Iverson might not have liked it, but in the few seasons I've been playing HD I'm coming to realize how important it is.

I was checking the progress of my team vs. some others. Looking at guys in the same class, with similar WE, I realized that so far this season(about 2/3 of the way through) my underclassman have grown more slowly by about 5-10 points total.

Looking a little deeper, it appears those coaches have stressed practicing on one or two attributes, almost to the detriment of others. But these 1-2 attributes have posted big gains; enough to drive their overall total gains higher than mine.

My strategy has been to spread my 130 mins. around, esp. on the underclassman who typically have more blue. I might not have more than 15-18 minutes to give a guy on any one blue attribute, the lone exception is conditioning, which I do spend more time on.

Long-winded precursor to this question.... Is there an advantage to working on 1-2 (blue) attributes, boost them, and then after a few game-weeks, dial back on them and pick another 1-2? In my mind it shouldn't make much of a difference since the total minutes spent over the course of a season would be about the same.

Unless...... If the increased minutes improve the results EXPONENTIALLY, (For example, if going from 10-12 adds 2 points growth over 6 weeks, say, but going from 22-24 adds 6). If that's the case, then clearly there is an advantage to what the other guys are doing. Which is what I suspect... Thoughts?

true to a point

it's pretty commonly accepted that 6-7 minutes of practice will keep a rating from dropping. 
In that regard, the first 6-7 minutes spent in practicing a skill show no return, and only minutes over that amount result in ratings growth.

If we use 6 minutes as the point of zero growth, than practicing 10 minutes should result 6 minutes of maintaining the current grade and only 4 minutes of growth.  
14 minutes of practice time result in 6 minutes of maintaining the current and 8 minutes of growth.
18 minutes of practice result in 6 minutes to maintain and 12 minutes of growth. 

Using this theory, 18 minutes of practice return 3 times the total growth of 10 practice minutes.

jc - no, its not exponential.

i mostly agree with what iguana says there, but i dont really agree with that frame of mind that 18 minutes is 3 times the return of 10. with 10 minutes, you are not declining, and are also getting 4 minutes of growth. with 18 minutes, you are not declining, and are also getting 12 minutes of growth. but thats not really 3x, just one component is 3x, the other is the same. its like saying 6 minutes = 0 growth so 7 minutes is infinitely better.

but i agree with what he was getting at about 0 minutes. if you have red categories on a young player, its usually worth putting 0 minutes in to those categories (especially if they arent one of the 3-4 cores for that player), and losing 0 or maybe 1, or possibly even 2 points, while putting 20 in a critical blue rating. you might lose 1 point on average or something but in that blue core, you might go from +8 with 14m to +12 with 20m, and that is well worth it.

however, if you are talking about splitting minutes between 2 categories - say you have 30 minutes for bh/pass and both are blue. well, if we assume its 5m to hold it even, you definitely dont want to go 5/25. diminishing returns kick in significantly after 20m in an individual practice area, and i think they actually start to kick in soon, around 15m or so. so you would probably go 15/15m to safely optimize, thats a net 20m of growth, but you aren't hitting big diminishing returns like you are if you do 5/25. so in general the idea you are proposing in your post, its not right.

there are a number of reasons other freshman with similar work ethic could grow faster.

first, they could get more playing time, thats a big factor.

second, they could have higher potential in the categories they are practicing. growth rate in a category is a product of their work ethic, playing time, and their starting and maximum ratings (and of course, the amount of minutes out put in). so if they are improving a 50 starting rating with an 80 cap, they will gain more points than you do improving a 50 starting rating with a 65 cap, or a 10 starting rating with a 40 cap. that is why a lot of coaches, myself included, put as much time as they can into the cores with really high growth (the high/highs), because you get the most back. eventually it will all even out - but you are better off to have say +10 reb for the next 2 years than +5 pass, even though as a senior you will have practiced both and gotten your +10 reb and +5 pass (just for instance). so take the important ratings with a lot of room to grow, and put more minutes into them, and you can maximize growth.

third, they could have fewer minutes assigned to study hall and team practice than you, which results in more minutes going to individual practice, and hence, more growth. its valuable to have team practice minutes, but if you are lazy with your study hall minutes, maybe that is something you could look at. also, you might put more into FT - which would not show in the overall increase in your freshman - but its still valuable. so just looking at individual rating growth isn't really the complete picture- there is team practice, ft%, and the impact on your grades to consider as well.

finally, they could be getting players with lows, and putting 0 into all those lows, thus freeing up more minutes for the high growth areas.

some combination of those possibilities accounts for why other teams have more growth than you, although i cant say exactly which apply to you.

Thanks Iguana, and also Coach_billyg. That's super helpful. Especially makes sense getting the high/highs maxed as soon as possible. Also good to know where diminishing returns are...

Coach BillyG...I was hoping that you could give me a little bit more clarity on the Freshmen and the number of starts they need to generate a faster improvement.

 A couple specific questions that I have concerning this:

Freshmen develop quicker when they get start, but how many starts is 'enough'?  For example, if I start them in games where I am highly favored (just a few games a year) is that enough, or do I need to get them as many starts as possible, and take my chances by starting a Freshman against tougher opponents?

Secondly, is the 'start' enough?   for example, can I start them and have their minutes reduced or set their fatigue appropriately as not to put them in a position where I would much rather have more experienced players?

Thanks for additional points of guidance on this...

--migs