Free Throw Potential and Improvement Topic

pepwaves
Posts: 596 (0)
Hall of Famer
120
Rookie
For all you HD vets, pros, and even newbies...

Is there any consensus (or at least some sort of agreement) regarding how much improvement you can expect to see in a player with Low, Average, and High potential for FT shooting? 

I have two players that we can examine:

www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx

- Gilford started with a B- grade and HIGH potential
- After one season of between 11-15 practice minutes, he has a B grade and the "player thoughts" email lists him with Average potential now.

www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx

- Johnson started with a C grade and Average potential.
- After one season of 14-15 practice minutes, he has a C+ grade and is down to Low potential.

It's silly for me to make any conclusions based upon this very very small sample size. But, for the sake of discussion, it seems that players may improve 1/3 of a grade for each level of potential. Players starting with High potential may improve between 2/3 of a grade to one letter grade (i.e. from B- to A-). Players with Average potential may improve between 1/3 of a grade to 2/3 of a grade (i.e. C to B-). And finally, players with Low potential may only improve 1/3 of a letter grade or not at all.

Is this consistent with your experience? Have you ever seen players who improve a whole letter grade or more? 

I really just want to get a sense of what High, Average, and Low potential actually means for FT grade. How much improvement can we expect? And perhaps for another discussion, how many practice minutes are required to reach a player's maximum potential?









4/19/2011 2:06 PM
wsut
Posts: 224 (0)
Hall of Famer
72 2 2
Prospect
Player thoughts is bullshit, they dont even list all the ratings. Had an international who I signed as a wildcard that didn't list anything for ath and he appears to be high-high in that regard. The reason why Gilford gained so little is because he got less than 10 minutes of PT in his first year. A general rule of thumb is to try everything in your power to get all your players at least 10 minutes in their first year or their growth becomes somewhat stunted unless they have a work ethic in the 60-99 range. The more they play, the faster they gain. 

All of this depends on work ethic, but let's say with a 50 work ethic and starting at a C-, this is what I would expect.

High = Anywhere from A- to A
Average = B- to B+, possibly A- if you play him enough
Low = C- to C+, possibly B- if you play him enough

fyi, if you have any other questions, feel free to sitemail me. 

4/19/2011 3:09 PM (edited)
pajamainc
Posts: 232 (0)
Hall of Famer
362 6 4 1 9
Rookie
The ratings that they don't list are all considered Average.
4/19/2011 3:09 PM
wsut
Posts: 224 (0)
Hall of Famer
72 2 2
Prospect
Posted by pajamainc on 4/19/2011 3:09:00 PM (view original):
The ratings that they don't list are all considered Average.
That's what I thought too, but this guy is not even through nonconference play and he's already gained 4 defense (not ath, my mistake). He does have a high work ethic, but I got nothing in the player thoughts e-mail telling me he had big upside with defense. 

EDIT: Checked my player thoughts e-mail from last season and it said he had big upside with his defense. He was an ineligible so he gained nothing last year. This year's player thoughts e-mail omitted the defense tidbit. 

http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=1808629


4/19/2011 3:12 PM
pepwaves
Posts: 596 (0)
Hall of Famer
120
Rookie
Posted by wsut on 4/19/2011 3:09:00 PM (view original):
Player thoughts is bullshit, they dont even list all the ratings. Had an international who I signed as a wildcard that didn't list anything for ath and he appears to be high-high in that regard. The reason why Gilford gained so little is because he got less than 10 minutes of PT in his first year. A general rule of thumb is to try everything in your power to get all your players at least 10 minutes in their first year or their growth becomes somewhat stunted unless they have a work ethic in the 60-99 range. The more they play, the faster they gain. 

All of this depends on work ethic, but let's say with a 50 work ethic and starting at a C-, this is what I would expect.

High = Anywhere from A- to A
Average = B- to B+, possibly A- if you play him enough
Low = C- to C+, possibly B- if you play him enough

fyi, if you have any other questions, feel free to sitemail me. 

Wow, so you're saying it's possible to gain at least 2 full grades with High potential? That is huge improvement...much greater than I expected. Have you seen this before with any of your players? 

Also, regarding Gilford and the 10 minutes...he ended up gaining about 45 overall points from his freshman year to the beginning of his sophomore year. So you think his growth will be stunted from here on out? He'll get about 20+ minutes this year. Also, does that 10 minute rule affect redshirts? 

Thanks for the feedback!

Any other thoughts regarding FT shooting potential and improvement? What have you all seen in your experience?
4/19/2011 3:28 PM
wsut
Posts: 224 (0)
Hall of Famer
72 2 2
Prospect
Posted by pepwaves on 4/19/2011 3:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by wsut on 4/19/2011 3:09:00 PM (view original):
Player thoughts is bullshit, they dont even list all the ratings. Had an international who I signed as a wildcard that didn't list anything for ath and he appears to be high-high in that regard. The reason why Gilford gained so little is because he got less than 10 minutes of PT in his first year. A general rule of thumb is to try everything in your power to get all your players at least 10 minutes in their first year or their growth becomes somewhat stunted unless they have a work ethic in the 60-99 range. The more they play, the faster they gain. 

All of this depends on work ethic, but let's say with a 50 work ethic and starting at a C-, this is what I would expect.

High = Anywhere from A- to A
Average = B- to B+, possibly A- if you play him enough
Low = C- to C+, possibly B- if you play him enough

fyi, if you have any other questions, feel free to sitemail me. 

Wow, so you're saying it's possible to gain at least 2 full grades with High potential? That is huge improvement...much greater than I expected. Have you seen this before with any of your players? 

Also, regarding Gilford and the 10 minutes...he ended up gaining about 45 overall points from his freshman year to the beginning of his sophomore year. So you think his growth will be stunted from here on out? He'll get about 20+ minutes this year. Also, does that 10 minute rule affect redshirts? 

Thanks for the feedback!

Any other thoughts regarding FT shooting potential and improvement? What have you all seen in your experience?
I would say the high range is more like B or B+ to A now that I think about it more. and yes, I've seen it with my players before. It used to be almost completely useless to put practice into FT time but in the new engine that's no longer the case.

When I said stunted, it just means he will take longer to get where he could potentially end up. Giving a player at least 10 minutes keeps him on a normal growth cycle (depending on his potential), giving him less than 10 means he will simply get to his peak a lot later in his career. If you give him 8 minutes in year 1, and 15-20 minutes in year 2, he will be fine. I just like to give all my players at least 10 minutes if possible. 

Redshirts will gain based on their potential and work ethic alone. They would obviously gain more if they were playing significant minutes but it's a great option when you have a potential logjam at a position. It can also be used to balance out your classes so you don't have more than 1 guy at the same position that are the same year. Anything gained off a redshirt year is merely a bonus to when they begin playing. 
4/19/2011 3:59 PM (edited)
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
Low I'm convinced there is no reason to even put minutes into, it will never go up and never go down. Average you might see 2/3 letter grade improvement I'm guessing whereas high you could see 2+ letters of improvement. I have a guy on my Arkansas team who is currently at A- and came in no higher than C+.
4/19/2011 4:25 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
"Player thoughts is bullshit"

I mean, that's just wrong.
4/19/2011 8:00 PM
wsut
Posts: 224 (0)
Hall of Famer
72 2 2
Prospect
Posted by isack24 on 4/19/2011 8:00:00 PM (view original):
"Player thoughts is bullshit"

I mean, that's just wrong.
Should have said *CAN BE* bullshit. 
4/19/2011 8:07 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect

If you truly think the guy is high/high and it can back as average, you should send a ticket.  I've never noticed a serious problem with player thoughts.  Not to say, of course, that there has never been one. 

As for FT, I think km is pretty close.

4/19/2011 8:15 PM
pepwaves
Posts: 596 (0)
Hall of Famer
120
Rookie
"Low I'm convinced there is no reason to even put minutes into, it will never go up and never go down."

Km, do you think this is true even in offseason losses and gains? 

I'm wondering because one of my players had low potential in FT shooting according to the player thoughts email and I also received the email stating he had maxed out. So, I gave him 7 or 8 practice minutes in FT shooting the rest of the year, and in the offseason his FT grade went down to an A from an A+. It quickly went back up this year after giving him 11 practice minutes.

So, I guess I'm asking if you think the offseason loss was due to practice minutes or just random loss. (I should note, though, that this player's WE was/is 79).

Here's his player card: www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx

By the way, great thoughts/feedback in this thread. Thanks and keep it coming!
4/19/2011 9:06 PM
oldwarrior
Posts: 502 (0)
Hall of Famer
278
Rookie
I'm assuming:
LOW :  improvement =  0 - 1/3 grade
AVERAGE : improve =  1/3 - 2/3
HIGH : improvement = 2/3 - 5/3


absolutely no way have I ever seen a low potential player gain a full letter grade.  Not even if he starts and plays 40 minutes a game for 4 seasons.
4/19/2011 9:20 PM
dacj501
Posts: 4779 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 305
Pro
Does anyone know what the grades mean in real numbers in the new engine after the tweaks?
4/19/2011 11:45 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10043 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 293 18
Pro
They still mean the same thing.  Seble just made the players have slightly lower grades on average.
4/19/2011 11:49 PM
_hannibal_
Posts: 455 (0)
Veteran
23
Prospect
Posted by wsut on 4/19/2011 3:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pajamainc on 4/19/2011 3:09:00 PM (view original):
The ratings that they don't list are all considered Average.
That's what I thought too, but this guy is not even through nonconference play and he's already gained 4 defense (not ath, my mistake). He does have a high work ethic, but I got nothing in the player thoughts e-mail telling me he had big upside with defense. 

EDIT: Checked my player thoughts e-mail from last season and it said he had big upside with his defense. He was an ineligible so he gained nothing last year. This year's player thoughts e-mail omitted the defense tidbit. 

http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=1808629


Ineligibles DO gain (or lose) from off-season improvements between their freshman and sophomore years.  An extra set of off-season improvements is one of the advantages of an ineligible.  So it is entirely possible that the guy in question came in at 48 and is capped at 69 leading to high potential report when recruited, gained 2 points of DEF in the off-season to get to 50 (not unreasonable for a guy with an 80 WE) and is now average potential, although the upper edge of average.

4/20/2011 9:31 AM
Free Throw Potential and Improvement Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.