Asunto: US Senior National Team

At this point it is easy for teams with lower level training facilities to catch up, so they are basically tiebreakers, assuming they are above a certain threshold (basically the point where superstars with bad facilities that won't become good with an upgrade or two will turn out weaker than average players with the best facilities). Basically, each level of the training facility is probably worth about 20 OR per season at this point.

I don't think there is anything wrong with Russ' training, though the training facility may or may not be an influential factor if everything else is close enough.

In hockey, the majority of the players came from a small handful of teams, some of which have quit, until very recently, though that was mostly a matter of having level 15 sports academies.


For EQ, just make sure not to weight CL too heavily unless it is at 4. CL doesn't have a huge effect until it starts to approach 3 and a player gets older based on an analysis I did a while back (I had an average of .92 for 5 relative to 6, .87 for 4 relative to 6, .6 for 3 relative to 6, and .33 for 2 relative to 6 for a random sample of the players on my team; older players gained less than younger players with the same CL and 15 and 16 year olds with a CL of 5 weren't really much worse in the short run). At this point, it basically indicates the probability of a player having good CL in 5 seasons, whatever canucks357 said the probabilities and CL paths were in his article a while back.

It's a good strategy to stick with the 2 best older players for now, especially if it will take more than one season for anyone else to catch up. It would be helpful though if whatever player turns out to be the starter of the future has great chemistry once he becomes the best option. This won't be a problem in the future once there are the other two national teams, and perhaps some of the youngest players may even be able to gain chemistry in that way before they catch up.

I had a CL study myself for soccer and the player career (based on age till he reaches 30) wa based on career level study on probability of how many seasons players retain the level.

For EQ it does not go that way. It uses a more linear formula similar to the one used on PPMe. Specially since we're analyzing EQ of CL 5 and 6,at the moment and chances the player with CL5 will reach CL4 before the ones with CL6 it penalizes just a bit more. Since facilities ar still being developed, players that prevent going to CL3 quicker will have advantage of having better facilities to be trained trained before reaching that level.

When analyzing, a 62 EQ to 64 Id consider about the same, but when a player is 74 compared to 64 it is much more quality and a 84 is way much better quality compared to 64.

If we compare goalies for example, Fugate, England and Pascalle have about the same EQ. Fugate, for example, is younger but can become CL4 at the same time as Pascalle or a season later. That would make all of those goalies still at the same quality. Goalies like Lloyd and Leavitt have 10 and 15 more EQ respectively and close OR.

Those have better chance to take advantage of better future facilities and already have advantage

All of that make sense, but the CL modifier for EQ seems a bit high. For instance, my goaltender, Gustaf Bender, has an unmodified EQ of 76. His lowest quality (for technique, which isn't very important for goaltenders, is 65, and all other qualities are 74 or above). He has a CL of 5 at 17. Somehow, his EQ is 61 on the website. This is a modifier of about .8. .9 might be reasonable, but .8 seems rather high for a player that is training well, has good qualities, and has a CL that is as good as all but the players with the very best CL, especially since a player with a CL of 6 might actually have a CL of 5.6.

Is .2 the expected decrease (attributable to having slightly lower CL at some of the future ages) in projected OR gain relative to overall projected OR gain?

It makes sense to prefer a player with higher CL and otherwise similar information and that the player will be more probable to have better CL in future seasons, but it seems like players with a CL of 6 are preferred to the extent that only CL=5 players with an unmodified EQ of 90+ have a good chance of making the team (assuming that they don't have unusually high OR).

The modifier would be about .85 for cl 5

I do think the modifier needs to penalize a bit more because we are not just comparing a player of CL5 and CL6 at the current moment but trying to get a player that we will try to build for 10+ seasons

And during this time, training facilities will get better. Training a player with TF 13-14 at CL4 will be much better than at CL3


So lets try a simple analysis here - numbers made up as it is late and i have not slept yet


season 4: CL 6, TF 11 - OR gain: 100
season 5: CL 6, TF 12 - OR gain: 115
season 6: CL 5, TF 13 - OR gain: 115
season 7: CL 5, TF 13 - OR gain: 115
season 8: CL 4, TF 14 - Or gain: 100
season 9: CL 4, TF 14 - Or gain: 100
Gain: 645

season 4: CL 5, TF 11 - OR gain: 90
season 5: CL 5, TF 12 - OR gain: 105
season 6: CL 4, TF 13 - OR gain: 90
season 7: CL 4, TF 13 - OR gain: 90
season 8: CL 3, TF 14 - Or gain: 70
season 9: CL 3, TF 14 - Or gain: 70
Gain: 515

Difference: 80%
And it would go worse as seasons goes with Player B training at CL 3 while player A is on CL 4.

This is a rough sample using same percentage per TF gain and CL drop similar as suggested from ppmE.

So my point is: while a player is training "well" now at CL5, down the road it will be different and a player that started at CL5 will train 80% or less than a player with CL6 with same unmodified EQ.

So i dont think a close to 85% penalty is too rough when trying to select a player that could be in the NT roster for 10+ seasons or at least 5+ seasons.

I will add the unmodified EQ in the player list so if that helps.
Although as i stated, the punishment is to help selecting a player that will be in the team for long run.

Once teams have level 14 TF or so it would make more sense to reduce the penalty, IMO

PS: with this new draft thing, most pulled players will be CL 6 anyways ...

anyways... News are ... I have spent some time chatting with some owners of our starting line to tweak a few things in their players ratio.

hopefully that will help improving our team strength.

The problem is that there is only a small probability that those two players will have those exact CL paths. Although there is a difference of 130, there is only a probability that the exact difference will be 130 (taking all of your numbers as accurate). For each year, there should be an expected OR gain, weighing the OR gain for every possible CLThere is so much uncertainty for a younger player (especially due to the rounding of CL), that it is hard to say anything beyond the fact that a player with better CL should be preferred if everything else is close enough. It might be more likely than not that the player with better CL now will have better CL overall, but the likelihood that the player with lower CL could be good is high enough that the player shouldn't be effectively discounted at a young age.

In hockey, a player generally needs to have an EQ of 80 to make the national team (maybe 75 if there is really bad depth). This means that a player needs an EQ of nearly 90 to be worth considering with a CL of 5, unless they have some other sort of advantage like good facilities, staff, or OR. Right now, the average players don't have great qualities

In any case, it's probably a cosmetic point that won't actually have much of an effect if a change were to made.

It should be noted that some players have hit 4/6 CL at 17 years old while others have maintained 6/6 CL even until they are 18 (I personally have an example of each on my team so I dont think its extremely improbable). While I dont expect that path for every player, its definitely more of a risk to take on a player who is 16 or 17 with 5/6 CL, who started as a 5/6 CL 15 year old... than it is to take on a guy the same age who is still 6/6 CL.

Because, as bulls has said, TF aren't maxed yet, and the longer players can train well at a higher level, the better off they'll be.

It will be awhile for the maxed out facilities. I will shortly have level 12 TF and will build level 11 RF and level 12 RF. But Level 13 TF costs as much as a triple max to build and the daily costs are a staggering 28M a year vs 17M for the level 12 TF. Basically I can carry a level 12 TF and level 12 RF for the same operating costs of a level 13 TF. With the SA not panning out for the majority of teams SA 13 looks like a risky investment as well with its 21M cost per season. Mind you one good pull and it pays for itself.

I will need another 7500 seats before I can step up to the next level of facilities and be able to continue to expand the seats.

I have 2 6/6 18 year olds and a 22 year old with 4/6 CL.

It makes sense, I'm just worried that the extent of the preference might lead to the risk associated with lower CL outweighing the qualities, leading to a team full of 6/6 players, at least some of whom will probably not turn out to have a good CL path in the long run.

Even so, by the time that these younger players become ready to take over as starters, they might be 17-19, and it will be possible to get a better idea of the player's CL path at that point than at 16 - there will be less uncertainty. Once the other national teams start, the senior national team also won't have to make these decisions when a player is 16 years old.

Also, what I meant to say in my last post about it being a cosmetic point was to say that while it is interesting to debate how to properly project players, this point probably isn't quite as important as I have made it out to be.

I figure this year is the year to set the players for WC and then build chemistry

yes, it is near impossible to predict players path but the sample was players being as unluck. If they were luckier, it would be even better for the CL6 player as more time to build up the facilities and take good use of a better training facility.

EQ is only one number to look.. there is Or and EOR (assides from experience, it can be fixed by getting the correct ratio)

so, when we have players with same OR (or close) the one with higher EQ will obviously have edge.

that is also why i mentioned the list will also have players that are more ready (higher OR and EOR) even though their EQ are lower.