Team Chemistry

[Owen-Moncton]

Just had a thought I wanna share... it would be interesting to see some opinions...

When one of my hockey heroes asked Gary Bettman about the hallmarks of sustainable success he answered with one single word: stability.
While the irony of yours truly discussing stability is not lost on me, I have to wonder if there’s a way to reward teams that keep their core intact in some tangible way that impacts success over and above what Glenn has layered into the sim via FP.
I am thinking about on ice and locker room chemistry. EA Sports would probably categorize this as ‘morale’, which makes sense. Again it’s admittedly almost laughable coming from me as Moncton has been anything but stable in the last few years (that’s changing) but the sim isn’t about the virtual players so much as it is about our ability (or lack thereof) to connect the dots and engineer a group that can win and maintain its competitiveness annually.
Acquiring them flipping core pieces like they are as disposable as members of the Trump administration should maybe have consequences in terms of team culture. In the EA Sports universe, free agents will actually decline offers from you if you’re a ‘serial trader ‘.
My thought is that if you have traded a certain value of contracts within one year, it could impact free agent interest come off season. So if two or more clubs are bidding on a guy, it’s not just dollars that determine the winner but also a stability rating that would be generated by something like total value of dollars traded annually weighted against number of transactions.
I am sure there’s a more scientific way to calculate something along these lines but I do think that it makes sense to encourage stability and discourage serial flipping of assets.
Please weigh in.

[Glenn-Philadelphia]

That's an interesting concept Owen.

A few years back I was tinkering around with the idea of adding some more of these ancillary factors into how a team performs but I remember that either 1) a bunch of guys poo pooed the idea or a few guys strenuously poo pooed it.

I was thinking of allowing teams to spend FPs on training facilities/amenities to make them a more attractive destination for FAs. Also spend monies on upgraded medical facilities to better diagnose and speed players back to the ice (albeit only slightly). Also allowing teams to focus on specific areas in practice (to make improvements on the PP, or PK, or breakouts etc.)

These changes while slight in nature in regards to how they impact games are a much bigger effort to implement. I think they would add a nice nuance to a already very nuanced sim but I certainly don't want to invest the time and effort in adding them if their implementation were to add more bitching instead of accolades.

That being said, I would be interested to see what others have to say...

[Owen-Moncton]

Nov 23, 2020 12:50:28 GMT -5 Owen-Moncton said:

Just had a thought I wanna share... it would be interesting to see some opinions...

When one of my hockey heroes asked Gary Bettman about the hallmarks of sustainable success he answered with one single word: stability.
While the irony of yours truly discussing stability is not lost on me, I have to wonder if there’s a way to reward teams that keep their core intact in some tangible way that impacts success over and above what Glenn has layered into the sim via FP.
I am thinking about on ice and locker room chemistry. EA Sports would probably categorize this as ‘morale’, which makes sense. Again it’s admittedly almost laughable coming from me as Moncton has been anything but stable in the last few years (that’s changing) but the sim isn’t about the virtual players so much as it is about our ability (or lack thereof) to connect the dots and engineer a group that can win and maintain its competitiveness annually.
Acquiring them flipping core pieces like they are as disposable as members of the Trump administration should maybe have consequences in terms of team culture. In the EA Sports universe, free agents will actually decline offers from you if you’re a ‘serial trader ‘.
My thought is that if you have traded a certain value of contracts within one year, it could impact free agent interest come off season. So if two or more clubs are bidding on a guy, it’s not just dollars that determine the winner but also a stability rating that would be generated by something like total value of dollars traded annually weighted against number of transactions.
I am sure there’s a more scientific way to calculate something along these lines but I do think that it makes sense to encourage stability and discourage serial flipping of assets.
Please weigh in.

Yes, the whole ‘magic bean’ premise; I recall those discussions. I think the reticence was centred around creating ‘super athletes ‘ with McDavid-like wheels and hands despite being fourth round, bottom six pedigree. My thought is that a naturally occurring byproduct of organizational stability is a culture that fosters success in terms of prospect development and also in terms of being an attractive destination for free agents. Jumbo didn’t sign in Toronto to be close to home during Ontario winter; he signed because they got their house in order in Toronto and they are poised to start winning in the playoffs. He believes his best chance of retiring a champion is to play in Toronto.
I hope there’s a middle ground here that we can all agree on that makes it worth your time and energy to add another realism wrinkle to an already awesome experience

[Eric-Baltimore]

I like any idea that adds realism and depth to the sim. I'd throw in a few other ideas to this basket as well. Maybe a stamina effect across multiple games similar to the goalies. Say a slight hit to the stamina of anyone who plays in both ends of games on back to back days. This would encourage active management and a little more thought into line-up decisions. I've also always loved the idea of hate points/rivalry games.
I also thought I remember talk of adding playing styles or tendencies to the lineup page (Dump and chase vs possession for Offense and aggressive/attacking vs conservative/stay at home for D).

[Phil-Cornwall]

Realism and depth yes, but I vote no for 'power-ups' and 'enhancing players beyond what their stats are straight from the NHL.