebels (WHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 3 – Hershey Bears (AHL) / Washington Capitals (NHL), 40 GP, 0 Points – Ability 5.0 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 4 - Washington Capitals (NHL), 82 GP, 10 G, 20 Points – Ability 5.5 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 5 - Washington Capitals (NHL), 71 GP, 18 G, 36 Points – Ability 5.5 / Potential 7.5 (No change) YEAR 6 - Washington Capitals (NHL), 71 GP, 17 G, 38 Points – Ability 6.0 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 7 - Washington Capitals (NHL), 75 GP, 45 G, 84 Points – Ability 6.5 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 8 - Washington Capitals (NHL), 68 GP, 25 G, 57 Points – Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 (+1 Ability) YEAR 9 - Washington Capitals (NHL), 82 GP, 42 G, 75 Points – Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 (No change) YEAR 10 - Washington Capitals (NHL), 80 GP, 30 G, 45 Points – Ability 6.5 / Potential 7.5 (-1 Ability) 14. Alfred Forsmark, LD, Southern Sweden U18 – Ability 3.5 / Potential 7.5 (Offensive Potential: 689 / Defensive Potential: 721) YEAR 2 – Pitea HC (Allsvenskan) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 7.5 (No change) RELEASED FROM NHL YEAR 3 – Timra IK (Allsvenskan) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 7.5 (No change) YEAR 4 - Timra IK (Allsvenskan) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 5 - Timra IK (Allsvenskan) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 7.5 (No change) YEAR 6 - Timra IK (Allsvenskan) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 7.5 (No change) YEAR 7 - Timra IK (Allsvenskan) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 7.5 (No change) YEAR 8 - Timra IK (Allsvenskan) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 4.0 (-3.5 Potential) YEAR 9 - Timra IK (Allsvenskan) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 4.0 (No change) YEAR 10 - Timra IK (Allsvenskan) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) 15. Geoff Wensink, LD, Kamloops Blazers (WHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 9.5 (Offensive Potential: 670 / Defensive Potential: 741) YEAR 2 – Carolina Hurricanes (NHL), 11 GP, 1 Assist – Ability 6.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 3 - Carolina Hurricanes (NHL), 26 GP, 2 G, 6 Points – Ability 6.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 4 - Carolina Hurricanes (NHL), 59 GP, 3 G, 12 Points – Ability 7.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 5 - Carolina Hurricanes (NHL), 82 GP, 4 G, 28 Points – Ability 7.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 6 - Carolina Hurricanes (NHL), 71 GP, 2 G, 33 Points – Ability 7.5 / Potential 9.5 (No change) YEAR 7 - Carolina Hurricanes (NHL), 82 GP, 3 G, 57 Points – Ability 8.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 8 - Carolina Hurricanes (NHL), 60 GP, 2 G, 20 Points – Ability 8.0 / Potential 9.5 (No change) YEAR 9 - Carolina Hurricanes (NHL), 68 GP, 1 G, 32 Points – Ability 8.0 / Potential 9.5 (No change) YEAR 10 - Carolina Hurricanes (NHL), 82 GP, 1 G, 23 Points – Ability 8.0 / Potential 9.5 (No change) 16. Luca Ryan, C, Penticton Vees (BCHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 8.5 (Offensive Potential: 743 / Defensive Potential: 702) YEAR 2 – Medvescak Zagreb (KHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change) RELEASED FROM NHL YEAR 3 - Medvescak Zagreb (KHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 4 - Medvescak Zagreb (KHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 5 - Medvescak Zagreb (KHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change) YEAR 6 - Medvescak Zagreb (KHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change) YEAR 7 – Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 80 GP, 8 G, 18 Points – Ability 5.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 8 - Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 82 GP, 6 G, 27 Points – Ability 6.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 9 – Lillehammer IK (GET-Ligaen)– Ability 6.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change) YEAR 10 - Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 80 GP, 8 G, 22 Points – Ability 6.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change) 17. Mario Schmitt, C, EHC Regensburg (Oberliga) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 6.5 (Offensive Potential: 706 / Defensive Potential: 675) YEAR 2 – EHC Regensburg (Oberliga) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 6.5 (No change) YEAR 3 - EHC Regensburg (Oberliga) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 6.5 (No change) YEAR 4 - EC Freiburg (Oberliga) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 6.5 (No change) YEAR 5 - EC Freiburg (Oberliga) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 6.5 (No change) YEAR 6 - EHC Bad Tolz (Oberliga) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 3.0 (-3.5 Potential) YEAR 7 - EHC Bad Tolz (Oberliga) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 3.0 (No change) YEAR 8 - EHC Bad Tolz (Oberliga) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 3.0 (No change) YEAR 9 - EHC Selber Wolfe (Oberliga) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 3.0 (No change) YEAR 10 - EHC Selber Wolfe (Oberliga) – Ability 2.5 / Potential 2.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) 18. Jesse Ventura, C, Spokane Chiefs (WHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 7.5 (Offensive Potential: 686 / Defensive Potential: 609) YEAR 2 – Spokane Chiefs (WHL), Traded from Arizona to Washington – Ability 5.0 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 3 – Washington Capitals (NHL), 75 GP, 8 G, 16 Points – Ability 5.0 / Potential 7.5 (No change) YEAR 4 - Washington Capitals (NHL), 82 GP, 13 G, 27 Points – Ability 5.5 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 5 - Washington Capitals (NHL), 82 GP, 19 G, 35 Points – Ability 6.0 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 6 - Washington Capitals (NHL), 77 GP, 11 G, 19 Points – Ability 6.0 / Potential 7.5 (No change) YEAR 7 - Washington Capitals (NHL), 82 GP, 17 G, 42 Points – Ability 6.5 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 8 - Washington Capitals (NHL), 82 GP, 26 G, 52 Points – Ability 6.5 / Potential 7.5 (No change) YEAR 9 - Washington Capitals (NHL), 82 GP, 20 G, 42 Points – Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 10 - Washington Capitals (NHL), 82 GP, 11 G, 25 Points – Ability 6.5 / Potential 7.5 (-.5 Ability) 19. Kennet Englund, C, Western Sweden U18 – Ability 4.5 / Potential 7.0 (Offensive Potential: 707 / Defensive Potential: 670) YEAR 2 – Linkopings HC (SHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 7.0 (No change) RELEASED FROM NHL YEAR 3 - Linkopings HC (SHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 4 - Linkopings HC (SHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 5 - Linkopings HC (SHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 7.0 (No change) YEAR 6 - Linkopings HC (SHL) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 7 - Linkopings HC (SHL) – Ability 6.5 / Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 8 - Linkopings HC (SHL) – Ability 6.5 / Potential 7.0 (No change) YEAR 9 - Linkopings HC (SHL) – Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 (+1 Ability, +.5 Potential) YEAR 10 - Linkopings HC (SHL) – Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 (No change) 20. Andrey Yashin, LW, SKA St. Petersburg (KHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 8.5 (Offensive Potential: 679 / Defensive Potential: 639) YEAR 2 – SKA St. Petersburg (KHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 3 - SKA St. Petersburg (KHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 4 - SKA St. Petersburg (KHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change) YEAR 5 - SKA St. Petersburg (KHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 6 - SKA St. Petersburg (KHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 8.5 (No change) YEAR 7 - SKA St. Petersburg (KHL) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 8 - SKA St. Petersburg (KHL) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change) YEAR 9 – Los Angeles Kings (NHL), 82 GP, 13 G, 37 Points (Signed by team that drafted him) – Ability 6.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 10 - Los Angeles Kings (NHL), 82 GP, 16 G, 48 Points – Ability 6.0 / Potential 8.5 (-.5 Ability) 21. Andrey Pancheshny, C, CSKA Moscow (KHL) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 8.0 (Offensive Potential: 725 / Defensive Potential: 682) YEAR 2 – Milwaukee Admirals (AHL) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 8.0 (No change) YEAR 3 – Yugra Khanty-Mansiysk (KHL) - Ability 3.5 / Potential 8.0 (No change) RELEASED FROM NHL YEAR 4 – Stalnye Lisy Magnitogorsk (YHL) - Ability 3.5 / Potential 8.0 (No change) YEAR 5 – Ertis Pavlodar (Kazakhstani League) - Ability 3.0 / Potential 3.0 (-.5 Ability, -5 Potential) YEAR 6 - Ertis Pavlodar (Kazakhstani League) - Ability 3.0 / Potential 3.0 (No change) YEAR 7 - Ertis Pavlodar (Kazakhstani League) - Ability 3.0 / Potential 3.0 (No change) YEAR 8 - Ertis Pavlodar (Kazakhstani League) - Ability 3.0 / Potential 3.0 (No change) YEAR 9 - Ertis Pavlodar (Kazakhstani League) - Ability 3.0 / Potential 3.0 (No change) YEAR 10 - Ertis Pavlodar (Kazakhstani League) - Ability 3.0 / Potential 3.0 (No change) 22. Kevin Kelly, RW, Baie-Comeau Drakkar (QMJHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 8.5 (Offensive Potential: 671 / Defensive Potential: 699) YEAR 2 – Montreal Canadiens (NHL), 82 GP, 8 G, 23 Points – Ability 6.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 3 - Montreal Canadiens (NHL), 71 GP, 18 G, 34 Points – Ability 6.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 4 - Montreal Canadiens (NHL), 82 GP, 33 G, 53 Points – Ability 6.5 / Potential 8.5 (No change) YEAR 5 - Montreal Canadiens (NHL), 82 GP, 33 G, 63 Points – Ability 7.5 / Potential 8.5 (+1 Ability) YEAR 6 - Montreal Canadiens (NHL), 74 GP, 33 G, 65 Points – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.5 (+1 Ability) YEAR 7 - Montreal Canadiens (NHL), 77 GP, 28 G, 57 Points – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.5 (No change) YEAR 8 - Montreal Canadiens (NHL), 77 GP, 20 G, 49 Points – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.5 (No change) YEAR 9 - Montreal Canadiens (NHL), 77 GP, 21 G, 51 Points – Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 (-1 Ability, -1 Potential) YEAR 10 - Montreal Canadiens (NHL), 82 GP, 19 G, 41 Points – Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 (No change) 23. Daniil Ignashin, G, Traktor Chelyabinsk (KHL) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 8.5 (Goaltending Potential: 764) YEAR 2 – Traktor Chelyabinsk (KHL) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 3 - Traktor Chelyabinsk (KHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 4 – Bridgeport Sound Islanders (AHL)/ New York Islanders (NHL), 7 GP, 1 W, 6 L, 3.43 GAA, .910 SV% (Signed by drafting team) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 5 - Bridgeport Sound Islanders (AHL)/ New York Islanders (NHL), 2 GP, 1 W, 1 L, 1.00 GAA, .971 SV% – Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.5 (No change) YEAR 6 - New York Islanders (NHL), 62 GP, 22 W, 32 L, 3.06 GAA, .919 SV% – Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.5 (No change) YEAR 7 - New York Islanders (NHL), 63 GP, 29 W, 26 L, 2.91 GAA, .918 SV% – Ability 5.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 8 - New York Islanders (NHL), 54 GP, 27 W, 20 L, 2.58 GAA, .928 SV% – Ability 5.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 9 - New York Islanders (NHL), 50 GP, 20 W, 24 L, 2.56 GAA, .921 SV% – Ability 6.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 10 - New York Islanders (NHL), 59 GP, 28 W, 23 L, 2.66 GAA, .924 SV% – Ability 5.5 / Potential 8.5 (-.5 Ability) 24. Mirco Schumann, LW, EC Klostersee (Oberliga) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 8.0 (Offensive Potential: 714 / Defensive Potential: 713) YEAR 2 – EC Klostersee (Oberliga) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 8.0 (No change) YEAR 3 – Utah Grizzlies (ECHL) / Norfolk Admirals (AHL) - Ability 3.0 / Potential 8.0 (No change) YEAR 4 – Schwenninger Wildente (DEL) - Ability 3.0 / Potential 8.0 (No change) RELEASED FROM NHL YEAR 5 - Schwenninger Wildente (DEL) - Ability 3.0 / Potential 8.0 (No change) YEAR 6 - Schwenninger Wildente (DEL) - Ability 3.0 / Potential 8.0 (No change) YEAR 7 - Schwenninger Wildente (DEL) - Ability 3.0 / Potential 8.0 (No change) YEAR 8 - Schwenninger Wildente (DEL) - Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (+.5 Ability, -4.5 Potential) YEAR 9 -- Schwenninger Wildente (DEL) - Ability 3.0 / Potential 3.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 10 - Schwenninger Wildente (DEL) - Ability 3.0 / Potential 3.0 (No change) 25. Axel Henningsson, C, Val-D’or Foreurs (QMJHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 8.5 (Offensive Potential: 684 / Defensive Potential: 635) YEAR 2 – Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 59 GP, 3 G, 18 Points – Ability 5.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 3 - Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 74 GP, 4 G, 12 Points – Ability 6.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 4 - Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 75 GP, 12 G, 47 Points – Ability 6.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 5 - Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 75 GP, 23 G, 62 Points – Ability 7.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 6 - Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 82 GP, 26 G, 57 Points – Ability 7.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 7 - Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 74 GP, 32 G, 73 Points – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.5 (+1 Ability) YEAR 8 - Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 82 GP, 31 G, 69 Points – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.5 (No change) YEAR 9 - Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 82 GP, 20 G, 67 Points – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.5 (No change) YEAR 10 - Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 82 GP, 40 G, 89 Points – Ability 8.0 / Potential 8.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) 26. Jordan Besler, C, Carleton Place Canadians (CCHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 9.0 (Offensive Potential: 708 / Defensive Potential: 679) YEAR 2 – St. Cloud State Huskies (NCAA) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 9.0 (No change) YEAR 3 - St. Cloud State Huskies (NCAA) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 9.0 (No change) YEAR 4 – Avangard Omsk (KHL) / Nipissing Lakers (CIS) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 9.0 (No change) RELEASED BY NHL YEAR 5 – Brampton Beast (CHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 4.0 (-5 Potential) YEAR 6 - Brampton Beast (CHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 4.0 (No change) YEAR 7 - Brampton Beast (CHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 4.0 (No change) YEAR 8 – Pensacola Ice Flyers (SPHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 4.0 (No change) YEAR 9 - Pensacola Ice Flyers (SPHL) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 10 - Pensacola Ice Flyers (SPHL) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change) 27. August Hulten, RD, Moncton Wildcats (QMJHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 7.5 (Offensive Potential: 663 / Defensive Potential: 691) YEAR 2 – Moncton Wildcats (QMJHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 3 - Moncton Wildcats (QMJHL) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 4 – Chicago Blackhawks (NHL), 75 GP, 4 G, 27 Points – Ability 6.5 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 5 - Chicago Blackhawks (NHL), 60 GP, 7 G, 47 Points – Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 6 - Chicago Blackhawks (NHL), 82 GP, 5 G, 53 Points – Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.5 (No change) YEAR 7 - Chicago Blackhawks (NHL), 65 GP, 12 G, 53 Points – Ability 8.5 / Potential 7.5 (+1.5 Ability) YEAR 8 - Chicago Blackhawks (NHL), 72 GP, 12 G, 42 Points – Ability 8.5 / Potential 7.5 (No change) YEAR 9 - Chicago Blackhawks (NHL), 60 GP, 6 G, 35 Points – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.5 (+1 Potential) YEAR 10 - Chicago Blackhawks (NHL), 54 GP, 5 G, 22 Points – Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 (-1 Ability, -1 Potential) 28. Simon-Claude Thiverge, LD/RD, Charlottetown Islanders (QMJHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 8.0 (Offensive Potential: 657 / Defensive Potential: 696) YEAR 2 – St. Louis Blues (NHL), No games played (Involved in trade that sent Mathieu Renaud to Philadelphia) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 8.0 (No change) YEAR 3 – Chicago Wolves (AHL), No games played - Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 4 - Chicago Wolves (AHL), No games played - Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.0 (No change) YEAR 5 - Chicago Wolves (AHL), Two games played - Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.0 (No change) YEAR 6 - Chicago Wolves (AHL), 67 games played - Ability 5.0 / Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 7 - Chicago Wolves (AHL) - Ability 5.0 / Potential 8.0 (No change) YEAR 8 - Chicago Wolves (AHL) - Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (No change) YEAR 9 – Chicago Wolves (AHL) / Charlotte Checkers (AHL) / Carolina Hurricanes (NHL), 1 GP (Traded to Carolina in December) - Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (No change) YEAR 10 - Charlotte Checkers (AHL) - Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (No change) 29. Darian Bradford, LD, Owen Sound Attack (OHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 7.0 (Offensive Potential: 643 / Defensive Potential: 677) YEAR 2 – Owen Sound Attack (OHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 7.0 (No change) YEAR 3 – Minnesota Wild (NHL), 53 GP, 2 G, 11 Points – Ability 6.0 / Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 4 - Minnesota Wild (NHL), 82 GP, 12 G, 37 Points – Ability 6.5 / Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 5 - Minnesota Wild (NHL), 76 GP, 5 G, 34 Points – Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability) [FIRST PLAYER TO REACH “SCOUTED” POTENTIAL[/b] YEAR 6 - Minnesota Wild (NHL), 71 GP, 4 G, 23 Points – Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change) YEAR 7 - Minnesota Wild (NHL), 71 GP, 7 G, 33 Points – Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change) YEAR 8 - Minnesota Wild (NHL), 82 GP, 6 G, 38 Points – Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change) YEAR 9 - Minnesota Wild (NHL), 1 GP, 0 G, 1 Point (Ruptured MCL in October) – Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change) YEAR 10 - Minnesota Wild (NHL), 82 GP, 0 G, 31 Points – Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change) 30. Jacob Martel, LD, Charlottetown Islanders (QMJHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 6.5 (Offensive Potential: 646 / Defensive Potential: 699) YEAR 2 – Charlottetown Islanders (QMJHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 6.5 (No change) YEAR 3 – Cincinnati Cyclones (ECHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 6.5 (+.5 Ability) YEAR 4 - Cincinnati Cyclones (ECHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 6.5 (No change) YEAR 5 – Cincinnati Cyclones (ECHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 6.5 (No change) YEAR 6 - Cincinnati Cyclones (ECHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (No change) YEAR 7 - Cincinnati Cyclones (ECHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (+.5 Ability, +.5 Potential) YEAR 8 - Cincinnati Cyclones (ECHL) / Hershey Bears (AHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (No change) YEAR 9 – Lake Erie Monsters (AHL) (Traded from Washington to Colorado in July and Colorado to Buffalo in February. Spent a lot of time on the bench) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (No change) YEAR 10 – Bridgeport Sound Tigers (AHL) / Abbotsford Heat (AHL) (Traded from Buffalo to NY Islanders in July and from NY Islanders to Calgary in January)– Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) _______________________________________________ Some observations: - It looks like no one really developed their first year after the draft, I saw one player increase in ability by one point, and a few with half-a-point games, but didn’t see anyone jump greatly. Potential also remained stagnant for the first five years, but that could vary from scout to scout (Although the fact that the same scout hasn’t changed his opinion on any player in the first few years is kind of weird). The thing I’ve really seen is that players in lower divisions and leagues (i.e. NCAA, YHL, Oberliga, ECHL, etc.) don’t seem to be developing at all, for whatever reason (I didn’t really see anyone progress in these leagues, especially the German players, who all but stagnated in the Oberliga and DEL). In fact, in an odd realization, the prospects are actually better off being rushed to professional leagues like the NHL, KHL and SEL at the age of 18-19 instead of being allowed to develop in lower leagues (excluding the major junior leagues, which didn’t suffer from this problem). The Columbus Blue Jackets would like to have a word with you on that one (particularly with one Gilbert Brule and Alexandre Picard). The AHL was more of a crapshoot, some players being able to develop and some unable to develop (which is true to real life, to an extent). - Why does a players potential just drop off the face of the earth if they don’t reach it? Wouldn’t it make more sense for the potential to fall (and rise) gradually, based on statistics and progression? It also seems like the scouts (at least HNN) are pretty pinpoint when it comes to scouting a players potential (based on “true” potential, not on player performance), only changing their projections twice for the better (with Englund and Hulten). I don’t know the algorithm for scouting, but since it seems like the potential for players just takes one massive drop, signifying there is a slim chance that they will develop further. - I’m noticing plenty of Russian and former Soviet-bloc players not signing contracts with the NHL teams that drafted them. It’s an interesting way of keeping a sort of balance between the NHL and KHL (which does happen, look at players like Radulov, Morozov and Zherdev defecting from the NHL to play in their homeland), but it’s weird how teams will invest first round draft picks in players that won’t come over to play for their teams, such as Andrey Yashin (didn’t sign until year 9), Denis Vasiliev (year 8) and others. I also noticed that the foreign leagues don’t have an NHL-release clause in their contracts (this is especially prevalent with the German players), which makes drafting foreigners, in general, a risky procedure (unless they’re in a generic U-18 team). - I still don’t know why the AI prefers to have young defenseman rot on the bench (in the case of Thiverge, Renaud and Wensink) when they could be continuing to get premium ice time in the junior leagues. I also still don’t know why three players in the first round of the draft have already been cut by the parent franchises a month afterwards, but that’s another story which I’ve already gone to great detail about (it just needed mentioned again because it’s still ridiculous). - It looks like, for the players who aren’t developing, they’re not just stalling out: They’re regressing massively. It’s almost as if they’re declining like a 30-35 year old player would (in all physical ratings, aggression, bravery, checking, hitting, getting open, passing and puckhandling. All other attributes are unaffected, like in the declining process). Here’s Tyler Robitaille, a top-ten pick I observed, at the age of 25:  James Edwards, the 11.0 potential top prospect who signed with Colorado after being surprisingly non-tendered by the Coyotes is also a victim; and now makes Hal Gill look like Pavel Bure on ice skates:  Another example, and the most disturbing, is Andrey Pancheshny, another first round pick in the 2023 Draft.  This has been happening to every single prospect whose potential has “dropped” that I have observed. I don’t know what’s causing this (poor handling in some cases, being mired in a lower-tier league for others, and random fate in other circumstances), but it doesn’t make sense how so many players are, in a sense, prematurely aging to the point where they are utter liabilities physically at the age of 25, when they should be in their prime. - It appears that players are starting to decline way too early. I’m noticing a lot of players starting to lose ability once they start to hit 26 (considering that the player peak age is hard-coded, as of now, at 25, this is probably the reason) and just seem to start losing ratings in all categories affected by decline when, in reality, you could argue that a majority of players haven’t even reached their peak yet (players like Martin St. Louis, Pavel Datsyuk, Zdeno Chara and Tim Thomas come to mind). I know that it’s taken to chance (considering they have, IIRC, two or three chances a year to suffer decline in attributes), but the chances of decline should be far less when they are ages 26-31, which is around the “average” player’s prime years. It’d be good to experience more variety in player development peaking ages as well, but that’s for another day. ___________________________ NHL (Or NHL-caliber) players in the 2023 NHL Draft 1st Round – 21/30 players 2nd Round – 20/30 players 3rd Round – 16/30 players 4th Round – 9/30 players 5th Round – 10/30 players 6th Round – 8/30 players 7th Round – 8/30 players Surprisingly, the draft is pretty well-distributed (I was honestly expecting it to be really top-heavy, considering the AI was very pinpoint at selecting based on true potential), perhaps a little TOO well-distributed (the second round produced nearly as many decent players as the first round did. And the third round was close as well). It’s good to see players in the sixth- and seventh-round be able to etch out careers in the NHL, KHL, or equivalent league, but part of me is realizing that most of this isn’t due to what could be described as “realism” (players slipping through the cracks and exceeding their potential, players being underrated on draft day, etc.) but more on the fact that the players that are playing in the NHL are the ones that didn’t suffer the horrible wrath of the player development gods (I’m also noticing a ton of players either MIA [retiring, and a few that are already retired] or whose ability has plummeted or remained at their draft levels, some at 3.0 or 3.5). This is apparent due to the fact that players are taking big roles at the NHL or KHL level with abilities at 5.5 or 6 (should be an AHL-caliber player). What I’m trying to say is that, if more players were able to develop instead of being penalized for whatever reason, we’d be seeing a FAR more top-heavy draft (at least in theory). So it’s damning with faint praise, in a way. ________________________________________________ Some other random observations: - I’m not seeing players with abilities over twenty. They only exceptions are aggression and, in the odd case or two, temperament. I only mention this because there are players at the start of the game (like Crosby) who have attributes over the “standard” 20. There are players who have stats at 20, but nothing over. - Colleges are giving out one-year-contracts when they should be four-year contracts (to “simulate” the college process, so to speak. I’m not getting into variables and “recruiting”, since I’m not trying to perfect the college experience… yet). - The AI is still giving these crazy one-year deals to marginal goalies (probably to get above the salary floor). Makes even less sense that so few players in this world are making over $1 million per season yet there are goalies under an ability of 5 getting snagged up in September or later in the season for, in some cases, over $10 million per year. It’s like… can I get signed to that deal if I can get some used goalie equipment?   - Is the game supposed to be this hardware-intensive? Whenever I’m simulating the game, my laptop’s fan is CONSTANTLY running (and this isn’t really the case with OOTP whenever I’m playing it, whether by simulating or managing on a day-by-day basis) and, in some instances, I can feel extreme heat on my keyboard (especially by the WASDF keys) and underneath the computer itself. The game is also using over 1,040,000 K’s of Private Working Set Memory in comparison to OOTP’s mere 612,000 K. Don’t know if that means anything (I’m going to assume it’s processor-intensive code, perhaps overly so, but I’m not a programmer, so I won’t), but it’s just weird. - On the crash note, I’ve only had the game crash on me once (and that was due to trying to look at a specific player’s contract status, something that hasn’t been replicated with anything else). Safe to say the game is stable. ________________________________________ I’m going to simulate about five more seasons to see if the decline of our draft continues into their late 20’s, but otherwise, I probably need a drink or five. Last edited by Ciccarelli; 10-08-2013 at 04:11 PM. |
|
|
|
|
10-09-2013, 04:18 AM
|
#29 |
|
Bat Boy
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8
|
Cheers Dino! You deserve it!
|
|
|
|
|
10-09-2013, 10:24 AM
|
#30 |
|
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,878
|
This is excellent information to be passing on to the developers. I am truly excited about this game and hopefully people will continue to pass on very good feedback like this to help improve the game. Hopefully people will continue to be patient while the game steadily improves.
|
|
|
|
|
10-09-2013, 07:25 PM
|
#31 |
|
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 2,077
|
This kind of feedback is pretty effin' awesome. Thanks for that!
__________________
FHM tester, fan and former researcher (Czech Republic and KHL) since FHM 1. |
|
|
|
|
10-10-2013, 12:01 AM
|
#32 |
|
Major Leagues
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 316
|
I simulated the next five years to see if they continue to decline or if it was just a fluke (Since they’re at the age of what should be the prime of their careers). Looks like it wasn’t to be the case.
2023 NHL DRAFT, YEARS 11-15 1. Yury Morozov, LD/RD, Ability 10.0/ Potential 12.5 YEAR 11 - Ability 9.0 / Potential 9.0 (-1 Ability, -3.5 Potential) YEAR 12 - Ability 9.0 / Potential 9.0 (No change) YEAR 13 - Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 14 - Ability 8.0 / Potential 8.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 15 - Ability 8.0 / Potential 8.0 (No change) 2. Jonathan Berggren, LD, Ability 8.0 / Potential 8.0 YEAR 11 - Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 12 - Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 13 - Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change) YEAR 14 - Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change) YEAR 15 - Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change) 3. Theodore McCoy, G, Ability 8.5 / Potential 10.0 YEAR 11 - Ability 8.0 / Potential 8.0 (-.5 Ability, -2 Potential) YEAR 12 - Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 13 - Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 14 - Ability 6.5 / Potential 6.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 15 - Ability 6.0 / Potential 6.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) 4. Denis Vasilyev, LD, Ability 8.0 / Potential 10.5 YEAR 11 - Ability 8.0 / Potential 10.5 (No change) YEAR 12 - Ability 7.5 / Potential 10.5 (-.5 Ability) YEAR 13 - Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 (-3 Potential) YEAR 14 - Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 (No change) YEAR 15 - Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 (No change) 5. Mika Stenroos, LW, Ability 7.0 / Potential 9.5 YEAR 11 - Ability 6.5 / Potential 9.5 (-.5 Ability) YEAR 12 - Ability 6.5 / Potential 9.5 (No change) YEAR 13 - Ability 6.0 / Potential 6.0 (-.5 Ability, -3.5 Potential) YEAR 14 - Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 15 - Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (No change) 6. Jimmy Bush, RD, Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 YEAR 11 - Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (No change) YEAR 12 - Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (No change) YEAR 13 - Ability 4.0 / Potential 4.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 14 - Ability 4.0 / Potential 4.0 (No change) YEAR 15 - Ability 4.0 / Potential 4.0 (No change) 7. Mathieu Renaud, LD, Ability 6.0 / Potential 6.0 YEAR 11 - Ability 6.0 / Potential 6.0 (No change) YEAR 12 - Ability 6.0 / Potential 6.0 (No change) YEAR 13 - Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 14 - Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (No change) YEAR 15 - Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) 8. Tyler Robitaille, C, Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 YEAR 11 - Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (No change) YEAR 12 - Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (No change) YEAR 13 - Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 14 - Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (No change) YEAR 15 - Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (No change) 9. Roy Pruitt, RW, Ability 6.5 / Potential 6.5 YEAR 11 - Ability 6.0 / Potential 6.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 12 - Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 13 - Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 14 - Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (No change) YEAR 15 - Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) 10. Andrey Tyulyapkin, RW, Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 YEAR 11 - Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (No change) YEAR 12 - Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 13 - Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (No change) YEAR 14 - Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (No change) YEAR 15 - Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (No change) 11. Jeffrey Haith, RD, Ability 9.0 / Potential 9.5 YEAR 11 - Ability 8.0 / Potential 8.0 (-.5 Ability, -1.5 Potential) YEAR 12 - Ability 8.0 / Potential 8.0 (No change) YEAR 13 - Ability 8.0 / Potential 8.0 (No change) YEAR 14 - Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 15 - Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 (No change) 12. Max Adams, LD, Ability 4.0 / Potential 4.0 YEAR 11 - Ability 4.0 / Potential 4.0 (No change) YEAR 12 - Ability 4.0 / Potential 4.0 (No change) YEAR 13 - Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 14 - Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change) YEAR 15 – RETIRED 13. Zack Paletta, LW, Ability 6.5 / Potential 7.5 YEAR 11 - Ability 6.5 / Potential 7.5 (No change) YEAR 12 - Ability 6.0 / Potential 7.5 (-.5 Ability) YEAR 13 - Ability 6.0 / Potential 6.0 (-1.5 Potential) YEAR 14 - Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 15 - Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) 14. Alfred Forsmark, Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 YEAR 11 - Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change) YEAR 12 - Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change) YEAR 13 - Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change) YEAR 14 - Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change) YEAR 15 - Ability 3.0 / Potential 3.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) 15. Geoff Wensink, LD, Ability 8.0 / Potential 9.5 YEAR 11 - Ability 8.0 / Potential 9.5 (No change) YEAR 12 - Ability 7.5 / Potential 9.5 (-.5 Ability) YEAR 13 - Ability 7.5 / Potential 9.5 (No change) YEAR 14 - Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 (-2 Potential) YEAR 15 - Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) 16. Luca Ryan, C, Ability 6.0 / Potential 8.5 YEAR 11 - Ability 5.5 / Potential 8.5 (-.5 Ability) YEAR 12 - Ability 5.5 / Potential 8.5 (No change) YEAR 13 - Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (-.5 Ability, -3.5 Potential) YEAR 14 - Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (No change) YEAR 15 - Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (No change) 17. Mario Schmitt, C, Ability 2.5 / Potential 2.5 YEAR 11 - Ability 2.5 / Potential 2.5 (No change) YEAR 12 - Ability 2.5 / Potential 2.5 (No change) YEAR 13 - Ability 2.5 / Potential 2.5 (No change) YEAR 14 - Ability 2.5 / Potential 2.5 (No change) YEAR 15 - Ability 2.5 / Potential 2.5 (No change) 18. Jesse Ventura, C, Ability 6.5 / Potential 7.5 YEAR 11 - Ability 6.5 / Potential 7.5 (No change) YEAR 12 - Ability 6.0 / Potential 7.5 (-.5 Ability) YEAR 13 - Ability 6.0 / Potential 7.5 (No change) YEAR 14 - Ability 5.5 / Potential 7.5 (-.5 Ability) YEAR 15 - Ability 5.5 / Potential 7.5 (No change) 19. Kennet Englund, C, Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 YEAR 11 - Ability 6.5 / Potential 7.0 (-1 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 12 - Ability 6.0 / Potential 7.0 (-.5 Ability) YEAR 13 - Ability 5.5 / Potential 7.0 (-.5 Ability) YEAR 14 - Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (-1.5 Potential) YEAR 15 - Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) 20. Andrey Yashin, LW, Ability 6.0 / Potential 8.5 YEAR 11 - Ability 6.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change) YEAR 12 - Ability 5.5/ Potential 8.5 (-.5 Ability) YEAR 13 - Ability 5.5/ Potential 5.5 (-3 Potential) YEAR 14 - Ability 5.5/ Potential 5.5 (No change) YEAR 15 - Ability 5.0/ Potential 5.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) 21. Andrey Pancheshny, C, Ability 3.0 / Potential 3.0 YEAR 11 - Ability 2.5 / Potential 2.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 12 - Ability 2.5 / Potential 2.5 (No change) YEAR 13 - Ability 2.5 / Potential 2.5 (No change) RETIRED 22. Kevin Kelly, RW, Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 YEAR 11 - Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 12 - Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change) YEAR 13 - Ability 6.5 / Potential 6.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 14 - Ability 6.0 / Potential 6.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 15 - Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) 23. Daniil Ignashin, G, Ability 5.5 / Potential 8.5 YEAR 11 - Ability 5.5 / Potential 8.5 (No change) YEAR 12 - Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (-.5 Ability, -3.5 Potential) YEAR 13 - Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 14 - Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (No change) YEAR 15 - Ability 4.0 / Potential 4.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) 24. Mirco Schumann, LW, Ability 3.0 / Potential 3.0 YEAR 11 - Ability 3.0 / Potential 3.0 (No change) YEAR 12 - Ability 3.0 / Potential 3.0 (No change) YEAR 13 - Ability 3.0 / Potential 3.0 (No change) YEAR 14 - Ability 2.5 / Potential 2.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 15 - Ability 2.5 / Potential 2.5 (No change) 25. Axel Henningsson, C, Ability 8.0 / Potential 8.0 YEAR 11 - Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 12 - Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 13 - Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change) YEAR 14 - Ability 6.5 / Potential 6.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 15 - Ability 6.0 / Potential 6.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) 26. Jordan Besler, C, Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 YEAR 11 - Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change) YEAR 12 - Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change) YEAR 13 - Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change) YEAR 14 - Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change) YEAR 15 - Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change) 27. August Hulten, RD, Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 YEAR 11 - Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 (No change) YEAR 12 - Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 13 - Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change) YEAR 14 - Ability 6.5 / Potential 6.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 15 - Ability 6.5 / Potential 6.5 (No change) 28. Simon-Claude Thiverge, LD/RD, Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 YEAR 11 - Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 12 - Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (No change) YEAR 13 - Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (No change) YEAR 14 - Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (No change) YEAR 15 - Ability 4.0 / Potential 4.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) 29. Darian Bradford, LD, Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.0 YEAR 11 - Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change) YEAR 12 - Ability 6.5 / Potential 7.0 (-.5 Ability) YEAR 13 - Ability 6.5 / Potential 7.0 (No change) YEAR 14 - Ability 6.0 / Potential 6.0 (-.5 Ability, -1 Potential) YEAR 15 - Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) 30. Jacob Martel, LD, Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 YEAR 11 - Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (No change) YEAR 12 - Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (No change) YEAR 13 - Ability 4.0 / Potential 4.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential) YEAR 14 - Ability 4.0 / Potential 4.0 (No change) YEAR 15 - Ability 4.0 / Potential 4.0 (No change) ______________________________ At year 15, these players are 31-32 years old (depending on their development and position, could be in their prime or past it [unless your name is Tim Thomas, then your prime doesn’t start until 34 ]). So for most players to become shells of what they were (some good players in the league from this draft, but they’re not at their peak. Not even close), it’s kinda disturbing, since this isn’t how player development works. A majority of players don’t start declining at the age of 26 (some even before that, since the physical peak is at age 22) and, as I look throughout the league, it’s not only barren in terms of developed talent, it’s also extremely young (with the average age being, if I were to take a guess, about age 24 for most teams).Here were the players that I saw, that were over the age of 35, active in the NHL in 2037: - Lewis Martin (Age 36) C, Detroit Red Wings – Ability 6.0 / Potential 6.0 – 5th overall pick in 2019 NHL draft - Raphael Meier (Age 36) RW, Edmonton Oilers – Ability 9.0 / Potential 9.0 – 7th overall pick in 2018 NHL draft - Kent Stephenson* (Age 37) G, Minnesota Wild – Ability 4.0 / Potential 4.0 – 26th overall pick in 2018 NHL draft - Ryan Nugent-Hopkins* (Age 44) C, Ottawa Senators – Ability 4.0 / Potential 4.0 – 1st overall pick in 2011 NHL draft * I put the giant asterisks on these players because Stephenson was in the minors for the majority of the season and Nugent-Hopkins didn’t play a single game, simply rotting on the bench for the Senators. But seriously, I can count the number of players over the age of 35 on one hand? That’s just not right. I don’t expect them to overpopulate like they did in the last patch, but it appears that the regression gods are WAY too brutal on players once they hit their 26th birthday (and if there’s one thing I’m going to “bitch” about, it’s the fact that a player’s peak is set to a certain age, which just isn’t realistic when looking at player development curves). Honestly, you can call Meier the Gordie Howe of this world since he seems to be the only player who is a core contributor on his team in his mid-30’s (and he was also cut by his drafting team, the Pens, at age 19). I’m even seeing a few teams that don’t have a single player on their roster over the age of 30 (?). The Los Angeles Kings, Stanley Cup champions in 2037, only had two players over the age of 30; one of them was scratched for the whole season (the other had regressed into a 6.5 ability second line forward). The KHL looks to be filled with older players, but most of them have withered down into players with an ability of 4 or lower. Honestly, I was lucky to find even a few players with an ability over 5 at the age of 35 or older (I even found one with an ability of 6. Take that, Father Time!). So the moral of the story: The development curve is FAR too cruel to players in their late 20’s and early 30’s. Yes, players decline during those years, but players to start declining at the age of 26 is an extreme exception, not the rule. - I also wanted to mention, there is pretty much NO goaltending talent in this world. Granted, it’s being developed (such as in the case of Theodore McCoy), but they suffer from several things: not having enough talent being produced for the position (and some of that talent failing to develop in the first place) and they begin suffering the wrath of the aging gods once they turn 26. Goaltenders take the longest to develop and are the hardest to judge in terms of future ability, so to rope them in with the likes of a forward that could finish developing at the age of 22 is ridiculous in its own right. If there was a way to separate the positions in terms of when they reach peak development (also include variability so every single player doesn’t stop developing or start declining at a certain age), it would help this problem out immensely. I might simulate to 2065 (50 years into the game) and gaze into the vast wasteland that is professional hockey, but that’s a big if right now. Might stumble onto another thing I want to mention (or two) as well. |
|
|
|
|
10-10-2013, 03:07 AM
|
#33 | |
|
Minors (Double A)
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 110
|
Quote:
The top free agent in 2021, including RFAs, was a 7.0 overall. Since the AI can't develop propects and the "pre-programmed" crop of great players has by and large disappeared/retired/declined, there's no-one left to sign that's good. Hell, try and trade and there's not much to be found. Prospect development is a huge issue, as you noted and I'm wondering if there's any idea to continue this game of mine since there are very few good players in the game. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-10-2013, 06:28 AM
|
#34 |
|
All Star Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,064
|
Have you considered editing the aging attribute on some players and running some similar tests? Generally, all players in the database are set to "10" for aging. Perhaps raising this number for defensemen, and even more so for goalies, could bring these numbers more in line with reality.
I'm thinking some tweaking from the devs still is needed, but the database could also be contributing to this problem, as it does to several other problems as well. |
|
|
|
|
10-10-2013, 07:45 AM
|
#35 |
|
Minors (Double A)
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Finland
Posts: 198
|
I've already stated that the player development is just terrible. I simulated up to 2030 and there was only couple of players with an rating of 9 (like 3 players..) the rest were at 6.5 or so.
AI Teams seem to dump their players, and the ones that stay seem to never develop into a good player, and eventually will become free agents. |
|
|
|
|
10-10-2013, 02:04 PM
|
#36 | ||
|
Major Leagues
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 316
|
Quote:
It seems to be a three-pronged problem: 1 - The game is not creating enough talent to properly fill the world. 2 - The game is not developing enough of the game-created talent. 3 - The game is forcing players to begin declining (some rapidly) at the age of 26 (some earlier), therefore diluting the already limited talent pool in the world. As of now, It might be able to work for you if you set strict limitations on yourself (such as not gobbling up every top prospect that other NHL teams release a month after draft day), but that's why I'm keeping my hands off right now. If I were to play this game, I'd just be sitting pat waiting for teams to release their top prospects, then gobble them up in free agency. Quote:
If there were a way to make aging (and development) not as uniform (perhaps separate these attributes by offensive, defensive, physical, skating and goaltending), I feel it would help this problem immensely. Especially with development, as I'm seeing far too many players stop developing just because they reach 25 when it looks like they aren't finished doing so at all. But that's just a thought. I know I mentioned a development/regression/boom theory on TBL's forums for Dabo's hockey manager (it was under a different username, so let me see if I can find it, as it might be of use to these guys as well). Last edited by Ciccarelli; 10-10-2013 at 02:33 PM. |
||
|
|
|
|
10-10-2013, 02:44 PM
|
#37 |
|
Major Leagues
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 316
|
Okay I found that gigantic wall of text that I did a few years ago for Dabo's manager (still looks like a WIP). I don't expect it to be this revolutionary idea, but it might be of some use. Note this was mainly to do with EHM's CA/PA engine, so some of these might have to be modified a bit.
DEVELOPMENT: My idea would be to create a "Bell curve" regarding this, with the average age of a player reaching his "plateau" being around 24-26 (although the case could be made for earlier development peaks for wingers [early 20s] while it being later for defensemen and goaltenders [late 20's]) with the extreme fringes of development ranging from late teens to early thirties. Don't know how feasible it would be to develop a hidden attribute for individual development speed, but I would suggest something like a 1-20 rating for it (possibly affected by outside influences such as coaching, mental attributes, injuries, etc.). 1 (EXTREMELY RARE) - Player reaches peak development at age 15-16 2-3 (VERY RARE) - Player reaches peak development at age 17-19 (ex. Jason Bonsignore, Scott Scissons, [speculative] Angelo Esposito, etc.) 4-5 (RARE) - Player reaches peak development at age 20-22 (ex. Jim Carey, Jimmy Carson, Dino Ciccarelli, Dion Phaneuf, etc.) 6-8 (SOMEWHAT COMMON) - Player reaches peak development at age 22-24 (ex. Teemu Selanne, Jaromir Jagr, Kevin Lowe, Mark Recchi, Henrik Lundqvist, etc.) 9-12 (VERY COMMON) - Player reaches peak development at age 23-26 (ex. Joe Mullen, Kevin Stevens, Rob Blake, Danny Briere, etc.) 13-15 (SOMEWHAT COMMON) - Player reaches peak development at age 25-27 (ex. Pavel Datsyuk, Marc Savard, Zdeno Chara, Ryan Miller, etc.) 16-17 (RARE) - Player reaches peak development at age 28-30 (ex. Martin St. Louis, Andy McDonald, Johan Franzen, Dominik Hasek, etc.) 18-19 (VERY RARE) - Player reaches peak development at age 30-32 (ex. Jason Blake, Tomas Holmstrom, Mark Streit, Dwayne Roloson, etc.) 20 (EXTREMELY RARE) - Player reaches peak development at age 32-34 (ex. Tim Thomas) REGRESSION: Like development, there should be a hidden attribute (1-20 range) for career longetivity, which can also be influenced by mental attributes, injuries, etc. 1 (EXTREMELY RARE) - Player begins skill atrophy at age 22-25 (ex. Jim Carey) 2-3 (VERY RARE) - Player begins skill atrophy at 25-28 (ex. Blaine Lacher, Jonathan Cheechoo, Jimmy Carson, etc.) 4-5 (RARE) - Player begins skill atrophy at age 28-30 (ex. Sami Kapanen, Brian Savage, Jeff O'Neill, etc.) 6-8 (SOMEWHAT COMMON) - Player begins skill atrophy at age 30-32 (ex. Dale Hawerchuk, Wendel Clark, Jeff Brown, Patrick Lalime, etc.) 9-12 (VERY COMMON) - Player begins skill atrophy at age 32-34 (ex. John LeClair, Dino Ciccarelli, Geoff Courtnall, Bryan Trottier, etc.) 13-15 (SOMEWHAT COMMON) - Player begins skill atrophy at age 34-36 (ex. Bernie Nicholls, Tom Barrasso, Mike Modano, etc.) 16-17 (RARE) - Player begins skill atrophy at 36-38 (ex. Larry Murphy, Wayne Gretzky, Ray Bourque, etc.) 18-19 (VERY RARE) - Player begins skill atrophy at age 38-40 (ex. Mark Recchi, Gary Roberts, Rod Brind'Amour, etc.) 20 (EXTREMELY RARE) - Player begins skill atrophy at age 40+ (ex. Nicklas Lidstrom, Chris Chelios, Gordie Howe) Also what should be noted are that potential discrepancies should be avoided (ex. a player with a development speed rating of 20 shouldn't have a career longetivity of 1 or 2, a player with a development of 17 cannot have a career longetivity of 3, etc.), which might make this a nightmare to code. Just something to think about. VOLATILITY: One inevitability of sport is that athletes can suddenly "boom or bust" at any given moment in their career. Players once thought of as afterthoughts when they were draft-eligible become top prospects or players of significant impact at the NHL-level (ex. Steve Duchesne, Martin St. Louis, Olli Jokinen, undrafted prospects such as Tyler Bozak, Fabian Brunnstrom and Teddy Purcell, etc.) while people wonder what happened to quality players at the NHL level due a sudden and significant regression (ex. Blaine Lacher, Jonathan Cheechoo, Stephan Lebeau, Jim Carey, Mike York, etc.). This is what I felt EHM lacked as well, but might be reasonable as it may be a little hard to code. My idea is a random, albeit infrequent stream of "volatility rolls." I'm thinking of a monthly (bi-monthly?) event where CA and PA is randomly changed in a certain amount of players throughout the database (say 1-2% of players and staff per roll). A strong majority of these player's changes will be insignificant (CA/PA change +/- 1 to 3 [~99% of rolls]), but there will be a few that have a significant change to their abilities (CA/PA change +/- 5 to 10 [~.3 - .5%]) and, once in a full moon, the "boom" and "bust" (CA/PA change +/- 10 to 30 [~.1 - .01%]). The attributes won't take into consideration this change immediately, but the development/regression of said attributes would be influenced by the development speed/career longetivity rating of the player, coaching, mental attributes, injuries, etc. I'm not so sure about the volatility part nowadays, but it could work for "unlocking" or "removing" part of a player's current and potential ability. As I said, just throwing another idea out there (which might work, considering the "rate of aging" aspect is already in the game). |
|
|
|
|
10-14-2013, 10:51 PM
|
#38 |
|
Major Leagues
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 316
|
I see that the newest patch came out (yay), but nothing seems to have been done from the things I was discussing in this thread (minus faster goalie development, something that was much needed). I'm going to guess that some of the things I mentioned are probably on the to-do list that JeffR mentioned in the previous thread (at least I hope they are), so I'm not going to turn this into a gigantic thesis project; even though it'll probably evolve into that... again.
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).     The chinese "wunderkind" retired already after not receiving any attention from the AI squads, but Bansfield has continued to develop into a physical freak who would probably be an effective defensive defenseman at the NHL level. As I said, a very minor problem (considering everything else that's been fixed over the past month and some), but looks like it may need a little tweaking. I'll probably do a draft and more simming in this version as well, but not for reasons of analysis but for to analyze the Aging attribute that was pointed out to me by Smetana along with other methods of data manipulation. Yay fun. |
|
|
|
|
10-14-2013, 11:01 PM
|
#39 |
|
FHM Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brantford, ON
Posts: 2,888
|
the one area that I am enjoying development wise is goaltending. I love seeing goalies play great one year then down and out the next. Tough being a goalie in the NHL these days and FHM is showing that! Hopefully they can fix the other positions but keep the inconsistency of goalies in todays game. Finding a starter goalie at the nhl level is tough. Many times a GM thinks he finds his guy but after a year or two finds out he needs to keep looking. I really want to have that challenge in FHM. Love to see a goalie go from an 8 one year to a 6.5 the next.
__________________
IN 1964 THE LEAFS WON THE STANLEY CUP :: IT'S ALSO THE YEAR THE CANADIAN FLAG WAS DESIGNED...coincidence? |
|
|
|
|
10-14-2013, 11:12 PM
|
#40 | |
|
Major Leagues
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 316
|
Quote:
Do I feel the game produces enough talent for the professional level? No. Does it make for a more interesting game, however? Surprisingly yes. In some ways, unrealistic code (no goaltending talent) creates realism (players coming out of nowhere to become quality goalies at the NHL level, at least for a few years). |
|
|
|
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
