HFNHL 2013-14 Ratings Update
- Thread starter Canuck09
- Start date
for the preds there's a bunch of ufas to remove:
- Micheal Haley
- Byron Bitz
- Thomas Heemskerk
And i think there's a typo with Eric Gryba's ratings. He has a DF of 58 but SC of 86. That probably should go vice versa.
- Micheal Haley
- Byron Bitz
- Thomas Heemskerk
And i think there's a typo with Eric Gryba's ratings. He has a DF of 58 but SC of 86. That probably should go vice versa.
Last edited:
Can I ask how the DF ratings were calculated? I have only looked over my team, but it seems kinda crazy that Nick Leddy has a 79 df rating.
Also, Cizikas needs ratings when you get a chance.
Also, Cizikas needs ratings when you get a chance.
Fooladelfia
Registered User
- Nov 11, 2007
- 2,036
- 95
Hi senor Krik
-Jacob Muzzin in my team need to be erased.
- add from unassigned Jake Muzzin(R) C 100.00 82 54 73 70 79 80 80 82 50 56 67 73 30 70 67 50 69 0 25 $0 0
-BTW he's defender not center .
Thanks and nice job simperro.
-Jacob Muzzin in my team need to be erased.
- add from unassigned Jake Muzzin(R) C 100.00 82 54 73 70 79 80 80 82 50 56 67 73 30 70 67 50 69 0 25 $0 0
-BTW he's defender not center .
Thanks and nice job simperro.
MatthewFlames
Registered User
We (and by that I mean not me) created the ratings for SC & PA, and the goalie ratings. The remainder were taken from a set of established ratings.
I am sure we will have our usual ratings challenges etc. to fix glaring errors.
Also - worry less about where the number is (a 79 vs a 99) than the relationship that number has to it's peers. In other words, does the number fall in the right scale with comparable players.
MatthewFlames
Registered User
For the Flamettes:
Pat Wierdcock has a spelling error and the correct "Patrick" is in unassigned.
Thank You!!
Pat Wierdcock has a spelling error and the correct "Patrick" is in unassigned.
Thank You!!
Gryba, Cizikas, Muzzin, Wiercioch all updated. I will be working on removing 0 year players at another point.
It seems to be a common theme that some rookie D were listed as C so keep an eye on this and let me know if you have someone else impacted.
I identified 10-15 players that didn't seem to have the correct ratings imported that have now been corrected. Most of them aren't even in the league and I wouldn't even have spotted it if Tony didn't point out the Gryba error as he was part of it.
It seems to be a common theme that some rookie D were listed as C so keep an eye on this and let me know if you have someone else impacted.
I identified 10-15 players that didn't seem to have the correct ratings imported that have now been corrected. Most of them aren't even in the league and I wouldn't even have spotted it if Tony didn't point out the Gryba error as he was part of it.
Circulartheory
Registered User
There are alot of weird DF ratings on my roster for me but since its ratings, I'll wait till rating challenges come around.
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
A few things I noticed:
Jonathan Audy-Marchessault - name spelled incorrectly in roster file as "Jonathon", should likely have AHL/NHL tweener ratings. 58-61 overall. Played a few games in the NHL last year and was an AHL all star. Understandably lost in the shuffle, but as bad as my team is I might need him for depth.
Colin Wilson's ratings are EXACTLY the same as last year's file for some reason despite a modest jump in point totals. I find it odd that he'd not move anywhere at all considering most everyone else had some variation in their rating.
Ian White has a 74 faceoff rating for some reason.
Jonathan Audy-Marchessault - name spelled incorrectly in roster file as "Jonathon", should likely have AHL/NHL tweener ratings. 58-61 overall. Played a few games in the NHL last year and was an AHL all star. Understandably lost in the shuffle, but as bad as my team is I might need him for depth.
Colin Wilson's ratings are EXACTLY the same as last year's file for some reason despite a modest jump in point totals. I find it odd that he'd not move anywhere at all considering most everyone else had some variation in their rating.
Ian White has a 74 faceoff rating for some reason.
Brock
Registered User
For Florida, it's just the release of a few players without contracts (not resigned)
Andrew Campbell
Marc Cheverie
Brett Hextall
Andrew Campbell
Marc Cheverie
Brett Hextall
SPG
Registered User
Strange to me that Henrik Tallinder would have such a low DF rating. Lowest rated DF of my defensemen... lower than Corey Potter and Jakub Kindl.
Regardless, thanks for your work on this!
Regardless, thanks for your work on this!
PasiK
Registered User
so .... rosters are updated with correct ratings?
I dont have Yakupov, but heard his scoring being lower than other NHL oilers players even he was best scorer in team
I dont have Yakupov, but heard his scoring being lower than other NHL oilers players even he was best scorer in team
JAM has been updated. I checked Wilson's ratings and they are correct. He's better than last year, but not a ton. White is known to be sneaky good on faceoffs, gives you another weapon.
so .... rosters are updated with correct ratings?
I dont have Yakupov, but heard his scoring being lower than other NHL oilers players even he was best scorer in team
I can't find an email in the SimGod account showing that Yakupov was signed to a contract so no he's not active. If he was signed can you or an agent email me the confirmation?
I dont have Yakupov, but heard his scoring being lower than other NHL oilers players even he was best scorer in team
He was the best scorer on the team by 1 goal, that is correct, however his 48 career games results in his rating being lowered, as he hasn't played a full season. The reality is he has less than 20 career NHL goals.
Also and more importantly, Hall and Eberle have superior goal per game pace over the last two years than Yakupov has had during his 48 game career, and they weren't penalized for lower games played. Hall had better ggp pace last year too, but missed some games to injury. So they have scored at a higher pace over a longer period.
The same approach was used for all rookies last year, as their ratings were reduced slightly because of the lower games played (those will less than 40 games were penalized more). That will sort itself out in the years ahead, obviously. Yakupov still has solid ratings for a 2nd line winger, so it's not all bad.
PasiK
Registered User
I am not making decisions, but sounds quite stupid to penalize rookies not playing enough games in NHL, I would rather give them a boost in ratings if they in rookie year score well. Rookies should not be compared to veterans or players who already has played in NHL, but this is the way ratings are given in HF, so wont arque more... for me this issue is not that big issue anyway ..
Yak is still top players in sharks
Oliver Ekman-Larsen's rating has not been updated from last year. I could be the "-" in the name.
We used to lower the ratings first year players, but it was decided a few years ago that we wouldn't do that anymore, as it just delayed young players to enter the league. There was almost no support for it back then. If we got rid of this once, why bring it back?
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
Well, the issue is not so much rookies, as players who have played less than 80 games (or less than 60, more specifically). If a rookie plays a full season, there is no penalty. 48 games still has a slight decrease, but only a slight one. But either way, Yakupov still got a good rating and was lower than others because they scored at a higher pace over the last two seasons.
Certainly no one wants a player to come in and play only 10 games (with 4 goals) and we rate them as a 40 goal scorer. It's where we draw the line is the question.
It was the same formula we used in previously years and was applied the same to everybody, so fair either way. In the end, if we've learned anything in how we approach ratings, is that 20% of the GM's won't be happy no matter what you do.
It's players with less than 60 games, not first year players. And keep in mind, when the player has played 40 games or more, it is only a very slight drop, and only to SC and PA. The impact to a guy like Yakupov this year is pretty insignificant this year.
But keep in mind, if a player has been up and down in the minors for 3 years and has played 40 games total, it would be the same impact as on a rookie last year. Many GMs have complained in past about these "fringe" NHLers having better ratings than veterans, because of the small sample size (and the fact these fringe players found themselves in a good situation and were able to put up some points).
Damned if you do, kind of thing. But totally open to revisiting this next year.
I know that creating ratings is a tough job and you always get the heat from a lot of GM's, but as long as there's logic behind the ratings they can be defended. In this case I for one can't see any logic. The result is that we effectively prevent the addition of young players to the league this year.
There used to be a difference between first year players and the players that played a few games over the years. Why was this changed when we went from creating ratings from full year stats to this 164 game system.
The issue is rookies, not fringe players that score 4 goals in 10 games or play 48 games over several seasons ending up with high ratings. These are two different group of players that previously has been and should be treated in different ways.
You say that "If a rookie plays a full season, there is no penalty." Last year a full season was 48 games, which would mean no penalty, right? Then you say that "48 games still has a slight decrease, but only a slight one." Which one is it?
When you say the drop is pretty insignificant, what do you mean? I don't have the 164 game stats, but it seems like Yakupov rates about the same someone who scored about 16-19 goal scorer over 82 games instead of what his 29 goals/82 games average is? 29 goals/82 games would equal a SC rating of something like a 76 and not a 64. To me 12 points is far from a slight or insignificant drop.
There used to be a difference between first year players and the players that played a few games over the years. Why was this changed when we went from creating ratings from full year stats to this 164 game system.
The issue is rookies, not fringe players that score 4 goals in 10 games or play 48 games over several seasons ending up with high ratings. These are two different group of players that previously has been and should be treated in different ways.
You say that "If a rookie plays a full season, there is no penalty." Last year a full season was 48 games, which would mean no penalty, right? Then you say that "48 games still has a slight decrease, but only a slight one." Which one is it?
When you say the drop is pretty insignificant, what do you mean? I don't have the 164 game stats, but it seems like Yakupov rates about the same someone who scored about 16-19 goal scorer over 82 games instead of what his 29 goals/82 games average is? 29 goals/82 games would equal a SC rating of something like a 76 and not a 64. To me 12 points is far from a slight or insignificant drop.
