Tiempo:
Salir
Asunto: Team Canada Hockey| Selecciona un país: |
|
Canada |
Connor Crisp is everynoes back up!
That's an even better solution, it gets rid of even more variables (mainly being the chemistry of the backup).
Do you think Thomas Hart might ever get a chance in NT or is he too far beind in OR and/or am I still too far behind in terms of facilities?
He's currently 25 (98) 87 (99) 30 (49) 50 (99) 53 (95) 40 (91) 50 (98).
I'm asking because I'm wondering if I should keep him or sell him... How much would I get for him on the market?
He's currently 25 (98) 87 (99) 30 (49) 50 (99) 53 (95) 40 (91) 50 (98).
I'm asking because I'm wondering if I should keep him or sell him... How much would I get for him on the market?
See other reply...
Well I could not figure out how to run with one goaltender. It said I must have 2 goalies selected in order to save the line-up. My new goalie rating is 90 with a back-up that does not train. But since I started with my starter as back-up I will run 2 games a week now with the purpose of recording ratings.
Also I would just like to state that I think it is stupid to have your back-up influence your team rating. It just made me realize I need 2 good goalies now...
Also I would just like to state that I think it is stupid to have your back-up influence your team rating. It just made me realize I need 2 good goalies now...
No you don't. The goalie rating isn't how good your goalie plays. That is dependent on the goalie in the net and him alone. The goalie OTS rating is 60/40 or so and includes the backup since he may be called into the game and/or plays some games during the season.
Is there a reason we keep playing with three lines? Isn't it a waste of energy, and not building as much players chemistry as 4? Or am I out to lunch?
Energy is non factor, if we play Very Low our players will go into the Worlds with 99. Most players have maxed out chemistry. The benefit of 3 lines is better training bonus for the 5 extra players that are on the roster but not in the game.
Ok makes sense. Thanks for letting me know.
Goalie Experiment Update: no increase on in game rating again this week. I need my goalie for the playoffs so now i will work on the secondaries and record and post any good results.
Goalie Experiment Update: Ok, I started to train secondaries and I am already seeing game rating improvement of 2 points for 10 total secondaries. My ratio when I started secondaries was 2.385... I have extensive notes which I will publish again soon.
Question? Should I train tech, then pass in increment of 10? Curious if the secondaries are equal or not. And if yes, any sugestions?
I've never found any evidence indicating that they are not equal. Pretty sure everyone's subscribed to the 2:1:1 (or some minor variant) ratio theory.
i train tech before pass just because tech helps faceoff.. apparently. or you could go with higher secondary quality to gain OR faster, and then go with the other secondary quality
I'm unsure I do. All studies I've seen focus on comparing ratio. But you should also factor in player qualities. If tech quality is 40 and pass 80 for a center, maybe the ideal ratio is 100:50:40. While it could be 100:45:55 for another player with different q's. I haven't seen yet a function providing optimal ratio based on player Q.
Temas favoritos
Ultimos comentarios
Copyright © 2007-2024 - POWERPLAY MANAGER, s.r.o. - Todos los derechos reservados
Contacto - Términos de Servicio - Políticas de privacidad - Cookies settings - Mapa del portal
Publicitar en PowerPlay Manager - ¡Conviértete en nuestro socio!
Compañeros: www.tennismania.com - www.biathlonmania.com - www.skijumpmania3.com
[all: 140ms / php: 104ms / db: 36ms ]
Web server: WB1
Contacto - Términos de Servicio - Políticas de privacidad - Cookies settings - Mapa del portal
Publicitar en PowerPlay Manager - ¡Conviértete en nuestro socio!
Compañeros: www.tennismania.com - www.biathlonmania.com - www.skijumpmania3.com
[all: 140ms / php: 104ms / db: 36ms ]
Web server: WB1