Quote:
Originally Posted by pens66
Yeah, I think you're right. That came to my mind afterwards as well.
Still, I don't think we should have to "manipulate" certain players in such an extreme way to make them score close to their real life numbers. I mean, how would you argue for giving Gretzky a 40 in passing, while you give other elite playmakers of NHL history (i.e. Oates) a 20 in passing? Just going by the numbers you could say Gretzky was twice as good at passing than Oates -- which is a ridiculous to say.
Different aspect: It worries me quite a bit that you, as you simulate the seasons, can't really see certain (real life) elite players stick out from the masses with their point production on a consistent basis.
It is even more aparrent in the modern NHL, where your player pool is bigger than let's say in the 70s or 80s. Sidney Crosby or Evgeni Malkin should be top 5 scorers every year, barring injury. But they are not. They just coast along with nobodys. The problem is either that there is not much difference between an offensive potential of 850 and 700 or that the elite players are totally underrated by the db researchers. I don't know.
|
I agree with you on almost every point. I was just trying to see if I could manipulate the ratings to get the desired result. Atleast we know the game is capable of producing close to the right stats.
I actually I think to get Adam Oates performing to historical levels at his peak (1989-94ish), his passing would probably have to be closer to 30... which is pretty much where I'd put Mario Lemieux. The rough formula I use is to take his best season for assists/4 (90 in 61 games in 89-90, or 120 over a full season). The logic being that for Gretzky it takes rating 40 to get the right results, and his best is 163 (which is an insane number of assists when you think of it!).
Now, is the right solution to change the way the game interprets the attributes, or the way the players are rated? Right now, I'd lean towards the latter because the second tier of players seem to work fine, so I'd be afraid of them messing up the 95% that work for the 5% that don't.