Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 1/18/2010However, there is something which changes significantly once you get to the Pros: The level of competition. And increased competition leads to more growth than the same level of competition

Quote: Originally Posted By metsmax on 1/18/2010
I agree that starting ratings should be a smidge lower so that it would take longer to get to caps

BUT, I disagree with those who say that a hard cap is wrong - I believe that there are limits to improvement - my college roommate ran marathons, later he ran ultramarathons - he ran 6 miles a day on "rest" days - 20 miles on "hard" days - he was a training maniac

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 1/18/2010I'm just pointing out that the fact that they improved in the pros, doesn't mean necessarily that they would have improved if they had stayed in college: The level of competition, the coach, the players they are with have all changed; when the situation around you changes, you tend to learn new things.

Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 1/17/2010
I do think it's ridiculous that players reach some cap and then can't get better.

That's just incredibly unrealistic.

I don't mind potential, and I don't mind a cap, but I think it should be harder to reach the cap. I haven't been following the new updates, maybe that's a part of it.

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 1/18/2010The only way guys improve is if they begin to work hard on skills they never worked on before. For example, Carlos Boozer had no face up game at Duke, but he knew to make it in the NBA he had to develop it, now he's 1 of the best face up PFs in the league.

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 1/18/2010

It's really not. Go to ESPN.com and look through every senior, and tell me how many are putting up noticeably better #s this season than last. Guys tend to plateau from their Junior to Senior year, there is a reason why seniors are rarely top draft picks, and why they generally get labeled as polished guys without much room for improvement.

Yes, there is a reason. And that reason is that the majority of the most talented players leave before their senior season, not because most guys have stopped improving.

Most players don't improve their skills after a certain point because it's pretty hard to improve a skill that you've been working for 15 years. Young NBA players tend to improve because their knowledge constantly improves, and they can apply their skills to their ever increasing knowledge.

Even seble admits that the current situation where capping out in skills is so common (and often occurs early in a career) is undesirable and unrealistic. So if you're arguing that the current method is good, well, even the game's developer disagrees with that premise.

That said, I have no problem with some guys capping out in some skills. It's just that right now, it's incredibly rampant and common, and they are working to fix that flaw.

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 1/18/2010
Do you not get how important getting more knowledgeable is? Watch a college game and notice all the mistakes players make, the college game is much sloppier than an NBA game because the players have lower IQs. Another way players improve is by getting stronger and faster once they get to the NBA. Having personal trainers and dieticians attatched to NBA teams allows players to go further then they ever got in college.

So what you're saying is that players haven't tapped out their potential in college? That with more (and better) training, they can get better? Right, so we agree.

Using WIS ratings as an example, imagine 2 players that have all the same ratings in skill areas, however one player has 70ath/70sp and a C- IQ, the other has 90ath/90sp and A+ IQ, which player is going to be better? That's the type of improvements 21+ year olds make, not necesarrily with skills.

The fact that I used to cover high school basketball in NYC, I have seen high school kids get no better after the age of 15, I've even seen 16 year olds regress. There's an easy example from college basketball of a kid regressing, Julius Hodge won ACC POY as a junior, shot slightly over 50% his junior year shot a respectable 36% from 3, and for his career was over 80% from the line. His senior year he shot under 44% from the field, under 25% from the field and shot 60% from the line. An example of a player who just never got better even out of high school is Kelvin Torbert at Michigan State. He came in as a top 3 recruit stayed 4 years and never even made an All-Big Ten squad.

Yeah, there's tons of anecdotal evidence both ways. That doesn't prove either of our points. There are guys who regress, guys who stay the same, and guys who get better. My point is that it's disproportionate in HD.

What if players started getting worse at some point in their career, would people call that unrealistic? The fact is, it happens, and players often stop improving, and it's actually very common for seniors to only be marginally better than they were their junior seasons, or no better at all.

Agreed. But that's different than what you said above. This applies more to D2/D3 than D1. Guys leave early at D1, so it's tough to know if the best would really get better in college (although I think they would), but there are a lot more guys in real life D2/D3 who get significantly better between junior/senior seasons than in HD (which is essentially none).