Do roles matter?

[Virtual Jarmo]

Does the second digit of the potential actually really mean anything? I just viewed it as a multiplier for the ceilings. I knew that it defined a player's role, but I didn't know if it was in name only or actually something that affects the player.

Being told that it does. If it does, I'll need to be more aware of it for future draft classes. I just didn't think it really had enough value to pay attention to, granted, I didn't do any research on it.

What say you guys?

[Commish Bub(NYR)]

I wasn't aware that it didn't. I remember debates early on in fhockey (and the old Peliplannnnneeeettttaa boards) where some were arguing that a 78 POT was the same as a 70 POT, because the 7 was all that mattered. I think Riz himself came on and dispelled that notion. Having said that, I think there were a few exceptions, which was just like Riz to do...

[Jets GM]

I'm not sure myself, but I can't imagine the second digit it "POT" has zero effect in game. As far as development goes, I'm pretty sure it's just a combo of the first digit and the players ceiling. However, maybe players with "4" or "7" if there a D (power forward/physical D) develop better HIT attributes then a player with the same ceiling/height but a different role?

I also imagine the "role" number also dictates a players style of play, better suiting him for certain strategies/situations. ex. a trio of "two way forwards" (5) would work better on a NZT line then a trio of all-around offensive players, even if there DEF rating was the same.

[Parker]

We've got a ton of in-game evidence that shows attribute development is calculated from the entire POT score, not just the first digit. For a player's role, I believe that the biggest effect it has is when EHM calculates a prospect's ceilings when initially creating him in the game. A natural sniper is more likely to be given a higher SH ceiling, defensive d-men better CH and PO, enforcers a good FI ceiling, that sort of thing. Since our draft classes are created manually (including ceilings, I'm assuming) then I don't believe a player's natural role really means anything.

[Commish Bub(NYR)]

Edited my first sentence to reflect what I really meant.

[Commish Bub(NYR)]

We've got a ton of in-game evidence that shows attribute development is calculated from the entire POT score, not just the first digit. For a player's role, I believe that the biggest effect it has is when EHM calculates a prospect's ceilings when initially creating him in the game. A natural sniper is more likely to be given a higher SH ceiling, defensive d-men better CH and PO, enforcers a good FI ceiling, that sort of thing. Since our draft classes are created manually (including ceilings, I'm assuming) then I don't believe a player's natural role really means anything.

This.

Anyone who's played for a few years has probably noticed how all the game-created draftees listed as "role players" have shitty ceilings, how "snipers" have high SH (and often high PO), etc etc. But if you were to create two players with identical ceilings, a 78 POT player would develop higher than, say, a 72 POT player.

[Montreal Canadiens]

The second number only matters when you're doing your lines. It's well known that 3 all-around offensive players don't do well together for whatever reason. Which is ending in 3, 6, 7, 8 I believe. Otherwise, obviously the higher the both numbers are, the higher they would develop into their cielings.

[Jungle Cats]

Parker's right on the money, as far as I know. 'Role' is used to determine ceilings, and the whole number factors into the development of those ceilings, but the actual difference in performance between two players with otherwise identical attributes? Negligible. I'd say 'click' has more to do with line chemistry than matching up players with different role numbers.

[Parker]

For what it's worth, Click is supposed to give the player +10 to CON when he's playing on a clicking line. I don't know if that means all three linemates have to click or just one of them. For all I know, it's all three linemates, both defensemen AND the goalie. I ran two test sims, one where nobody on the team clicked, and one where everyone did, and the team that clicked won six more games than the one that didn't. Every other variable other than luck was controlled.

Also, contrary to rumor, a Click of 0 is not a universal click. It just means the player clicks with other Click 0's.

[Virtual Jarmo]

That's weird. So all 3 have to click together, 2 + 1 won't click? Has to be all 3? I've always thought of click as a "sucker bet", if you will. Guess not.

[Parker]

That's weird. So all 3 have to click together, 2 + 1 won't click? Has to be all 3? I've always thought of click as a "sucker bet", if you will. Guess not.

No, I said that I don't know whether it can be just 2/3 or whether it has to be whole line, or the whole line INCLUDING the defensive pairing, etc. I haven't done enough research to know. I don't consider click as anything more than a tiebreaker when it comes to evaluating talent because the results are so mercurial.

[Montreal Canadiens]

Click sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't really at all. All 3 forwards have to have the same click number.

In ITC, we had a World Cup tourney, and I took the USA. Scouted all the USA players, and I actually made a team dependent upon players click number. Just the forwards. I left some better players attribute wise off the team, and just took the one's with the same click.

Needless to say I actually won the tournament with a 8-0 record. Or 9-0, just dominated. Who knows if the players with the same click was the actual reason, but seemed to work out.

Other times they don't score at will. There was one line a team had in ITC that they all had the same click, and actually I think it was Pavol Demitra that set a record in that league for points in a season. I forget his linemates, but they finished no.2 and like no.7 in scoring that year.

I'll be putting it to the test this year though with a couple lines. It's always worth a try, if it doesn't work, you just switch back lines.

[Parker]

I can't check this for sure right now, but I THINK I had Hanzal - Lombardi - Doan kicking ass in the 2009-10 preseason, and I'm pretty sure they clicked. Clicking might have been what got Hanzal his job on the top line, and was likely a big help in his 87-point season. Although, Lombardi was replaced by Turris early in the season and Hanzal never slowed down, so it couldn't have been all about the click.

[Oilers_GM]

A natural sniper is more likely to be given a higher SH ceiling, defensive d-men better CH and PO, enforcers a good FI ceiling, that sort of thing. Since our draft classes are created manually (including ceilings, I'm assuming) then I don't believe a player's natural role really means anything.

I think i would agree, but that is where the scouting comes in... is a player that has a high shot ceiling a 71 or 91 pot? I think it matters in the big picture of the game. Long term that player should probably score more goals than he creates.

Perhaps as Adam says - it will be something we will have to consider in future drafts more. a player touted as a power forward should get that skill in the game.... even if he is 6'1 and not gonna develop his hitting. And that raises another question.. in the EHEC efforts to be as close as possible to the NHL... do we fudge a kid's size a bit 6'0--6'1 and bump them to 6'2 so that their hitting actually develops properly?