Rosters and Ratings: NHL 13 player growth

[Petes2424]

On a side note. I've created two identical players for the 2014 draft. I will not draft either of them. Im going to track them at different stages of their careers. If one guy advances faster or his ovr takes a huge jump while the other guy doesnt, I should get some data as to why.

 

[Yokai]

I've said all a long I think their are set growth patterns assigned by the computer. If you think about it logically the programmers would've been stupid to rely on NHL/AHL/Junior ice time since they can't program proper AI.

Have you seen how the CPU manages their rosters? They sign almost every single first round draft pick the first chance they get. This often results in them losing roster players and future prospects because they have too many players signed. The computer then proceeds to stick kids with OVRs in the 60-70's on their NHL team regardless of the fact that they could've been left unsigned in order to put an actual player in that spot.

In a system where prospects had to be carefully developed every single computer roster would constantly have guys that would bust. Instead we get a system where each player is assigned a randomize growth pattern as they are randomly generated. The actual roster players already in the game are already set to do whatever, and rarely people will see some fluctuation. This system gives us a horribly predictable game where I know exactly who the top prospects are to start things off. Unlike last year where I could trade for a B, B, B player only to be screwed when they dropped to B, C, C in the offseason.

Frankly I find this new potential system to be a lot worse than the old one. Under the old system it is true you could see right away what type of player they could become due to their 3 potential ratings, but it wasn't set in stone. The fact that those ratings could rise and fall provided with more realistic prospect growth. Some of the best guys came out of the top round, however, I could still occasionally pull a 2nd/1st liner out of the late stages of the draft if their potential shot up to A-'s.

This year anyone outside of the top 60 is pretty much destined for a fringe NHL career.

 

[Nordic*]

I actually have a russian power forward who I drafted in the 5:th round as an 18-year old, and who today is 25 and still haven't reached a higher rating than 78. I still play him on my second line despite having guys on the third and fourth line who are rated around 82-85. I only do it since I have a "relationship" with him....sounds weird to have one with a bunch of ones and zero:s, but there you go

 

[Benjamin]

I had a 78 overall 3rd line centre(26 years old) put up 78 points in 82 games on the 2nd line RW with only 2nd PP unit time. I dont know how it happened, he had really good offensive stats like high 80's in stick skills, 94 off awareness, mid 80's shots but he was only getting 2nd line minutes. He grew to 83 overall.

 

[HeroByMistake]

I'm pretty sure one of my draft picks just grew in height?
Trevor Cox, I got him in the third round of the 2013 draft.
When I drafted him he was 5'8" or 5'9"? Not sure, but I'm positive his inches were single digits.
Now, 2 years later, he is 5'10". Has anyone else seen player height or weight growth?

 

[DekiSystem]

I'm pretty sure one of my draft picks just grew in height?
Trevor Cox, I got him in the third round of the 2013 draft.
When I drafted him he was 5'8" or 5'9"? Not sure, but I'm positive his inches were single digits.
Now, 2 years later, he is 5'10". Has anyone else seen player height or weight growth?

Yes. I've seen my Be-A-Pro grow as well. I think all young players do it in this game.

 

[HeroByMistake]

Yes. I've seen my Be-A-Pro grow as well. I think all young players do it in this game.

Okay, that's good to know. I tend to only draft players that are around 6'0" or taller for some reason.. But now this gives me more people to draft from. I won't avoid players around 5'10" anymore.

 

[Benjamin]

I always thought when drafting players the potential it showed was the potential but i drafted a player i thought was 3.5 stars but it turned out he was 4 star potential. Score.

 

[n00bxQb]

I always thought when drafting players the potential it showed was the potential but i drafted a player i thought was 3.5 stars but it turned out he was 4 star potential. Score.

The potential listed in the scouting reports is kind of weird. It changes after scouting visits, which indicates it's tied to scouting accuracy, but it also changes with time, even if you don't scout that player (and becomes "more accurate").

 

[Nordic*]

All of my 4,5 star players only reach between 82-89, most of them only 84-87.

Then i see players from other teams with only 3,5 stars, and they reach 80-85 as well.

What am I doing wrong? Why can't I ever get a player above 89?

 

[x Tame Impala]

Player growth is total garbage in GM Connected mode. Blue Chip prospects barely grow at all. Young superstar player like Toews, Kane, Duchene, Tavares, etc.. dont increase at all despite monster seasons. This player progression system is a total joke.

 

[n00bxQb]

Player growth is total garbage in GM Connected mode. Blue Chip prospects barely grow at all. Young superstar player like Toews, Kane, Duchene, Tavares, etc.. dont increase at all despite monster seasons. This player progression system is a total joke.

Oh, I know. With the odd exception, players only really take off at age 24/25. I don't know why they have different progression systems in place for GMC and BAGM ...

 

[Trxjw]

The potential listed in the scouting reports is kind of weird. It changes after scouting visits, which indicates it's tied to scouting accuracy, but it also changes with time, even if you don't scout that player (and becomes "more accurate").

Yeah, the colors change with how accurate the star rating is after you scout them. The real PITA part is that every player is white come draft-day. So unless I make sure I'm on the tab that only shows players I've scouted, I always inadvertently draft one or two guys who I never scouted. :facepalm

 

[Petes2424]

On a side note. I've created two identical players for the 2014 draft. I will not draft either of them. Im going to track them at different stages of their careers. If one guy advances faster or his ovr takes a huge jump while the other guy doesnt, I should get some data as to why.

Just an update on these two identical created players. One went to Winnipeg, one went to Montreal. I've not touched anything with them as I have neither.

Both players played 2 years in CHL
Both players have played 2 years in the AHL
One player far outweighs the other in statistics.
Both players heading into the NHL are 81 ovr.

Every year they've been their ovr has been the same.

I also have a five year running spreadsheet on players drafted on my own team. Everything is pretty standard no matter how I've tried to progress them. Im in 2019 now and Im going to start a new 5 year spread sheet and compare them.

Still going with complete randomness..

 

[Nordic*]

I just got proof that player growth is pre-determined.

If you have a low-rated player with any given potential and offer him a long contract he'll be expensive if he'll develop much, and really cheap if he'll never become anything special.

 

[Benjamin]

I just got proof that player growth is pre-determined.

If you have a low-rated player with any given potential and offer him a long contract he'll be expensive if he'll develop much, and really cheap if he'll never become anything special.

I signed my 4.5 star 78 overall backup for 8 years at 1.2mil. 2 Seasons later hes 86 overall and an elite goalie.

 

[tarheelhockey]

TBH, the seeming "randomness" of it all makes me enjoy the experience a little more. In the real world, prospect growth really can be almost random.

Can you imagine any sim engine that would have predicted that could have predicted a few years ago that Tim Thomas would grow into an elite goalie and Steve Mason would be a backup? Or that Hedman would seem so "meh" after three years in the league? Real GMs have to face that kind of randomness, and I kind of prefer that experience to one that can be easily gamed.

 

[n00bxQb]

I just got proof that player growth is pre-determined.

If you have a low-rated player with any given potential and offer him a long contract he'll be expensive if he'll develop much, and really cheap if he'll never become anything special.

That's not really proof.

In one of my BAGMs, Gabriel Bourque was 77 OVR at the time (24 years old) and asking for $1.6M for 2 years. When you bumped it up to 8 years, he wanted like $4M per year ...

He never got any higher than 78 OVR ...

 

[Kellogs]

Just an update on these two identical created players. One went to Winnipeg, one went to Montreal. I've not touched anything with them as I have neither.

Both players played 2 years in CHL
Both players have played 2 years in the AHL
One player far outweighs the other in statistics.
Both players heading into the NHL are 81 ovr.

Every year they've been their ovr has been the same.

I also have a five year running spreadsheet on players drafted on my own team. Everything is pretty standard no matter how I've tried to progress them. Im in 2019 now and Im going to start a new 5 year spread sheet and compare them.

Still going with complete randomness..

If it was complete randomness, then you would see completely divergent paths between the two prospects. The fact that they had the same type of growth in OVR every single season points more towards the direction as things being pre-determined, and with a possibility of statistical based growth.

One prospect having an advantage in statistics doesn't completely remove the possibility that they affect player growth. It could simply be that NHL statistics are taken into account. There is also the possibility that it's not based on absolute stats, but it could be looking at something like production per minute of ice-time, or even a combination of both. It also depends on what their starting attributes were. If both players had good to high offensive attributes, it could be that it's their improvements in defensive abilities that is driving their overall growth, in which case maybe you're looking at the wrong statistics.

TBH, the seeming "randomness" of it all makes me enjoy the experience a little more. In the real world, prospect growth really can be almost random.

Can you imagine any sim engine that would have predicted that could have predicted a few years ago that Tim Thomas would grow into an elite goalie and Steve Mason would be a backup? Or that Hedman would seem so "meh" after three years in the league? Real GMs have to face that kind of randomness, and I kind of prefer that experience to one that can be easily gamed.

The only problem right now is that there appears to be no randomness to begin with. That's why it is better to get Galchenyuk rather than Yakupov. Or even better than that, go after Gaunce, Bartschi or Huberdeau. Consistently across the board, people are seeing the exact same development from recognizable names. Mind you, further on in GM mode where the draft picks are randomly generated, it might be more difficult to predict, but at least in the first few seasons, there is nothing random at all.

 

[Benjamin]

Ive noticed my top 10 picks with 4 and 4.5 star potential never grow at all but half the time my 20-60 overall picks make the NHL by 21 or 22.

My 1st overall pick didn't make the NHL until he was 25 and a top 6 defenseman, he was 4 green star potential, although he became a top 4 at 26. My 4th overall forward didn't become an NHLer until he was 24 as a 3rd liner and is still a 3rd liner at 25.

Then i got my 2nd liner centre thats 22 years old, 84 overall, 3.5 stars drafted 51st overall. I got 5 2nd round picks on my team. Of my 4 top 10 picks only 2 are in the NHL and it took then until they became 25 to become NHLers.

 

[Petes2424]

If it was complete randomness, then you would see completely divergent paths between the two prospects. The fact that they had the same type of growth in OVR every single season points more towards the direction as things being pre-determined, and with a possibility of statistical based growth.

One prospect having an advantage in statistics doesn't completely remove the possibility that they affect player growth. It could simply be that NHL statistics are taken into account. There is also the possibility that it's not based on absolute stats, but it could be looking at something like production per minute of ice-time, or even a combination of both. It also depends on what their starting attributes were. If both players had good to high offensive attributes, it could be that it's their improvements in defensive abilities that is driving their overall growth, in which case maybe you're looking at the wrong statistics.



The only problem right now is that there appears to be no randomness to begin with. That's why it is better to get Galchenyuk rather than Yakupov. Or even better than that, go after Gaunce, Bartschi or Huberdeau. Consistently across the board, people are seeing the exact same development from recognizable names. Mind you, further on in GM mode where the draft picks are randomly generated, it might be more difficult to predict, but at least in the first few seasons, there is nothing random at all.

Agreed. My "Complete Randomness" comment was speaking more to the opinion it doesnt matter how you try and develop a player, etc. You can play a guy on the first line in the NHL as an 18 year old, he can score 40 goals, but the same player left in the CHL will progress just as fast.

As for the contract comments a couple people have mentioned. There seems to be some merit to it. I will say however, I've had a couple guys I've been able to sign to 1.4 million deals (8yrs) and they've gone on to become very good. Where it certainly does come into play is the guys asking for crazy dollars. Morrissey for instance in my first gm mode progressed extremely fast. Im currently on my second GM, he's only something like a 72 at 24 yrs old. If you go into his contract renewal though, years 5-8 are huge numbers. So you know he'll still progress. For whatever reason, it's slower than before. Maybe due to me drafting him this time and my "asst coach" wasnt full yet. Not sure.

 

[Benjamin]

Agreed. My "Complete Randomness" comment was speaking more to the opinion it doesnt matter how you try and develop a player, etc. You can play a guy on the first line in the NHL as an 18 year old, he can score 40 goals, but the same player left in the CHL will progress just as fast.

As for the contract comments a couple people have mentioned. There seems to be some merit to it. I will say however, I've had a couple guys I've been able to sign to 1.4 million deals (8yrs) and they've gone on to become very good. Where it certainly does come into play is the guys asking for crazy dollars. Morrissey for instance in my first gm mode progressed extremely fast. Im currently on my second GM, he's only something like a 72 at 24 yrs old. If you go into his contract renewal though, years 5-8 are huge numbers. So you know he'll still progress. For whatever reason, it's slower than before. Maybe due to me drafting him this time and my "asst coach" wasnt full yet. Not sure.

asst coach no longer affects growth.

 

[Trxjw]

I'm enjoying the potential system more and more because of how unpredictable it is. Anything outside of a guy with green stars is a hit or miss prospect. I'm into my 2021 season of my 25yr BaGM and I've had several 4 yellow star prospects completely stall in their development. Curtis Lazar was a 4.5 yellow star player and was drafted by Nashville. His value was huge for several years, but he never made it above 81 overall and was putting up paltry numbers in the NHL. I traded a 2nd and a prospect for him thinking I could get him to his full potential and now he's 26 and hasn't improved a bit no matter where I put him.

I've tried the "look at his future contract" thing and that's pretty hit or miss as well. Sure, some guys do eventually live up to the deal they want 5 years down the line, but plenty of guys don't.

One thing is for sure though, they need to rework the contract system. It's too closely linked to overall rating and very loosely based on production. I had a guy ramp up from 78 overall to 87 overall in 3 years in the AHL, and his contract was over $6.5M without having scored a single point in the NHL. Sure, he's 4.5 green stars and 6'7 and 256lbs, but that's another story all together.

 

[Benjamin]

They also need to allow contract extensions at anytime and being able to trading before and after the draft.

 

[n00bxQb]

FYI, the latest roster update (Oct 24) dropped Gaunce to a 4-star potential (and changed a bunch of other prospects as well). Also, they got in the latest contract extensions (E. Kane, Doan, Burrows, etc.) and finally fixed some of the roster issues (Rozsival to CHI, Crombeen to TBL, etc.)

Unfortunately, EA completely screwed up the prospect ownership, so a ton of European prospects are listed as Unrestricted Free Agents when you enter the game and the only way to fix it is to transfer them to the NHL team or AHL affiliate