NHL Defensemen Ratings, TBL Rosters 2013-14

[jesterx7769]

I thought I knew how attributes are calculated but apparently I do not. James Wisnewski only has a CA/PA of 115, offen/def ratings of 17 and 12, yet his attributes are really good and better than guys with 140/150 CA's and PA's

[batdad]

One of the things we have to be careful of in the game is

If we give defensive dmen the very average ratings for CA...they can underpeform in games quite easily, and rate 6 as a game rating all the time. It is clear in the game that when you have average ratings less than 6.5 for players...they underpeform, their reputation takes a beating, and they end up not being happy (Low-V Low Morale). This leads to a further spiral, and eventually leads to them being out of the league at way way to early a point in time.

Yes..some of them will need a bit of tinkering with no question, but just a caution to avoid PUNISHING defensive dmen in the game. Phillips would be an EXTREMELY solid #6 on a strong team, no question. Hannan is now an average one, but still puts in some pretty darn good perfomances.

I agree that some od the defensive dmen may have too high ratings, just cautioning against lowering too much and causing them to have the KEVIN BIEKSA issue from the original database, where no matter what you do you cannot play in the NHL in the game.

[batdad]

By the way...great job on putting in comparisons and slotting guys in with other guys around the league. That is very valuable stuff in terms of rating the league properly. I agree for the most part with those comparisons

[jesterx7769]

I did not know that about the 6 ratings lowering performance. I try to bench guys if they have low morale I just never linked it to a hard 6 rating,

[batdad]

Not a hard and fast rule, but when guys are getting 6 ratings their morale does drop, and then the morale drop leads to more bad performances. I usually sit guys when they have two 6 ratings in a row, or at least bump them down a line for a game. Just one game on the bench, back in...and see what happens.

if a 4th liner gets a bunch of 6s in a row and they are not waiver eligible, or are not good prospects...who have done all they can in the minors down they go.

Anyway....the defensive player and the smaller forwards suffer alot from being underrated for game performance numbers which are heavily weighted to offensive stats and fighting. When they do not succeed in those areas, their game ratings suffer, their morale suffers in turn. THat is why a guy like Phillips and a guy like Mitchell...Hannan can underperform in the game a ton...they do not get the high ratings because they do not rack up the points.

[Manimal]

I agree that defensive d-men (and small forwards) needs to be overvalued in order to be succesful in EHM. For me, the question now is how much. A raise in CA, yes, but shall their atts also be raised?

I thought I knew how attributes are calculated but apparently I do not. James Wisnewski only has a CA/PA of 115, offen/def ratings of 17 and 12, yet his attributes are really good and better than guys with 140/150 CA's and PA's

My guess is his atts weren't lowered from an older db. Plus, he should probably be higher than 115

[archibalduk]

I agree that some od the defensive dmen may have too high ratings, just cautioning against lowering too much and causing them to have the KEVIN BIEKSA issue from the original database, where no matter what you do you cannot play in the NHL in the game.

This is exactly why I veered on the side of caution with defensive d-men (and for the record I've already explained why players have been generally overrated initially). Like Manimal says, we need to reach some sort of compromise. I think when rating defencemen, we need to consider them using a number of different factors; not only defensive and offensive talent, but also another category or two which somehow relate to Technical Attributes. It think it is worth bearing in mind that if a player is an excellent on the offence then we can use things like high Off Role, Wristshot, etc without necessarily using an especially high CA.

I thought I knew how attributes are calculated but apparently I do not. James Wisnewski only has a CA/PA of 115, offen/def ratings of 17 and 12, yet his attributes are really good and better than guys with 140/150 CA's and PA's

And this is what I've been at great pains trying to explain. First off, as I understand it, Def/Off Role has NO bearing on attributes. You can still have a CA of 200, maxed out Technical attributes and still have a Def/Off Role of 1. All the Role attributes do is control how effective a player is at defence and offence. Secondly, Non-Technical Attributes are not related to CA. So you can have a player in the lowest of professional leagues with high Non-Technical Attributes.

By the way...great job on putting in comparisons and slotting guys in with other guys around the league. That is very valuable stuff in terms of rating the league properly.

So true! Thank you, coombs14!

[jesterx7769]

Thank you Archie for explaining it despite doing it numerous times before for people like me who are too lazy to read. I had to go back and do some digging to read it all, I guess we just used to our ways of thinking what something means in game. Can't believe I didn't know skating and mental stuff was different from the technical attributes when it comes to CA, explains how you get some really good skaters with decent technical skills but such low CA

[CJ]

Only way to make the game really "fare" would be to have all players the same height/weight. Difference would be that the BIG guys would usually have better attributes in strenght/balance/hitting etc.

Raising the CA of the D-Dmen/Small forwards would be confusing and very hard to compare players with others.

[Manimal]

Only way to make the game really "fare" would be to have all players the same height/weight. Difference would be that the BIG guys would usually have better attributes in strenght/balance/hitting etc.

Raising the CA of the D-Dmen/Small forwards would be confusing and very hard to compare players with others.

I do not like the idea of all players having the same size. Mostly a gut feeling.

I don't think it is that hard to rate/compare them to others. The CA is a way of seeing how succesful they are. For example, if you see two players who you think are at the same level but one is much bigger than the other then we raise the smaller one

[nino33]

I do not like the idea of all players having the same size.

I too don't like the idea (and I don't think other editing options [i.e. CA/PA, Role and Attributes] have been exhausted yet)

[CJ]

I don't like it either, it was just a suggestion to get realism. IF we were to change skills of the small guys.

Then a 120 CA big guy has crappier attributes than the 120 CA small guy. What will happen in the trade then? Does the AI look at the CA or the attributes? Anyone have an answer?

[Manimal]

AI looks at reputation, I think

[batdad]

Yeah most times AI looks at rep in trades for sure. It is why when you think you have a great deal 3 star for 3 star they laugh at you. Cause there three star is a superb rep and yours is good. I hate that it so hard to increase rep for some guys even with really good average ratings, and for others it is so easy, in spite of not so good ratings.

As for the size thing...no way in hell do we make all same size. That would ruin the bloody game completely in my opinion.

I think we have to somehow figure out with attributes and CA/PA how to get a guy like Burrows to perform at the rate similar to a bigger dude like Hartnell. In game...this just does not happen.

[coombs14]

Thank you for the kind words. I'll do Montreal this weekend. I promise not to say that they are all amazing!

[coombs14]

Montreal Defence:

P.K Subban: I think this is going to be the most controversial of all of them. I am going to argue that P.K Subban not only has the potential to be one of the leagues best defenceman (CA of 175-180) but already is. Now, this may seem weird to argue given that he has won a Norris trophy but I know that he is an exceptionally polarizing player. I don't want to go exceptionally into depth if everyone all agrees with me so I'll post what I think his CA should be and then everyone can agree or we can have a debate and I'll dedicate a post to proving my point! Then maybe my mind will be changed and I will subsequently argue that Bergevain should trade P.K...

Current CA: 155
My CA: 170
I think that Subban is on par with Bouwmeester or Kronwall and is a better defenceman than either Beauchemin, Hamhuis, or Karlsson. Subban's problem is his mental attributes and his defensive positioning. That is reflected in-game with his positioning attribute (9, which is correct). Beyond that, his current company at 155 are players like Chris Phillips, Kevin Klein, Dan Boyle and Trevor Dailey. With the (maybe) exception of Boyle, who do you want on your team from this list? I think Subban is the obvious answer. Now, I know that Pietrangelo, Keith and Weber are also at 155 but I feel that they are underrated as well. Particularly Pietrangelo. Anyway... thoughts?

Andre Markov: I would suggest that his CA should be at 140 simply because Denis Wideman and Sami Salo are also at 140. I think Sami Salo is a particularly good comparison for Markov. Big shot and good offensive instincts but seriously slowed by a series of injuries. Fundamentally I see a group of players at 135-140 who I think should all be together in rankings, be that 135 or 140, I don't have a strong opinion. These guys are: Markov, Salo, Wideman, Streit,and Paul Martin.

Josh Georges:Bang on, no alteration. I think a CA of 140 with the potential of increasing to 150 is good. I think that Johnny Boychuck and Ron Hainsey provide good comparisons for Georges. Boychuck probably represent the top end of George's ability (150) while Hainsey represents the bottom end of his ability (140).

Alexie Emelin I think a CA of 145 is correct. He is on par with Z. Michálek, J. Ericsson or Boychuck. Him and Georges are very similar players with slightly different defensive skill sets. Emelin is stronger and a better hitter but Georges is smarter and better positionally. I would suggest two specific changes thought. Emelin's shot is particularly dangerous (why Therrien doesn't use him on the PP is a mystery to me) and I would suggest that his skating is better than currently recorded. In particular his speed needs to be bumped up by two or three points.

Raphael Diaz 125 seems right to me. I would place him on par with John Michael Liles or Chris Tanev. Other current comparisons could also be Patrick Wiercioch or Nick Leddy, however, I think that both of those guys have higher ceilings than Diaz. Like Tanev, Diaz is a very good skater with a good outlet pass and decent puck moving skills but no shot. The only specific change I would make it to swap his passing and slapshot attributes.

Francis Bouillon To highly ranked in my opinion. His current CA is 145 and that should probably be lowered to 130 which puts him on par with Andrew Ferrence. Its hard to find equivillants to Bouilion because he is so short and yet plays a physical, stay at home style. I don't know of any other players who play such a style. Ferrence is the closest even though he has 3 inches on Bouilion. Overall though, Bouilion is a number 6 defenceman who has slowed down a lot but manages to make up for it with good positioning and a high work rate. As it stands he is ranked above Georges and similar to Emelin. Bouilion is far below them.

Douglas Murray: Murray is terrible. I think he is far to highly ranked at 145. I think a ranking of 120-125 is more appropriate. That puts him on par with players such as Matt Carkner, Aaron Rome, Engelland or Andrew Alberts. Murray is to slow to keep up and other than strong play along the boards due to his exceptionally high strength, he has not been able to adapt to his greatly decreased skating ability. Furthermore, his possession numbers are often around 35% which is terrible.

Davis Drewiske: He has been hurt and I don't know much about him. Maybe someone who watched the Kings last season could comment?

The rankings for both Tinordi and Beaulieu seem right. They both have tremendous potential but also have serious flaws in their game which hopefully will be worked out in the minors. In terms of players they could well be like in the future if everything works well:

Tinordi: Prospect reports project him to be a number 3 d-man with a strong shutdown game and a good point shot. He also is exceptionally aggressive causes some poorly timed fight and bad penalties. All that being said, it should put his ceiling at 155-160 and make him comparable to players such as Smid, Alzner or Bryan Allen. I think Bryan Allen (due to his size) with a better shot is the best comparison and the ideal situation for Montreal.

Beaulieu: Projected to be a top pairing offensive defenceman. I think Dan Boyle is an excellent comparison for the type of player he could become. He is never going to be a defensive specialist but hopefully won't be a liability as he sometimes can be now.

[batdad]

Can I favorite a post in terms of how players should be posted about? BEcause that post above....is AWESOME.

I may not agree with exactratings of guys that Coombs posts...but darn darn darn...how much more helpful could a post be.

Well done Coombs, although Canuck fans will post that Chris Tanev is more like Subban than he is Diaz.

[Peter_Doherty]

Agree, well written post. Don't have much to say about it other then that though since i dont watch enough of Montreal.

[philou21]

I did Montreal this afternoon as well and we're thinking alike Coombs! I think you did a good job.

I've putted Subban CA at 175 though because like you I think he is already among the best and this year so far he is unreal. I think his mental attributes are alright, the only place I was wondering how it should be was his decisions. I put it at 10 since PK takes alot of risks and sometimes it doesn't end well but sometimes it works so I thought that putting it in the middle was okay.

I ranked Markov a little bit higher though, at 150 CA. Despite his age he is still #2 and in many team he would be at least #3 I think. His PA though should be slowly dropping year by year so I put it at 145 and it should drop by 5 each year (or maybe more). So far for Markov it's his consistency I'm not sure about. He got a hard time at the beginning of the season but for now it seems okay. At 36 yo it starts to show on the performances.

GORGES, not georges. Was okay but I put it at 145 and his PA at 145. I think he's a really good defense d-man and he will probably stay around that CA for his career. His bigger strenghts doesn't justify a higher PA IMO. He's a good #4.

Emelin was alright to me as well.

Diaz is mehhh and I let him at mehhh because that's what he is so far.

Bouillon was a little bit high I agree. I dropped him to 130 as well. His original strength was way too low though. I think it was around 8 or 9 but the strength of that guy is amazing for his height s0 I put him at 15.

Murray is not that awful IMO. Well, I never expected much from him so I think he is alright at dumping pucks and making a clean-up in front of the net. I put his CA at 135 and his PA at 130.

Nothing to say on drewiske. I totally forgot to check Tinordi and Beaulieu though!

[nino33]

Well done Coombs

Agreed! The referencing/comparing players to the lists of guys for the entire league really helps!


Thanks to all who are posting their thoughts/opinions! Keep it coming!

[coombs14]

Merci beaucoup!

I agree with you all your points. I think I am a little harsh on Murray as I get frustrated at his lack of mobility. If it was up to me he would have a CA of 60 but that is the frustrated fan talking and not in any way an objective assessment!

Bouillon is exceptionally strong. You have to be to play a physical style of defence and be so short.

Drewiske seems to be the Anne Veal of the Montreal Canadians.

[ElPayaso]

Perhaps you could make a list of all the Ducks defensemen as the one you did of Vancouver above? Would be a lot easier for me to sort them out and rate them. It's seems like Fistric is our 3rd best defender and so is definitely not the case. Also I don't know the CA/PA of other regulars like Lovejoy, Souray, Sbisa and Vatanen.

[CJ]

Coombs had a nice evaluation. Doing one team comparing them to each other is always a good way to start. Then comparing them individually to other teams D-men will give a pretty good result for us.

Just stating a players CA/PA doesn't really help as we have no idea what scale "you're" using.

As I've updated all the D-men now, my Montreal defensemen reminded a lot of coombs list.

[Peter_Doherty]

Quick question jhcjobpb, is McDonagh Rangers best and Strålman Rangers 4th best D-man?

[CJ]

Quick question jhcjobpb, is McDonagh Rangers best and Strålman Rangers 4th best D-man?

Quick answer Yes. But I think Del Zotto is coming close to Strålman.