cal_bears, you've made a lot of generalizations about what "everybody will want" and "nobody will miss" that I know I don't agree with.  Maybe you should narrow your verbage a bit?  Because believe it or not, not everybody agrees with you.  I routinely recruit centers with solid cores and single-digit work ethic and I think they are both realistic recruits and do what I would anticipate they should do.  I think every rating should go from 1-100; otherwise they wouldn't span the whole spectrum of college players.  And I think there are definitely real players who have focuses other than basketball.  If you don't think they're good enough to play college ball, don't recruit them.  Not all of the recruits generated get signed, obviously.

I've recruited guys with low WE.  I'm scouting a few right now who have good cores.  I have one on my team at PG with low WE.

But that's a bit different from having a WE of 1.  I probabably wouldn't have even mentioned this except I've seen 3 or 4 of these guys during scouting for my two teams, and IMO at least they ought to be more rare.  If seb's gen is based on a bell curve, most players should be distributed within predictable limits on either side of the mean, modified by whatever positional factors he includes (minus BH for bigs, plus BH for guards for example).  

I'm just questioning whether the number of 1 WE players I'm seeing is, in fact, within a normal distribution.  My question is a subjective one, obviously.  I'm not claiming any scientific basis for the observation.

/geek

Okay, debater, go around up the "we want rating regression" posse.

Mets, I didn't say it was impossible to get worse as a player.  I am saying the nature of the 1 WE player is impossible.  This seems obvious. 

Posted by cal_bears on 4/30/2011 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Okay, debater, go around up the "we want rating regression" posse.

Mets, I didn't say it was impossible to get worse as a player.  I am saying the nature of the 1 WE player is impossible.  This seems obvious. 

er, quoting:

Yes, you all have cited the stupidity and actually impossibility of the HD players with 1 WE.  How did the players get to the point they are at when recruited if they then decline over four years?  It is not possible.

What is the "it" in "it is not possible"??  sure did read like it meant decline over four years......if that isnt what you meant, then what is not possible?  not possible to have a number on the bottom of the scale?  why?  what is obvious other than the fact that you dont like players to decline in ratings.....

easy answer - dont recruit them

beyond that, what you have said about WE and regression is no more than "I dislike this and therefore, obviously, it is a bad thing"

I don't see what is so hard to grasp.  Of course it is possible in HD that a player can get worse over the course of four years.  It exists.  I am saying such a player in real life does not exist.  Nobody has the work ethic in real life to get their ratings up to the point they are at the start of college, then with the same work ethic begin to see them regress.

Well, mets already gave an example to the contrary in this thread.  So you stick to your guns, but you're not right.  And as I pointed out, players in D2 and D3 often have less time for basketball in college than they did in high school and definitely sometimes regress or progress very little over the course of a career.  I grew up in Central Pennsylvania around a lot of D3 basketball and the better programs who got stronger recruits often had minimal to no talent differential between the seniors and the freshmen.

I am not saying players do not get worse at what they do sometimes.  I am addressing the logic of the 1 WE as stated before:  Nobody has the work ethic in real life to get their ratings up to the point they are at the start of college, then with the same work ethic begin to see them regress.

Who says their work ethic stayed the same the whole time?

Exactly, uconnut, you see my point and raise a good one of your own.  In real life these kids that regress probably have a change in work ethic (in HD speak).  But in HD, the players are "born" with 1 WE and sometimes decent ratings.  Are we to read these players as being on a slide for a few years?  And that with 1 WE it is an irreversible slide?  With 20 WE it is a remediable slide?  That makes the WE ratings more interesting and subtle, a substance I doubt WIS conceived of.  I can accept this though.

Would you prefer to have guys show up as recruits with 40 or 50 WE and then once they get to college realize they don't really love the game that much after all and have it slip back into the single digits?  Maybe that would be more realistic, but do you think it would be better for the game?  In reality their ratings might change over the summer, too, but I think the whole recruiting process works better with the ratings during recruiting being the ones they report to the team with...

guess I'll just leave it that I dont agree - and I dont think what calbears is saying makes much sense - whatever it is that you are now saying isnt possible in HD or real life or something

debater, yes you are a debater, but I will not debate with some one who did not get the obvious point.  You are not trying mets.

Calbears-there have to be 1 WE players on the spectrum somewhere because all the ratings are relative. Also, I know a kid who was extremely athletic and he would essentially sit out of practice and couldn't have cared less about anything to do with developing his game. He was recruited by small d3 schools. I would 100% describe him as a 1 WE player, they are definitely out there.

Funny how I'm the one who doesn't get "the obvious point" but most people seem to agree with me more than you...

Posted by cal_bears on 4/30/2011 9:53:00 PM (view original):
Exactly, uconnut, you see my point and raise a good one of your own.  In real life these kids that regress probably have a change in work ethic (in HD speak).  But in HD, the players are "born" with 1 WE and sometimes decent ratings.  Are we to read these players as being on a slide for a few years?  And that with 1 WE it is an irreversible slide?  With 20 WE it is a remediable slide?  That makes the WE ratings more interesting and subtle, a substance I doubt WIS conceived of.  I can accept this though.

i wasn't agreeing with you.   say, the guy worked hard enough to get college teams interested in him, then decided, as he left high school, that he was just all that and a bag of chips and didn't need to work anymore.  why do you have a problem accepting that someone might have been good enough to play college ball but kind of backs into it and slacks off.  you have players that are looked at as 'potential nba material in elementary school.  why is it hard to believe that a kid like that could just decide he's so talented that he can just coast and not try - and in high school, could get away with it?  their work ethic as a recruit is a snapshot of where they are when they are being recruited, not where they were throughout high school.