Tuesday, February 17, 2009
1:00 PM - 2:00 PM EST
The LIVE portion of this chat will begin on
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 at 1:00 PM EST.
We're working on some changes to player improvement related to potential. This is your chance to ask about the new changes and talk about potential in general.
hi seble. thanks once again for your chat the other day. can we look to a future where potential is more diverse? some players growing fast and slow at all age levels? some slow and steady all the way to graduation? (zhawks - Hall of Famer - 1:05 PM)
Potential and improvement are already pretty diverse. Improvement depends on practice time, playing time, work ethic, and potential. It's possible we'll add a little randomness to the process to make it less predictable.
Seble, the only issue I have with HD is the hard cap on certain skills. Understandable that a player can only get so much faster and/or stronger, but skills such as BH, PE, P, REB, etc. should always improve somewhat as long as you continue to work on them. (i.e. I could become great at boxing out and positioning myself but my ATH would limit me from becoming the next Dwight Howard). Can we expect to see a modest increase in certain areas as long as we work on them? (chewchad - Hall of Famer - 1:09 PM)
The hard caps are meant to emulate physical limitations. So we have no plans to remove the hard caps. But you will see slower development as a player nears his max potential.
My probelem with the changes is the relativity. If you recruit a center in D1 with a 55 LP and high potential, why would he max out at the mid 60's. If he has high potentil he should max out in the 90's. Thanks (hofhof - Hall of Famer - 1:14 PM)
Potential is based on how much room they have to improve, not necessarily where they'll end up. For example, a guy with 30 rebounding and 60 max rebounding and a guy with 60 rebounding and 90 max rebounding would both be considered High potential in rebounding. There's also a fairly wide range of max improvement within each Low/Average/High division, especially in High. You'll have to observe his improvement to really know when he's starting to cap out.
With potential in place, can you be specific as to what role work ethic now plays? (creilmann - Hall of Famer - 1:16 PM)
Work ethic has and always will be a factor in how quickly a player develops. The upcoming change will likely increase the importance of work ethic compared to the current model. My feeling is that a low work ethic player would have to get a lot of game and practice time to reach his max in a high potential area by the time he graduates.
Will the changes in rate of growth affect what players have gained in the past, or will the changes be for everything from that date forward? (Thanks for all that you guys do and keep up the good work.) (KSBeachBums - Hall of Famer - 1:17 PM)
The change will not affect any previous improvement.
It seems like potential initially helped to close the gap between lower prestige teams and higher prestige teams. Will this change widen that gap? (tanzetti - Hall of Famer - 1:20 PM)
I'm not sure it really closes that gap or is even meant to. High prestige teams will always have an advantage, but I think a coach at a lower prestige school has to be smarter when recruiting in order to close the gap.
While the "spreading out" of the increase among players is a start, I'm FAR more concerned with the fact that guys with "High Potential" and "Big Upside" are "maxing out" at lower increases than regular guys under the old system. A 25-30 point increase and then done is jack squat compared to just a regular guy under the old system. (billyho1515 - Hall of Famer - 1:22 PM)
It really depends on the player. There may end up being fewer truly elite players, but all coaches are recruiting the same players and working under the same improvement system. There are still plenty of guys with the potential to be great.
When this slowdown in player progression is implemented, will players that are currently "capped" be given a little room to improve or will they stay "capped"? (creilmann - Hall of Famer - 1:24 PM)
This change won't address potential, just how quickly players improve. There will still be a hard cap.
Is there anything that can be addressed in regard to the acoach emails? "stop practicing FTs, stop BH, stop PA, stop PE..." There is no way irl that we'd get an email suggesting that we stop practicing REB for a post player or jump shots for a SG. I have a C practicing virutally no minutes on REB and LP, but 20 in PE and BH! Seems silly. (Rails - Hall of Famer - 1:26 PM)
The emails don't tell you to stop practicing that area, just to not use extra minutes there. In other words, keep enough minutes there to prevent decrease, but put anything beyond that in another area. With that said, with development slowing you'll get fewer of those emails hopefully.
Having such low hard caps for key categories really makes it harder on lower prestige schools. I thought potential would increase a lower prestige school's ability to compete by coach's ability to find high potential diamonds in the rough, but with low caps it seems the opposite is true. Is this a concern? Thanks. (hofhof - Hall of Famer - 1:28 PM)
Every player is different. I don't think it's correct to say that caps are low in key categories. There are plenty of guys with loads of potential in key areas.
In DII and DIII at least, SFs seem to be taking a hit with potential. SFs almost never have HIGH or AVG in all the key areas you need a SF to be good in. An RS season doesn't do much except allow them to reach the caps earlier. Slowing improvement doesn't help either - since the biggest issue is not having HIGH/AVG in all the ratings a SF needs. Is there a plan to change the starting potential ratings of SFs? It seems impossible to develop a SF now due to the caps and low/avg ratings in key areas. (jjboogie - Hall of Famer - 1:30 PM)
DII and especially DIII recruits will generally have lower potential. That's true to real life. Most guys that have legitimately high potential will go to a DI school. It's possible we'll make some tweaks to player creation and potential down the road.
When we receive an email from our assistant coaches saying we are wasting practice minutes, does this mean the at the potential, or near the potential (ie does the player still have a point or two to improve or is he done)? (armst24 - Hall of Famer - 1:31 PM)
It means you are close to the max potential. They may still improve a bit, but not much.
Was Charles Schulz correct when he said "There is no greater burden than great potential." (fd343ny - Hall of Famer - 1:32 PM)
Yes. Yes he was.
Is there anyway to shut off the assistant coach suggestions for player practice time? I find them annoying. (lebronfeldt - Hall of Famer - 1:33 PM)
There's no way to turn them off, but you should start getting fewer of them after the change. We may look into some changes to them in the future.
It was stated in a previous Dev Chat that there would be better explainations of potential ie. High-High, Med-High, Low-High in the Scouting Trip feedback. Can we ever expect to see that? (Weena - Hall of Famer - 1:36 PM)
That's been in there for some time. There are very subtle differences in wording that indicate more specific levels of potential. I understand it's difficult to pick up sometimes, so we may look at alternatives or more explicit wording.
can you talk about the rate of change in skill ratings - it used to be that ratings that were low - single digits - or high - 90+ or even 85+ changed only very very slowly. 1. is that still true? 2. does the rate of change slow as a player gets close to his potential cap? 3. will that be more so or less so with the newest change? (metsmax - Hall of Famer - 1:38 PM)
It's now much easier to improve low rated categories than it was in the pre-potential days. The rate of improvement does slow as they near their max potential.
One of the most frustrating things since this new change is recruiting a player with High potential in a skill and then seeing that skill as an Average or Low in the 1st AC feedback after exhibition games. Any chance that we can eliminate this so we can actually get what we recruit? (Weena - Hall of Famer - 1:39 PM)
Both indications are correct. A player who is right on the border of two categories may change if he improves during the first couple of practices and exhibition games.
Recruiting begins in World-4 the 18th. Will the changes be in effect for this class on incoming recruits? (jebtucker - All-Star - 1:41 PM)
Since the upcoming change will not impact player creation, it doesn't really matter when it's released. It will impact all players who were created after the initial release of potential.
Why don't you let potential work the current way for 4 full seasons so everyone enjoys the same benefit. As it stands now, schools that had large recruiting classes during the "potential" era would have a big advantage over those who didn't if it ls switched off after only 2 seasons. (vegaskevin - Hall of Famer - 1:45 PM)
There's not a huge advantage to be had. Some players have progressed more quickly than they should have, but they still can't exceed their max. I don't think waiting really makes that much difference, and I'd rather address the issue as soon as possible. Most teams have probably recruited at least half their rosters with potential by now.
Is it possible to have the "thoughts on players" email to include all skills even if their potential is "average?" As is the "average" areas are omitted. With 12 players on the report, we would be able to scan it more quickly and identify those "average" areas that can be improved upon instead of trying to figure out by process of elimination what categories aren't listed for a player. It's a formatting issue. I think it could be more user-friendly. Thanks. (Rails - Hall of Famer - 1:47 PM)
We probably won't do that just because it adds a lot of text to those already long messages. But we may look into other ways to convey that information outside of an inbox message.
WE used to have a direct impact on off-season improvement. Why has that changed to where 90+ WE players often drop in the off-season? (Weena - Hall of Famer - 1:49 PM)
Work ethic still plays a part in offseason change, but I have gotten a few comments about that. It's something I'll have to check into.
are the potential indicators measured the same way for all skills and all positions or are they measured differently? if a kid is at 20 in ATH and has the potential to get to 40 is his potential indicator the same whether he is a PG or a C? is the indicator the same for ATH as it would be for DUR if those were the applicable numbers? (fd343ny - Hall of Famer - 1:50 PM)
Yes, it's the same regardless of position or rating category.
How important is Work Ethic? If a recruit has a 63 WE, will he develop better than one with a 12 WE? (madmandali - Veteran - 1:50 PM)
It's always been a factor, but will likely be more important after the upcoming change.
should we be thinking of the potential measures - high, low, average - as percentage indicators or arithmetic indicators...is a potential cap of 4 on a guy who is now at 2 "high" because it is 100% increase or low because it is just an increase of 2? compare to a guy who is at 50 and has potential to get to 70? (fd343ny - Hall of Famer - 1:52 PM)
They are based on an actual number of points, not a percentage.
Is there anyway to randomize when a player improves? Example would be a player makes big improvement his junior year while another player improves his sophomore year. (lebronfeldt - Hall of Famer - 1:52 PM)
That's something we may look at doing down the road. We'd like to get this change out the door and see how it works out first.
When will this change take affect? Will players already on our roster be affected? (wilhitec - Hall of Famer - 1:54 PM)
I'm hoping to have this change ready this week, but it could be pushed back until next week. It will not affect current ratings or potential for existing players, but will affect how quickly they improve.
Hopefully that helped shed some light on potential and improvement. Thanks to everyone who submitted questions.