Player Ratings discussion

[smozoma]

Don't get me wrong, I love the ROM and think the player ratings are for the most part really really good and appreciate all the insanely hard work clockwise put in to researching all the player (check it out here: http://www.nhl91.com/thegame/playerresearch.asp).

However, there are a few spots among the top players where I feel guys were given too much credit or too little.

I sent clockwise a forum PM the other day, and he said it would have been nice to have the discussion on the site, so i'm reproducing/continuing it here!

[smozoma]

Quoth smozoma:

Hey, I was taking a look at the players in the ROM.. and it seems to me that Gartner is much too powerful. I'd rate him the best player in the ROM -- fastest (deservedly) and best shot other than Hull. He even has 5 in passing -- he only had 20 assists that season! He wasn't even first or second on his team in scoring (Leetch, Nicholls).

On the other end of the spectrum, Larmer (44-57-101) got kinda shafted with an 'ok' 82 rating.

I guess it's too late now to take a second look at some of the ratings, though, oh well.

Edited April 10, 2009 by smozoma

[smozoma]

Quoth clockwise:

Your point is well taken, and I appreciate the critical analysis of my rom. It shows that people actually care! And, if you haven't already looked at the player research page it will explain where I'm coming from.

Garts actually was a very adroit passer, but is rarely cited for his disk dishing abilities because he goal totals over shadow his assists.

With the shot that he possessed he was the rocket launcher everyone fed the puck to and there was really no reason for him to differ. So it's not surprising that he never eclipsed the 60 assist threshold.

As alluded to in the player research page a stat based rating system doesn't address a lot of the loop holes on a holistic level. Lemieux had only 19 goals in 90-91, should I give him a 2 or 3 for shot accuracy? There are so many players like this I can't count them. But Timmy Kerr is another that comes to mind. So from my perspective using a stat based system in itself isn't efficacious. It's the whole body of a players career that was taken into account when the player ratings were assessed.

Regarding Brett Hull: He should be the most deadly sniper in the game. Being third all time in goals (741), scoring 70 goals prior to the 90-91 campaign, 86 in the 90-91 season, and 70 following the season is nothing to sneeze at. Because he could score from every where on the ice, and he did, he is the supreme marksman in my game. And I can't think of any reason to short change him.

I'm not sure if it's in the Ultimate Gretzky DVD set I have that has complete broadcasts of his greatest games that he confessed that Brett Hull had a far superior shot that himself, (to John Davidson) but he did. Somewhere. And Gretzky, Lemieux, and Hull were the only players that deserved a 99 shot accuracy rating to me.

But I do agree about Larmer, his pass accuracy ratings could be better, perhaps even his shot accuracy.

And it's never too late to revise or revamp the games ratings, but I already have. When the first ratings were developed I felt that I missed a lot of things and didn't have all the resources available to me to rate them accurately. So when I took a wrecking ball to the old site I revised and reedited all the players, every one of them. And I didn't skim the surface with player ratings, I took a look at all the resources I had before making a determination. And they might get some more tweaking, but I don't have the time right now with other projects I have in mind for the site.

Honestly, I wish you would have posted this in the 91 league forum, this kind of stuff is healthy for it and I enjoy rambling about it .

[smozoma]

(continuing the conversation...)

That was a really good page explaining all the ratings... I keep meaning to write more on the Blitz site, but never get around to it.

I considered putting my message on the forum, but was worried you might feel put on the spot.

For sure, Hull deserves the best shot in the game, although I fear the 6/6 shot is an automatic goal from almost anywhere. The best shots in 94 were 5/5 (roenick, bourque, ciccarelli, sandstrom), 4/6 (lemieux, robitaille, khristich(??), lindros), and 6/3 (hull). It's as though the game just isn't meant to allow a player to have a godlike 6/6 shot. Hull in 94 is prone to missing the whole arena, so maybe giving him a 6/4 or even 6/5 would be best. I think he himself has even said he never really aimed his shots, he just made sure they were quick and on-net.

My estimation of Gartner as the best player in the ROM -- the "Roenick" of the ROM -- is actually based on a computer-aided mathematical analysis of GDL draft trends. Given his speed and shot ratings, I am pretty sure he would be chosen in the top 3 forwards in most drafts. He only has a 92 rating in the ROM (7th among forwards -- although he was not in the top 10 in scoring, about 30 points back of 10th), but the game's rating system is really broken just based on the fact that shot power is only weighted as x1, when speed, offensive awareness, and stick handling are weighted as x3 and shot accuracy is x2. I know you tried to keep his rating down by giving him low agility and defensive awareness, but he is still the best player. Also, how many of his career assists were off of rebounds? I'm sure he was a skilled passer, as most elite players are, but I don't think he was a passing player, so I don't think he deserves a 5 in passing. Nichols scored 70 goals with Gretzky passing to him 2 years earlier, but could only muster 25 alongside Gartner, a career low at that point (other than his 14 goals in 22 games rookie year).

(note to self: hack game to weight shot power higher in player overall ratings)

Here are my top 11 players, by computer formula (weight/checking ignored):

1. Gartner

2. Lemieux

3. Mogilny

4. Hull

5. Fedorov

6. Yzerman

7. Roenick

8. Gretzky

9. Modano

10. Neely

Fedorov could be a bit too high, too (although he had a great season for a rookie).

You are right (of course) that Lemieux scored only 19 goals, but you omit the fact that was in just 26 games! He is wholly deserving of his superb rating.

Anyway, I don't expect your ratings of every player to please everyone, but I still feel that gartner is way overrated! He is one of the game's most consisten goal-scorers of all time (15 straight years of 30+ goals), but he never led the league in scoring -- in fact, was never even better than 5th, and was frequently out of the top-10 even when scoring 40+ goals.

[smozoma]

Also, i have nothing against Gartner -- I'm a leafs fan and live in Ottawa, his home-town.

I also don't know who has NYR in the '91 league.

[The Russian Rocket]

According to that logic, i would say Petr Klima is the most overated bastard of all time

[angryjay93]

If i may chime in...

This sounds like one of those grey areas in player evaluation that nhl 94 (and even newer generation games) have issues recreating. This doesnt sound like an issue to whether or not Gartner is a great passer, the greater issue is at what propensity did gartner pass the puck and how well was he able to read the play when attempting to be a playmaker.

The nature of the beast we are working with is we have set rating categories that determine the players skills, we cant add or subtract anything from the set of ratings we have available. So what we have to do is cram the square peg into the round hole. Clockwise notes that Gartner was a deft passer, but the numbers dont exhibit this fact. I wasn't able to see much of Gartner in his hay day, but by analyzing this situation what i can see is this...

Gartner was a great shooter, and a great passer, but he wasnt a playmaker by any stretch of the imagination, he had difficulties reading plays develop and thus didnt set up guys for goals.

This is the case with many players, several defenseman are adept at making the first pass out of the zone, but are worthless when it comes to reading a play develop offensively and racking up assissts, so we often times give them a low rating because we look at the number and say, oh he cant pass anywhere where in fact he can make a great pass to the sideboards for the breakout.

So what do we do here? Do we tick down Gartner's passing ability, thus inaccurately displaying his skills in passing, or do we tick down his offensive awareness because he cant read certain plays? But when you lower the awareness, you mess with his sniping ability because in my research, offensive awareness plays a huge role in determining where a player positions himself in the offensive zone.

When taking all this into consideration, we have to remember its a video game trying to depict skills of living players with your own gameplay style. Example: Adam Oates wont automatically make you a great playmaker in '91, you have to have the vision to utilize his skill. The same works in the other direction with a guy who cant pass becoming serviceble if you the user have good vision and playmaking skills for nhl '91. Thus, i think its more right to leave gartner as is because when he saw a pass, he made a great pass, therefore when the user sees a pass, gartner, should therefore, make a great pass.

[smozoma]

When taking all this into consideration, we have to remember its a video game trying to depict skills of living players with your own gameplay style. Example: Adam Oates wont automatically make you a great playmaker in '91, you have to have the vision to utilize his skill. The same works in the other direction with a guy who cant pass becoming serviceble if you the user have good vision and playmaking skills for nhl '91. Thus, i think its more right to leave gartner as is because when he saw a pass, he made a great pass, therefore when the user sees a pass, gartner, should therefore, make a great pass.

But the same could be said for any number of players. They could have the skills to be amazing passers and even occasionally make great passes, but just not have the sense or inclination to actually make a lot of great passes and get assists. I think this should be reflected in their passing rating (and maybe offensive awareness).

My main issue is simply that Gartner's ratings make him *The Best * player in the ROM (6 speed, 6 OfA, 6/5 shot, 5 passing), and I don't think that makes sense for a guy who scored just 69 points in 79 games and finished 3rd on his team in scoring. You obviously can't reduce his speed (i think his all-star skills competition fastest skater record still stands?), so something else needs to give, and for a guy who picked up a lowly 20 assists in 79 games that season, my vote is for passing. I don't know much about his shot, so maybe 6/5 is deserved. 15 straight season of 30+ goals, it's hard to argue with 6 OfA.

[RedWingDevil]

Another thing that I noticed (Although it could be just me) is that the players don't check as well as they should. Tough guys like Zalapski, McSorley, Hatcher and Smith look like softies whenever you use them to knock someone down. Will the ROM be played with the weight bug or not? That is my question and it should be checked soon enough.

And yes, I know you can poke check and hold, but even board checking doesn't work as well compared to the original game.

[smozoma]

Another thing that I noticed (Although it could be just me) is that the players don't check as well as they should. Tough guys like Zalapski, McSorley, Hatcher and Smith look like softies whenever you use them to knock someone down. Will the ROM be played with the weight bug or not? That is my question and it should be checked soon enough.

And yes, I know you can poke check and hold, but even board checking doesn't work as well compared to the original game.

The weight bug fix is in it.

Players tend to be lighter in the '91 ROM:

Zalapski - 8

McSorley - 8

Smith - 9

I think the weights in '94 were sometimes exaggerated.

Also, with line changes on, you'll find players are tired and don't check as effectively a few minutes into a shift.

[Wittgenstein]

Also, with line changes on, you'll find players are tired and don't check as effectively a few minutes into a shift.

Yes, I think that this is the problem Red may be running into. I've played the rom many times, and because line changes are on, you can only hit c so many times before the player runs out of gas. For instance, whenever I play with the Pens, Stevens plows everyone over with no problem-- that is, until he's been on the ice for too long or I've hit C a few times with him.

This is an adjustment that we'll have to get used to. If you're used to 94, you're used to jamming the C button in the whole way down the ice. Line changes may actually make the game more realistic, as players can't fly coast to coast for an entire period.

[angryjay93]

But the same could be said for any number of players. They could have the skills to be amazing passers and even occasionally make great passes, but just not have the sense or inclination to actually make a lot of great passes and get assists. I think this should be reflected in their passing rating (and maybe offensive awareness).

My main issue is simply that Gartner's ratings make him *The Best * player in the ROM (6 speed, 6 OfA, 6/5 shot, 5 passing), and I don't think that makes sense for a guy who scored just 69 points in 79 games and finished 3rd on his team in scoring. You obviously can't reduce his speed (i think his all-star skills competition fastest skater record still stands?), so something else needs to give, and for a guy who picked up a lowly 20 assists in 79 games that season, my vote is for passing. I don't know much about his shot, so maybe 6/5 is deserved. 15 straight season of 30+ goals, it's hard to argue with 6 OfA.

It's hard to disagree with what your saying, one assist every four games is exceptionally mediocre...and how many of those were measly 2nd assists i wonder. i agree with you 100% that gartner should not be the best player in the rom. maybe the passing isnt neccessarily the only problem though, because if you knock it down to a 4, then he still has the 99 speed, o aware, and shp every single game, which will still make him an uber talent...so lets break this down from another angle.

Gartners speed cant be touched, he's simply a burner, fully deserving of his 6 rating.

O aware, only truly elite talents both in goal scoring and distribution should be considered a 6. Gartner placed in the top 10 of scoring only once in his career, gartner was the mold of consistency, not excellence, 6 is an excellent rating, perhaps knocking down his o aware to a 5 (which is still an incredibly effective rating) or even a 4 will still make him more than a functional goal scorer, but not out of this world like.

Gartner's shot was a rocket, likely deserving of a 6, maybe a 5 at the very worst. One thing though that can be misleading about stats is shot %, sure, when a guy gets the puck on goal, with a shot as hard as gartners, a goalie is going to have issues handeling it...but was gartner always a dead eye, or would he miss the net completely more than your average sniper? I have to give clockwise credit here though, dude has done a ton more research and has a lot more info at his disposal than i do or likely ever will. He probably has my argument covered rather easily, but if not, then maybe that should be taken into consideration in lowering his sha from 5, to a 4.

So, youve convinced me smoz, gartner, when taking a closer look at things, is probably a bit overrated, he is a great player and displayed it over his long career, but never once was he exceptional (especially in 91), thus exceptional ratings (6's and 5's) should be limited as much as possible.

[smozoma]

{...}

O aware, only truly elite talents both in goal scoring and distribution should be considered a 6. Gartner placed in the top 10 of scoring only once in his career, gartner was the mold of consistency, not excellence, 6 is an excellent rating, perhaps knocking down his o aware to a 5 (which is still an incredibly effective rating) or even a 4 will still make him more than a functional goal scorer, but not out of this world like.

{...}

So, youve convinced me smoz, gartner, when taking a closer look at things, is probably a bit overrated, he is a great player and displayed it over his long career, but never once was he exceptional (especially in 91), thus exceptional ratings (6's and 5's) should be limited as much as possible.

Yes, I agree that his OfA could be too high... excellent consistency, but never one of the absolute best, like Gretzky or Lemieux. Imagine Gretkzy's brain with Gartner's speed and shot... (although really, Gretz deserves like 8 OfA).

[Bo Knows NHL94]

GARTNER DESERVES EVERY INCH OF HIS RATING SHUT UP IDIOTS

(this of course has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that i am NYR in the league )

[smozoma]

GARTNER DESERVES EVERY INCH OF HIS RATING SHUT UP IDIOTS

(this of course has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that i am NYR in the league )

hehe..

i recommend a v2.0 for season 2, to fix a few oddities created by the bad NHL94 Overall rating system (which I am in the process at this very moment (well, besides making this post) of hacking a fix for)

[smozoma]

OK, I figured out how to edit the player rating formula. I'll write a patcher program for it.

And, actually, I can add rating based on weight, too. This is cool for weigh-bug-fixed ROMs.

Unfortunately, it's not possible to subtract rating for weight for non-weight-bug-fixed ROMs (at least not in a trivial way...).

Edited April 14, 2009 by smozoma

[smozoma]

I made a program that changes the rating formulas:

http://forum.nhl94.com/index.php?showtopic=10098

[clockwise]

It's a delicate balance straddling between the free wheel arcade style, sensible realism, and the classical EA ratings. The way I diagnose and assign ratings are by no means hermetic, and it'd be pretentious to say they are. However, I will toot my own horn and claim that no one has agonized and reexamined any ratings to match my neurosis, from any edit hatched. So good intentions are there, though it might not sit right with someone.

And I'd like to re enforce the point that the research and resources I've assembled lend no efficacy to a stat based system - by itself.. So it might be the brightest object in the line of sight, but stats don't tell the whole story.

Regarding Gartner, perhaps I was too charitable with his passing accuracy. He was deliberate and tape to tape when he dished the disk, and seldom guilty of costly turnovers or errant passes - from what I've seen and read - but he wasn't lauded for passing the puck through a keyhole like an Oates, or a Cullen. So yes, you can qualify it as an oversight.

On Larmer: Maybe he should have garnered a better shot accuracy rating, but from what I gathered many of his tally's were in the goal maw... His numbers (career) could warrant a upgrade here.

There's a boat load of other players that I've had to grapple with. Quick example: Primeau was highly touted from of the '90 draft (3rd overall) right out the chute for his scoring prowess and size, and was projected to be the next coming of Cam Neely.. But he was playing in the shadow of Yzerman, and Fedorov was 1st in total points among rookies that season.. He became a 3rd line center and never received the ice time for his skill set to flourish. I decided to be conservative here.

This can be difficult for once star players who are long in the tooth, a Tim Kerr for instance.. Despite losing his mobility due to reoccurring injuries he never lost his sizzling shot and accuracy - even though his goal totals plummeted . The likes of a Dave Taylor comes to mind as well.

It should also be mentioned that awareness is often a residual rating for older players too as skating or shooting abilities wane in the latter stages of a career - like a Trottier.

Selke style defensive players like Carbonneau, Kasper, and Tikkanen have their own slant in rating. Likewise for burners (Wood, McDonough), and power play specialists (Bradley, Marois). I'm only citing names most people know but it can be very challenging keeping the lesser known players from falling through the cracks, while at the same time keeping their ratings honest.

It's good to have this kind of dialogue about my ratings, because ultimately I want to get it right. And while I do seldom play the cpu I have no intention of playing by my lonesome for hours - I want people who play my edit to enjoy the game as much as possible.

<%

Set tangent = nothing

Set rant = nothing

End Function

%>

[clockwise]

It's well established that Gartner must be neutered before he can reproduce, but I've been doing inventory and have assembled a laundry list of players that will receive upgrades | downgrades. These primarily hinge on discussions at the Hockey Summary Project, some of you, and some new-old DVD's of broadcasts I've been watching lately..

The rating increments are starting to chafe, mainly the 81-98 tag.

BOS - Dave Poulin

BOS - Craig Janney

CHI - Dirk Graham

CHI - Jocelyn Lemieux

CHI - Stu Grimson

DET - Gerard Gallant

EDM - Anatoli Semenov

EDM - Martin Gelinas

EDM - Ken Linesman

EDM - Kelly Buchberger

EDM - Charlie Huddy

EDM - Glenn Anderson

HFD - Kevin Dineen

HFD - Todd Krygier

LAK - John Tonelli

LAK - Dave Taylor

MIN - Dave Gagner

MIN - Gaetan Dushesne

NIN - Neal Broten

MIN - Bobby Smith

MIN - Brian Propp

MIN - Perry Berezan

MTL - Russ Courtnall

MTL - Shayne Corson

MTL - Eric Desjardins

MTL - Stephane Richer

NJ - Bruce Driver

NYI - Billy Volek

NYI - Brent Sutter

NYR - Ray Sheppard

NYR - Mike Gartner

NYR - Bernie Nicholls

PHI - Rick Tocchet

PHI - Pelle Eklund

PHI - Kjell Samuelsson

PHI - Derrick Smith

PIT - Peter Taglianetti

TOR - Peter Zezel

TOR - Rob Ramage

VAN - Greg Adams

WSH - Kelly Miller

WPG - Dave McLlwain

WPG - Bob Essensa

WPG - Thomas Steen

WPG - Bryan Marchmant

About 1/2 are upgrades.

Some of the changes will definitely tilt some things ie: bolster some of the leaner teams.. But if everything goes well in the by the end of the season there could be a draft, so that would be moot.

[Wittgenstein]

Wow, Jesus, you just gave us a pill that is tough to swallow.

Someone give me the heimlich!