FT shooting is a little high, but IMO FG% is a bigger problem - most worlds and divisions have 25+ teams shooting over 53% from the field. That's much too high. There's a team in Crum DI shooting 58% through 12 games. That needs to be tweaked as much as the FTs.

Posted by mullycj on 1/5/2011 11:23:00 AM (view original):
my current LSSU team - maybe its all random. Just seems like more players are shooting higher than their grades. Numbers below show otherwise


Name......................FT rating........% per Iquana .........HD %
Anthony Gillison, A- , 81-84%, 88% (too high)
Casey Barry, C+ , 69-72%, 82% (too high)
David Fall, B, 78-78%, 82% (too high)
David Roberts, B+, 78-81%, 77% (low)
Freddy Thompson, B-, 72-75%, 63% (too low)
George Alden, B, 75-78%, 74% (low)
Michael Wilson, C, 66-69%, 69% (OK)
Warren Wesley, B-, 72-75%, 50% (too low)
Wesley Simmons, B+, 78-81%, 80% (OK)
William Pritt, C+, 69-72%, 78% (too high)

given the sample size, we cannot conclude that its anything more than randomness. over 1000+FT's the percentages could very well fall into iguana's ranges.

at the same time, so what if they don't match iguana's chart?

so long as ft% distribution in HD is similar to that in real life, i dont see any big issue. it would purely become a matter of how accurate the ft grades are and how accurate they should be.

Except that ft% in HD is higher than real life.

Posted by treyomo on 1/5/2011 11:25:00 AM (view original):
FT shooting is a little high, but IMO FG% is a bigger problem - most worlds and divisions have 25+ teams shooting over 53% from the field. That's much too high. There's a team in Crum DI shooting 58% through 12 games. That needs to be tweaked as much as the FTs.

Yeah ....seble says it is on his agenda. but I agree with that 100%

Posted by mullycj on 1/5/2011 10:37:00 AM (view original):
dac - Im not comparing to real life. Im comparing the actual FT%s to the players FT grades/ratings.

There is a chart that shows what each FT% each grade equals for incoming FR. It seems players are now shooting above what they should be. Don't know if it is a logic error or not.

I know there is a chart. The chart was compiled by someone who analyzed a bunch of data and determined what the letters meant compared to percentages. It seems that chart is out of date, like many other charts, tools, official game help and faq files, etc. I don't know that the game needs to be overhauled for a few % points of FT increase across the board (meaning it seems to be affecting everyone about the same, right). Maybe someone just needs to make a new chart?

Way to overdramatize ...who said anything about overhauling the game?

the numbers being used are the FT% of high school recruits and the comparable grade you should expect when they arrive on campus.

When looking at the HD stats of my 15 starters on my three teams, 12 of the 15 are within 3 points of those expected FT ranges (ie.. if you expand the B grade from 75%-78%  +/- 3 points to  72%-81%).  The other 3 are slightly below where they would be expected.  

Posted by mullycj on 1/5/2011 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Way to overdramatize ...who said anything about overhauling the game?

ok, perhaps overhaul is too strong? How about, I don't see any reason to modify the game at all regarding this issue if it affects everyone equally and the only impact is an incorrect cheat sheet created by the users.

Posted by dacj501 on 1/5/2011 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 1/5/2011 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Way to overdramatize ...who said anything about overhauling the game?

ok, perhaps overhaul is too strong? How about, I don't see any reason to modify the game at all regarding this issue if it affects everyone equally and the only impact is an incorrect cheat sheet created by the users.

"NO error" affects everyone equally, no matter what the error is. Coaches (even smart ones like yourself) have the toughest time understanding this.

For example, an error where FT%s are higher than they should be would favor teams that play zone vs. teams that play FCP. Zone teams, on average, foul much less than FCP teams and would be hurt less by inflated FT%s.

For every type of concievable error, there will be a style of team it helps and a style of team that hurts.

Posted by Iguana1 on 1/5/2011 2:18:00 PM (view original):
the numbers being used are the FT% of high school recruits and the comparable grade you should expect when they arrive on campus.

When looking at the HD stats of my 15 starters on my three teams, 12 of the 15 are within 3 points of those expected FT ranges (ie.. if you expand the B grade from 75%-78%  +/- 3 points to  72%-81%).  The other 3 are slightly below where they would be expected.  

Thanks Ig.
This may be a case of my perception vs reality

Posted by girt25 on 1/5/2011 12:16:00 PM (view original):
Except that ft% in HD is higher than real life.

except that...i know and it should be adjusted.

Posted by mullycj on 1/5/2011 3:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 1/5/2011 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 1/5/2011 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Way to overdramatize ...who said anything about overhauling the game?

ok, perhaps overhaul is too strong? How about, I don't see any reason to modify the game at all regarding this issue if it affects everyone equally and the only impact is an incorrect cheat sheet created by the users.

"NO error" affects everyone equally, no matter what the error is. Coaches (even smart ones like yourself) have the toughest time understanding this.

For example, an error where FT%s are higher than they should be would favor teams that play zone vs. teams that play FCP. Zone teams, on average, foul much less than FCP teams and would be hurt less by inflated FT%s.

For every type of concievable error, there will be a style of team it helps and a style of team that hurts.

why is it automatically an error because it is different than it was before?

You are right.

I am working under 2 assumptions :
1) The recruit FT%s which are converted to grades when the players are added to our rosters haven't changed in the new engine. (ie Iguana's chart is stil valid)
2) Seble didn't intentionally change the % chance for making a FT for each letter grade.


But back to the original post on the thread, it may be that that new recuits are coming in with better FT grades and more upside in potential which are leading to higher overall %s. This part is totally under Seble's discretion.

PS - grats on your undefeated season. Quite an accomplishment

so either the players are shooting better for their grades, the players have higher grades and are thus shooting better, or it could be the same as before and its just a random fluctuation.

Posted by mullycj on 1/5/2011 3:44:00 PM (view original):
You are right.

I am working under 2 assumptions :
1) The recruit FT%s which are converted to grades when the players are added to our rosters haven't changed in the new engine. (ie Iguana's chart is stil valid)
2) Seble didn't intentionally change the % chance for making a FT for each letter grade.


But back to the original post on the thread, it may be that that new recuits are coming in with better FT grades and more upside in potential which are leading to higher overall %s. This part is totally under Seble's discretion.

PS - grats on your undefeated season. Quite an accomplishment

It may be an unintended consequence of more recruits with high potential in recruiting than before, but if that's the case I'd still be in favor of not messing with it. 

(thnx!)