Re-Evalutating the Ratings Scale in NHL

[06woz]

I'd like to hear the consensus on this. I think the current system is far to lenient on "fringe NHLers" and bottom line players. Meaning there's far too little differentiation between the bottom-middle-top tier players. Here's my shot at it, but of course it takes more than one person to nail this down.

Elite Players: 98-90 Overall(ex. Patrick Kane: 98 OVR, Shea Weber: 93 OVR)
In my opinion it makes 0 sense for the top players to be only 95-96 overall. Why the dead space above that? Sure... Adjust HUT Ratings to account for Legends and Weekly cards coming out. Just like Madden does.(ex. Von Miller is a 99OVR in their GM mode, but a 90OVR in MUT). Simply left room for a player like McDavid(or a future GM prospect) to grow to potentially surpass the best. These are the leagues elite, the gamebreakers and award winners. 75+ Points, 40+ Goals, elite offensive and two-way defensemen.

First Liners/Top Pairing: 90-86 Overall(ex. Blake Wheeler: 88 OVR, Victor Hedman: 88 OVR)
The players here fringe on point per game production, sometimes achieving it. Yet they are not the "league leader" types and will unlikely win individual awards. The 30-40 goal scorers and 65+ point players, along with top all-around defensemen. Lower production may be acceptable accompanied with two-way ability.

Second Liners/2-3 Defensemen: 86-82 Overall(ex. Ondrej Palat: 85 OVR, Johnny Boychuk: 85 OVR)
50-60 point players, solid defensemen or DMen who excel on one side of the puck.

Third Liners/4-5 Defensemen: 82-76 Overall(ex. Charlie Coyle: 81 OVR, Kevin Klein: 80 OVR)
Here is where EA struggles most, these are still solid hockey players. 30-45 point players, defensive forwards. Some defensive defensemen, shot-blocking specialists. The "depth" of your team.

Fourth Liners/Bottom Pairing Defensemen: 76-70 Overall(ex. Matt Martin: 75 OVR, Matt Carle: 73 OVR)
Enforcers, small-minute players. These are guys that stay on the bottom line/pairing but do not struggle to stay in the NHL.

Fringe NHLers: 70-60 Overall(ex. Christian Ehrhoff: 69 OVR, Scott Gomez: 67 OVR
Waiver fodder, guys who struggle to hold down an NHL job. They struggle when in the lineup, and as such see limited minutes.

NOTE: Players in the AHL. NHL Prospects. Consistent players overseas do not fit BELOW this grouping. Top NHL prospects and top euros probably fit in the third line grouping, while top AHLers probably fit around 4th/Fringe.

[NinthFall]

Re: Re-Evalutating the Ratings Scale in NHL

While I enjoy the difference between these ratings, I never really understood why people feel the need to have bottom liners so bad. There are perfect examples of teams where even bottom lines play so well, it'd be quite stupid to rate them so low.

And with the bad development system NHL has, those fringe players along with bototm liners would be utter garbage, needless so to speak.

[actionhank]

Re: Re-Evalutating the Ratings Scale in NHL

While I enjoy the difference between these ratings, I never really understood why people feel the need to have bottom liners so bad. There are perfect examples of teams where even bottom lines play so well, it'd be quite stupid to rate them so low.

And with the bad development system NHL has, those fringe players along with bototm liners would be utter garbage, needless so to speak.

But respective to 90+ rated players, they should be a lot lower. It's not a sleight against the players, it's a sleight against the system and complete absence of disparity in the way players behave on the ice.

For comparison, in my playoffs that I just finished, all the way up to winning the cup, Ryan Reaves had 5 goals and 4 assists. That's just in the playoffs. That's almost even with what he's achieved all season. One game he had a hat trick. That's not to say that it's impossible, but that it should be very unlikely.

Looking at his ratings, Reaves is an 81 overall, and Steen is an 87.

They're really close in a lot of areas they shouldn't be. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Reaves, but he shouldn't be close to Steen in a lot of areas. And this is the problem with the NHL ratings. Everyone's so close, that it doesn't really matter who's on the ice. Game 7, down one goal, two minutes left? I can leave out my line of Ott-Brodziak-Reaves, because really, it doesn't matter. They're all pretty much just as likely to score a goal and tie it up. May as well let the top line rest, since they will be a bit slower, but skating speed isn't a huge deal in the game since everyone's so close together.

With the ratings so jammed together, guys like Reaves don't matter like they do in real life. You want a guy like Reaves because he can hit, and sticks up for team mates. You don't want to count on someone like Reaves to score goals or cycle the puck (even though I think they do it pretty well for a 4th line group) because there are better players to do it. But in the NHL series, none of it really matters. Playing a team like Dallas doesn't really feel any different than playing the Blues, because their speed into the zones is pretty much a non-factor. Since your defenders back up at nearly the same speed that players like Seguin and McDavid hit the blue line, you're rarely worried about getting beat wide.

Ratings shouldn't be looked at as an offense to their real life counterparts. They should be looked at as reflections of their particular skill set. I have no problems with Reaves being high 80's in hitting, but I think there's some issue with him being within 10 points of a guy like Steen, who is arguably the model two-way forward. The same issues affect goalies. I don't really pay attention to who's in net, because honestly, it hardly matters. I don't notice a difference between tossing in Elliott or Binnington.

Edit: I should mention that I think part of the problem is EA having to cater the OVR rating to match what people expect, instead of it reflecting what a player is good at. Unproven rookies have insane value in this game, simply because they could become something, but haven't. On the other hand, it makes it easy to trade for players, because you just throw in what in real life wouldn't get you close, and viola, you've got a nice trade package based on OVR ratings. Ott+Berglund+1st Round wouldn't get Edmonton to even look at their caller ID, much less ship you Nugent-Hopkins, but it gets easy to game the system based on ratings.

I think part of the problem with EA trying to hit that magical expectation of the OVR number is that players have higher ratings in things that they don't even really need. Wingers who never take faceoffs shouldn't be in the mid to low 60's, they should barely have a rating. Poor centers who lose a lot of draws should be in the 60's. Guys who score 1 goal every season shouldn't be high 70's to low 80's in shooting ratings, because it's not a real representation.

[NinthFall]

Re: Re-Evalutating the Ratings Scale in NHL

If you simulate seasons, I don't think ratings have anything to do with it, unfortunately. I had Logan Shaw, AHL potential player rated 76 score 16+20 or something similar during the entire season, while sometimes my top line center Alexander Barkov scores below 10 goals the entire season. Despite of that he develops to near 90 during first season.

So, I think where you're going at is correct, yeah. I want more of role type of stuff in EA Nhl too. For example Veterans should matter more than just take up roster spot and cash. Same for hard hitters like you mentioned Reeves.

Unfortunately EA is quite black and white... players don't perform the way they should. They're just point gatherers.

I mean, on my current season, 34 games played, some simulated, Thornton, our 38 year old grinder 78 overall has 11 goals.