Recruits and Potential Topic

sully712
Posts: 124 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 301 2 22
Prospect
So, I signed a SG at Georgetown in Tark.  His starting ratings at Per were 70 and his potential was low.  After the two exhibition games and one regular season game, I get the e-mail saying he is maxed out in Perimeter and we should focus practice time somewhere else.  He was a top rated SG and I realize his starting ratings were higher but does it not seem very strange that he is maxed out in Per after ONE regular season game?  His PER did not change at all.  So, I have no control to make him a better outside shooter?

I thought we were supposed to have more control over how the players ended up.  This does not seem to back up that aspect.

EDIT: I do like the aspect of not having all players in the 90s at all positions, this just seems a bit harsh to me.
6/28/2010 10:10 AM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
I understand where you're coming from ... but you knew he was low potential when you signed him and thus wouldn't improve by more than a couple points in that category over his career, so I guess I'm not exactly sure what you're so surprised about. You'll stlil be able to get a couple more points out of him ... but isn't this what you expected when you signed him?

Some guys just don't get better shooting the ball -- I'm sure we can all cite guys like that from our favorite college teams.
6/28/2010 10:17 AM
sully712
Posts: 124 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 301 2 22
Prospect

I guess you are right, I was just shocked to get the "maxed out" e-mail after 1 game.  I thought, even with low, I'd get a few points of improvement out of him.

6/28/2010 10:57 AM
scottyj74
Posts: 72 (0)
Hall of Famer
243 1
Prospect
Personally, I think they may have gone a bit overboard in changing the recruit generation. I totally agree that not every player should be in the high 90's across the board but there has got to be a happy medium. In Phelan for instance, the #2 PG in the country has 84 speed, 87 ball handling and 60 passing all with low potential. It just seems to be a bit drastic when the #2 PG in the land can not improve his speed, BH or passing. I mean really, what high level D1 team would have a PG with only 60 passing?
6/28/2010 11:37 AM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
Posted by sully712 on 6/28/2010 10:57:00 AM (view original):

I guess you are right, I was just shocked to get the "maxed out" e-mail after 1 game.  I thought, even with low, I'd get a few points of improvement out of him.

You still will.
6/28/2010 12:12 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
Isn't it your fault for recruiting a SG with low potential per? I don't see how you can complain about a player with low potential maxing out early when you signed him. I think his actual ranking is irrelevant to his improvement, maybe it was just a bad ranking.
6/28/2010 12:23 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
Posted by scottyj74 on 6/28/2010 11:37:00 AM (view original):
Personally, I think they may have gone a bit overboard in changing the recruit generation. I totally agree that not every player should be in the high 90's across the board but there has got to be a happy medium. In Phelan for instance, the #2 PG in the country has 84 speed, 87 ball handling and 60 passing all with low potential. It just seems to be a bit drastic when the #2 PG in the land can not improve his speed, BH or passing. I mean really, what high level D1 team would have a PG with only 60 passing?
One that would turn that PG into a SG since he has a 95 per rating? 
6/28/2010 12:24 PM
sully712
Posts: 124 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 301 2 22
Prospect
Posted by kmasonbx on 6/28/2010 12:23:00 PM (view original):
Isn't it your fault for recruiting a SG with low potential per? I don't see how you can complain about a player with low potential maxing out early when you signed him. I think his actual ranking is irrelevant to his improvement, maybe it was just a bad ranking.

Maxing out early and one game into his career are a little bit different.

6/28/2010 12:35 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Posted by kmasonbx on 6/28/2010 12:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by scottyj74 on 6/28/2010 11:37:00 AM (view original):
Personally, I think they may have gone a bit overboard in changing the recruit generation. I totally agree that not every player should be in the high 90's across the board but there has got to be a happy medium. In Phelan for instance, the #2 PG in the country has 84 speed, 87 ball handling and 60 passing all with low potential. It just seems to be a bit drastic when the #2 PG in the land can not improve his speed, BH or passing. I mean really, what high level D1 team would have a PG with only 60 passing?
One that would turn that PG into a SG since he has a 95 per rating? 
Yeah, I dislike the new engine a little more each day, but I'm with you on this.  The problem stems from the now-irrelevant position label.  No one would care if he was a SG. 
6/28/2010 12:51 PM
scottyj74
Posts: 72 (0)
Hall of Famer
243 1
Prospect

Maybe its just me, but with just 60 passing I wouldn't want him at SG either. 60 just seems too low for a D1 gaurd.

6/28/2010 1:25 PM (edited)
aidiamo
Posts: 25 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 13
Prospect
There are far less quality recruits which is impacting things a lot since you are going to see more competitiion for game changing recruits.  On many levels I dislike this but honestly this is probably is closer to reality as for not every human controlled D1 team will have a PG with maxed out Speed, BH and Passing. 

That said, I have said this since WIS launched with potential grades that it is not AT ALL realistic to have players not able to improve in categories - especially key categories to their positions (C=LP, REB) (SG=PER) (PG=BH, PAS).  I may college sports as did a lot of you I suspect and players will always get better in core areas they practice.  I'm seeing the average recruit here maxed out in 4 or 5 categories - typcially core categories.  Not only is this unrealistic but it's also going to really impact teams with 3 or less scholorships when recruitings.  SInce the "burst" pattern isn't really an option with far less quality recruits you are going to see large schools and schools with lots of $$$ concentrating efforts on players.  Meaning that a mid major coach with a C prestige and 2 scholorships is going to be getting much less quality recruits than what they used to (what was a D or D- prestige school recruit or even a high D2 recruit).  30K to recruit 2 players now is nothing since you will have most schools needing to drop more on quality players than they had to before.  Basically this is going to make it nearly impossible for a mid major to compete on a high level with the big 6 schools since they can't use practice time to build a team of low level recruits.  And forget having to fill 1 scholorship at any level.  It's less about prestige and distance than it is about who has the most overall money to spend.
6/28/2010 1:32 PM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
I didn't play college sports, but I did cover college hoops and football, and I've gotta tell you, there were plenty of guys that I saw that didn't get better in plenty of areas.

Now, if you want to make the argument that you think there are too many guys maxed out in too many areas, that's another story. But to say that some players shouldn't stop improving in some categories ... I don't find that to be consistent with real life at all.
6/28/2010 2:02 PM
Rails
Posts: 263 (0)
Hall of Famer
21 193 13
Prospect
Overall, one part that I'm struggling with is having kids that are already typecast into how they'll end up ratings-wise.  Scouting service or not, IRL, I just don't feel it's that set in stone as to who improves little to none and who improves a lot.
6/28/2010 3:09 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Posted by Rails on 6/28/2010 3:09:00 PM (view original):
Overall, one part that I'm struggling with is having kids that are already typecast into how they'll end up ratings-wise.  Scouting service or not, IRL, I just don't feel it's that set in stone as to who improves little to none and who improves a lot.
Totally agree, but how random can we get?

I've always thought a Hardball Dynasty-like DITR feature based on things like WE, attitude from scouting reports, etc., would be a nice addition.
6/28/2010 3:14 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
Posted by sully712 on 6/28/2010 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by kmasonbx on 6/28/2010 12:23:00 PM (view original):
Isn't it your fault for recruiting a SG with low potential per? I don't see how you can complain about a player with low potential maxing out early when you signed him. I think his actual ranking is irrelevant to his improvement, maybe it was just a bad ranking.

Maxing out early and one game into his career are a little bit different.

Not all great shooting guards are great shooters, what per rating do you think  guys like Richard Hamilton and Dwyane Wade would've had in college, what about MIchael Jordan? But did that stop those guys from being all-americans and in Jordan's case the greatest player ever. D Wade still hasn't become a good 3 point shooter, I doubt he ever improved his 3 point shot in college. Not all players improve in college.
6/28/2010 3:15 PM
12 Next ▸
Recruits and Potential Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.