• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
RedWingsRox

EA's prediction for 2011-12

Rate this topic

33 posts in this topic

They were scarily right last year ... all the way correct through playoffs until Boston beat Vancouver.

http://www.ea.com/nhl/blog/nhl-12-season-simulation

In short ... Pittsburgh over Chicago for the SCF but interesting placement in playoff predictions.

Thanks EA, way to ruin the suspense and drama of a multi-billion dollar season :angry:

Edited by RedWingsRox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sidney Crosby will return from injury to rack up 92 pts in 65 games, adding another Stanley Cup and the Conn Smythe Trophy to his resume

...Wat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were scarily right last year ... all the way correct through playoffs until Boston beat Vancouver.

http://www.ea.com/nh...ason-simulation

In short ... Pittsburgh over Chicago for the SCF but interesting placement in playoff predictions.

They were lucky if they were "right" last year. The trade deadline shook things up last year, and if their prediction was this early last year....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Penguins are slated to go very far into the playoffs every single year in the EA games, for the simple fact that their players are always horrendously overpowered in the game. For example, the Pens` #1 defenseman (Gonchar or Letang) over the last three renditions has always been rated higher than Lidstrom; Fleury is always rated at #3 or higher in goalie ratings (he's #1 this year, for no apparent reason); and Crosby is always given the ratings of a god. Crosby, this year, has higher defensive awareness than Datsyuk. I don't know where that came from. I can only assume that EA wanted to make him a god-mode forward. Whatever the case, the ratings are nonsense, and thus so is this prediction.

Edit: I forgot to mention that the Wings are also habitually underrated by EA. For example, Helm had an 82 for speed for a long while last season; Lidstrom is always given a fairly weak shot, at least in comparison to the other elite scoring D-men; Holmstrom has a deflections rating of only 82; Datsyuk is only a bit above average in stick-checking; and so on. I don't know who does these ratings, but he or she loves the Penguins and dislikes the Red Wings... and rarely watches the Red Wings play, apparently.

Edited by Crymson
Majsheppard likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Wat.

Crosby can certainly attain that given his skill level. It's merely a matter of his health.

Just keep in mind that these predictions are for fun, and are an EA marketing gimmick, before giving a serious response trying to debunk an obvious flip of the coin.

Edited by Shoreline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EA responded about Helm's lack of speed rating and said that a player of his caliber (not quite the elite goal scorer) would be able to be exploited online by user players to be more of a weapon than he actually is. Speed is one of the more lethal skill attributes in the game so for someone who isn't know quite yet for goal scoring, he needed to be handicapped in the speed department to make the overall player more realistic.

Just reporting.

locoforrojo likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EA responded about Helm's lack of speed rating and said that a player of his caliber (not quite the elite goal scorer) would be able to be exploited online by user players to be more of a weapon than he actually is. Speed is one of the more lethal skill attributes in the game so for someone who isn't know quite yet for goal scoring, he needed to be handicapped in the speed department to make the overall player more realistic.

Just reporting.

So they are admitting the stats they use to base the game off of are flawed?

locoforrojo and Majsheppard like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EA responded about Helm's lack of speed rating and said that a player of his caliber (not quite the elite goal scorer) would be able to be exploited online by user players to be more of a weapon than he actually is. Speed is one of the more lethal skill attributes in the game so for someone who isn't know quite yet for goal scoring, he needed to be handicapped in the speed department to make the overall player more realistic.

Just reporting.

That sounds like an excuse, and it certainly doesn't excuse the horrendous stats that they habitually and wrongly give to some other Wings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's fair to say they're always underrated. The wings always end up being one of the 3 or 4 best teams in the game and for 4 straight years Datsyuk has been the 2nd best player in the game, including this year where he is rated 93 and Crosby is rated 94.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the same video game where Toronto and Buffalo have an offensive rating of 92, which is the highest in the whole game?

Also the same game where George Parros is not only ranked as the best fighter, but has the best balance of any player in the whole game :!:

Not joking here folks.

EA responded about Helm's lack of speed rating and said that a player of his caliber (not quite the elite goal scorer) would be able to be exploited online by user players to be more of a weapon than he actually is. Speed is one of the more lethal skill attributes in the game so for someone who isn't know quite yet for goal scoring, he needed to be handicapped in the speed department to make the overall player more realistic.

Just reporting.

What has EA stated about George Parros having a fighter rating of 97?

Or about Cam Ward being one of the top 5 goalies in the game?

I like playing this game, but there wasn't much thought or effort put into player ratings. Too many attributes are the same across the board, and there's too much that doesn't make sense, like some of the above.

Edited by GMRwings1983

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crosby can certainly attain that given his skill level. It's merely a matter of his health.

I won't argue that, when healthy, Crosby is more than capable of putting up 1 and a third points per game- he is probably the most offensively talented player in the game. But after sitting out for almost a whole year (using their games played prediction) there is absolutely no way anyone can be at full speed immediately. A ppg pace is believable, anything higher than that is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course this is all fun and I'm sure you can pick apart any specific player rating for this or that. BUT does anyone else still not find it amazing that they are so accurate? If you check ESPN's or TSN's so called experts/commentators during the playoffs last year, they might have got 3/4 right and they'd be considered pretty damn good. EA outperforms any human commentator. Don't forget, many of those so called 'experts' get to pick at the beginning of the playoffs ie. knowing which 16 teams are in and after watching them play all season and knowing the latest injuries. I'm sure the geeks at EA plug in every conceivable factor into their computer simulation and run this umpteen times to get these avg or weighted results. I for one am impressed.

Here is their track record (listed at the beginning of the EA prediction page):

* Chicago Blackhawks would be the 2010 Stanley Cup Champions as they took home the Stanley Cup for the first time since 1961

* Vancouver Canucks would win the Presidents’ Trophy in the 2010-2011 NHL season

* Vancouver Canucks and Boston Bruins would meet in the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals

* 2011 NHL Playoffs would be a year of tight series, correctly selecting 13 of the 15 playoff series and those that it selected incorrectly both came down to Game 7s.

Edited by RedWingsRox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course this is all fun and I'm sure you can pick apart any specific player rating for this or that. BUT does anyone else still not find it amazing that they are so accurate? If you check ESPN's or TSN's so called experts/commentators during the playoffs last year, they might have got 3/4 right and they'd be considered pretty damn good. EA outperforms any human commentator. Don't forget, many of those so called 'experts' get to pick at the beginning of the playoffs ie. knowing which 16 teams are in and after watching them play all season and knowing the latest injuries. I'm sure the geeks at EA plug in every conceivable factors into their computer simulation and run this umpteen times to get these avg or weighted results. I for one am impressed.

Here is their track record (listed at the beginning of the EA prediction page):

* Chicago Blackhawks would be the 2010 Stanley Cup Champions as they took home the Stanley Cup for the first time since 1961

* Vancouver Canucks would win the Presidents’ Trophy in the 2010-2011 NHL season

* Vancouver Canucks and Boston Bruins would meet in the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals

* 2011 NHL Playoffs would be a year of tight series, correctly selecting 13 of the 15 playoff series and those that it selected incorrectly both came down to Game 7s.

It is impressive, but a lot of this has to do with taking the human element out of decision making. If you ask someone a given question, you could get a different answer depending on when you ask. I suppose this is where mob mentality works well. Even if you assume that, say, Cam Ward is not a top 5 goalie in the league, what exactly is the difference between him and the guy who is #5? Maybe 1/1000th of a second that might allow in 2 goals a year? In this case, the weighted mob mentality is clearly better than asking one guy one time.

That isn't to say that EA's projections are to be undermined. Their track record is impressive. However, it isn't hard to see that Chicago was the best team in the league in 2010 or that Vancouver was going to win the West last year. And really, there was no more complete a team in the East than Boston. The last two years haven't been exactly difficult to preview, especially when you evaluate a team based on the caliber of each individual player as opposed to a sum total of the inputs. In that regard, it's hard not to be a fan of Nashville.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course this is all fun and I'm sure you can pick apart any specific player rating for this or that. BUT does anyone else still not find it amazing that they are so accurate? If you check ESPN's or TSN's so called experts/commentators during the playoffs last year, they might have got 3/4 right and they'd be considered pretty damn good. EA outperforms any human commentator. Don't forget, many of those so called 'experts' get to pick at the beginning of the playoffs ie. knowing which 16 teams are in and after watching them play all season and knowing the latest injuries. I'm sure the geeks at EA plug in every conceivable factor into their computer simulation and run this umpteen times to get these avg or weighted results. I for one am impressed.

Here is their track record (listed at the beginning of the EA prediction page):

* Chicago Blackhawks would be the 2010 Stanley Cup Champions as they took home the Stanley Cup for the first time since 1961

* Vancouver Canucks would win the Presidents’ Trophy in the 2010-2011 NHL season

* Vancouver Canucks and Boston Bruins would meet in the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals

* 2011 NHL Playoffs would be a year of tight series, correctly selecting 13 of the 15 playoff series and those that it selected incorrectly both came down to Game 7s.

A primate correctly selected the winners of almost every series a few years ago. What's your point?

I don't think it's fair to say they're always underrated. The wings always end up being one of the 3 or 4 best teams in the game and for 4 straight years Datsyuk has been the 2nd best player in the game, including this year where he is rated 93 and Crosby is rated 94.

That really doesn't make him one of the best players in the game. Some stats don't really mean as much as others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A primate correctly selected the winners of almost every series a few years ago. What's your point?

Picking the winner of a series (when given who the two teams are) is a 50/50 proposition. Picking who wins the Stanley Cup (2010), President's Trophy winner, or the finalists of a SCF is a total different statistical exercise. If you don't know the difference, you are the primate or Neanderthal.

greenrebellion likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Picking the winner of a series (when given who the two teams are) is a 50/50 proposition. Picking who wins the Stanley Cup (2010), President's Trophy winner, or the finalists of a SCF is a total different statistical exercise. If you don't know the difference, you are the primate or Neanderthal.

Not to mention when a game claims itself to be the most realistic in the world and puts its money where its mouth is, that is impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had Boston in six last year since the beginning of the season over Vancouver. Granted it took seven, but where is my, "Expert," contract from TSN. <_<:hehe:

I'll make some calls ph34r.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Penguins are slated to go very far into the playoffs every single year in the EA games, for the simple fact that their players are always horrendously overpowered in the game. For example, the Pens` #1 defenseman (Gonchar or Letang) over the last three renditions has always been rated higher than Lidstrom; Fleury is always rated at #3 or higher in goalie ratings (he's #1 this year, for no apparent reason); and Crosby is always given the ratings of a god. Crosby, this year, has higher defensive awareness than Datsyuk. I don't know where that came from. I can only assume that EA wanted to make him a god-mode forward. Whatever the case, the ratings are nonsense, and thus so is this prediction.

Edit: I forgot to mention that the Wings are also habitually underrated by EA. For example, Helm had an 82 for speed for a long while last season; Lidstrom is always given a fairly weak shot, at least in comparison to the other elite scoring D-men; Holmstrom has a deflections rating of only 82; Datsyuk is only a bit above average in stick-checking; and so on. I don't know who does these ratings, but he or she loves the Penguins and dislikes the Red Wings... and rarely watches the Red Wings play, apparently.

:huh:... What the hell?

Those are all just flat out wrong.

I have to admit that Crosby makes more than an honest effort in his defensive game. He fights hard on the backcheck and is overall a damn good defensive player but higher defensive awareness than Datsyuk?

And Lidstrom a weak shot? That's preposterous if that includes accuracy. If it's just power then yeah, he's no Chara or Weber. But in terms of accuracy Nick is still as good as anyone if not better.

And Datsyuk only a bit above average in stick-checking? The same Datsyuk who racks up the takeaways in which for one year singlehandedly (imo) won him a Selke?

Helm... Seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how the simulation would have turned out without Crosby paying at all.

After work today I may just go home and remove Mr. Crosby from the game and run a season simulation, you know just to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This year I've noticed a big difference in the stick handling skills of lower rated players, like Helm and Abby. If I get breakouts or scoring chances with room they typically lose the puck in more advanced dekes. Whereas players like Pasha and Z don't have that problem. You would have thought EA would have had more weight on those attributes than stats, but this is the first year I've seen a noticeable difference.

I've always wondered if there was a bit of bias in the stats as well. There has to be some subjectivity if a human is involved with rating them. EA Canada develops the game. Not saying they really do try to favor players in the game, but I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't just a little influence in some direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This year I've noticed a big difference in the stick handling skills of lower rated players, like Helm and Abby. If I get breakouts or scoring chances with room they typically lose the puck in more advanced dekes. Whereas players like Pasha and Z don't have that problem. You would have thought EA would have had more weight on those attributes than stats, but this is the first year I've seen a noticeable difference.

I've always wondered if there was a bit of bias in the stats as well. There has to be some subjectivity if a human is involved with rating them. EA Canada develops the game. Not saying they really do try to favor players in the game, but I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't just a little influence in some direction.

NHL 12 is a general mess. It has big problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0