Alessandro wrote:Well, while I agree on the "bettern modern hockey player" we have to take into consideration if CA is "2016-2017" or "whole story of the sport of hockey", if I am clear
To be honest I have no idea what this means; EHM was never created to represent anything beyond the last decade of hockey (while historical databases have been made, EHM was never coded for any consideration of differences in player talent/style of play over many decades)
While I did mention Orr, it wasn't with the idea of comparing eras...
To clarify what I said earlier, my reference was to IRL hockey and the idea that every hockey player today is astronomically better than ever (and importantly to this discussion, the idea that there are more superstars than ever), which I don't at all agree with...IMO since they're all playing against each other/in the same era there's no issue in EHM, no need to have a large portion of players at the very Top of the available range;
IMO what is relevant is math (as the game is ultimately a game of numbers) and how EHM is edited given "normal distribution" of the NHL CA numbers
The vast majority of players should be near the average number; given NHL CA is roughly 120-200 (and more accurately, 130-190), with the average being about 140, having over 50% of the players start as above Average & over 30% of players start out at 160+ CA (Good-Top) doesn't seem to low to me, nor does the 5% at 170+ at startup (with the percentage likely being over 10% before long)
as that allows legitimate superstars to be just that (though as mentioned, I'm not saying absolutely no tweaking should be done...I just don't see "a concern/problem" IMO)
Importantly, Riz has said that "all things being equal" defensive players should have lower CAs than offensive players (as mentioned, there are fewer defensive Attributes than offensive Attributes); also, it's worth noting the "ideal average Attribute value" between a 180 CA and a 190 CA is 0.5 (not much...but still,
perhaps some players could be tweaked a bit)
Alessandro wrote:I think it should kind of be an average of the two, also to consider that it would be too penalizing for the lower-level leagues.....Having things a little levelled makes for a more balanced DB in the different leagues (IMHO)
Given the thread and initial post, I thought this was basically just about the NHL within the database
Alessandro wrote:How can you differentiate players with a CA of 20?
Being honest, I don't understand why anyone would even bother with players rated that low...there is no difference that matters between such players
For the "lower Leagues" they way to differentiate low CA players I think is via Offensive/Defensive Role & Player Role, not CA/Attributes (based on math/normal distribution their CAs should be mostly clustered near the League average, with very few near the "Top" level CA for their League)
Alessandro wrote:EDIT: I think that the DB is pretty good as it is now regarding CAs level or so, we fought enough for this in the recent past
True! But I don't think the majority of people understand this, thus it's worth briefly explaining IMO + what we struggled through is the need to bring the top Elite League players (in Europe/Russia) into the -6 range (90-120, maybe 90-130 with the use of -13 too...and the possibility of a small number of players with a much higher CA/PA being in said Leagues) and that "battle" is long over I think (like you, I I use that term "battle" with tongue firmly in cheek! HaHa)
It wasn't really a battle amongst those that do most of the editing/provide the guidelines to editing, but rather just a matter of it took awhile to get the necessary editing/testing/editing done to make the changes...I thought it was universally accepted that that was/is the way to go, and such players don't fall into the CA category of 20-50 (but again, this thread/discussion is about the NHL only, and not other Leagues & about the idea of having more Top/superstar players)
sorry Arch