Judging Player Performance

[Searle]

In EHM 2007 it gave you an average rating for each player and a rating for each game, I'm finding it hard to gauge player performance in FHM as all you have to go by is points/+-/PiM etc.

Any suggestions as to how I should judge my players (to see who I should drop, what lines to change up etc)?

[dave1927p]

It's something I've posted a number of times on the FHM forum. To answer your question I have no idea. The overall ratings do not indicate the players game performance like EHM's average ratings. In FHM we can have an 8.5 or 9 rated player but only playing like a 7 and it's quite hard to tell. This is my biggest concern with the game currently. Also If a goalie is getting a .932 save percentage I look at his rating and it's only a 6.5 it throws me off as well.

I look at the award winners for top d (norris trophy) in FHM and I just scratch my head.

I often think of a player like Alexei Kovalev where he was an incredibly skilled player but he didn't always play up to his skill. If you look at his numbers he had a great career but could of been much better. A player like that you can't tell in FHM.

[archibalduk]

EHM's average rating system has always been too precise IMO. I think for this reason the FHM devs have shied away from something like this. However, there is no alternative in its place. As far as I'm aware, there is no feedback on how players perform in game (and you can't truly judge a player's performance on stats alone - unlike baseball). Couple this with the rather rudimentary commentary, and I think Dave's "I just scratch my head" is a pretty good description of how difficult it is to judge performances right now!

It has been discussed many times previously, but it'd be nice to see some sort of rating system which is only approximate and dependant on how good your coaches are. Ideally something which rates players according to their role (EHM's rating system was far too offence-centric).

[bruins72]

I know in interviews with the local media, Bruins GM Peter Chiarelli has said that after every game they give each player a rating of 1 through 4 (or was it 3?). It's basically below expectations, average, and above expectations. They track those throughout the season. Maybe something like this should be used? I've yet to play FHM, so my mindset is along EHM thinking. I think it would have to work with the players role (Key, Core, Regular, Prospect, and such).

[CeeBee]

I'd rather have a "too accurate" rating system like EHM than no rating system at all. Actually I'd like the best of both worlds. A rating system that has varying degrees of accuracy and the ability to choose how accurate one wants it to be or no rating system at all. I want my cake..... all of it.

[philou21]

I never had the feeling EHM's rating system was too accurate. I loved it like that! This way you precisely know who's doing pretty good, good, average or playing like thrash. A scale of 5 wouldn't be that bad though without decimal, only .5.

[umwoz]

I know in interviews with the local media, Bruins GM Peter Chiarelli has said that after every game they give each player a rating of 1 through 4 (or was it 3?). It's basically below expectations, average, and above expectations. They track those throughout the season. Maybe something like this should be used? I've yet to play FHM, so my mindset is along EHM thinking. I think it would have to work with the players role (Key, Core, Regular, Prospect, and such).

Exactly! There's just a part of hockey that doesn't portray through numbers, some sort of rating system I find almost necessary. I don't need it to be 100% accurate, in fact I think it would be best if the ratings were skewed through the coaches ability to judge players, but there needs to be a way to judge "playing well".

[B. Stinson]

Ideally, I'd like to see this added along with OOTP Baseball's attributes options. In OOTP Baseball you can choose the displayed scale (1-5, 1-20, etc.), as well as whether they're absolute values, or based on your coaches.

With this in place, my favorite options would be a simpler scale like bruins mentioned, and to have them based on your coaches opinions, which are in turn based on the team role you have set for each player (key, regular, enforcer, etc.)

[batdad]

Every team in real life does it pretty much EXACTLY how Bruins has stated. And NOT just in the NHL...in Canada pretty much at every level the player is judged by the coaches in one way shape or form after EVERY game, AND EVERY PRACTICE. Rating scales vary from team to team....but the idea is the same.

This is how it should be done in FHM as well. It should be COACH opinion based. But...um...there is no head coach...so cannot do it. Well there are assistants..

Finally...teams do this for EVERY OTHER team as well....How do they? Those are called PRO SCOUTS in the NHL, advance scouts in other leagues etc. So...even the ratings for other teams should be totally based on that. From the opinion of the staff...

And there should be feedback from the staff as to how someone is doing, much like in EHM when you asked for a COACH report on a player. Not an exact science..that was the coach opinion.

I agree ABSOLUTE ratings on how someone did in a game...do not want it. Right now...when I play and I use in game screen...I check the report out after every period and move a couple guys up and down depending on what they are doing in the game..Shots on goal, hits or Give aways etc. If a dpair is -2 after 1st period I split them up. But that is micromanaging and I do not want to do it for long.

A real coach would do this for you...player not playing well in a game...move him down the lineup, play less. A player doing really well...more ice time.

I want to be the GM not the coach for the most part, so would love to have a HEAD COACH who could do this, not just a couple of assistants who would argue.

Also...why is it that EVERY TIME someone gets injured..the coaches change your lineup...even if it is the other team injured. STUPID. Hate having to go back in and change my lines back ALL THE TIME

[Searle]

I think it would be nice to have a little section on the player's profile saying something like "coach's comments" where the coach would say things like "making the most of his ice time, deserves a chance of bigger minutes" with better coaches having a better idea or how to utilise each player, with things like performance on PP and PK.

I think EHM had stats for Club presidents or something on how they tolerated "prima donnas", coaches could have a similar stat (even if it's not shown on their profile) and so it could get a bit personal - I know there aren't really press conferences like in Football Manager but would be cool if you got your Sean Avery's of the world reflected somehow, with some coaches liking it and some hating it.

Not sure if that's realistic to put into the game though but could add another dimension to choosing staff and getting the chemistry right!

To be honest I'd quite like line chemistry to influence player performance like in EA's NHL games circa 2005 where certain player types put on a line together would lead to stat bonuses. This may be coded into the game but some form of visual representation (something like the NHL Ultimate Team colour coded web maybe) would be cool.

[Searle]

Also HATE how when you ask assistant to set your lines they reset EVERYTHING, was nice in EHM to set the positions you felt strongly about and the asked assistant to fill in the rest.