Oggetto: "1 Atty Junk" - Right/Wrong/Grey?

LOL what a rip off

so... just how bad was his passing quality?

37 Passing Q

"LOL what a rip off"

Ummm understatement

With my current Training Facility it would take my team about a year (not a season a YEAR) to get him up to a 2:1:1 ratio.

Was he any good for you? Did he improve along with his atty's or did he get worse as he played more well-rounded players?

Hell yeah he was good for me. I bought him for 122 000 and I got just shy of 10 million for him. As far as on ice performance, I don't know, I never played him. He let in 5 on 30 shots for his new owner today.

You didn't even play him in friendlies? No sense of how effective the player build was?

The guide seems to me to suggest that additions to the primary attribute will have an effect provided that one of the secondary attributes is at least half of it. This player is such an extreme example.

I'm curious to know how he performs relative to a goalie who is 100-50-50, which is roughly what he would have been had you trained him to a 2:1:1 build assuming that goaltending/technique upgraded roughly 2.5x faster than passing, and which conventional wisdom suggests is superior.

I'll bet that he got as much pucks as you would get with a 36-18-18 goalie. I'm 99% sure that having low secondaries truncates your primary attribute.

Yeah, just checked. His Goaltending Stars are 20... He had 4 goaltending pucks in the game. For comparison, my Goaltending stars are 40, and I had 8 pucks for the game.

My starting goalie is 92/47/47 by comparison.

Straying from the shitty goalie debate.. Is an emphasis on stars/puck the reason that 2:1:1 is widely believed to be the strongest build? I imagine a 100:50:50 and 100:75:50 would have the same amount of pucks/stars, is that correct?

It's been strongly proven that 2:1:1 is the ratio that affects your pucks/stars going up.

Got it

Wow, I can't believe you got 18 mill for that junk.
That's just mean.

His experience is 305 so I don't feel too bad for him.