The Blue Line

Scouting and you; the basics

Discuss specific areas of EHM knowledge; such as players, trading, drafting, tactics, training, practice etc. Teach us what you've discovered or ask others for their thoughts.

Scouting and you; the basics

Postby Shindigs » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:05 pm

Scouting in EHM is a bit of a mine field, learning how to read a scout report is a fairly important skill. And in all honesty you only need to read a very small portion of a player's scout report. About 80-90% of a scout report is just the game putting the numeric values of the shown attributes you can already see into words. It's there for people playing with hidden attributes and to flesh out the reports. What you need to worry about is figuring out a player's hidden attributes based on the scout report. There are a lot of hidden attributes, but the only ones you really care about as a manager are the following:
Tier 1
Consistency
Offensive Role
Defensive Role
Temperament
Tier "I barely care about these"
Pressure
Decisions
Professionalism
Loyalty

Listed roughly in order of importance, why that order? I'll give a short (by my standards) explanation for each attribute:
Consistency: It can't grow, and if you want to be consistently good, having consistent players really helps out a lot. In the regular season it won't matter that much since it will pretty much even out over the 82 games. However playoff performance is based off both Consistency and Important Matches; and if you have a key player not show up 4 games in a row you might just be out of the playoffs.
Offensive Role: If a scoring player doesn't have a high enough Offensive role he won't ever be that massive scoring threat you hoped for when you drafted him, as far as I know it can't grow.
Defensive Role: Same as Off. Role but relating to defensive play, naturally. You can't really scout this, but a value of 17+ paired with 13+ in Decisions and you have a player who will farm Selke Trophies his entire career.
Temperament: In my findings the single best attribute in the game, the reason it's only ranked 4th here is that it can grow by playing in the playoffs. So it doesn't have to be high in a newly drafted player, but it helps. This relates to a player's ability to keep calm and collected and make the correct plays at any given point. The difference between a low Temperament player and a high Temperament player with all other attributes equal is the difference between a 0.5 PPG guy and a 1+ PPG guy in my experience using Swedish prospects that have all attributes except Temperament set in the 15-16 db for ~1700 hours worth of gameplay. Also note that because EHM is a very well-programmed game this can go above the cap of 20 with playoff growth. I've had multiple players with 21 Temperament, although never any with 22+.
Pressure: Helps players deal with high puck pressure teams and presumably is also quite helpful for high pressure situations like shootouts and BP. If the player has the trait "poor Self-belief" in the "Report Card" view on the scout report. It means he's got low Pressure. It does not seem to be able to grow at all, but even a player with 7 Pressure can farm Selke Trophies throughout his career; Just make sure it isn't very low, and you're golden. I should mention that the scout snippet "excels under pressure" means 12+ Important Matches, not 12+ pressure...
Decisions: A lot of the scout snippets relating to Temperament and Decisions are worded so similarly I can't figure out which is which without further trial-and-error testing using the editor, but as long as there is no "needs to improve his decisions" at the end of a player's report he is fine. Pure offensive players can get away with low Decisions and it does seem to grow with age (more testing needed). The higher it is the fewer stupid passes through your own slot to worry about, essentially. If you've ever wondered why your high Creativity and high Passing player has a sub 80% pass completion, this is why. A Rating of 12+ is pretty much a prerequisite for a Selke winner.
Professionalism: This doesn't need to be high, it just needs to not be low. The thing you need to look for is the trait "Slack" in the "Report Card" view on the scout report. It means 1 Professionalism, the players with 1 Professionalism will often turn up to practice lacking fitness; they will lose attributes over summer since they don't properly show up for off-season training. They are just players you don't want to have to deal with. "Casual" is also low (probably 2-6, haven't looked into it closer) Professionalism. Note that if a player has high Professionalism their Determination and Work Rate can be very low without making them undraftable. Every time a player with high Professionalism has a Rating 5 game, just discipline them with an official warning. The high Professionalism gives them a high chance to respond positively to this and have a very high chance to gain either Determination, Work Rate or both. I had a player go from 10 in both attributes to 15 in both attributes in a single 52 game season doing that; It's completely imbalanced, and actually makes you feel a lot less bad about losses. Because (almost) every loss is a chance to give multiple players higher Determination and Work Rate.
Loyalty: Again, it doesn't need to be high, just if it's very low you'll end up with massive cap management issues when trying to hold on to them in longer saves. Trying to maintain a peak when all your Top 6 players want 11M$ a year deals just won't work. The trait "Fickle" and "Mercenary" are the ones to look out for in the "Report Card" view on the scout report. Ficke is 1 Loyalty, Mercenary is presumably high ambition and low loyalty; regardless it's bad for your cap management.

Edit: This next section is pending a rewrite as I need to do testing when I have the time to figure out which exact scout snippets relate to Temperament and which relate to Decisions, they use too similar wording to differentiate by logic.
So as you could see from the descriptions, most of these are either tied up in the same scout snippet (temp/dec), or on the "Report Card" view. This means that on any given skater, while looking at the default scout report view, you only look for two things: Consistency and Temperament/Decisions. That's it, every snippet that doesn't relate to those two are pretty much filler, they just tell you about attributes you could already see with your own two eyes. If a player has high Consistency the snippet relating to this will always be at the start of the scout report, there are very few things that can show up before it. If you play in 1920x1080 resolution it will always be on the first line of the scout report. If the player has low Consistency (6 or less) it will show up at the very end of the report where you have the snippet that reads "...needs to improve his consistency". The notes relating to Temperament/Decisions are generally in the last quarter or so of the report, depending on how long the report is there is some variance. But any snippet that talks about making good decisions with the puck, having patience, or straight up just having the word Temperament in them relate to either high Temperament or high Decisions*. There are also three traits that mean there is a high likelihood the player has good Temperament: Mellow, Relaxed and Strong Character; Strong Character is a high average of all the staff attributes (Professionalism, Determination, Pressure, Temperament, Loyalty, Sportmanship, Ambition), Mellow is 1 Aggression and Relaxed is 2-6 Aggression. If a player has both Mellow/Relaxed and Strong Character but no mention of Temperament in his scout snippets it's still highly likely he's got at least 12 Temperament, your scouts just missed it. Note that since Mellow and Relaxed don't actually relate to Temperament you can first of all see that a player has those traits by just looking at their attributes (duh), but there does seem to be a very strong correlation between low aggression and high temperament; Like there is a strong correlation between high Aggression and high Dirtiness. To this date I've never personally seen a generated player with the Relaxed trait have less than 12 Temperament.

*The exception to this rule being "confident with the puck, will find the right pass" which is just 12+ Passing, because consistent and logical wording is boring.

That leads me into a very important thing to know about scout reports, they can't directly lie in the scout snippets section; they can only lie by omission. For example you can have 10 scout reports on a skater, a single one has "...needs to improve his consistency" that means his Consistency is 6 or less, your other 9 scouts just missed it. On the flipside if a single scout says "...doesn't take shifts off" you know that player has 12+ Consistency, the other 9 scouts just missed it. If no scouts mention high Consistency or low Consistency this either means all scouts missed him being high/low Consistency. Or he's just in the 7-11 middle range that doesn't count as either. There is some risk involved in drafting those guys, but I personally still do it if they are good enough overall. In the "Report Card" view scout reports never lie, all scouts will give you all traits every time. That's why sometimes you can deduce that a player has high Temperament from Relaxed+Strong Character being there, even when all scouts missed it in the snippets in the default scouting view. Knowing this will save you so much time when scouting drafts, because if you see both the snippet for high Consistency and high Temperament in the first scout report, you don't need to read the other 9; you just need to scroll through them and look at the player comparison and which line they predict they'll play on to figure out roughly what PA the player might have; You will also get a rough idea of what their Offensive and Defensive role values might be based on who they are being compared to, although that is very inexact. The general rule is if they are being compared to someone like Artemi Panarin, but expected to play on the 3rd line they probably have very good role values but not a lot of PA; Those guys make for excellent depth scorers. The other end of the spectrum being guys who are expected to turn into 1st line players by all your scouts, but have the player comparison be something like "a poor man's Dana Tyrell"; Players like that may have all the PA in the world, but such low role values they will never excel no matter how impressive their attribute screen may be.

We're going to use the guy going ranked 142th overall in my upcoming draft as an example of a player that has a fairly short scout report, but who ticks all the boxes:
Image
This guy does have a lot of red flags too, and I'll get to those later, but first let's change how his scout report looks by dimming out all the things that are pointless filler:
Image
"Is a strong blueline presence" tells us he's got 10+ in both Defensive Role and Offensive Role, "Brings his A-game every night" is one of many consistency related snippets (16 in this guy's case). "Is prepared to wait for an option" relates to Temperament or Decisions (17 and 13). Based on those three snippets we know he's got the hiddens to be a very good player for us. We don't actually know where in the 10-20 range his role values are though, but we'll get closer to that later on...

The next step is looking into his Injury proneness, it says "Prone to Injuries", but let's hop over to his history page and choose injuries from the view dropdown menu:
Image
We can see that he's been out injured for 14 days in 3 years, so an average of about 4-5 days per year; that's not bad at all. While we're here we will also take a look at his PIM, this guy has a fairly high aggression so there is a very real risk that his "dirtiness" attribute is high. And we can see that he was way beyond 1 PIM per game in the last full season he played. I play a style that pretty much aims to have all my players be Lady Byng candidates every season, so for me that makes this guy near undraftable. If he had high PIM with lower Aggression (<=11) I could just make him play a less Aggressive style by use of personal tactics, but since his Aggression is as high as it is (14) that's not an option. But for the sake of the guide we continue, I'd stop here if I was just scouting him for myself.

I'm personally not a fan of the Stay-at-home defensive role, I prefer two-way and offensive defensemen; but that's personal preference. So let's move on to the final part of scouting this player, what's his PA like? This is where we will need to flip through all the scout report on him quickly. I have 7 scouts on nothing but scouting the NHL draft all year round, so I have a good amount of opinions to be able to get an idea of what we're dealing with.
These are his player comparisons:
Image
Obviously you have no idea who these generated players he's being compared to are. So you'd need to look at them and see if they are players you'd want to play. "a more talented" means either slightly higher PA or slightly better Off/Def Role values, "a poor man's" is the opposite; This is where things get vague and you have to make judgement calls. This guy has 9 scout reports rather than 7 because I have a scout set to Scandinavia and I honestly don't know where the 9th one came from. Regardless the breakdown for this player is:
44% chance of being a poor man's Jodoin
22% chance of being a poor man's Rozhkovsky
22% chance of being a poor man's Dieudé-Fauvel
11% chance of being Dieudé-Fauvel
I won't bother showing all three of them, but they are all 7th-9th defencemen at best, which means that this guy is not someone I'd ever draft due to his PA and/or Role Values being too low. But he does have all the hiddens that IF the projections are wrong, and this is the place where your scouts can just straight up lie to you; he'd potentially be a really reliable 5-6 guy. But I wouldn't bank on it. I completely ignore the star ratings because they are so arbitrary they serve no real purpose. My favourite example in the 15-16db is that both Crosby and Burmistrov scout as 5 star players at the beginning of the game, that's how little star rating tells you. However the projection of which line your scouts think a player will end up on are quite good to give a ballpark value of their PA, and it's a lot more reliable than the star rating. If you're unsure about a prospect in a draft who has scouts saying anything from 1st liner to 4th liner; You should probably go into the "Notes & Stats" view in his scout report and count how many scout report entries there are that call him an "excellent" or "good" prospect. Sometimes a single "excellent" in 10+ reports can rub off on your scouts and cause several of them to call him a 1st liner, just as how a players can have 9 of 10 scout reports saying he's "excellent" and still have several 3rd/4th line entries for projected career role due to that single scout report rubbing off on multiple scouts.
The final bit of information we need on this player is his mentals; the only thing we actually need to look at his attribute screen for:
Image
the 6 in creativity is the bare minimum for a defensive minded player, and based on his mentals and the Stay-at-Home Defenceman role, that's what this player is. And his defensive mentals are very good. He's also got acceptable speed for a player of his role and age, you don't expect more than about 12 acc/speed from a generated defensive player in EHM. His technicals are obviously rubbish, but IF he's got high PA they will all grow by so much that it doesn't even matter. On the other end of the spectrum you have players with 120ish CA at draft day, so their technicals look amazing; then they cap out at 125 PA a few months later. So I put no real importance in a player's technicals on draft day. They are a very poor way of judging how good he may or may not become.

I will use my #56th Overall draft pick from 2 years ago to demonstrate just how pointless draft day technicals are, this is what he looked like on draft day:
Image
and this is what he looks like 1 year later:
Image
and again 2 years later:
Image
Clearly his technicals (and physicals) look almost nothing like they did on draft day only 2 years after he was drafted; this is why I don't pay much attention to them. The only standout and important thing about his technicals was how incredibly well rounded they were; This meant that his potential upside was tremendous as the +2-3 to all technicals he'd gotten in the 1 year made him a very good well-rounded top 9 forward at age 19. By 2 years later he was a Top 6 forward; Had he only grown a tiny bit from draft day he would have still been a good 4th liner due to how well-rounded he was. But nothing in his attributes on draft day even hinted at how incredibly good he would become, which is why I could pick him up so late. The distribution of attributes between offensive and defensive attributes does however let you know the ratio of offensive role value to defensive role value; In Välisalmi's case I'd guess his offensive value is at most 1-2 higher than his defensive. We still don't know how high his role values are, but we do know that they are balanced; That's exactly what you want in a two-way forward. After looking him up with the DBeditor I can see his role values are actually 4 apart (13/17), but because he's got the "Defensive Forward" role it naturally favors Defensive attributes a bit more than Offensive ones, and it's causing him to look like his role values are more balanced than they actually are.

To speed the drafting process along I also apply a few filters: 10 determination, 7 work rate, 7 teamwork, 5 anticipation and 5 creativity (remove the creativity filter when looking for goalies). Anyone below that just won't make my team under any circumstances, someone that just hits the bare minimum also probably won't. But I still want to see them to not miss out on that one guy with god tier mentals except for his 5 anticipation as a pure defensive player. I then swap the view over to "Notes" and put in a short abbreviated note based on all the things we just scouted, so on draft day I don't need to look at players over and over, I can just read their note and know what they are all about. This player would just have "Too high PIM" in his note, but if that wasn't the case this is what it would look like:
Image
Also keep in mind that it might be a good idea to lower the Determination and Work Rate to 6 on the filter when looking at the players in the first two rounds as a high Professionalism player with poor Determination and Work Rate can be "fixed" using "Official Warnings" over the course of his first few seasons in the NHL. However doing this for all rounds would simply take too much time. Since writing this I've actually slightly changed my methods for scouting drafts and the way I label players with notes to speed the process up further when using the Challenge rules specifically; Since it makes scouting the 1st round prior to the draft pointless as you won't have a pick until 30th anyways. But you'll probably want to find your own way of doing this part regardless.

and here's an example with how a full list of draft prospects becomes very quick and easy to view when you have the shorthand notes for all players of note, with an amazing prospect name having just been drafted by the Islanders:
Image
After you have put on the filters I mentioned you'll end up with anything between 80-100 players per draft, I tend to only target 1-2 positions per draft; mostly to cut down the prospects I need to do this for to about 30-50 per year. It takes a while to do, and it gets pretty boring towards the end if you go from top to bottom. I suggest starting with the worst ranked players and working your way up. That way you start with some pretty boring players and get to end on seeing all the amazing top end talent, not to mention low ranked draft steals become more easily identified since you won't be jaded by the time you look at them. By doing this you will also know at roughly which points in the draft the players you want/need are supposed to go. This obviously means you are able to plan ahead and make trades to have draft picks for the players you want. I normally go through this process around when the transfer window opens in June. That way you can get the picks you need from the cap trades you have to make regardless, and you can go into the draft with a finished plan. It really pays off in the long run.

Here is a list of scout snippets that relate to high (12+) consistency:
has excellent focus and concentration
a very consistent player
doesn't take shifts off
brings his A-game every night
rarely has a bad game

and for high (12+) temperament/decisions (I'll do some tests to figure out which is which when I have the time):
displays a willing patience
doesn't make silly passes
has incredible patience with the puck
has patience with the puck
will wait for the right pass
is confident in possession of the puck
makes smart plays
is prepared to wait for an option
has the temperament to wait for the pass

note that "confident with the puck, will find the right pass" despite essentially being "is confident in possession of the puck" reworded actually has nothing to do with Temperament/Decisions. It's just 12+ Passing attribute with a very misleading wording.

Sadly a lot of the snippets that are connected to Work Rate read almost exactly as the ones for Consistency, making it really easy to mix them up. "doesn't take shifts off" is high Consistency, "gives his all every shift" is Work Rate. But they are just two ways of wording the exact same thing, which puts a needlessly large focus on memorizing the exact wording of snippets to be able to properly read a scout report.

And just to reiterate, the snippet about Consistency is always at the start, if they have low Consistency it's at the end lumped in with all the other "needs to improve ...". Temperament/Decisions is always roughly 3/4 through the report, it depends on a few things, but either around the end of the 2nd last row or the beginning of the last row of text when you play on 1920x1080 resolution. After a while you get quite fast at just flicking through scout reports with your eyes trained to only look in those spots and for those specific lines of text. I highly recommend only targeting 1-2 positions per draft year though, since doing this for all 200+ players in a draft takes 5+ hours. Not the most fun way to spend that time. I also limit the age range to 12-19 rather than 12-21, because the odds of getting a good over-aged player in EHM just isn't high enough to warrant the extra time spent. By a few years in there won't even be any over-aged players due to the difference in how over-aged players with variable PA set in the db develop compared to generated players. Essentially a premade 20+ year old in the db can be enough of a late bloomer that he's worth picking. A generated player never will be, it will be obvious what he's made of by age 19.

It's very hard to cover all of this in text, and I'm pretty sure I missed some things that I do without thinking about them. But if you're new to the game, or just struggling with drafting regardless, this should help you along a fair bit. Since it all just boils down to figuring out 2-3 hidden attributes and the player's PA the real trick is knowing that you can ignore almost everything on the scout screen. A final note of quite big importance, don't pay too much attention to the point production of a prospect in junior/europe. It's so different from the NHL, not to mention what you can get out of a player with personal tactics isn't even comparable to the horrible performances the AI gets from their players. The only thing I use the previous stats of a player for is this: to see if they are a scorer or a playmaker. Just look at their goal to assist ratio and how much they shoot, that will actually tell you something useful; and remember most goal-scorers will have much more assists than usual their first year at a new level of play, much like in real life. The only other time I'll take stats into account is if a player has a very low point production (0.3 PPG or less) AND have high ice time on that season, if it's a player that doesn't have any obvious clues to his role value or lacks a mention of Consistency; that can be a red flag that he has a low offensive role or a low Consistency value and your scouts just missed it.

Edit: I should note that there are a few player roles on the forward side that has some issues with not prioritizing Acceleration and Speed enough, even a 186 PA player (Ovechkin's regen) can only just hit 12 Acceleration and 14 or so speed with one of these roles. Meaning that generated players of the following roles are almost exclusively going to be "too slow" for the NHL (anything below 12 Acc/12 Spd is too slow in my book):
Sniper(Physical)
Grinder
Power Forward
Edit 2: Defensive(Physical)

Unless the stars align and players of these roles happen to generate with very high skating attributes (which essentially doesn't happen) they won't be able to hit NHL level skating, hence I try and avoid drafting players of these roles when I have the option. Grinder shows up as projected career role "Checking Foward", Power Forward obviously shows as "Power Forward" and finally Sniper(Physical) shows as "Goal-Scoring Forward"; Sadly there are a few other roles that also show as "Goal-Scoring Forward", the way to check for if they are indeed the (Physical) role is simple, look at their Acceleration, Speed and Hitting. High Hitting and low Acceleration+Speed means he's the physical role. These players aren't awful, but they are worse than a player with the same PA, Hiddens and another more favorable role. I should note that if you strike gold with a Power Forward who's actually fast and has a high Offensive role, they can be every bit as good as the "better" roles when it comes to the netfront role on powerplays as well as even strength point production. I'm still not a huge fan due to how high their PIM totals tend to be at the end of the season though.

Edit 2: The "Defensive(Physical)" role shows up as "Defensive Forward" in the projected career role, just as the normal "Defensive" role does, it's a bit harder to spot this one since both roles favor some hitting, but generally the "Defensive" role will have a Hitting value at about 2/3 of their Positioning/Checking value; the "Defensive(Physical)" will be close to a 1:1 ratio of the aforementioned attributes and with lower acceleration/speed of course. Due to the random aspect of generated players it is sometimes impossible to tell an oddball "Defensive" and a "Defensive(Physical)" apart on draft day.

If you come across a "Playmaking Forward" that has high hitting and low Acceleration/Speed you should probably avoid him like the plague, because that's the Playmaking(Physical) role, which in my opinion is one of the worst roles in the game. I had Auston Matthews roll that role, he couldn't hit 50 points with 184 PA; that's just pathetic. To see if it was the role's fault I tried changing him to the normal "Playmaking" role in the save editor, he instantly went from a mid 40s player to a mid 80s player. And this was with him already gaining attributes as if he was the physical role, so it's not necessarily the attribute spread that role gets that's bad (it suffers from similar skating issues as the other physical roles though). It seems more like there's something wrong with how it works in the simulation.

Edit 3: I was originally going to add an example of a "trap" player too. Someone that if you don't pay very close attention would seem like a very good player.

The player we will use for this is a German Center that looks like a future top 6 Center at a glance, but there are two things in his scout report that are massive red flags; one for any player, and one for a top 6 center. I'll let you try and spot them yourself based on what you hopefully have learned from this post, then I'll explain what my two major issues with this player are after the image:
Image
The first issue, that's mainly an issue for a Top 6 Center is that he's got the "purely an attacking player" scout snippet for his role value, the upside of this is that his Offensive role is 17+ which is obviusly great. The issue with that snippet is that it also means that his defensive role value is less than 10, and we don't have any real idea by how much. We can guess it's probably 9 based on how relatively high his defensive technicals are. But if his off role and def role were both 10+ he'd have a scout snippet about being a two-way player no matter how high either of them is, a 10/20 Off/Def and a 20/10 Off/Def both have the two-way snippet. This isn't necessarily a deal-breaker at all if you have a two-way winger who covers for the purely offensive center, but it's not ideal since we can't use him on the penalty kill.
The actual deal-breaker here is that in the scout report by Mark Yannetti he has the "...need to improve his consistency" snippet at the end. Remembering that the scout snippets cannot directly lie we now know that his consistency is for a fact 6 or less. If it's actually exactly 6 he's still going to be mostly fine. But the issue is that we don't know, it could just as well be 1; that would be a huge issue for us, and had we not had enough scouts on the draft that one of them spotted it we might have thrown away a 2nd round pick for no good reason. Because this is from a draft 9 seasons in the past I can also follow up on him and see if his low consistency ended up being an issue in his career. By the age of 27 he's still never played more than 60 games in a season in the NHL and never broke 30 points despite being at 17+ offensive role value, he never even managed to get a 1PPG season in the AHL and has been traded around the league a bit without really breaking into the NHL team full-time for any organization he's played for. If we add in that Kopitar's regen was available after him in that year's draft you can see how big an impact missing that single line in a single scout report may have had on the franchise that drafted him over Kopitar 2.0.

This brings me to scouting setups, it will vary a lot depending on how you play the game. But I personally don't allow myself to trade for players at all, which means I have no need for scouting players who are already drafted. I do still have the 1 permanent scout on the NHL with "Intense" and "No Recommendation Updates", this gives me a full scout report on all active players (including my own) that's always mostly up to date. If you don't use "Intensive" you don't get a full scout report including the "Report Card" page with all the traits. I never use any setting but "Intensive" for any of my scouts. I also have another scout with the same settings on scouting the AHL with two slight adjustments; I have the age range set to 12-24 and the recommendation updates on "All 4-star and better", there isn't much reason for this other than me wanting to see how the prospects I didn't get in the draft are developing for their organizations. The permanent scout on the AHL also means I always have up to date scout reports on my own prospects in the minors. If you do allow yourself to trade for rights and make offer sheets to RFAs I'd suggest having 1 scout on the KHL and one of Scandinavia with the same settings as the AHL scout, this allows you to catch RFAs who are currently in Europe as well as unsigned prospects you may want to trade for. The remaining scouts (10-12 depending on if you use the aforementioned vulture scouts) will all be set to scout the NHL Entry Draft with "Intense", "No recommendation Updates" and the age range set to 12-19. Getting spammed with the updates all year long only serve to slow the game to a snail's pace, it's better to just let them all pile up and check it at the end of the season.

So what do I look for in scouts? When I look to sign scouts I set the filters to 10 Determination, 10 Adaptability, 3 Discipline and 15 Judging Potential. I then proceed to sign all the youngest scouts that live up to all of those criteria starting from the ones with the best Determination+Adaptability to the ones with the lowest, since those "mentals" won't grow as much over the course of the scout's career as their "technicals" in the form of Judging Player Potential will. Since all they're scouting is the draft I have a much lesser need for Judging Player Ability, as how good they are right now isn't really what I'm looking for. But any scout with 15+ Judging Potential will have close to that in Judging Ability too anyways. Why the 3 discipline you may ask? The reason is that scouts with 1 Discipline have had some pretty horrible track records with me. They kept saying that literally every single player they ever scouted was "like Daniel Sedin" even if it was a defensive checking forward. Scouts with 2 Discipline don't appear to have this issue, but since attributes do sometimes drop by 1 I want that extra 1 point of buffer; that's why I set it to 3 Discipline in the filter.

Hope this helps your future drafting endeavors, and don't be afraid to ask if something is unclear.
Last edited by Shindigs on Wed May 31, 2017 6:57 pm, edited 12 times in total.
User avatar
Shindigs
Gone scouting
Minor League
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:39 pm
Points: 2.41

Re: Scouting and you; the basics

Postby Primis » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:52 pm

I find this all very interesting, the details and all. The "scouts can't directly lie" thing is one thing I think a lot of people miss or forget about, for example. That's why you need to have a guy looked at multiple times by multiple guys, so you can use what they give you and piece it all together.

However... your screenshots are too high-res to be readable, I'm afraid. At least for those of us at a lower res like 1366 x 768. At that res, by the time the forum compresses the image to fit in the post, the text is too tiny to read. The ones you've cropped are fine and readable still, but the fullscreen ones.... the text is just a bunch of blurs.

Back on the topic of scouting... I think most people start out using the star ratings (because it's easiest), and then move on to other methods. For me, I next moved on from that, to looking at a combination or comparable players and whether or not the scouts think the player can grow into a Core or Key role. You can't put a ton of stock into Comparable Player though, because if you go in to the editor and look at a guy's PA you'll sometimes see that it's pretty low, but Scouts will still compare him to say Crosby even though he has no shot at being anything other than a 4th liner. So it important to remember that the Comparable Player has more to do with their role/playing style than talent. A dman might be considered equal to Erik Karlsson in type/style, but he might only have a 3rd pairing potential.

That said, if they're comparing a guy to someone else as being equivalent to a journeyman player in the AHL or DEL or something.... you can safely assume he's not being underrated and just isn't going to amount to much value. So while comparing a guy to stars doesn't mean they're actually as good, comparing a guy to junk players you can pretty safely assume he's not very good. I've never seen a single one of these guys overcome that.

For those who still don't want to put a ton of time into it but are getting burned by the star ratings.... using that Player Comparable + Projected Career Role combo is a solid enough base still, without having to delve into it all too deeply (which some find fun, and some don't).
User avatar
Primis
Freeware Moderator
 
Posts: 1,546
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:46 pm
Points: 15.46

Re: Scouting and you; the basics

Postby Shindigs » Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:57 pm

Primis wrote:I find this all very interesting, the details and all. The "scouts can't directly lie" thing is one thing I think a lot of people miss or forget about, for example. That's why you need to have a guy looked at multiple times by multiple guys, so you can use what they give you and piece it all together.

However... your screenshots are too high-res to be readable, I'm afraid. At least for those of us at a lower res like 1366 x 768. At that res, by the time the forum compresses the image to fit in the post, the text is too tiny to read. The ones you've cropped are fine and readable still, but the fullscreen ones.... the text is just a bunch of blurs.

Back on the topic of scouting... I think most people start out using the star ratings (because it's easiest), and then move on to other methods. For me, I next moved on from that, to looking at a combination or comparable players and whether or not the scouts think the player can grow into a Core or Key role. You can't put a ton of stock into Comparable Player though, because if you go in to the editor and look at a guy's PA you'll sometimes see that it's pretty low, but Scouts will still compare him to say Crosby even though he has no shot at being anything other than a 4th liner. So it important to remember that the Comparable Player has more to do with their role/playing style than talent. A dman might be considered equal to Erik Karlsson in type/style, but he might only have a 3rd pairing potential.

That said, if they're comparing a guy to someone else as being equivalent to a journeyman player in the AHL or DEL or something.... you can safely assume he's not being underrated and just isn't going to amount to much value. So while comparing a guy to stars doesn't mean they're actually as good, comparing a guy to junk players you can pretty safely assume he's not very good. I've never seen a single one of these guys overcome that.

For those who still don't want to put a ton of time into it but are getting burned by the star ratings.... using that Player Comparable + Projected Career Role combo is a solid enough base still, without having to delve into it all too deeply (which some find fun, and some don't).

Good catch on the screenshots, didn't consider that. However you can right-click and open the image in a new tab, that should open the source image at full size. Also the projections can be off in both directions, you have the guys that are underscouted who turn into draft steals and vice-versa. I went a bit more into my theory as to how exactly that works in some other threads, based on how player growth works in the game. But generally speaking scouting is always an inexact science, but the projection/star part that relates to PA is really the only part that is quite inexact in EHM. So as long as you make sure all the prospects you draft have all the other prerequisites other than PA to "make it". If they have the PA they turn into a star, if they don't they become very good depth players who play "above their PA" so to speak. That way even your draft busts have a very real purpose in your organization.

I also looked a bit more into the breakpoints for when a player goes from being a "solid two-way player" to say a "fantastic two-way player" and I realized I'd been misjudging how that works due to uncanny coincidence with the players I looked up just happening to match my assumption (like the blueliner in my original post). I used a random guy in the db that I had a scout report on and started playing around with his role values to try and see when he turns fantastic, even at 20/20 role value he didn't; so i tried upping his flair to 20, maybe that makes him fantastic? Nope, still just solid. So I tried setting his consistency to 20, maybe that would do it? Still nope, I then started swapping his player role around to see if that would make him fantastic? Still wouldn't, i then started dropping both def and off value to see at which point they stopped telling me anything about his role values, the minimum for "solid two-way player" was 10/10, at 9/10, 10/9 and 9/9 there was nothing. When his offensive role got up to 16 he turned into a strong offensive player (why was he solid as two-way and strong as offensive?), i then kept lowering his def value to see if that would change anything. At 1/16 he was still a "stong offensive player". When I upped his off role one more to 1/17 he turned into a purely attacking player, so I then started upping his def role, he remained a "purely attacking player" until he hit 11/17 role value, at which point he became a "solid two-way player" again. I then started upping his off role again to see if he would become a purely attacking player again, even at 11/20 he was still a "solid two-way player". So the strong/fantastic/whatever two-way <insert role> was a lot less impactful than I though, I'd only been looking at it the last 2-3 drafts, guess I can go back to ignoring that again. Because it doesn't do what it seemed like before this test.

The rules I came up with were pretty pointless in all but one way, if you see a player that has no description of what his role is at all, be very wary. Sure it's entirely possible that he's a 9/15, which is a really solid top 9 offensive forward, but it could also be 1/1 for all you know, not that I think the game generates 1/1 player with enough PA for the NHL draft. But I also don't know that it doesn't. I've seen guys as high at top 5 in the draft with no scouted role values at all. And I wouldn't want to gamble a high 1st rounder on someone like that, but at the same time a "strong offensive player" can be anything from a 1/16 to a 10/16, so it's not like that gives you too much assurance either. At least you know he's good at offence, and you can make an educated guess on his def role value based on the ratio of offensive attributes to defensive attributes. So I guess in practice that won't really be an issue.

It also brings up the question of why you have a whole descriptor "strong offensive player" for exactly 16 off role value, then at 17+ it becomes "purely attacking player". Why have 0 indication of how good he is offensively until he gets 16, then a new bracket at 17? It makes no sense.

In a final attempt to try and make him fantastic I upped his PA until it was at 180, still not fantastic. I'm really at a loss as to what makes some players fantastic and what makes other solid, strong, dynamic or what have you. I guess I could try and up his anticipation and creativity to see if that makes him fantastic? Nope, even with 20 anticipation, creativity and flair he is still just solid. Tried upping his PA, Consistency and Temperament to 20 as well to make the ultimate player, still just solid. Upped literally every single offensive attribute on him to 20 and he's still a solid two-way player. Boy this system makes a lot of sense! Maybe it's just one of those things where Riz gave a bunch of random outputs for the exact same thing to keep things fresh, that's in line with how things in the play-by-play works. There are multiple outputs for the exact same event, which one you get is just random. So maybe I'm just reading way too much into something that's essentially just flavor text.

At least I learned something new. Not that it will change how i draft in any real appreciable way, at least I can free up the character space the + sign takes in the notes again.
User avatar
Shindigs
Gone scouting
Minor League
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:39 pm
Points: 2.41

Re: Scouting and you; the basics

Postby bruins72 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 3:05 am

Even after all of these years of playing this game, I can still learn new things. This is some pretty interesting info.
User avatar
bruins72
Challenge Guy
TBL Admin Team
 
Posts: 14,511
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 5:13 pm
Points: 260.72
Trophies:  19   21   12

Re: Scouting and you; the basics

Postby m0fownz0r » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:53 am

Great read! Especially for someone like me that rarely goes into much detail when drafting. Hope it will help in my online leagues :) Cheeers
User avatar
m0fownz0r
Fourth Line
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:41 pm
Points: 44.62
Trophies:  6   8   6

Re: Scouting and you; the basics

Postby andda715 » Sun Mar 19, 2017 11:10 am

Have you tried varying professionalism while keeping the other values the same?
In previous games that was the key hidden attribute that governed the progression of a players CA towards his PA. :dunno:
I.e. low professionalism and very high PA almost always led to garbage players IIRC, never even close to reaching their PA.
This has most likely changed in EHM though, as soo much about player development seems different. :-)

Keywords back then was role model, very professional and so on. And high professionalism with low ambition (?) was a red flag as well.
andda715
Junior League
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 11:07 pm
Points: 0.41

Re: Scouting and you; the basics

Postby Shindigs » Sun Mar 19, 2017 11:48 pm

andda715 wrote:Have you tried varying professionalism while keeping the other values the same?
In previous games that was the key hidden attribute that governed the progression of a players CA towards his PA. :dunno:
I.e. low professionalism and very high PA almost always led to garbage players IIRC, never even close to reaching their PA.
This has most likely changed in EHM though, as soo much about player development seems different. :-)

Keywords back then was role model, very professional and so on. And high professionalism with low ambition (?) was a red flag as well.

I've only ever really encountered the issue with professionalism when dealing with guys with slack, aka. 1 professionalism. Otherwise you can generally get prospects to their full PA without too much issue. So long as you figure out the right schedule, the guy I had with 1 professionalism required the most extreme high workload schedule in the summers; he never grew on it, but it just stopped him declining. Then I had him on the most relaxed schedule possible during the season, as that had him grow. But he triggered that "player showed up late for practice and showed a distinct lack of fitness." news item so often it was driving me nuts. He was still an amazing little player but that just annoyed me too much to keep him around. I generally never go near players with no ambition due to being quite ambitious in my goals in EHM. So I have very little experience with those guys.

I did find a new thing today though, the insane niche case where a player can have both "leaves everything on the ice" and "needs to work on his consistency" at the same time. It's incredibly rare, but possible. It seems that it wasn't just an average of 16 in work rate+consistency like I thought. It was consistent with that assumption on about 20 players though, so you can see why I mistook it. But it's actually an average of 12 or higher in Bravery, Work Rate and Consistency. Which means that it's possible for a player with very high bravery and work rate with the "leaves everything on the ice" trait to have as little as 1 consistency. The annoying thing is that generally that trait blocks other traits relating to consistency from showing, since that trait is meant to be a consistency trait. In fact the only time I've ever seen both that and another consistency trait is on the player I used as the example for this thread haha; and that's because he had "Brings his A-game every night" which as far as I can tell is a high average of consistency and Important Matches trait, which means that it technically overwrites the Important Matches spot in the scout report, not the consistency spot (allowing both to show at the same time). This means that you generally have no idea what consistency a player with that trait and amazing mentals actually has. As long as there is no "needs to work on his consistency" you at least know it's higher than 7. But since this trait is very common on top draft picks it's pretty annoying that you won't know if that top end prospect is or isn't consistent.

Edit: After doing further testing I cannot replicate the case where dropping the consistency made "leaves everything on the ice" go away too. Based on my latest testing it would seem like it may actually only relate to work rate, or work rate + lord knows what other attribute(s). But that doesn't explain the one time consistency did remove that snippet. For now the safest assumption is that it's not a consistency snippet, which makes the fact that it sometimes stops other consistency related snippets from appearing no matter how high you put the attribute very puzzling. Maybe some players' consistency cannot be scouted (as a part of the scouting system with sleepers/busts) and the guy I was testing on had some nonsense connected to that? Because there is no way to get perfect information due to the inherent margin for error in scout reports; It makes testing this stuff such a pain. But generally speaking as long as a player doesn't have the "needs to work on consistency" it doesn't matter much; It would just have been nice to have yet another consistency snippet, because that's totally what we need in this game. But I'm thinking maybe the ones I posted are the only ones, it doesn't help that Riz uses super misleading wording in scout snippets. Like how "brings his A-game every night" has absolutely nothing to do with important matches. Just how exactly does he bring his A-game EVERY night if his important matches attribute is awful? That doesn't even make logical sense on any level. Riz seems to value having multiple text outputs for the exact same thing more than having the output actually be accurate. Because a player having 13 consistency does not in any way, shape or form mean that he will bring his A-game every night; Especially when he can have that snippet, 1 detemination, 1 work rate and 1 Important Matches all at the same time. I can guarantee that player will not bring his A-game every night.

The safest bet with scout snippets seems to just be assuming they only mean 13+ of a single attribute. Which one it chooses just seens to be randomized on a player by player basis, because the same player will have the same consistency snippet in all your scouts reports as far as I can tell. But two players with the exact same consistency can have two different snippets, the logical assumption would have been that all the different snippets corresponded with it's own consistency range. However that just doesn't seem to be the case as setting a player's consistency to 13 or 20 will return the exact same output every single time. Whereas setting it to any value in the 13-20 range for another player will return another (or the same if you're unlucky/lucky) output every single time. The different snippets for the same attribute are just there to keep things "fresh", which 6 variations doesn't even remotely accomplish. It's consistent with what he did in the play-by-play though. And you can see all of those in the events_eng file in the game folder. There are multiple variations for just about every event, and a lot of them read as being something completely different than what they are actually supposed to represent. So it makes sense that scouting would follow the same mold, I guess.
Last edited by Shindigs on Thu Mar 30, 2017 9:33 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Shindigs
Gone scouting
Minor League
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:39 pm
Points: 2.41

Re: Scouting and you; the basics

Postby kennec » Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:55 am

good thread and good post! i been using a system like this but based on evalute Consistency,speed,acceleration and anticipation.
kennec
Prospect
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:27 pm
Points: 16.98
Trophies:  2   4   2

Re: Scouting and you; the basics

Postby Shindigs » Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:15 pm

kennec wrote:good thread and good post! i been using a system like this but based on evalute Consistency,speed,acceleration and anticipation.

Speed is nice, but certainly not a necessity; I've had both players with 20/20 speed and ones with 12/13 hit 50+ goals and 100+ points. As far as anticipation goes it's a nice attribute. But you don't need as much as you may think; My first line Center Lennon Blixt who scored 100+ points 4 years in a row during his peak had 11 Anticipation, my 2nd line C Tatu Väyrynen also has 11 anticipation and put up 111 points last season, and generally sticks around at least PPG pace. They both have the relaxed traits though, so high temperament and low aggression. The two of them also duke it out for the Selke every single season. On high PA players you can generally assume about 4-5 anticipation and creativity gain over their career too. Lennon Blixt started out as a 6/6 Ant/Cre when I drafted him, at 28 he was 11/11 and has stayed at that value since (31 y/o at the time of writing). Even with 11 Anticipation Blixt is our top PP scorer almost every single year playing in the right netfront position in a diamond setup.

One thing to note about speed though; When you're using your 4th through 7th round picks on long-shot forwards, it's highly recommended to favor ones with high speed. With your top line forwards they will generally face your opponent's top guys; This means that they will most likely face high speed players, making their speed attribute have less impact. When your bottom 6 forwards are on the ice you can expect lesser (and thus often slower) opposition, which means having high speed guys in your bottom 6 can draw a lot of penalties and create a lot of free scoring opportunities. I often play guys with attributes low enough to be Tier 2 European players but with 17+ speed on my 4th line (and very rarely my 3rd line) because they don't need skill to fulfill their purpose; All they need is speed, consistency and temperament. Their PA almost doesn't matter because the combination of those 3 things at high value make them so efficient that they can get a lot done with very limited means.

I guess the general TL;DR is that high PA players don't need high speed, low PA players do.

A low PA player with high speed can be as efficient as a High PA player with low speed. But there are diminishing returns on speed as a player gets more skilled. My 1st line RW for example probably has no more than 140 PA and 11/12 slap/wristshot; But he's got 19/20 Acc/Speed so he can still put up 100 point seasons more often than not. My old 2nd line RW Owen Tippett was the complete opposite, 12/13 Acc/Speed but 19/17 slap/wristshot. They both scored about 50 goals and 100 points; You generally need one or the other, having both is overkill and won't have much extra benefit. Because Ehlers has both and he also puts up 40-50 goals and about 100 points.

Obviously if you have the option to get a player that has everything, you go for it. But a player lacking speed doesn't make him undraftable and one having high speed doesn't guarantee he's good. The reason I only brought up temperament and consistency as the things to look for in the original post is because it is the basics of drafting/scouting. If a player has low con and low temp he's pretty much guaranteed to never live up to his attributes. It's the bare minimum needed to make a player efficient. Everything else you can get from a scout report or his attributes only really dictate in what way he's going to be efficient. I take the pragmatic approach of "as long he's efficient I don't really care in what way". Which is why i essentially ignore everything but those two lines in the scout report.

Another fairly recent finding, that's derived from a far too small sample size to be conclusive is that seemingly players who aren't injury prone on average have more injuries than both players who are fairly injury prone and injury prone. I've started looking at it more since it's quite pointless to have an awesome player if he's injured about 15 games every season. Of all the players I highlighted as possible picks in this year's draft this is what the average days injured per year looked like for the different scout reported levels of injury proneness:
Not Injury prone: 9.0 days/year.
Fairly Injury prone: 2.4 days/year.
Injury prone: 2.8 days/year.

The results were highly skewed by two of the non injury prone players having long term injuries; But even without those outliers the players who were scouted as some level of injury proneness had about half as many days injured per season. It remains to be seen if this stays consistent as I move forward, but it's worth mentioning that just because a scout report doesn't say a player is injury prone doesn't mean you shouldn't check his history to see if he's picked up a lot of injuries. And on the flipside a player who is fairly injury prone might actually be injured much less than you'd expect. Despite the sample size for fairly injury prone players being much smaller than that of players who weren't injury prone at all, I still had more fairly injury prone players with 0 days out injured; That is either another odd coincidence or a sign something isn't working as intended with the Injury Proneness attribute, but it's too early to tell which it is.
User avatar
Shindigs
Gone scouting
Minor League
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:39 pm
Points: 2.41

Re: Scouting and you; the basics

Postby bede420 » Mon Apr 03, 2017 11:26 am

Shindigs - Its quite amazing all the work and time you put on EHM. It gets me really motivated!
User avatar
bede420
Junior League
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 12:15 pm
Points: 5.36
Trophies:  1   1 

Re: Scouting and you; the basics

Postby Shindigs » Tue Apr 25, 2017 1:55 pm

bede420 wrote:Shindigs - Its quite amazing all the work and time you put on EHM. It gets me really motivated!

Glad to hear it.
User avatar
Shindigs
Gone scouting
Minor League
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:39 pm
Points: 2.41

Re: Scouting and you; the basics

Postby default » Sun May 07, 2017 5:03 am

Thanks for the great work here. This has been really helpful getting started in the game, haven't really played it since the freeware version, and then I wasn't exactly nuanced.

A couple of questions.

1. Determination and workrate: What is the deal with these attributes in scouting? You mentioned that you set a filter for them at 12:7. Is a prospect being low in this this a deal breaker? Are there exceptions? Do they affect development, and can these attributes not grow? Do you not mention them as important attributes because they are typically tied to consistency?

2.Player roles: I am pretty lost overall here. How do you scout for these without the editor? What should I be looking for in the scout snippet? How does this pair/not pair with the projected role? You mentioned that the pairing of the role with specific attributes can make certain players bust--like playmaker with low skt, or beast--powerforward with plus skating. Is there a list of these pairings?

3. This last one is off topic slightly, but you mentioned in your sample player that you avoid certain player roles, in this case stay at home dman. I have noticed that most people seem to do similarly. Do these players tend to not pan out? Again, are there instances where you might overlook an unwanted role?
default
Junior League
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:19 pm
Points: 0.09

Re: Scouting and you; the basics

Postby Shindigs » Sat May 20, 2017 4:37 pm

default wrote:Thanks for the great work here. This has been really helpful getting started in the game, haven't really played it since the freeware version, and then I wasn't exactly nuanced.

A couple of questions.

1. Determination and workrate: What is the deal with these attributes in scouting? You mentioned that you set a filter for them at 12:7. Is a prospect being low in this this a deal breaker? Are there exceptions? Do they affect development, and can these attributes not grow? Do you not mention them as important attributes because they are typically tied to consistency?

2.Player roles: I am pretty lost overall here. How do you scout for these without the editor? What should I be looking for in the scout snippet? How does this pair/not pair with the projected role? You mentioned that the pairing of the role with specific attributes can make certain players bust--like playmaker with low skt, or beast--powerforward with plus skating. Is there a list of these pairings?

3. This last one is off topic slightly, but you mentioned in your sample player that you avoid certain player roles, in this case stay at home dman. I have noticed that most people seem to do similarly. Do these players tend to not pan out? Again, are there instances where you might overlook an unwanted role?

1. Determination decides a few things (as far as we know), one of them being the ability of a player to "stay turned on" when down goals in a game. Essentially I think of determination, workrate, consistency and important matches as being 3(4) aspects of the same thing. The higher your average of the 3(4) the more shifts at max efficiency you get each game(playoff game). I've had players with low determination still do well in Europe, just as I've had players with low consistency do well there. You can't be as picky when you're in the 3rd tier of Finnish hockey as it turns out. Who could have guessed? But in the NHL you have the best players in the world at your disposal, why pick someone who isn't perfect when you could've? Also when it comes to workrate I very rarely draft someone with less than 12 in any mental attribute that relates to play (det,tea,wor) and barely grow, and where higher is simply better, the other mentals are less essential to a point. But I still want to see the player with 7 work rate, because if he's perfect in every single other way I'd still pick him up a bit later if he drops in the draft to serve as a powerful bottom 6 player. If the wiki is to be believed (and it often isn't) work rate translates into how many good shifts per game a player is capable of. So having 7-10 work rate when you play on the 3rd line with no PP can work out. I had a player with 17+ in all the offensive technicals and 17+ in acceleration and speed but with 10 teamwork and 8 workrate who scored 70+ points per year from the 3rd line with no PP because he simply didn't have that many shifts each game. But he had the temperament, consistency and Offensive role to make the most of the few shifts he got. But when we're talking 1st rounders I consider most players with any of the holy trinity (det,tea,wor) under 12 a risk and under 10 a waste of a draft pick. I'm a bit extreme in that regard, but when you're aiming for a 100% win rate season you have to be. As you get into the later rounds and you start drafting depth players is when 10(down from 12) determination, 7 teamwork and 7 work rate becomes quite relevant, since some years there are poor drafts with no players who hit the mentals I "want", so I settle for those at worst. But a player who actually has 10 detemination, 7 work rate and 7 teamwork is pretty bad. I generally only want to allow one of them but the filtering options in EHM are limited at best so I have to use those settings.

To go a bit more into the growth: Work rate can grow, but generally only 180+PA player gain more than 1-2 and most players don't gain any; Teamwork grows very slowly with training and some from playing in games, but you'd rarely see more than 2-3 points of growth unless dealing with a very high PA player; Determination can grow by 1 point or decline by several points seemingly at random, or to make room for anticipation and creativity growing with age and pushing the player's attribute point total over what is allowed with his PA (which is complete nonsense).

2. The naming makes things even more confusing since player role is one thing and offensive role and defensive role are another thing entirely (although kind of connected). Essentially the projected role tells you which player role they have, I don't know exactly which all connect to but I guess I will list my favourite ones at least:
Projected Career Role (Database Role):
Two-Way Forward (Allround) is probably my favourite role in the game, they get get good skating, good playmaking and good scoring coupled with great defensive ability if they have the Defensive role value for it.
Goal-Scoring Forward (Sniper(Finesse), Sniper, Sniper(Physical)) the first two make for the best pure scorers in the game, the latter makes for slow scorers with a penchant for taking penalties. Love the first two, dislike the last. (Finesse) has less deflection and more stickhandling(best), the normal role is just a sniper with deflection and the 3rd role trades the speed of the two former for hitting making it easy to spot and avoid (unless you like having your best scorer in the penalty box).
Playmaking Forward (Playmaker, Playmaker(Physical)) The former is on par with the (Allround) role with high Pass Tendency attribute when it comes to playmaking, but it's a bit more focused on speed and stickhandling than the allround role. A playmaking forward with high Defensive role still makes an outstanding two-way player. I had one with 8 Selkes in his career with us. The Playmaker(Physical) role sacrifices the speed of the role for hitting, again leading to the situation where you have your best playmaker sitting in the box a lot for no good reason.
Offensive Playmaking Forward (Playmaker(Finesse)) Sacrifices Deflection for more stickhandling and deking just like the finesse Goal-Scoring forward does. Makes it a very strong role in my opinion, it also favors pokechecking over checking and positioning when it comes to defensive attributes as far as I can tell, which coupled with their speed makes for some pretty good forechecking and penalty killing despite being named "offensive playmaking forward".
Defensive Forward (Defensive, Defensive(Physical)) It's a more conservative version of the Allround role, in my opinion the Allround role is just better. But that's because of how good it is, not how bad the Defensive Forward role is. I've had one of these guys score over 100 points 5 seasons in a row so it's not like they are unable to produce the goods up the ice. Again the Physical version sacrifices speed for hitting, making it strictly worse in my opinion. What good is having a defensive forward if he's the one in the box during the box play? Kind of defeats the purpose.

These roles are there to essentially decide which attributes are favored whenever they gain attributes by training or experience. It doesn't strictly decide if a player can/can't be an offensive/defensive threat. It's the foundation, what the house actually ends up looking like is decided by the offensive and defensive role values. They are "hinted" at in the very first (generally) scout snippet in a report. In the example with the defenseman in my original post it's "has a strong blueline presence" IIRC. To me that's pretty vague but probably means he's a two-way player of sorts, which in game terms means he's got 10+ in both defensive and offensive role. We get some clue as to how high these values are based on the players he's being compared to in the "player comparison" box. If he's being compared to someone like Duncan Keith we know he's got insanely high role values, whereas if he's being called "a poor man's Raphael Diaz" we're probably dealing with 12 in both at best. We won't know the true values so all we need to know is what the text in the snippet tells us, and just keep in mind if the player he's being compared to is really good or really bad.

So what does the role values actually do? They decide how many attribute points are available with the PA a player has. For example:
Player A has 150 PA and 15/15 role value, he will have a tonne of attribute points available to him despite a somewhat modest PA.
Player B has 150 PA and 10/10 role value, he will have a much less attribute points than Player A.
Player C has 150 PA and 10/15 role value, he will have the same amount of "offensive" attributes as Player A and the same amount of "defensive" attributes as Player B.

This can lead a projected role "Defensive Forward" with something like 11 defensive role value and 17 offensive role value in weird cases, that player would be a point producing machine rather than a defensive forward. Sure he will have a lot more defensive attributes than a "Goal-Scoring Forward" with the same role values, but he will still be a fairly poor defensive player. Despite what his shown attributes might have you think.

So the role values don't just decide how many attribute points a player gets into the "offensive" and the "defensive" attributes; It also decides his affinity for offensive and defensive play, a player with 150 PA and 20 Offensive role is better offensively than a player with 170 PA and 15 Offensive role value (even though the latter probably has higher attribute values in shooting, deking, etc.). The Wiki says otherwise, but the wiki says a lot of things that aren't true. As do I, but at least these work in practice which is the whole point. Because the player comparison only gives us a vague idea of what the role values are we can take any and all hints possible from the scout snippet, so what can we learn from it?
If it says something like "purely offensive" or use some other superlative to make sure you know just how offensive a player is it tells us two things:
1. His Offensive role is 17+
2. His Defensive role can't be 10 or higher, even if the player he's being compared to obviously has way more than that.

If it merely says something about being "offensive" but without any superlative his offensive role value is EXACTLY 16, and his defensive role value still cannot be 10 or higher. Why is there a specific string for exactly 16 and a new one for 17+? My guess is a coding error, cause it makes no logical sense.

Presumably the same logic holds true for when it says a player is defensive. I don't draft those guys if I can help it though, so haven't tested it out.

If the scout snippet says "two-way" with or without superlatives does not matter at all, it's the same for a player with 10 offensive and 10 defensive role value as it is for a player with 20 and 20. The varying "fantastic/gritty/strong" are just there for flavor according to my tests.

and finally if there is no scout snippet at the start mentioning anything about how the player plays, his role values cannot be higher than either 9 defensive 15 offensive or 15 defensive 9 offensive. Since once you hit 16 in either role values you get "defensive" or offensive" and once you hit 10 in both role values you get "two-way". Which means that unless you like gambling any player with no scouted "playstyle" in his first scout snippet shouldn't ever be drafted by you. A 9/15 is still a capable depth scorer. But you don't know if it's 15/9 or 1/6, the latter is highly unlikely. But why take the risk?

To put them all in a list for easier viewing:
"very defensive": 16 defensive role & 1-9 offensive role
"defensive": 17-20 defensive role & 1-9 offensive role
"none": 1-9 defensive role & 1-15 offensive role, or 1-15 defensive role & 1-9 offensive role
"two-way": 10-20 defensive role & 10-20 offensive role
"offensive": 1-9 defensive role & 16 offensive role
"very offensive": 1-9 defensive role & 17+ offensive role

knowing the irrefutable rule of the scout snippet and the "hint" of the player comparison let's you make an educated guess to how high their role values are. For some references, both my Selke Trophy farmers had 17+ defensive role, the lowest offensive role I've ever had on a 100 point scorer is 15, the highest is 20(duh). If you have a line with 3 players of 16+ offensive role and 150-160PA with the consistency, temperament, player role and personal tactics setup right you should assume 2 of them hit 100+ points and 1 hits at least 80+ points with icetime in the 18-21 minutes range which can be reached in many different ways, even with forward usage set to "equal" and shift length at 30 seconds for your top 2 lines actually.

The power forwards with skating example is more to say that the only two downsides to power forwards are their lack of speed and their slight penchant for taking penalties, if you have a power forward whose skating is already 12/12 or better on draft day you don't "need" them to get much faster, if they also happen to have high sportmanship, low dirtiness and a low enough aggression (~13 or less) they can still be as good as a normal Allround, Goal-Scoring or Playmaking role forward. But you need the perfect storm to create what those roles always create. The Power Forward can do slightly better as a netfront presence. But I've had 50+ PP points in a season from both Allround, Goal-Scoring and Defensive(!) Forwards, without any of the drawbacks. But if you find a Power Forward with speed who only takes about ½ a PIM per game you can get something sweet. In my current Vancouver save I have a power forward with 13 Aggression and 16/16 feet who put up 81 points in his rookie season. But that's because he's a "premade" Power Forward. So his skating was set by a human manually, not by the game following it's formulas. And I got lucky on his dirtiness and sportmanship rolls to make him take less penalties than you'd expect.

3. Stay-at-Home defencemen are relics at this point. They have no place in today's game. Just like I never ever draft enforcers, because their job no longer exists. EHM doesn't penalize having a very "clean" team at all. So you don't need any tough guys or any rampaging hitters, really. When it comes to the defesemen in particular the issue is that a projected role "Offensive Defenseman" with the scout snippet "two-way" will generally get anywhere between 14-17 positioning by the time they hit their prime as well as 13+checking and probably 15+ pokecheck too. Just they also have 17 in slap- or wristshot, passing, off the puck, anticipation, creativity, acceleration and speed. The point being that an offensive defenseman becomes just as good as a stay-at-home defenseman with a solid enough defensive role value, but also gets you 50-100 points a year on top of that. So the issue isn't that Defensive and Stay-at-Home defesemen are horrible (although they are pylons) it's that offensive and two-way defensemen are brutally overpowered at the NHL level, much like in real life. When you play in lower leagues like the CHL and most Tier 2 euro leagues (so anything that isn't SHL, Liiga, NLA, Erste Bank Liga or KHL) your players won't have high enough role values and PA to make your offensive defensemen amazing defensively, so those roles do serve a purpose there. I've tried going all offensive defensemen in Swe-2, the 60% BP wasn't exactly awe inspiring. At least not in the right way.

Hope that clears things up, if not ask away!
User avatar
Shindigs
Gone scouting
Minor League
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:39 pm
Points: 2.41

Re: Scouting and you; the basics

Postby Edgars » Sat May 20, 2017 8:14 pm

Both determination and work rate can "grow" even by few points in a single season if you use player punishment mechanics by giving a warning or taking away one/two weeks salary from a player after a poor game. Of course, this "grow" requires a player in question to have poor performance in the first place to be achieved + at least decent personality, because players with bad personality will react badly to such treatment (will have bad morale and eventually will want to leave a team)!

From my experience, every second or at worst third such action will give you +1 in determination or work rate (very rarely in both), of course only if the player accepts this warning (I personally use only warnings and almost never one/two weeks of salary)!
User avatar
Edgars
Top Prospect
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 8:37 am
Points: 1.28

Re: Scouting and you; the basics

Postby Shindigs » Sun May 21, 2017 5:28 pm

Edgars wrote:Both determination and work rate can "grow" even by few points in a single season if you use player punishment mechanics by giving a warning or taking away one/two weeks salary from a player after a poor game. Of course, this "grow" requires a player in question to have poor performance in the first place to be achieved + at least decent personality, because players with bad personality will react badly to such treatment (will have bad morale and eventually will want to leave a team)!

From my experience, every second or at worst third such action will give you +1 in determination or work rate (very rarely in both), of course only if the player accepts this warning (I personally use only warnings and almost never one/two weeks of salary)!

Cool, the more you know. I only ever give player punishments to goalies when they have like a 4 rating game and they very rarely have positive reactions to it so I'd never seen it in action. Have you noticed if that Determination/Work Rate gain at PA max will result in an equal loss in other attributes (like when players gain Temperament/Important Matches from playoff experience)? I assume it would and that would limit the usefulness somewhat. But I will definitely start being more harsh to my players when they are being horrible (which is quite rare). I could see it being very, very useful in the CHL more so than in the NHL due to how common it is that your "star" players will generated with horrible mentals there due to no DB values.

I assume a high(ish) professionalism is what's required to get the "good" reactions from a player?
User avatar
Shindigs
Gone scouting
Minor League
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:39 pm
Points: 2.41

Re: Scouting and you; the basics

Postby sten88 » Thu Jun 01, 2017 1:19 am

Some really interesting info in this thread, drafting goalies still remains a mystery though because very very few are projected to be anything more than backups or third-string goalies.

Do the player roles still have an affect on goalies? If I remember right from the EHM 2005 editor goalies still had def/off role values, presumably these related to butterfly/stand-up style? After reading this thread and looking at some scout reports I'm now noticing scout snippets referring to this such as "plays a butterfly style", "closes down on the puck with a quick butterfly" and "plays a strong butterfly style" - does anyone know if these snippets relate to different role values and if this works the same way as it does for skaters in that higher values makes for more attribute points in total? In other words, would a goalie with a lower PA but high role value end up being better than a higher PA goalie with low role values?

Going back to skaters, what do you look at when there is completely contradictory information, for example a player is a potential 4th line forward but their player projection is "like Artemi Panarin" or a potential 5-6 d-man who is "a more talented Alex Pietrangelo"?

I am also slightly confused as to how the combination of PA and role values affects players. Am I right in thinking that a player with 100 PA and 20 / 20 for their def / off role values would develop crazy high technicals but terrible mentals and physicals?
sten88
Junior League
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:50 pm
Points: 0.16

Re: Scouting and you; the basics

Postby Shindigs » Thu Jun 15, 2017 2:55 pm

sten88 wrote:Some really interesting info in this thread, drafting goalies still remains a mystery though because very very few are projected to be anything more than backups or third-string goalies.

Do the player roles still have an affect on goalies? If I remember right from the EHM 2005 editor goalies still had def/off role values, presumably these related to butterfly/stand-up style? After reading this thread and looking at some scout reports I'm now noticing scout snippets referring to this such as "plays a butterfly style", "closes down on the puck with a quick butterfly" and "plays a strong butterfly style" - does anyone know if these snippets relate to different role values and if this works the same way as it does for skaters in that higher values makes for more attribute points in total? In other words, would a goalie with a lower PA but high role value end up being better than a higher PA goalie with low role values?

Going back to skaters, what do you look at when there is completely contradictory information, for example a player is a potential 4th line forward but their player projection is "like Artemi Panarin" or a potential 5-6 d-man who is "a more talented Alex Pietrangelo"?

I am also slightly confused as to how the combination of PA and role values affects players. Am I right in thinking that a player with 100 PA and 20 / 20 for their def / off role values would develop crazy high technicals but terrible mentals and physicals?

My "top end goalie mold" thread stuff is what I generally use for drafting goalies, but much like in real life drafting goalies is pretty much like playing the lottery. Until you start getting regen goalies and you can use the Hall of Fame retirement dates coupled with player height to figure out exactly whose regen that random guy in the draft is. Then you'll know exactly how good he'll become as long as his attribute spread loosely matches that I describe in the top end goalie mold thread.

The quick/strong seems to just be flavor text as far as I could tell when looking at it for skaters. All goalies are forced to 1 offensive role value and 20 defensive role value. But they also have a player role just like skaters do. I can't really tell which is better between butterfly/hybrid and mixed. But I've never seen a good standup goalie and they require a different attributes spread entirely compared to the others. But due to there being no good stand-up goalies I can't really figure out what makes a good stand-up goalie. So I just don't draft them.

When it comes to skaters with those completely clashing reviews I generally like to think of a 4th line Artemi Panarin as a guy with about 120 PA but something like 17/10 Off/Def role. Which is to say he's going to be a really, really good 3rd/4th line scorer but with slightly limited total attributes. I personally love drafting those guys in later rounds to make sure my bottom 6 is stacked with very efficient players.

I don't know all the nitty gritty of exactly how the math with the PA and values work. I approach the game from a more practical mindset rather than the theoretical. And in practice Role value and Player role is more important to make a good player than PA is. Neither is 100% scoutable in game. But as an example my 158 PA Winger:Sniper 17/11 player was better than my 184 PA Winger:Sniper(Physical) 20/8 player, and due to the lower PA and higher loyalty had lower wage demands. When I'm given the choice between a franchise/generational player and a good specialized 150-160 PA skater, I pick the latter. Because they are more efficient in most cases. The exceptions being Two-Way guys(sort of), top 2 dmen and goalies (who kinda need to be 180+ PA to be really good).

From an actual gameplay point of view you'll never know most of these things about a player until after the fact. What makes a good player is the sum more so than the parts. When scouting a draft you just try and get as many players with as many 1st/2nd line or 1-2 and 3-4 dman report as possible who also has at least consistent or temperament or decision(for defensive players) or ideally all three , while also having good mentals and solid feet, a good player role and as few negative traits as possible.

Another way of thinking of the role values vs. PA is this:
A player with low role values and high PA won't be great at anything (but will look impressive with all those shiny attributes).
A player with High offensive role value and low/mid PA can still be great at scoring/passing, but might struggle defensively.
A player with High defensive role value and low/mid PA can still be a great BP specialist/shutdown defenceman, but will probably struggle offensively.
A player with both high role values and high PA will be a god, but unless he's got high loyalty he will ask enough wage that maybe it would be better spent on two specialists than that one god.

In practice this meant that in my Jets save I traded away Ovi's regen (the 20/8 184 PA guy), Tavares regen (20/x 18x PA) because their wage demands weren't in line with their performance compared to my specialized mid 150s players. However I did keep Erik Karlsson's, Crosby's, and Holtby's regens around. Because they were in those exceptions I mentioned by being a top 2 dman, two-way forward and goalie respectively. High PA offensive forwards suffer from massive diminishing returns as the difference between a player with 17 in all his core offensive attributes and one with 20 in all of them isn't noticeable at all. But it sure does show in their wage demands.

As far as where attributes go, every role has a list of attributes that are key, backup and not used. There's a thread with all of them somewhere on this forums. The offensive role decides how many points go to the "offensive attributes pool" which has technicals, mentals and physicals in it. Same goes for defensive attributes. There are fewer defensive attributes than offensive ones, which is why a player with a comparably low defensive role can still get high defensive shown attributes. That player still won't be very good defensively, which makes picking stuff like your PK unit a pain because just cause someone has high positioning doesn't mean he's actually good defensively. It's a bit confusing that way. But no that player with 100 PA and 20/20 wouldn't have low mentals and physicals, he'd have an even spread (subject to some randomness) and then a noticeable shift based on his role. A player with the Sniper role and 20/20 won't have the same attribute spread as a player with the Power Forward role and 20/20. The power forward will have his highest scores (generally) in Hitting, Deflections, Aggression, Bravery, Balance, Strength and Stamina. Whereas the Sniper would have his highest attributes in Wristshot,Slapshot,Deking,Off the Puck,Deflections,Acceleration,Speed,Anticipation. So the two would look nothing like each other and the Sniper role has a lot more good attributes favored than the Power Forward does, which is why I consider it a better role overall.

I just looked at the last draft of a save to get some pretty prototypical prospects of the two roles, the power forward is a bit faster than usual and less aggressive and lower stamina, which means he's more than likely got a much higher offensive than defensive role. But you see the clear favoring of the attributes I mentioned in both players:
Image
These "set in stone" attribute spreads do lead to most prospects being incredibly samey. Almost all goal-scoring forwards will look the same, and almost all power forwards will look the same. It's pretty detrimental to the longevity of a save, since at some point it starts to feel like you're just drafting the same player over and over with nothing but the name really separating them. When it comes to offensive players the biggest thing that will end up differentiating your prospects is actually the hidden pass tendency attribute. That one alone will pretty much decide how your player's offensive prowess will manifest itself, making sure to have a good mix of playmakers and scorers is very key to a successful team. Again, it's barely scoutable, I think mentions of "a natural scorer" means a low pass tendency. I'm not 100% sure which of the snippets about playmaking connect to a high pass tendency, but generally looking at the player's goal to assist ratio will give you an idea. A good playmaker wants 15+ pass tendency, which tends to be about 2-3x as many assists as goals. A good scorer will generally have 1.5-2x as many goals as assists.
User avatar
Shindigs
Gone scouting
Minor League
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:39 pm
Points: 2.41

Re: Scouting and you; the basics

Postby nino33 » Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:54 pm

Shindigs wrote:The offensive role decides how many points go to the "offensive attributes pool" which has technicals, mentals and physicals in it. Same goes for defensive attributes.
That's how EHM05 worked, but not EHM07 or EHM1

At regen creation (at age 14) Offensive/Defensive Role are considered based on Player Role but it's the Irrelevant/Non-Essential/Essential/Key Attributes that determine Attribute distribution at startup & as growth occurs too (Offensive/Defensive Role play no part in Attribute distribution)

For players in the database (edited by humans) there is increased flexibility/refinement of how Attributes are distributed and what Offensive/Defensive Role values the player has (so a DB full of real players might be different in some areas than one full of regens)



Shindigs wrote:Almost all goal-scoring forwards will look the same, and almost all power forwards will look the same. It's pretty detrimental to the longevity of a save, since at some point it starts to feel like you're just drafting the same player over and over with nothing but the name really separating them.
Hmmmm....in 40+ years of watching IRL hockey I'd say a playmaker 30-40 years ago is a playmaker now, and it'd be the same for all the other roles

The "types of hockey players" are no different now than they ever were decades ago IMO; players "look the same" because they are very similar...that's why they're called the type they are (if they weren't similar to others with the same label there'd be a problem, but IMO being similar is expected/wanted.....refinement/improvement would be for sure great, but the idea/practice I think is a good one that makes sense to me)



Shindigs wrote:As far as where attributes go, every role has a list of attributes that are key, backup and not used. There's a thread with all of them somewhere on this forums.
Here's the thread viewtopic.php?f=110&t=16777
And a thread with testing looking at Forwards viewtopic.php?f=110&t=16776
And a thread with testing looking at Defensemen viewtopic.php?f=110&t=16775
And a thread with testing looking at Goaltenders viewtopic.php?f=110&t=16774
The above threads are not necessarily current (Riz may have made some tweaks to things; I'd be really surprised if he hadn't)
User avatar
nino33
Retro Rosters Specialist
Mr. Goalie
 
Posts: 5,566
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:37 am
Points: 73.71

Re: Scouting and you; the basics

Postby nino33 » Thu Jun 15, 2017 6:17 pm

Shindigs - your testing/analysis posting are a great benefit to the community =D> thanks for your efforts! :thup:
User avatar
nino33
Retro Rosters Specialist
Mr. Goalie
 
Posts: 5,566
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:37 am
Points: 73.71

Re: Scouting and you; the basics

Postby CJ » Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:56 pm

nino33 wrote:Shindigs - your testing/analysis posting are a great benefit to the community =D> thanks for your efforts! :thup:

Yeah, they are indeed! I don't think anyone's done that since you! :-D
User avatar
CJ
Formerly jhcjobpb
TBL Rosters Researcher
 
Posts: 3,104
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:34 pm
Points: 52.08

Re: Scouting and you; the basics

Postby Shindigs » Fri Jun 16, 2017 2:02 pm

nino33 wrote:
Shindigs wrote:The offensive role decides how many points go to the "offensive attributes pool" which has technicals, mentals and physicals in it. Same goes for defensive attributes.
That's how EHM05 worked, but not EHM07 or EHM1

At regen creation (at age 14) Offensive/Defensive Role are considered based on Player Role but it's the Irrelevant/Non-Essential/Essential/Key Attributes that determine Attribute distribution at startup & as growth occurs too (Offensive/Defensive Role play no part in Attribute distribution)

For players in the database (edited by humans) there is increased flexibility/refinement of how Attributes are distributed and what Offensive/Defensive Role values the player has (so a DB full of real players might be different in some areas than one full of regens)



Shindigs wrote:Almost all goal-scoring forwards will look the same, and almost all power forwards will look the same. It's pretty detrimental to the longevity of a save, since at some point it starts to feel like you're just drafting the same player over and over with nothing but the name really separating them.
Hmmmm....in 40+ years of watching IRL hockey I'd say a playmaker 30-40 years ago is a playmaker now, and it'd be the same for all the other roles

The "types of hockey players" are no different now than they ever were decades ago IMO; players "look the same" because they are very similar...that's why they're called the type they are (if they weren't similar to others with the same label there'd be a problem, but IMO being similar is expected/wanted.....refinement/improvement would be for sure great, but the idea/practice I think is a good one that makes sense to me)



Shindigs wrote:As far as where attributes go, every role has a list of attributes that are key, backup and not used. There's a thread with all of them somewhere on this forums.
Here's the thread viewtopic.php?f=110&t=16777
And a thread with testing looking at Forwards viewtopic.php?f=110&t=16776
And a thread with testing looking at Defensemen viewtopic.php?f=110&t=16775
And a thread with testing looking at Goaltenders viewtopic.php?f=110&t=16774
The above threads are not necessarily current (Riz may have made some tweaks to things; I'd be really surprised if he hadn't)


Huh, the role values really don't affect the split of attributes? Based on my experiences in game it really looks like it does. My Selke Trophy farming Playmaking Center Tatu Väyrynen had 16 Defensive role value as a playmaking forward and ended up with a noticably higher amount of defensive attributes than Canon Howe who was also a Playmaking Center, but with only 14 Defensive role. I've never seen a Playmaking (generated) Forward without very high defensive role look anything like Tatu Väyrynen, he was one of those rare exceptions that don't look like all other Playmaking Forwards, presumably because Playmaking forwards with higher Def role than Off role are quite rare.
Image
They are only 2 CA/PA apart, Canon Howe will also hit about 14 positioning from age growth eventually. But his checking and pokecheck are nowhere near Väyrynen's values. That's consistent with what I tend to see, so I assumed it still worked like the wiki states it does (speaking of which the wiki needs updating, there is so much misinformation in it). But Canon Howe has "typical" role values for a playmaker (he's Stastny's regen) so he looks like any other playmaking center would. But Väyrynen looks more like an oddball Center:Allround than a Center:Playmaker. I always assumed it was the Off/Def role values that caused these oddities, since I've only ever seen them in players with odd role values.

On the other end of the spectrum we have a Winger:Allround with very low Defensive role values who looks almost exactly like a Winger:Playmaker (although with lower Deflection and higher Checking).
Image
And meanwhile a Center:Allround with 18 defensive role value looks like he has the defensive forward role:
Image
These were just some guys who happened to be on my Jets roster in the save where I figured out most of this scouting stuff. So you can probably tell why I came to the conclusions I did, but if you can link me to proof that it doesn't work that way. I'll just put it down to weird coincidences. Besides it has no real bearing on how you draft regardless. A Playmaker with high defensive role still makes an amazing Two-Way forward, just like a Defensive Forward with high enough Offensive role can make for a 100 point scorer. The shown attributes really barely matters for player performance anyways (so long as they hit the bare minimum, which is very low), hence why I pretty much only look at mentals and speed when drafting players. Your guy with the highest raw shown defensive attributes is almost never your best player defensively, since Defensive role value and Decisions have much larger impact than the difference between 12 and 20 positioning does. And since you can't fully scout role values the point is moot. You just need to remember what ranges of possible values there are for different scout snippets and pray your player is in the higher part of the range, just like with any other scout snippet. When you scout a goalie and he has one of the "high" consistency snippets that just means 12+, and a good NHL starter needs about 15+. So you just need to hope he's in the higher range, but besides cheating there's no way to know for sure.

What I means about the roles looking the same (apart from the exceptions above) is more in the line of the human created players all looks somewhat different from one another, they have some "character" if you will. The generated ones essentially are copy pasted versions of eachother to the point where if you were to hide the player portrait/name/etc. I don't think a person with average memory could tell you which goal-scoring forward was which. So as much as all players of similar roles should have certain attributes in common it's a bit too polarizing in EHM. It becomes especially noticable when you see the difference between a premade player and his regen. The two will look nothing alike (normally) whereas the two regens of two completely different premade players who happen to share the same role and similar role values will look nearly identical. So while there is a lot of "different" players in the database at startup, by the time it's all regens/newgens you'll have an army of players who all look almost identical (because almost all their attribute points go into such few attributes, leading to high values even in "lower" PA players). This also tends to devalue PA over time as the regens will be so specialized a 150 PA regen vs. a 190 PA regen for offensive forwards are nearly identical as far as performance goes. Which further reduces the impact of which player you do/don't draft (which I find detrimental to the longevity of a save, since it devalues your decisions and makes you more jaded). Because in EHM there is such a thing as a forward who's "good enough". Anything above that is just overkill and won't change anything but their salary in practice. I don't think you'll ever hear someone pass up Tavares for Stastny because Stastny is "good enough" in real hockey, but I did exactly that with their regens in my Jets save, and it made my team better.

CJ wrote:
nino33 wrote:Shindigs - your testing/analysis posting are a great benefit to the community =D> thanks for your efforts! :thup:

Yeah, they are indeed! I don't think anyone's done that since you! :-D

Thank you, I just do it cause I need to vent my findings and clear my head. I'm the only hockey nerd in my social circle so this is my outlet haha.
User avatar
Shindigs
Gone scouting
Minor League
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:39 pm
Points: 2.41

Re: Scouting and you; the basics

Postby nino33 » Fri Jun 16, 2017 4:19 pm

Shindigs wrote:Huh, the role values really don't affect the split of attributes? Based on my experiences in game it really looks like it does.
No, it really doesn't

CA determines "average Attribute value" - a player with an offensive Player Role, a lower CA, and a high Defensive Role will always have low defensive Attributes because of the lower CA.....and a player with an offensive Player Role, a higher CA, player with a low Defensive Role will always have higher defensive Attributes because of the high CA

The key is "average Attribute value" based on CA (the reference chart is in the linked thread with the basics on Player Roles and Irrelevant/Non-Essential/Essential/Key Attributes; the chart/values have changed since EHM07; EHM1 considers all or almost all Attributes when making the Average Attribute calculation (so you can't just consider what you see ingame)

Another important factor is development doesn't just occur because of practice/play, it also occurs or doesn't occur based on things like quality of competition, age, etc (so noting an individual example and comparing it, when it's a regen that's had years of development occur, the "reasons" for how players developed differently and why are numerous); I think for information on how the computer distributes "attribute points" one needs to look at regens in their first year of existence (usually age 14 I think), not after years of ingame development (or lack of development)

Personally, I suspect there isn't an exact, single answer connection between CA and Attributes, but rather it's within a range (and likely more than one decision falls "within a range" and so weighting the value of different types of development, the effect of Player Role, etc is a real challenge)

Also, as the F/D/G testing and analysis of Player Roles and Irrelevant/Non-Essential/Essential/Key Attributes showed (links above), things weren't ideal and needed some tweaking (and on occasion some outright change)





Regarding regens...I've yet to accept that "regen hunting" is still possible; while I see a few people claim they see this specific regen or that specific regen, the TBL Regens thread is extremely quiet viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3605&hilit=regen&start=950 (38 pages with EHM07 over 7 years, or over 5 per year...EHM1 has 1 page over 2 years)

I think it's really unfortunate if regens are easy to pick out still, as changes were made to try to address/fix this, and if they're not working it's to bad that we don't have the information (multiple "proofs") to show Riz




Shindigs wrote:What I means about the roles looking the same (apart from the exceptions above) is more in the line of the human created players all looks somewhat different from one another, they have some "character" if you will.
It doesn't surprise me at all that many people spending thousands of hours editing will produce a better database than the computer will
AFAIK the vast majority of EHMers don't play out so far/play with "all regens" so much, so I suspect for most people it's not really an issue




Shindigs wrote:So while there is a lot of "different" players in the database at startup, by the time it's all regens/newgens you'll have an army of players who all look almost identical (because almost all their attribute points go into such few attributes, leading to high values even in "lower" PA players). This also tends to devalue PA over time as the regens will be so specialized a 150 PA regen vs. a 190 PA regen for offensive forwards are nearly identical as far as performance goes. Which further reduces the impact of which player you do/don't draft (which I find detrimental to the longevity of a save, since it devalues your decisions and makes you more jaded). Because in EHM there is such a thing as a forward who's "good enough". Anything above that is just overkill and won't change anything but their salary in practice. I don't think you'll ever hear someone pass up Tavares for Stastny because Stastny is "good enough" in real hockey, but I did exactly that with their regens in my Jets save, and it made my team better.
All of this may be true, I don't know
Like I said, AFAIK the vast majority of EHMers don't play out so far/play with regens so much, so I suspect for most people it's not really an issue

For myself I've asked Riz for some way of deleting all NHL caliber regens until a year past the current IRL year
I'm working on updating the 1974 database so it can be used with EHM1 right now, and I plan to play it by going through each year and eliminating the NHL caliber regens (by lowering their PA) so I only have real players at the top of my hockey world...so the regen problem won't affect me


There's no doubt that the regen system and Player Role specifics/effects can be improved on.
In many/most cases it's already known/considered and "on the to do list" but development is alas slow...but for us EHM oldtimers that spent years loving and working on a discontinued game, it's way better than nothing!




Shindigs wrote:
CJ wrote:
nino33 wrote:Shindigs - your testing/analysis posting are a great benefit to the community =D> thanks for your efforts! :thup:

Yeah, they are indeed! I don't think anyone's done that since you! :-D

Thank you, I just do it cause I need to vent my findings and clear my head. I'm the only hockey nerd in my social circle so this is my outlet haha.
You are most welcome (as an "EHM nerd" I really appreciate the shared knowledge/feedback)
User avatar
nino33
Retro Rosters Specialist
Mr. Goalie
 
Posts: 5,566
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:37 am
Points: 73.71

Re: Scouting and you; the basics

Postby aidanmac22 » Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:09 am

Question: I got this dman who posts amazing numbers in the AHL yet his attributes aren't very good at all. I've contemplated bringing him up to the NHL but his attributes worry me. Should I be focusing on his stats or his attributes?
aidanmac22
Junior League
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:13 am
Points: 0.16

Re: Scouting and you; the basics

Postby philou21 » Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:52 am

There's nothing wrong making a try in the NHL. Give him a 10 games test and you'll see how he does. Sometimes you can end up with a surprise.
User avatar
philou21
24 cups!!!
The Great One
 
Posts: 8,686
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:15 pm
Points: 86.93


Return to Game Knowledge Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests