EHM The Blue Line

I have a question about something I haven't been able to locate on the forum.

I usually play with the "fog of war" enabled, but today I decided to start a game with the fog turned off. I'm supposing that means I see the actual attributes of each player in the universe.

I'm the GM of the St. Michael's Majors of the OHL, and when I looked at my roster, I found the three guys with asterisks beside their names. I wanted to see who my big stars really were. When I took a closer look at one of them, an 18-year-old right wing, his ratings were, in a word, mediocre. Based on his attributes, he shouldn't even be on the team.

Nevertheless, everyone else in the hockey world thinks he's the greatest thing since goals with nets. All the computer GMs want to trade for him. My coaches say he's a core player, and so do my scouts. And, he was the #13 overall pick in the last NHL entry draft.

Now I'm halfway through the Majors season, and he's been playing like a guy with mediocre ratings, not like a future NHLer. When I put him on a scoring line, he drags the whole unit down. When I shift him to my checking line, he can't do the job there, either. He has five goals and nine assists in 37 games, averaging almost 16 minutes a night, and he's the worst plus-minus player on the team.

My coaches are better-than-average for the OHL, so I wouldn't automatically chalk his so-so performance to bad training or misuse.

Who is right about this player? Is he really as unremarkable as his ratings--and his performance to date--seem to indicate, or is he really a stud in disguise, who will turn into a beast if I trade him away?

Thanks in advance for anything you can suggest...

It might be he's good in potential, which would explain other teams interest, but he isn't much of a player yet. You said he's only 18 years old.

That's the only explanation I can come up with.

I've had these situations in the OHL as well. A player who I see as just average, ends up being a huge target by everyone else outside of my own eyes.

Personally, I'm not a fan of attributes at all(and these situations are the exact reason why)... so I just go by performances. If he's not playing well at all with my team, I'd probably just get rid of him, especially if everyone is offering the goods. Unless of course I think he has the potential to get better. In that case, I compare his current play to that of his previous years. If it's all the same, then I'd assume he doesn't grow fast, thus rendering his remaining two or so years meaningless. But if each of his previous years got better than the last, then maybe he could do something in the next two years.

I've also noticed that attributes are more there to give you an idea of how good the player is, and you should not make your call blindly according to them, also look at history and game ratings. I've seen lousy players play well for no apparent reason and the other way around many times.

I have also found this happening to some of my players or players around, it seams that their attributes don't match up to the abillity they have (both current and potential, wrong starting attributes compared to abillty?!?! is my teory). The scouts (and other teams) uslly values the players by the abillty not the attributes, but to work in the match engine a player needs to have reasonble good attributes if not he he ont play good!

That is my experince and thoughts!

I mostly think like B. Stinson. If the guy plays well, i don't care at all about his attributes. If he doesn't, i look at his previous seasons. If he's improving, i stay patient. If not, he's shown the door. But the guys are lucky, i'm really patient

Thanks for the replies!

This might be a silly question, but is there a way to see his potential, other than using an editor? I'm assuming the other teams are basing their evaluations of his potential on their scouting reports. Is this what's happening, or do computer GMs have the ability to base their evaluations on the hidden 1-200 potential rating?

Since this is my first year with the team, I can't really compare his performance to that of previous seasons. I'm holding on to him for now, and since the Majors currently lead the conference standings, I can afford to be a little more patient with him than I could otherwise.

I tried putting him on the trading block, and immediately, every other team in the OHL made me an offer! One is willing to give up a centre who is scoring a point a game; another will give me a top-two defenseman with a average game rating just over 8.

In reality, since there are currently about seven or eight guys his age on my roster, he'll need to show some improvement in a hurry if he's going to have the chance to stick around for two more years. I've already faced some very tough choices concerning which overage players to keep!

Nope, editors and scout reports are the only way to see / determine potential.

I say trade him!

He sucks, there's a lot of concurrence, and you can get a monster for him? Trade him! If he has very low attributes and plays so bad, he will need many years to reach his full potential (if he reaches it someday) and so will probably never be of any use for you in major juniors.