NHL 17 Revamped Rosters

[Simple Mathematics]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...#gid=714250428

Hey everybody. Here is the Google Sheet for the NHL Revamped Rosters. The players highlighted in green are completed. This project will assign more accurate ratings for every player while staying consistent with EA's ratings scale.

Any questions or comments, please post them here. Please try to be respectful and make your criticism constructive.

Happy editing!

[MDgolf]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters

So I have to do all this myself?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Simple Mathematics]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters

So I have to do all this myself?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes - there is no roster sharing.

This is one of the reasons why I am doing the LITE version first. If you don't feel like doing the whole thing, you can sort of pick and choose what you want to do.

[MDgolf]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters

Was there a reason that the NHL dev team didn't put roster sharing in? All the other games have it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stewie1426]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters

Do we just adjust the ratings as we feel to reach your intended OVR?

And what are the purple highlights?

It shows purple when I open it on my iPhone

I am willing to do all of Edmonton for you. Just need a guideline on what to adjust. Unless I can just adjust as I wish to reach the ovr you put for each guy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Honni]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters

I hope that I can get those changes into my game when the first season roster update is released. Thanks for your work!!

One question though: Are the purple highlighted skills the one that have yet to be scouted? How many categories do we have to update to get to the more accurate OVR? I'm sure there are some skills that have a much greater impact on the OVR and are way more important than others. Or am I wrong?

Sorry for asking, I just wanna know. Thanks again!

[Simple Mathematics]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters

Green highlights means that player is 100% completed.

Purple highlight means that specific rating is completed. These were determined based off of last year's statistics.

White highlight means that attribute has not been looked at yet.

[raisky]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters

I made my own formulas for these different attributes:
CHECKING, DEKING, PUCK HANDLIND, SHOT ACCURACY AND POWER, PASSING, BLOCKED SHOTS, STICK CHECKING, DISCIPLINE, FACEOFFS and HAND-EYE

CHECKING: 99 X players average : 4,56 for attackers
CHECKING: 99 x average : 4,3 defense

DEKING: 99 x average : 1,29 attackers
PUCK HANDLING: (99 x average : 1,29 + 99) : 2 attackers

DEKING: 99 x average defense
PUCK HANDLING: (99 x average + 99) : 2 defense

SHOT ACCURACY: (99 x average : 0,63 + 63) x 0,63 attacker
SHOT POWER: [(99 x average : 0,63 + 63) x 0,63 + 99] : 2 attacker

SHOT ACCURACY: (99 x average : 0,33 + 63) x 0,63 defense
SHOT POWER: [(99 x average : 0,33 + 63) x 0,63 + 99] : 2 defense

PASSING: (99 x average : 0,77 + 99) : 2 attacker
PASSING: (99 x average : 0,8 + 99) : 2 defense

BLOCKED SHOTS: (99 x average : 3,39 + 99) : 2

STICK CHECKING: (99 x average : 1,71 + 99) :2

DISCLIPINE: 99 x average : 3,17 - 99 The negative is the disclipine attribute

FACEOFF: (99 x 1+ players faceoff %) : 2

DEFLECTIONS: ATTRIBUTES from (DEKING+PUCK HANDLING + SHOT ACCURACY + SHOT POWER) : 2

These formulas give nice separation between players and good players will shine.

[Simple Mathematics]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters

I posted this in the main section of the forums, but I will post it here too...

For the Revamped Rosters, I am using the overall formulas that somebody determined for NHL 14. Those formulas are listed below. However, I do not believe the defenseman overall formula is correct because if you notice, there are negative values associated with some of the ratings like puck control, wrist shot accuracy, balance, etc. This would mean that a player with a 99 puck control would have a lower overall than a player with a 36 puck control.

I tried just making the negatives positives, but that makes all the defensemen's overalls sky high.

I am asking a favor of anyone out there who is a genius with this stuff - can you re-determine the overall formula for defensemen? I would be extremely grateful. Thank you in advance!


Current overall formulas I am using:

Forwards Formula
=1.9165*(((SPD*3)+(BC*2)+(END*3)+(PC*2)+(PAS*5)+(S SP*2)+(SSA*2)+(WSP*3)+(WSA*4)+(AGI*3)+(STR*3)+(ACC *3)+(BAL*3)+(FO)+(DUR)+(DEK)+(AGG)+(POI*2)+(HE)+(S B)+(OA*7)+(DA*9)+(DIS)+(FS)+(SC*3))/65)-78.725

Defensemen Formula
=-74.3907+(0.023699*SPD)+(0.084108*BC)+(0.010734*END )+(-0.029*PC)+(0.058153*PAS)+(0.071821*SSP)+(0.073114* SSA)+(0.014244*WSP)+(-0.00035*WSA)+(0.089079*AGI)+(0.243921*STR)+(0.0489 91*ACC)+(-0.01611*BAL)+(0.023246*FO)+(-0.00716*DUR)+(0.037535*DEK)+(-0.00211*AGG)+(0.086034*POI)+(-0.02652*HE)+(0.157127*SB)+(0.102197*OA)+(0.557359* DA)+(0.008544*DIS)+(-0.0169*FS)+(0.270786*SC)

Goalies Formula
=-73.8756+(GL*.185152)+(GH*.165627)+(SH*.162782)+(SL *.157201)+(5H*.118122)+(SPD*.056902)+(AGI*.07652)+ (PC*.012405)+(END*.081754)+(BRE*.1286)+(RBC*.16267 5)+(SR*.161285)+(POI*.004859)+(PAS*.047306)+(ANG*. 157808)+(PPF*.003561)+(AGG*.046093)+(DUR*.053731)+ (VIS*.050163)


If you are still feeling like a genius after you determine a better defensemen formula, I sure wouldn't mind more accurate forward and goalie formulas too. Thanks again everybody!

[jguy]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters

Thanks for all the editing. I was just wondering why your target rating for Oskar Lindbolm is a 54 OVR.

[Simple Mathematics]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters

Thanks for all the editing. I was just wondering why your target rating for Oskar Lindbolm is a 54 OVR.

Yeah that one was just off. He was drafted late, but has been tearing it up lately. I adjusted him to a 70.

[jguy]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters

Yeah that one was just off. He was drafted late, but has been tearing it up lately. I adjusted him to a 70.

Makes sense assume the same for Petr Placek I saw him on the spread sheet He is longer the Flyers Property. I am pretty sure he actually retired from hockey.

I love the Flyers edits you did can’t wait to start editing this weekend.

[bruins2012]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters

You are awesome!

[Honni]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters

Impressed by your effort! Keep it up!

[Aarons Aron]

Re: NHL 17 Revamped Rosters

This is really awesome! Thanks for all of the hard work!

What do the Draft pages and the Potential page mean? I just want to be sure.

How exactly does Potential in this game work? I'm very familiar with hockey and this game, so I'm pretty sure I have a general understanding of how it works. However, I've never been totally sure and it really bothers me. Although, you seem to know what you're talking about! Whats the deal with "Low", "Medium", and High"? If a player is "High Top 6", that means they are definitely going to reach that level, right? But because it is "High", does that mean they are going to peak at "Top 6" as well? Where as a "Medium Top 6" might not make it to "Top 6", but because it is only "Medium" they have some more wiggle room both ways, meaning they could potentially become "Elite"? I also feel like because the "High" player is definitely going to reach that level of talent, so they have a better likelihood of going beyond that potential listed.
Also, is "Low Elite" or "High Top 4" better, for example? I can never tell. Should I be accuring a "High Top 4" or a "Medium Top 4"? A "Low Elite"? I don't know! For example, Olli Maatta is listed as "High Top 4". That means he will definitely reach "Top 4" ratings. However, outside of the little randomness the game provides and might bump him up a hair, does that mean he won't ever reach "Elite" ratings? Or does it just mean he will definitely reach "Top 4" and could still grow beyond that? If I want that stud defenceman, should I be looking to get a "Low Elite" or "Medium Elite" rather than Olli Maatta, and have Maatta be the second or third defenceman instead? This is hypothetical of course, but I'm just trying to understand potentials. Would it better if he was "Low Elite" than "High Top 4"? Is "Medium Elite" better than "High Top 4"? Sorry if I'm repeating myself, I just want to make sure my point gets across!
Thank you very much for any response you might give! I'm sorry for my many questions and long winded post. Your help is much appreciated!