Instead of blathering on for those who'd likely not read it, if you are here, you might just read through this. No dissertation, just an attempt to sell the idea that player ratings, OVR, POT, etc., should never, and I mean NEVER be subject to a static approach. They should, in fact, be fluid. Changing over time. Dynamic, and relevant to their context.
I play OOTP13. That game's player ratings (their star ratings) change over time. Their potential ratings change a lot more. During a preliminary scouting report, a player might be a 3* guy who might make the big leagues. But give him some time in the minors at A ball, and ask for another scouting report. His potential * rating might drop to 2*. The reason is that, just like real life, a re-evaluation of potential talent is based on production, attitude, player age, and team expectations and team system.
Why then, would a professional athlete, in real life, be graded identically from one team to the next? Why would scouts determine a player's current and potential grades based on only one mathematical formula?
One scout might deem skating speed less important to his organization's success than another. A scout might find a defenseman's choice to pinch and become a point shooter a bigger risk than another. Yet another scout might find European talent more closely matches his team's needs, etc.
Each organization should, and I hope if they don't already, have their own approach to how to rate players. Variables that can change of course, based on how you, the game player, want things. Therefore, as a practical matter, if I build a franchise around team speed, and value player size as less important, whatever ratings relate to speed should be reformulated to reflect my team's style. Big, slow players should therefore be de-valued, in favor of smaller, quicker skaters.
For example, two LW skaters are being compared. One, under static ratings conditions is 2 points higher in speed than the other. But take into account other ratings that have speed effects, and your organization's bias towards smaller sized, more agile skaters, and the almagamated OVR and POT grades change. Now, the skater with a lower speed rating might be more valuable, given than his speed rating now changes relative to other ratings.
Essentially, the team's areas of bias are modifiers for player ratings. What makes sense to one team, seems moronic to another. Further, a player might also be biased towards or against a team, based on their play style, coaching, and existing talent. We hear about team chemistry in sports all the time, and this extends that argument.
Finally, I think it's important to extend the argument for dynamic ratings past just team bias, player age and skills decline, but to the effect of teammates as well. In real life, an average player is elevated by his linemate(s). He plays better, avoiding mistakes, when his fellow teammates are, in this example, on the ice when he is. Conversely, one could argue that an elite player, matched with sub-par players will appear a poorer performer, reflecting his teammates' lack of talent, mistakes, and points of frustration. Dynamic ratings should move around if he changes lines, etc.
I like the idea of understanding a baseline set of ratings, but to me, it's more important to see, and judge, a more realistic approach to talent assessment. People change. Sometimes they get it, play better, etc. Other times, the same guy will struggle. It's good to know how things are going, and how the players are trending.
This entry has not received any comments yet. You could be the first to leave one.