another newbie question here. i just received an email titled "player thoughts" that outlines my assitant coach's views on upside potential for my players. my question being, is this information pretty accurate? can i set practice minutes based on these evaluations? especially for the guys on my team that i did not recruit, so im not sure of their growth potential? im asking, mainly because i know in GD when i get emails from my assistant coach during the season about potential recruits for next season...i just delete them because they are worthless. thanks for any responses

Posted by andrew5975 on 11/1/2011 7:37:00 PM (view original):
another newbie question here. i just received an email titled "player thoughts" that outlines my assitant coach's views on upside potential for my players. my question being, is this information pretty accurate? can i set practice minutes based on these evaluations? especially for the guys on my team that i did not recruit, so im not sure of their growth potential? im asking, mainly because i know in GD when i get emails from my assistant coach during the season about potential recruits for next season...i just delete them because they are worthless. thanks for any responses

Yea the assistant coach email is the one to rely on. Its always accurate and you should definitely use it to set your practice minutes.

thanks blackdog...and can i assume that since that email only has "big upside" and "limited upside" categories listed for every player...that the "unlisted" categories from that email are average upside?

That's exactly right. Unlisted means average potential.

thanks guys for the help

if i have a guard who has limited upside in both defense and shot blocking, but big upside in low post...do i have to put significant minutes into practicing both footwork and low post to see his low post attribute rise (because footwork is supposed to improve defense, shot blocking and low post) or can i just focus on practicing low post?

Just low post.

thanks dahs

Posted by andrew5975 on 11/2/2011 2:39:00 AM (view original):
if i have a guard who has limited upside in both defense and shot blocking, but big upside in low post...do i have to put significant minutes into practicing both footwork and low post to see his low post attribute rise (because footwork is supposed to improve defense, shot blocking and low post) or can i just focus on practicing low post?

In general, the overwhelming majority of footwork goes towards improving defense. It has only a very minimal effect on the other two.

Posted by girt25 on 11/2/2011 7:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by andrew5975 on 11/2/2011 2:39:00 AM (view original):
if i have a guard who has limited upside in both defense and shot blocking, but big upside in low post...do i have to put significant minutes into practicing both footwork and low post to see his low post attribute rise (because footwork is supposed to improve defense, shot blocking and low post) or can i just focus on practicing low post?

In general, the overwhelming majority of footwork goes towards improving defense. It has only a very minimal effect on the other two.

You may have misspoke there girt, FW has minimal impact on LP but improves SB the same rate as it does DEF.

Posted by narcotico on 11/2/2011 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 11/2/2011 7:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by andrew5975 on 11/2/2011 2:39:00 AM (view original):
if i have a guard who has limited upside in both defense and shot blocking, but big upside in low post...do i have to put significant minutes into practicing both footwork and low post to see his low post attribute rise (because footwork is supposed to improve defense, shot blocking and low post) or can i just focus on practicing low post?

In general, the overwhelming majority of footwork goes towards improving defense. It has only a very minimal effect on the other two.

You may have misspoke there girt, FW has minimal impact on LP but improves SB the same rate as it does DEF.

Why do you think that is the case?

That has certainly been much closer to my experience than what you said.  In general with similar potential I might expect a point or two more growth in defense than SB, but that's all.  I certainly not describe defense as receiving "the overwhelming majority" of the focus.  I recently had a center graduate who had a total career growth of 34 points of defense and 37 of SB.  His freshman year he grew 17 in DEF and 16 in SB.  So I'd say the rates are pretty darn close.

Posted by dahsdebater on 11/2/2011 6:24:00 PM (view original):
That has certainly been much closer to my experience than what you said.  In general with similar potential I might expect a point or two more growth in defense than SB, but that's all.  I certainly not describe defense as receiving "the overwhelming majority" of the focus.  I recently had a center graduate who had a total career growth of 34 points of defense and 37 of SB.  His freshman year he grew 17 in DEF and 16 in SB.  So I'd say the rates are pretty darn close.

Sure. But you do understand that the majority of shot blocking growth comes from conditioning minutes, right?

I have not found that to be the case either...  That same guy only had 8 or so minutes in conditioning.

This is the most enlightening thread I have seen. I was unaware FW affected anything other than def/sb. Also unaware cond affected anything other than spd/ath/stam/dur