was lafontaine ripped off?


is his 91 rating justified?  

12 members have voted

  1. 1. is his 91 rating justified?

    • yes...the rating was accurate
      3
    • no...he deserved better
      9


Recommended Posts

Pat Lafontaine had a career year in 92-93....finish second in scoring(148 points) behind mario and second in assists and had a 50+ goal season. was his 91 rating justified?

Link to post
Share on other sites

La lal la la la la

Bumba.

I voted yes higher ratings for Patty cake. And I'd vote yes for about 60% of the players in the game.

To EA if someone didn't pot 30+ goals or have 40+ points they are completely inept as a hockey player.

Link to post
Share on other sites
To EA if someone didn't pot 30+ goals or have 40+ points they are completely inept as a hockey player.

Whereas these days, everyone get 90s. You get 90s! You all get 90s!

Link to post
Share on other sites

EA Sports had always done a terrible job of rating players. Personally, I rated LaFontaine a 94 overall for NHL '94. My gripe with NHL '94 isn't with LaFontaine's rating being off by just a few measly points, but the fact that they make virtually all second-liners and third-liners worthless. Doing so robs the game of the balance it deserves, and gives players no incentives to turn line changes on.

The goalies suffer even moreso with EA's terrible formula for overall ratings. Due to their horrible formula, almost all goaltenders are underrated (a good portion of them severely underrated). Bad formula + a bad job of rating goalies = unbelievably bad overall ratings (Hebert, Hasek, Vanbiesbrouck, etc.).

Link to post
Share on other sites
EA Sports had always done a terrible job of rating players. Personally, I rated LaFontaine a 94 overall for NHL '94. My gripe with NHL '94 isn't with LaFontaine's rating being off by just a few measly points, but the fact that they make virtually all second-liners and third-liners worthless. Doing so robs the game of the balance it deserves, and gives players no incentives to turn line changes on.

The goalies suffer even moreso with EA's terrible formula for overall ratings. Due to their horrible formula, almost all goaltenders are underrated (a good portion of them severely underrated). Bad formula + a bad job of rating goalies = unbelievably bad overall ratings (Hebert, Hasek, Vanbiesbrouck, etc.).

The thing is, if they made everyone good, NHL94 would have been just like newer games, where you can't tell the difference between any of the players. They would have no personality. I actually had a lot of fun doing stanley cups on 20 min periods with line changes. I had a couple epic runs with Montreal and Quebec.

As for the goalies, I think they made some bad so people new to the game could score. Hasek was an unknown at that time, too, I thought? To me, it's the huge gap between Belfour+Roy and everyone else that is weird.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i gotta agree with smoz for the main part here, i think in general, the forwards and defenseman are rated pretty accurately.

Just because Lafontaine doesnt have a booming shot or break neck speed, it doesnt mean hes under rated, he just has other attributes that few other players have. Such as his stickhandling, passing, and offensive awareness, also he is a very agile skater, thus making him a unique offensive weapon who can double as a set up man or a shifty little goal scorer due to his brain and decent shot.

I think as far as goalies go, they are also in general fairly accurate, Roy won the Vezina and Belfour won the Jennings making them deserving of high ratings. Other goalies at the time were suspect of being just awful at times, save percentages were not very impressive by any means. I would have to say Beezer got robbed a bit maintaining a .900 SV% on a pathetic Rangers team.

Hasek and Hebert on the other hand were unproven and untested commoditties and if you notice in NHL 95, hasek actually becomes a mid 80s goalie.

Sure some of the ratings are a bit off, but in general EA did a pretty solid job in my opinion

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is so true on the new games, way too many 90's, although the old NHL 16 bit games were a bit harsh on the goalies, a 50 rating for a starting goalie ain't right.

But back to the main topic, I think LaFontaine had a pretty accurate rating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.