|
|
Post by xx - Former Calgary Flames on Dec 11, 2019 16:31:48 GMT -5
If you want Guy Lafleur in his prime, why don't you haul his old ass to Montreal then?
|
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche on Dec 11, 2019 16:31:48 GMT -5
Alright since everyone is doing it 19 Brad B. May 79 F 20 YR - Better PPG and years than Domi, and Domi is an 82 24 Tony Hrkac 78 F 13 YR Based off of Domi, I would like for Hrkac to be upgraded as well. Better PPG and and played almost the same amount of years as Domi. |
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche on Dec 11, 2019 16:32:58 GMT -5
If you want Guy Lafleur in his prime, why don't you haul his old ass to Montreal then? If they give me a 1991 first I will |
|
|
|
Post by Edmonton Oilers on Dec 11, 2019 16:34:05 GMT -5
Do players downgrade? Or are their ratings based off of the prime of their careers? The ACTUAL answer to this, from the guy who helped make the damned ratings system) is this: - Players with a career left are brought into their maximum overall potential based on where they are and where they will go (meaning rookies are created to be in their prime) - Players currently in their peak are made in their peak - Legends who are retiring soon and WELL past their prime (Robinson, LaFleur, Ryan Smyth), were made as a hybrid of their 1990-91 real life performance, factored in with their overall career. In Lafleur's case, you can see by his season and age, a 90 is an INSANELY generous overall for that production. In that respect, players here WILL not downgrade, but some already have, and were made thusly. Hope that clears up some confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche on Dec 11, 2019 16:38:47 GMT -5
I don't disagree, the only reason why I am arguing this is 8 years from now when some guys start retiring, they will be going out at their prime overall. I just think it's fair to give guys like Lafleur and Robinson that same treatment. Yes they're here for a short time, but like everybody else, they are at their absolute best during their time here.
|
|
|
|
Post by XX - Kruze - XX on Dec 11, 2019 16:41:26 GMT -5
Do players downgrade? Or are their ratings based off of the prime of their careers? The ACTUAL answer to this, from the guy who helped make the damned ratings system) is this: - Players with a career left are brought into their maximum overall potential based on where they are and where they will go (meaning rookies are created to be in their prime) - Players currently in their peak are made in their peak - Legends who are retiring soon and WELL past their prime (Robinson, LaFleur, Ryan Smyth), were made as a hybrid of their 1990-91 real life performance, factored in with their overall career. In Lafleur's case, you can see by his season and age, a 90 is an INSANELY generous overall for that production. In that respect, players here WILL not downgrade, but some already have, and were made thusly. Hope that clears up some confusion. Ryan Smyth? He hasn't even been drafted yet. lol |
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Red Wings on Dec 11, 2019 16:41:44 GMT -5
I don't disagree, the only reason why I am arguing this is 8 years from now when some guys start retiring, they will be going out at their prime overall. I just think it's fair to give guys like Lafleur and Robinson that same treatment. Yes they're here for a short time, but like everybody else, they are at their absolute best during their time here. I have to agree with Nordiques. That seems fair to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Edmonton Oilers on Dec 11, 2019 16:42:14 GMT -5
Ryan Smyth? He hasn't even been drafted yet. lol That was the joke, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Red Wings on Dec 11, 2019 16:43:14 GMT -5
With that being said, I do respect the amount of time you guys put into the ratings, so I wont be upset if you dont reassess them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Edmonton Oilers on Dec 11, 2019 16:45:49 GMT -5
I don't disagree, the only reason why I am arguing this is 8 years from now when some guys start retiring, they will be going out at their prime overall. I just think it's fair to give guys like Lafleur and Robinson that same treatment. Yes they're here for a short time, but like everybody else, they are at their absolute best during their time here. I understand what you are saying, but no. It's because they are finished in the 90s. Them having ratings that are not actually representative of their performance is a bonus. They both should be way lower. The guys you are talking about who WILL play here play here in their prime. Our core premise was simplicity and not changing ratings (including overall degradation) during a career was part of that. Instead of looking at what legends COULD be (if this site was 1980), you need to focus on the bonus you recieved by them NOT being the 83s they actually were at the time. They were not here in their primes, so their primes did not exist within the 30 years we are playing in. Other players primes will, and thus will be represented. |
|
|
|
Post by XX - Kruze - XX on Dec 11, 2019 16:46:32 GMT -5
With that being said, I do respect the amount of time you guys put into the ratings, so I wont be upset if you dont reassess them. Like I've said to Oilers, most seem to be only off by like 1-2 overall, so it's not like it's a huge epidemic of lower rated guys or anything, just some are kind of low and won't end up getting any playing time and seems like a bit of a waste. |
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Wild on Dec 11, 2019 16:48:32 GMT -5
I don't know whats going on but I'll throw 2 names in the hat as candidates for an upgrade:
20 Roman Turek 83 G 14 YR
I think an 85-85 would be fair. The guy had a pretty solid (short) career including a Vezina and a few other trophies. His career GAA and save % are quite good.
23 Ulf Dahlen 79 F 13 YR
Probably closer to an 81. He was a serviceable 3rd line player and I think an 81 would put him in that 3rd line category. About a .5 PPG average.
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Red Wings on Dec 11, 2019 16:51:51 GMT -5
I don't disagree, the only reason why I am arguing this is 8 years from now when some guys start retiring, they will be going out at their prime overall. I just think it's fair to give guys like Lafleur and Robinson that same treatment. Yes they're here for a short time, but like everybody else, they are at their absolute best during their time here. I understand what you are saying, but no. It's because they are finished in the 90s. Them having ratings that are not actually representative of their performance is a bonus. They both should be way lower. The guys you are talking about who WILL play here play here in their prime. Our core premise was simplicity and not changing ratings (including overall degradation) during a career was part of that. Instead of looking at what legends COULD be (if this site was 1980), you need to focus on the bonus you recieved by them NOT being the 83s they actually were at the time. They were not here in their primes, so their primes did not exist within the 30 years we are playing in. Other players primes will, and thus will be represented. Ah this makes more sense to me now. I get it. |
|
|
|
Post by Buffalo Sabres on Dec 11, 2019 16:52:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Edmonton Oilers on Dec 11, 2019 16:58:38 GMT -5
Haha Nah.
But I will say, if you want someone reviewed, give us more than 1 name. A person's overall is about a group of people around them. There are anomalies (and sometimes for reasons). But if you think a guy needs to be higher, I usually look at 4 guys in his same overall, and at least 4 guys above him (into the bracket he is going into). Just finding one comparable doesn't do that much to convince me.
|
|
Apr 12, 2023 22:46:55 GMT -5