Emnet: National team Q&A

link doesn't seem to be working

Oh.. the NT team cannot stress enough... DO NOT USE TOO MUCH ENERGY!!!
We had to disqualify some of the best players last season because their GMs play too many games on normal/high all season.

Thats because there is a space in the link... I didn't use the link button...

s95002701.onlinehome.us/P...

players uploaded.

What kind of emphasis will be placed on shooting for defensemen?

While saint and I were advising for last season, we often agreed, so my general emphasis was half as valuable as the primary for defenseman.

Note, also for defenseman we still do look for somewhere around a Tec = Agr -10 or better.
Any Tec more than 10 below the aggression tends to cause a lot of penalties.

BTW... the emphasis for shooting will likely be that we will consider shooting equally to primary... but the most balanced offense men will be the ones selected.

Here is a hint...
I guarantee you if we see guys like
150 / 40/40
Where they have 150 primary and 40s on the 2 secondaries... we will consider them as equal to any other player that is 80/40/40

That is how we have made our decisions in the past team, and will this season as well... the only change will be that we don't think 4:3:2 is better than 4:2:2 (2:1:1).

So when you say 'half as valuable as the primary for defensemen' - an ideal defenseman build should be 2:1:1:1 (primary, shooting, pas, tec) with agr in line with tec? Whereas for forwards you're placing further emphasis on the shooting, so it would look more like (hypothetically) 4:3:2:2 (prim, shoot, sec, sec).

Tec = Agr-10 is interesting, I'm surprised it's an absolute value rather than a ratio.

Thanks for your time.

I'll continue to argue the 4:3:2 case. When I signed up the guide had primary/secondary/tertiary attributes and has since been changed to primary/secondary/secondary. My best players have long been 4:3:2. 2:1:1 may build better stars/pucks, but I stand firm that 4:3:2 is a better build. My 4:3:2 LW2 with 88 prime and 333OR is my leading scorer when my 2:1:1 LW1 is 363OR with 100prime and 100shot has 1 point thus far playing on a better line. I know 5 games does not make a point, but season after season my 4:3:2 guys are out-playing my 2:1:1 experiments.

I hate to derail NT discussion into a 4:3:2 vs. 2:1:1 discussion, but I do have one question: Which stat was labelled the 'secondary' and 'tertiary' for each position?

I assume:

Goalie: Tec
Defenseman: Pas
Winger: Tec
Centreas

In the old guide it was:

C
OFF>PASS>TECH

W
OFF>TECH>AGR

D
DEF>PAS>AGR

G
GOA>TECH>PAS



New Guide it is:

C
O> P & T

W
O> T & A

D
D> P & A

G
G> T & P

Not trying to pick apart the National Team's plan, just stating my voice. I support them in their goals/plans and will submit all my players 4:3:2 or 2:1:1 or otherwise. I highly recommend managers contact Ketch/Saint if they have 4:3:2 guys who they are planning on training as 2:1:1 for the NT. Communication is essential.

I might reply later Canucks
but a reply to Dibs...

For shot to primary, there is no ideal build.
Look at it more like this.
We might add the primary (assuming a minimum of 2:1:1 is held) to the half the value of the shot for defensemen (do not quote me on this... I will get Saint to comment later).

The total value of that vs. other players will help us select players.

a defenseman who is 100/50/50 w/ 80 shot we might consider the same as someone who was 120/60/60 w/ 40 shot (all other things being equal)

so if you don't train shot well, then you don't have to try to get it way up there at the cost of primary.

However, if we have the choice between two equal people, but one is more balanced, we will go for the one that is more balanced.

Got it. Thanks for the reply.