Matt55

brilliance of NHLPA '93 ratings

Recommended Posts

Matt55    3

Maybe you all knew, but I haven't noticed anyone pointing it out ...

One of the keys to NHLPA 93's ratings is that it used the full range (using line changes, players go from a 1 to a couple of 95's; even without line changes, starters can vary greatly). It also had "a 0-15" scale, but did you notice that players' ratings were directly affected by the quality of their team?  

What I mean is that the 21 teams (leaving out expansion and all-star), split perfectly into upper (7-9 team rating), mid (4-6 team rating), and lower (1-3 team ratings) thirds (exactly 7 teams per tier).  Then the 0-15 scale was used like this:

   1.  Top Third uses ratings ending in 6's (26, 46, 66, 86)

   2.  Middle Third uses ratings ending in 0's  (20, 40, 60, 80)

   3.  Lower Third uses ratings ending in 3's (13, 33, 53, 73)

   (Throw in the 0, 6, 93, and 100 also.)

   * An unexplained exception is Philly, a lower third team that uses players ratings ending in 0's.

What does this mean?  A player who gets an 80 speed on an average team would get an 86 if he were on a good team or a 73 if he were on a bad team.  Net result is a wide spread of players AND a wide spread of teams.   I think that NHLPA's ratings created a superior variety of playing experiences.

I imitate this distribution when I make my own projects.  Don't allow yourself the breakaway move and choose a bottom third team, and you have a fun solitaire experience.  Playing against a friend who is much better or much worse than you?  Choose two teams that balance the scales.     

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Premium    18

NHL '94 has better ratings and is more fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoachMac    97
1 hour ago, Matt55 said:

Maybe you all knew, but I haven't noticed anyone pointing it out ...

One of the keys to NHLPA 93's ratings is that it used the full range (using line changes, players go from a 1 to a couple of 95's; even without line changes, starters can vary greatly). It also had "a 0-15" scale, but did you notice that players' ratings were directly affected by the quality of their team?  

What I mean is that the 21 teams (leaving out expansion and all-star), split perfectly into upper (7-9 team rating), mid (4-6 team rating), and lower (1-3 team ratings) thirds (exactly 7 teams per tier).  Then the 0-15 scale was used like this:

   1.  Top Third uses ratings ending in 6's (26, 46, 66, 86)

   2.  Middle Third uses ratings ending in 0's  (20, 40, 60, 80)

   3.  Lower Third uses ratings ending in 3's (13, 33, 53, 73)

   (Throw in the 0, 6, 93, and 100 also.)

   * An unexplained exception is Philly, a lower third team that uses players ratings ending in 0's.

What does this mean?  A player who gets an 80 speed on an average team would get an 86 if he were on a good team or a 73 if he were on a bad team.  Net result is a wide spread of players AND a wide spread of teams.   I think that NHLPA's ratings created a superior variety of playing experiences.

I imitate this distribution when I make my own projects.  Don't allow yourself the breakaway move and choose a bottom third team, and you have a fun solitaire experience.  Playing against a friend who is much better or much worse than you?  Choose two teams that balance the scales.     

 

 

Yes, I knew this and wholeheartedly would have agreed with you 5 years ago.
Smoz, has created the ability to do this same scale in 94 with his Smoz rom.
Now however,

23 minutes ago, Premium said:

NHL '94 has better ratings and is more fun.

I agree with Plabby.

The difference in a 86, 80, and 73 is almost nothing.  Might as well just make them a 4.
93 is a good solitaire experience with some parameters, but you can have a similar one with 94 by limiting your moves.
My #1 goal is to create a GREAT solitaire experience.

Anyway, Good find, keep digging , and having fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blake    10

Let's not forget some players were literally a rating below 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
clockwise    59
25 minutes ago, Blake said:

Let's not forget some players were literally a rating below 5.

IRL that would make them drain damaged. In the case of Tony Twist: ratings are way ahead of their time. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt55    3

I already knew that most people prefer '94, so I posted this comment under the '93 posts.  I intentionally made no pokes against '94 because my point was just to observe and appreciate a part of '93 without taking any shots against the beauty of '94.

'93 is not great because I compare it to '94; it is just great.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt55    3

As far as parameters for solitaire go, have you guys ever thought of playing '94 but ONLY allowing yourself one-timers when on the power play? 

I play solitaire a lot not because I like running up the score but because I don't expect others to understand my priority: making an up-and-down drama that could go either way.  I totally get why most like no-holds-barred winning, but I am getting old and am just doing it for the love of the game.  It's kind of like loving '93 without comparing it to '94; the value of one is not derived from beating another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt55    3

The 73 vs. 80 vs. 86 point is valid, Coach.  They are probably unnoticeable.

Also, weaknesses of '93 ratings have been pointed out other places: +/- rating to decide Defensive Awareness creates a bunch of illogical results.  Shooting % is a pure stat, but it creates illogical results when it is used exclusively to decide a player's shooting accuracy.

Of course, manual goalie is a must for head-to-head combat, so '94 has to get the nod there.  

I like the new feature of a wider range of ratings available in '94, thanks to SMOZ.  Does anyone actually use the low end of the range, though?  Does anyone play with line changes and therefore use a wider variety of players?  I just like the comment I read some where that the variety gives players and teams more personal character instead of a "stock" feel.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt55    3

Ooops - I did use a comparison word -  superior - in my original post.  Touche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now