In addition, I'm seeing fewer players with low potential for FTs.  On my 2 most recently filled rosters, only 3 of my 24 players have low potential for FTs.  Previously, I'd have 4-6 per team with low potential

Additionally, there is no game strategy anymore and too large a player disparity between the haves and have nots which makes the regular season an absolue bore.

Posted by alblack56 on 1/5/2011 6:03:00 AM (view original):
In addition, I'm seeing fewer players with low potential for FTs.  On my 2 most recently filled rosters, only 3 of my 24 players have low potential for FTs.  Previously, I'd have 4-6 per team with low potential

I agree.  Seems like everyone is high potential.

I haven't noticed my team percentage being much higher.  I don't put much practice time into FT shooting anyway.  When I lose a game I can't really see where poor FT shooting was a reason.   Very rarely anyway.  The biggest thing I see with FT's is one team shooting 30 and the other team 10.  See that alot. 

All my teams are shooting anywhere from 4 to 8% better. I don't shoot under 70% as a team, whereas before I could never shoot above it.

how do the new numbers compare to real life numbers?

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.

Posted by mccabemi on 1/5/2011 7:00:00 AM (view original):
Additionally, there is no game strategy anymore and too large a player disparity between the haves and have nots which makes the regular season an absolue bore.

I wish that there would be more kids that have very good potential. All I see in my first season back is a bunch of kids with average potential and then high potential in a meaningless category for his position. Why not have some kids who are rated lower (0-3 stars) who have really good potential all around. Guys that the little schools are much more likely to scout and if they lose the kid to a bigger school (which yes is a possibility if a bigger school finds him) then that opens up another higher level guy for another school that the elite team would have taken. Plus it gives the coach more of an ability to improve his players, right now it looks like i'm going to be deciding if i want 1 point in PER and 1 in BH this year or two one of those, doesn't seem like too much variation. Or maybe something along the lines of 'diamonds in the rough'? Kids that when scouted and evaled show a great work ethic? Just brain storming, I just have a feeling I'm going to be disapointed by player growth still...

mully sorry i'm hijacking your thread I am going to leave my post here but also start a new thread I'm sure this has been gone over and over again but I don't want to steal your thread.

If you'd like to respond to this please do so here thanks.

No question that ft% is higher than it was before.

Here's a quick look at Rupp DI (just finished full sesaon) vs. the 2009-10 real life season:

Rupp
Top 25 nationally from #1 at 79.7% to #25 at 76.1%.

Real life
#1 at 78.6% to #25 at 74%.

Per the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/sports/basketball/04freethrow.html), average ft percentage in college hoops has remained remarkably consistent at around 68-69%. The lowest it's been since 1965 is 67.1%, and it's never topped 70%.

Someone more computer proficient than I am might be able to cull the data from Rupp DI, but based on the eyeball test it's pretty obvious to me that the overall ft percentage is over 70%.

Seems a bit high dalt but not horrible, maybe there needs to be a small adjustment as to how fts are decided as made or missed? or are we thinking that the recruits have to high of a ft grade? (im thinking the former here).

Posted by zhawks on 1/5/2011 10:59:00 AM (view original):
Seems a bit high dalt but not horrible, maybe there needs to be a small adjustment as to how fts are decided as made or missed? or are we thinking that the recruits have to high of a ft grade? (im thinking the former here).

Agreed, it's the former. My famous eyeball test says that DI ft% is probably about 3-4% too high right now (about 72% rather than 68-69%).

girt - again I am not talking about HD FT% vs real life. that could be different purely based on the letter grades that get assigned to incoming recruits.

I am referring to a players FT% being too high for his rating. For example, players with a B FT rating now averaging 78% vs the chart below
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I use 3 points for every FT grade.
I've never seen the overlapping of grades that porkpower shows.

A+ 87%+
A 84-87
A- 81-84
B+ 78-81
B 75-78
B- 72-75
C+ 69-72
C 66-69
C- 63-66
D+ 60-63
D 57-60
D- 54-57
F 54% under

Mully, I understand and agree with you. I was throwing it out there because there are plenty of people who would say (understandably) that if the percentages match up w. real life, then it's OK. I think the fact that the percentages don't match up w. real life only lend more credence to your point.

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)