Rookie progression?

[Tangerino]

I always like to draft Leon Draislt during the 2014 draft because he is always available late round 1. But the problem with him is I cant really get him to progress that well or any rookies for that matter, When I first draft them for example draislt he has a 8 potential and by halfpoint of that season he goes down to a 7.5 and McDavid for me even went down to an 8.5 even though his potential was at 10! Is it because my scouts are just scouting them wrong? Am I playing them wrong? I'll play draislt 2nd, 3rd line because I wanna see him progress and sometimes hell just go up by .5 overall and drop .5 potential.

Also took Jack Eichel til he was 26 to become an 8*

[greenOak]

There's lots of variance in scouting, and these random drops in players potentials are quite common. A player may be 5.0/9.0 on draft day for example but end up at 6/0/7.5 by the end of the season. This can be the result of the player simply never being as good as a 9.0 or just shear randomness where your scout thinks a player is worse than he actually is. It's not the result of improper scouting or poor development. It isn't too often potential actually goes up in my experience (which is silly), but a player can still improve if their current and potential are the same (7.0/7.0 for example). Hell, I've had players who were rated 4.0/4.0 at one point in time end up as 8.0/8.0 players - it's the hidden offensive potential and defensive potential, which doesn't change, that actually drives ratings. FWIW, Jyrki Antonen (the guy I drafted 4th overall in my dynasty I have on here) dropped from a 4.0/8.0 to a 4.0/4.0 but I'm not actually worried about his development at all. It's just the scouting in this game is full of these random drops.

McDavid usually ends up as a 9.5 in my leagues, so even though his potential is 8.5 right now for you, I would bet on him ending up closer to 9.5 by the time he reaches prime so long as he is getting regular playing time (3rd line minutes or more). Draisaitl I'm not sure about. He may actually turn into a 8.0/8.0 or he might have just been a 7.5/7.5 all along.

I'm personally dissatisfied with the scouting engine in FHM (and this is one of my problems with it), but it is what it is, and the reality are going to be random drops in players potentials that you're best off just ignoring. As a general rule of thumb, you shouldn't pay much attention to your scouts opinions on young players unless you have to (drafting is an example - relying on stats is even worse imo). Ratings for older players will be accurate, but you'll be better off evaluating young talent based on what you're assistant GM guy says in the trade screen, or just using draft position as a proxy for player potential since the AI drafts like God in this game.

Just as a note, Jack Eichel also seems to be quite underwhelming in my experience. I think it might have something to do with development in the NCAA but I'm not sure.

[Hadehariast]

It's useful to remember that players in FHM benefit in training from the following:

1) Playing in a league that matches their skill level
2) Playing significant minutes
3) Performing well
4) A coach with a very high "Coaching Prospects" rating

Promoting a player too quickly (so he gets less minutes, doesn't perform as well against better competition) can slow growth in both the short and the long-term. Players with low morale are less likely to improve. It can be tempting, especially with players from the CHL, to use a 6.0/8.5 player in sheltered minutes, because the only other alternative is to send them back to their junior team, but I've found it's better to let them go back to junior and dominate for a year, and then bring them into the AHL, and then to the NHL. It seems to be better to let them come into the NHL when they're a 7.0 or a 7.5, because they're no longer overmatched by the quality of competition and can play significant minutes. The "Detroit model" of prospect development seems to pay off in this game.

Also keep in mind that your coach with the best "Coaching Prospects" rating effects every player contracted to you, from NHL to players in junior. Getting one coach with an 18 or 19 in that rating can make a big difference!

[moore4807]

Originally Posted by greenOak

There's lots of variance in scouting, and these random drops in players potentials are quite common. A player may be 5.0/9.0 on draft day for example but end up at 6/0/7.5 by the end of the season. This can be the result of the player simply never being as good as a 9.0 or just shear randomness where your scout thinks a player is worse than he actually is. It's not the result of improper scouting or poor development. It isn't too often potential actually goes up in my experience (which is silly), but a player can still improve if their current and potential are the same (7.0/7.0 for example). Hell, I've had players who were rated 4.0/4.0 at one point in time end up as 8.0/8.0 players - it's the hidden offensive potential and defensive potential, which doesn't change, that actually drives ratings. FWIW, Jyrki Antonen (the guy I drafted 4th overall in my dynasty I have on here) dropped from a 4.0/8.0 to a 4.0/4.0 but I'm not actually worried about his development at all. It's just the scouting in this game is full of these random drops.

McDavid usually ends up as a 9.5 in my leagues, so even though his potential is 8.5 right now for you, I would bet on him ending up closer to 9.5 by the time he reaches prime so long as he is getting regular playing time (3rd line minutes or more). Draisaitl I'm not sure about. He may actually turn into a 8.0/8.0 or he might have just been a 7.5/7.5 all along.

I'm personally dissatisfied with the scouting engine in FHM (and this is one of my problems with it), but it is what it is, and the reality are going to be random drops in players potentials that you're best off just ignoring. As a general rule of thumb, you shouldn't pay much attention to your scouts opinions on young players unless you have to (drafting is an example - relying on stats is even worse imo). Ratings for older players will be accurate, but you'll be better off evaluating young talent based on what you're assistant GM guy says in the trade screen, or just using draft position as a proxy for player potential since the AI drafts like God in this game.

Just as a note, Jack Eichel also seems to be quite underwhelming in my experience. I think it might have something to do with development in the NCAA but I'm not sure.

While I respect your opinion and explanation on scouting - I have a completely different take on the effectiveness of scouting vs. scouting opinion.
You used the words "shear randomness" to describe scouting and that "bugs" me... What was the scouts ratings in abilities/potential? If you have a 12 rated scout it means he is only average to good which means a scouting report will only be 60-70% correct. You need a scout with an ability/potential rating of 15-20 to get a truly accurate picture of the scouted player and those kind of scouts don't grow on trees...
Since most of your scouts you start off with are only average to good - get rid of the deadwood and always scour the hire personnel lines frequently to improve your scouting. Some excellent scouts come with bad reputations and you have to figure out why/what is wrong with them and sometimes I found nothing wrong and the reputation went to excellent quickly under my tutelage!
I could go on and on but I think you get my point - invest a little time in "reading" your scouts and then when you get a report from one who is borderline - then whip out your critical eye and get a second opinion from your BEST scout!

[greenOak]

Originally Posted by moore4807

While I respect your opinion and explanation on scouting - I have a completely different take on the effectiveness of scouting vs. scouting opinion.
You used the words "shear randomness" to describe scouting and that "bugs" me... What was the scouts ratings in abilities/potential? If you have a 12 rated scout it means he is only average to good which means a scouting report will only be 60-70% correct. You need a scout with an ability/potential rating of 15-20 to get a truly accurate picture of the scouted player and those kind of scouts don't grow on trees...
Since most of your scouts you start off with are only average to good - get rid of the deadwood and always scour the hire personnel lines frequently to improve your scouting. Some excellent scouts come with bad reputations and you have to figure out why/what is wrong with them and sometimes I found nothing wrong and the reputation went to excellent quickly under my tutelage!
I could go on and on but I think you get my point - invest a little time in "reading" your scouts and then when you get a report from one who is borderline - then whip out your critical eye and get a second opinion from your BEST scout!

While it's true that your scout is the more accurate you're scout will be, my take on this situation is still correct and imo listening to the other opinion in this thread would be bad for the OP. These drops have nothing to do with not developing your players properly, and everything to do with randomness (even if there is less uncertainty the higher the scouts ratings are) in scouting projections. If we could get the save file, I would bet my life savings on Connor McDavid ending up being a 9.5 (maybe a 9.0 or 10.0), rather than an 8.5 like the OP's scouts suggest the vast vast majority (if not 100%) of the time assuming he gets 3rd line + minutes for his career. Suggesting that this drop OP experienced is due to improper development is simply wrong. Note it is possible to ruin a players development by rushing them too quickly to the NHL, but this won't be true in McDavid's case. I know you can certainly play 5.5 and 6.0 overall players in the NHL without hurting their development.

Certain players are naturally overrated in FHM, and certain players are naturally underrated - even by the best of scouts. You can have a 20/20 scout show a player rated 4.0/4.0 but if his potentials are 750/750 (which are static) as long as you don't ruin his development, he is going to turn into a 8.5/8.5 every single time. This actually seems to be a relatively common scenario - look at your first round picks and you'll probably find some are rated terribly by even the best of scouting departments. If you actually look at their true potentials, you'll find that they will be very good. Just because better scouts are more accurate than worse scouts, the draft rankings, draft position, your assistant GM, and a players trade value, will give a better gauge of a players potential.

[moore4807]

Originally Posted by greenOak

While it's true that your scout is the more accurate you're scout will be, my take on this situation is still correct and imo listening to the other opinion in this thread would be bad for the OP. These drops have nothing to do with not developing your players properly, and everything to do with randomness (even if there is less uncertainty the higher the scouts ratings are) in scouting projections. If we could get the save file, I would bet my life savings on Connor McDavid ending up being a 9.5 (maybe a 9.0 or 10.0), rather than an 8.5 like the OP's scouts suggest the vast vast majority (if not 100%) of the time assuming he gets 3rd line + minutes for his career. Suggesting that this drop OP experienced is due to improper development is simply wrong. Note it is possible to ruin a players development by rushing them too quickly to the NHL, but this won't be true in McDavid's case. I know you can certainly play 5.5 and 6.0 overall players in the NHL without hurting their development.

Certain players are naturally overrated in FHM, and certain players are naturally underrated - even by the best of scouts. You can have a 20/20 scout show a player rated 4.0/4.0 but if his potentials are 750/750 (which are static) as long as you don't ruin his development, he is going to turn into a 8.5/8.5 every single time. This actually seems to be a relatively common scenario - look at your first round picks and you'll probably find some are rated terribly by even the best of scouting departments. If you actually look at their true potentials, you'll find that they will be very good. Just because better scouts are more accurate than worse scouts, the draft rankings, draft position, your assistant GM, and a players trade value, will give a better gauge of a players potential.

OK, but by your example - by your going into the players file via commissioner status, otherwise you would never know what their potential is... So your betting the house on Conner McDavid puts you in the same boat as the LA Kings who bet the house on Lauri Tukonen 10 yrs ago with the 11th pick - but was a complete bust at the NHL level despite having every "potential" skill set needed for success at that level. Rico Fata comes to mind as another top ten draft pick that never went anywhere while players below him went on to have great careers... That is what is wrong with your hypothesis - your "cheating" the system by going into the commissioner mode and not letting the randomness occur - if thats the way you play fine - I would just be up front about it when dispensing advice to other players who may toe the line when it comes to gamesmanship.

[greenOak]

Originally Posted by moore4807

OK, but by your example - by your going into the players file via commissioner status, otherwise you would never know what their potential is... So your betting the house on Conner McDavid puts you in the same boat as the LA Kings who bet the house on Lauri Tukonen 10 yrs ago with the 11th pick - but was a complete bust at the NHL level despite having every "potential" skill set needed for success at that level. Rico Fata comes to mind as another top ten draft pick that never went anywhere while players below him went on to have great careers... That is what is wrong with your hypothesis - your "cheating" the system by going into the commissioner mode and not letting the randomness occur - if thats the way you play fine - I would just be up front about it when dispensing advice to other players who may toe the line when it comes to gamesmanship.

Well yes, I'm basing this off my knowledge of playing in commish mode to look at true ratings, but that doesn't mean what I say can't be applied to not doing that (I don't play in commish mode except when I'm doing testing). The point I'm making is that stuff like trade value and draft position more accurately reflects those true potentials than what your scouts projections are. While I have looked at many true potential ratings to come to this conclusion, I do not need to look at them to apply this knowledge.

You are right when you draft a player who is say 6.0a/9.0a, you don't know what his true potential is. When he drops to a 6.0a/8.5a, half way through the season there are essentially two explanations. The first being that this player was simply never as good as a 9.0 potential and the 8.5 is a more accurate representation. The second being that your player still is actually a 9.0 and your scouts projection is off.

However, what this is not, is poor development of a player causing an actual drop in potential. Ruining a players development doesn't show up in a reduction of potential until the player is ~25 years of age, and then it is a reduction to his current overall ability. It would look something like 4.0/9.0 -> 4.0/9.0 -> 4.5/9.0 -> 4.5/9.0 -> 4.5/9.0 -> 4.5/4.5 (as an arbitrary example). These drops that go like 4.0/9.0 -> 4.5/8.5 -> 5.0/8.0, don't represent improper development but rather your scouts reassessment of that player, which are sometimes closer to their true ratings and sometimes not. In the case of McDavid, it is easy for me to know it is the latter based on his reputation, and for me previous play-throughs of the game. This is one reason I prefer drafting with CPU generated players. However, it is often easy to know whether or not these random drops are accurate based on other factors in the game. Sizeable drops (say by 2 potential points or more) are often bogus. If the AI is still willing to trade a heap of stuff for your declined player, your scouts are probably wrong. If said player was high on the draft list and now your scouts think he is garbage, your scouts are probably wrong. If the CPU drafted the player high, and your scouts think he sucks, your scouts are probably wrong. And finally, if you're player is a 5.5/5.5 or something and still improving in the development report, you can be sure your scouts are wrong about his projection.

To elaborate, like I said I drafted Jyrki Antonen in my dynasty - he was a 4.0c/8.0c when I drafted him and now he is a 4.0a/4.0a. I don't know what his true ratings are, but despite my scouts ****ty opinion of him I can be sure his ratings are very good. For one, he was in the top 5 of the draft rankings which usually contain the best players. Opposing teams will still give up a lot of stuff (according to my assistant GM) in exchange for him. And lastly despite apparently reached his crummy potential, he still improves every month in the development report screen. So because of all of this, I can be reasonably sure that his true ratings are still quite good, and that I should ignore my scouts opinion. I'm not sure whether or not he'll end up being an 8.0/8.0, worse or better, but I am quite confident he'll turn into a good player.

[greenOak]

Double Post

[moore4807]

Originally Posted by greenOak

You are right when you draft a player who is say 6.0a/9.0a, you don't know what his true potential is. When he drops to a 6.0a/8.5a, half way through the season there are essentially two explanations. The first being that this player was simply never as good as a 9.0 potential and the 8.5 is a more accurate representation. The second being that your player still is actually a 9.0 and your scouts projection is off.

However, what this is not, is poor development of a player causing an actual drop in potential. Ruining a players development doesn't show up in a reduction of potential until the player is ~25 years of age, and then it is a reduction to his current overall ability. It would look something like 4.0/9.0 -> 4.0/9.0 -> 4.5/9.0 -> 4.5/9.0 -> 4.5/9.0 -> 4.5/4.5 (as an arbitrary example). These drops that go like 4.0/9.0 -> 4.5/8.5 -> 5.0/8.0, don't represent improper development but rather your scouts reassessment of that player, which are sometimes closer to their true ratings and sometimes not.

In the case of McDavid, it is easy for me to know it is the latter based on his reputation, and for me previous play-throughs of the game. This is one reason I prefer drafting with CPU generated players. However, it is often easy to know whether or not these random drops are accurate based on other factors in the game. Sizeable drops (say by 2 potential points or more) are often bogus. If the AI is still willing to trade a heap of stuff for your declined player, your scouts are probably wrong. If said player was high on the draft list and now your scouts think he is garbage, your scouts are probably wrong. If the CPU drafted the player high, and your scouts think he sucks, your scouts are probably wrong. And finally, if you're player is a 5.5/5.5 or something and still improving in the development report, you can be sure your scouts are wrong about his projection.

To elaborate, like I said I drafted Jyrki Antonen in my dynasty - he was a 4.0c/8.0c when I drafted him and now he is a 4.0a/4.0a. I don't know what his true ratings are, but despite my scouts ****ty opinion of him I can be sure his ratings are very good. For one, he was in the top 5 of the draft rankings which usually contain the best players. Opposing teams will still give up a lot of stuff (according to my assistant GM) in exchange for him. And lastly despite apparently reached his crummy potential, he still improves every month in the development report screen. So because of all of this, I can be reasonably sure that his true ratings are still quite good, and that I should ignore my scouts opinion. I'm not sure whether or not he'll end up being an 8.0/8.0, worse or better, but I am quite confident he'll turn into a good player.

We mostly agree here except that having played this game extensively I can pretty definitely say there is regression in some players before reaching their peak age. I believe it is a random number generator hidden in the stats to attempt to recreate the Lauri Tukonen or Rico Fata's of the world. Again in this conversation we seem to be concentrating on the top 5% of the top players in the world, I see it more in the 6.0/6.5 players not reaching their potential but I cannot absolutely say its true, it just occurs too often for randomness to apply IMHO.

Again I really think the depth of the investigation by your scouts determine the "garbage or gold" question. I have never held much esteem for the AI trading as I can fleece it pretty easily. What I notice is every so often I have players who I trade away that suddenly become Alex Ovechkin clones while holding a 6.5 rating! I haven't figured that one out yet But it rarely lasts more than one season before they return to the type player who I traded away.

Your Jyrki Antonen example is what I'd kill for the scouts details that scouted him. I will have players with similar ratings and eventually after scouting him to the point the scouts will not scout him anymore saying he has been extensively scouted. I will go one step further and have his potential scouted and invariably it will go up a half point or so - its almost like I'm forcing the scout to change his opinion, which is what I find immersive and lifelike... nothing like challenging someones opinion and forcing the ego to step aside!

Finally I don't know but I have not had a top scout with a rating players potential of 19 or 20 do what you say in reporting junk about top prospects. I have seen them take 9.0 or 10.0 and drop them to an 7.5 or 8.0 yes, but invariably they are younger and do rise back up, usually because of the playing time allotted to them (IE; 1-2 line minutes) at the appropriate level AHL/juniors...

I'm glad we could discuss this - I see your point and while maybe its our playing styles being different give us a different perspective on the game anybody reading this will be able to gauge for themselves what works for them - and that is what the forums should be doing - promoting interest and the game!

[greenOak]

I don't know how yo get info on who last scouted a player. Is it available?

One interesting thing to note which I didn't realize until now is that Antonen's strength/weaknesses page in the scouting report is exceptional, despite the 4.0a overall projection. It is much better than most the other prospects who are also 4.0a overall. Maybe there's something to that?

[moore4807]

Originally Posted by greenOak

I don't know how yo get info on who last scouted a player. Is it available?

One interesting thing to note which I didn't realize until now is that Antonen's strength/weaknesses page in the scouting report is exceptional, despite the 4.0a overall projection. It is much better than most the other prospects who are also 4.0a overall. Maybe there's something to that?

Not directly - blame my OCD'ness I am paranoid about using the same scouts for the same leagues/regions, so I have a pretty good idea who is scouting what. I usually keep one or two scouts (very good or excellent) available to do secondary scouting or spot scouting on potential trade players. The upside of this is the scouts get green designations of leagues they are familiar with and the reports are better when scouting those leagues/regions.

I find myself not as impressed by the 6.5/8.0 ratings as I am by the skaters 1 ratings. To look up a players general offensive skills and defensive skills usually gives me what I want to know along with the players performance in past games. The scouts opinions are useful to me when its cautionary in nature (stamina concerns, not focused, hot headed or impulsive, ) more than the praise (it usually mimics the skaters stats being above average or better) again its me and my read on the game

I'm glad to see your back posting on your Dynasty!