Наслов: Questions & Answers

That article made me more confused
Do I think right that if have player who has 4/6 in age of 17 he can have in best possible option 1/6 in age of 34???

Although I find it also hard to believe that some player could have been 5/6 from season I to season VI, in my opinion it's not so impossible to have a player from II season to VI with 5/6.
We don't know how big was the sample that was used for this fine research Canucks did with Sarth. And as Canucks said in the article:
"Keep in mind this is someone's theory and idea. There could very well be mistakes, be them miniscule or critical."

No problem. Here is another one:

http://i901.photobucket.com/al bums/ac213/canucks357/CLProjec tionTable.png

This is the table that shows how much chance does the player have to stay on the same CL depending on his age. It was made by canucks357 in a detailed research where he asked other managers to send the data for their players. I found this table to be very accurate and it has the information for players up to age of 22.

I agree. There is always possibility for a mistake, and I can't say it is 100% accurate. Maybe 5/6 can also last 5 seasons, but so far there is no evidence for that.

that link doesn't work.....

and the 1st one, we can't know how good it is, because the author didn't consider the 0/6 CL

I apologize for triple post, here is the second link again:

i901.photobucket.com/albu...

I have 21yo player Jani Tammelin , who has been in my team from the start, and he have CL 5/6. I don't remember did he had 6/6, but must be. I don't know.

True, because that research was made in beta version of hockey. Back then the minimum CL was 1/6. Its also stated in the article:

"Sarth's work goes back to beta, as mentioned earlier. Here players were aged up to 27 years old. Upon looking at players Sarth found a CL of 4 at this age and also a CL of 1. As we have not bare witness to any players older then 27, tables exceeding 27 years of age are merely linear extrapolations of the current theory."

However, the table from the second link is based on a research that was made during seasons 2 and 3, so it has more credibility IMHO.

The only thing that second table could prove is existence of 21y.o. player with 5/6 CL, not how long that player could have 5/6.
We can only be sure of it if someone relevant from PPM says so, if someone has taken a picture of his team from I or II season, or by ourselves when 2 more seasons pass, because we can find player detailed data&stats only from season IV.

This brings another questions. Why there is no CL in detailed stats of players from I, II and III season ?

because it isnt stored anywhere in the database. we didnt track it

Interesting. If you don't track it then there is obviously no "hidden potential", meaning there are no players that are determined to be superstars.

On the other hand, it implies that CL loss is based on "random", or in other words, each player has a certain % that gives him the chance to stay on the same CL for a couple of seasons, as can be seen from the table canucks357 created.

I don't like to use the word "random" because I believe everything in this game is calculated based on a certain chance, it can either succeed, or fail.

I see.

I can tell you that it isnt based on random, although a random factor is also involved as it is in most things. It wasnt tracked before, but now it is.

So there is something else that influences CL, beside injuries, age and random ?