I have this guy Clayton Almanzar on my team, I was just looking at his development and yeah I think I got totally screwed.
Black Ath: 8
Black Speed: 15 (woahhhh crazy)
Yellow Reb: 3-4
Blue De: 21
Black SB: 7
Green LP: No idea
Red Per: 1
Black BH: 8
Blue Pa: 23
Green Sta: 30?

i don't get it... what is he materially worse at than he could / 'should' have been? i've been upset by some crap recruit development luck but it was usually multiple guys and far more impactful issues, at least as best i can tell. that bh/spd growth was pretty valuable, you got 23 on 2 blacks instead of the avg 28, not great, but far from devastating. the 22 def was out of 22. that stamina is red already? thats pretty incredible growth last 2 years if hes really a 92 cap - i'm skeptical?

i'm questioning if you are overreacting or possibly not quite exact in the ranges you are using for planning purposes?

It should probably go without saying, but the higher the starting point, the less likely you’re going to see higher end growth. The guy is All-American caliber as an upperclassman, if you’re talking seriously about getting screwed, I’d suggest think about adjusting your expectations slightly.

I mean it doesn't really matter that much (although the mans is definitely not all-American caliber) just thought how it was interesting how I got near bottom growth on everything but speed. Also shoe I think 73-75 blue and 80-85 actually have a tendancy for you to get max growth more often proportionally.

He’s absolutely All-American caliber. That doesn’t mean he’s going to win a national award, that depends entirely on your usage of him. But he’s good enough to be the primary scorer on an excellent team, and as such he’s absolutely good enough to win a national honor, if used that way.

Posted by cubcub113 on 4/30/2020 10:47:00 PM (view original):
I mean it doesn't really matter that much (although the mans is definitely not all-American caliber) just thought how it was interesting how I got near bottom growth on everything but speed. Also shoe I think 73-75 blue and 80-85 actually have a tendancy for you to get max growth more often proportionally.

7.0.1

well, there are lots of players where it really does matter hugely, how their blacks and greens pan out, in areas that totally make or break them on major abilities (scoring, reb, etc). i guess i feel like just in the past year i've had a half dozen guys dramatically more brutal than this guy - whether statistically, they are worse cases or not - is not important IMO (they were, but not by nearly as much as impact wise).

when you've got a dude with 78 per black and say 86 yellow spd and 90 red bh, you are basically like dying for that per. his value perhaps doubles across the range of per there, depending on his role, he could either be like, totally awesome, or totally mediocre - or a quality role player versus total garbage. just on 1 stat. a 56 green reb big with an 84-100 reb range who is basically a crapshoot to fall anywhere in there, even odds across the whole way (roughly), and hes pretty good elsewhere - it can be the difference between alright and very good, just on that one green.

these are fairly normal scenarios on a single rating, similar things happen with def in man def for some guys, pass for potential pgs, stamina for high fatigue sets. there are quite a few players in this game where +20-30 ratings is all it takes to double their value - the last 20-30 having as much value as the first 750-800. those guys are everywhere!

get a guy who is basically a stud as long as he hits average growth in 1 of 2 areas (roughly a 75% chance), with a 25% chance of being roughly the best player ever - but you hit that other 25% and hes totally unexceptional - and then i'll feel for ya!!

“Also shoe I think 73-75 blue and 80-85 actually have a tendancy for you to get max growth more often proportionally.”

I would love to see the data on this. I will grant, there are far too many 100 attributes out there. But if there is any logic to the game at all, far FAR more players would be topping out at 85-90 than 100. Which means the higher the starting point, the less likely you are to see high end growth.

Posted by cubcub113 on 4/30/2020 10:47:00 PM (view original):
I mean it doesn't really matter that much (although the mans is definitely not all-American caliber) just thought how it was interesting how I got near bottom growth on everything but speed. Also shoe I think 73-75 blue and 80-85 actually have a tendancy for you to get max growth more often proportionally.

7.0.1

definitely not all american caliber? i tend to disagree - strongly. i mean granted, i really feel more comfortable if hes got 4 more per, saying shoe is 100% right. but shoe is 95% plus right as is.

in general, there's always been this massive misconception in the community about the importance of talent. its better than when i started, when the normal approach was 'coaching is useless its all about recruiting'. recruiting talent matters a ton on your way up near the top - but at the top, talent is not what separates the good from the great, and from the truly elite. its coaching. how well that talent is arranged, do you not just have talent but the skills you need to form a cohesive, quality team? that alone trumps more talent - by far. is your team setup making the most of your talent, are you nailing player development, are you putting in quality game planning in the post season? extra talent is vastly outmatched, at the high end.

in general, to be the pre-eminent program in a world, you do need borderline top 5 talent over that period. technically, if you are good enough, borderline top 25 talent can get the job done - so i'm leaving a good buffer in there to account for the fact that most folks are mere mortals, if you will. once you get to borderline top 5 talent, your potential gains from coaching dwarf any further talent improvement (although certain coaches are capable of replacing team planning with talent - as long as you still do really well on team setup and player development - this is acceptable - you basically make up for not arranging your talent well, but just having stupid amounts of it - although again, you are still going to get lit up in terms of title odds - doubled, perhaps - by significantly inferior teams who are beautifully put together).

this is where the understanding of abilities and what ratings are required to have strong abilities is essential. aejones says in his d2/d3 guide, the most important part of the game was player evaluation - i get what he means. OR often said the most important part is team building, essentially arranging talent and player development. i am more of a mind like OR but we are all trying to express the same thing - understanding what makes players and teams good is *vastly* more valuable than throwing ridiculous talent at the problem - especially in d1 where EEs will wreck you.

this player here, hes a strong defender and a strong scorer, and has amazing stamina. hes a worthy starter not only on a title seeker, but a huge title favorite. give him that +4 per and i'd be raving about the guy. with +4 per hes capable of being the #1 player on a huge title favorite team, pulling down 20mpg on great minutes with that elite stamina of his. top few player in the world caliber - what a monster! but obviously, without the 4 per hes still awesome.

going even further - i like guys like that, MORE than guys with more talent. throw that guy another 15 ath and passing, and he's gone. give me your guy and that 4 per - then stop - ill take stamina of course, by far the most valuable marginal rating for that player once he's got his 95 or so per. anything else? its EE bait - no thanks!! you want to win a few in a row - best to fill up on guys *exactly* like yours!!

so - let's flip this script from my endless rambling to something concrete and useful. what, precisely, do you feel like you need this player to do, for him to be a worthy starter on a title favorite caliber team? or at bare minimum, the greatest 3rd man SG/SF in the history of the universe? please don't talk to me about ratings - for your own sake - think about what ability you want him to be good at, what does he need to accomplish, that he cannot accomplish? what does he need to go on the court and do that he isn't already capable of doing?

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/1/2020 12:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 4/30/2020 10:47:00 PM (view original):
I mean it doesn't really matter that much (although the mans is definitely not all-American caliber) just thought how it was interesting how I got near bottom growth on everything but speed. Also shoe I think 73-75 blue and 80-85 actually have a tendancy for you to get max growth more often proportionally.

7.0.1

definitely not all american caliber? i tend to disagree - strongly. i mean granted, i really feel more comfortable if hes got 4 more per, saying shoe is 100% right. but shoe is 95% plus right as is.

in general, there's always been this massive misconception in the community about the importance of talent. its better than when i started, when the normal approach was 'coaching is useless its all about recruiting'. recruiting talent matters a ton on your way up near the top - but at the top, talent is not what separates the good from the great, and from the truly elite. its coaching. how well that talent is arranged, do you not just have talent but the skills you need to form a cohesive, quality team? that alone trumps more talent - by far. is your team setup making the most of your talent, are you nailing player development, are you putting in quality game planning in the post season? extra talent is vastly outmatched, at the high end.

in general, to be the pre-eminent program in a world, you do need borderline top 5 talent over that period. technically, if you are good enough, borderline top 25 talent can get the job done - so i'm leaving a good buffer in there to account for the fact that most folks are mere mortals, if you will. once you get to borderline top 5 talent, your potential gains from coaching dwarf any further talent improvement (although certain coaches are capable of replacing team planning with talent - as long as you still do really well on team setup and player development - this is acceptable - you basically make up for not arranging your talent well, but just having stupid amounts of it - although again, you are still going to get lit up in terms of title odds - doubled, perhaps - by significantly inferior teams who are beautifully put together).

this is where the understanding of abilities and what ratings are required to have strong abilities is essential. aejones says in his d2/d3 guide, the most important part of the game was player evaluation - i get what he means. OR often said the most important part is team building, essentially arranging talent and player development. i am more of a mind like OR but we are all trying to express the same thing - understanding what makes players and teams good is *vastly* more valuable than throwing ridiculous talent at the problem - especially in d1 where EEs will wreck you.

this player here, hes a strong defender and a strong scorer, and has amazing stamina. hes a worthy starter not only on a title seeker, but a huge title favorite. give him that +4 per and i'd be raving about the guy. with +4 per hes capable of being the #1 player on a huge title favorite team, pulling down 20mpg on great minutes with that elite stamina of his. top few player in the world caliber - what a monster! but obviously, without the 4 per hes still awesome.

going even further - i like guys like that, MORE than guys with more talent. throw that guy another 15 ath and passing, and he's gone. give me your guy and that 4 per - then stop - ill take stamina of course, by far the most valuable marginal rating for that player once he's got his 95 or so per. anything else? its EE bait - no thanks!! you want to win a few in a row - best to fill up on guys *exactly* like yours!!

so - let's flip this script from my endless rambling to something concrete and useful. what, precisely, do you feel like you need this player to do, for him to be a worthy starter on a title favorite caliber team? or at bare minimum, the greatest 3rd man SG/SF in the history of the universe? please don't talk to me about ratings - for your own sake - think about what ability you want him to be good at, what does he need to accomplish, that he cannot accomplish? what does he need to go on the court and do that he isn't already capable of doing?

He's a great player. Like a damn great player. There's no way in hell I would have replaced him with a 100/100/100/100/100/100 guy who left after 2 years given that Almanzar staying 4 years was pretty much the key to my master plan to win a title with Illinois next year. He's a guy I could count on to stay 4 years who will break into Illinois' record books for points and 3p%, who will (fingers crossed) be a starter on a national title contender next year. He only had a 3.2% chance of leaving according to my BigBoard simulator! That's incredible given he scored 13 PPG efficiently against #7 SOS for the #3 team in the country! That being said I just don't see all-american talent in him. The stamina is sick (I think I have 2 points left still) but he has a tendency to **** the bed against good defenders (look at the Minnesota game. yuck. And that was against a 90 at 85 sp 90 de guy...) because the Ath/Per/Bh are great and not elite. He's a great scorer, but he's just not an elite one I can count on. Obviously a great defender as well at the 2 but not as in love with him as you are girl (oops). I've had guys on every title team I've had that I consider clearly better, and they were juniors when we won. You can't tell me there isn't a large difference between Almanzar and Bascom, Tatum, Parker, Hanson, Hartman. Hanson is probably the only one that is close to him.

First of all....before you chastise me for not remotely making an effort to develop stamina on those guys I know I was obviously doing something ridiculously wrong. Idk how I won title while leaving Tatum's stamina like 18 points short of where it should have been. Anyways, we will see how the squad performs next year.

It doesn't change the fact he improved 8 points in every black and 22 points in every blue though gil and shoe ;) To be clear I wasn't complaining genuinely that WIS was screwing me out of a title by not giving me 4 more points of ATH, the screwed comment was more of a sarcastic joke that his colors were just shockingly close to switching from the day I recruited him.

Is Almanzar maxed?

Posted by Sportsbulls on 5/1/2020 1:53:00 AM (view original):
Is Almanzar maxed?

No he has a million LP left. But every other rating as of this morning is totally maxed or 1 point away.

Posted by cubcub113 on 5/1/2020 1:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/1/2020 12:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 4/30/2020 10:47:00 PM (view original):
I mean it doesn't really matter that much (although the mans is definitely not all-American caliber) just thought how it was interesting how I got near bottom growth on everything but speed. Also shoe I think 73-75 blue and 80-85 actually have a tendancy for you to get max growth more often proportionally.

7.0.1

definitely not all american caliber? i tend to disagree - strongly. i mean granted, i really feel more comfortable if hes got 4 more per, saying shoe is 100% right. but shoe is 95% plus right as is.

in general, there's always been this massive misconception in the community about the importance of talent. its better than when i started, when the normal approach was 'coaching is useless its all about recruiting'. recruiting talent matters a ton on your way up near the top - but at the top, talent is not what separates the good from the great, and from the truly elite. its coaching. how well that talent is arranged, do you not just have talent but the skills you need to form a cohesive, quality team? that alone trumps more talent - by far. is your team setup making the most of your talent, are you nailing player development, are you putting in quality game planning in the post season? extra talent is vastly outmatched, at the high end.

in general, to be the pre-eminent program in a world, you do need borderline top 5 talent over that period. technically, if you are good enough, borderline top 25 talent can get the job done - so i'm leaving a good buffer in there to account for the fact that most folks are mere mortals, if you will. once you get to borderline top 5 talent, your potential gains from coaching dwarf any further talent improvement (although certain coaches are capable of replacing team planning with talent - as long as you still do really well on team setup and player development - this is acceptable - you basically make up for not arranging your talent well, but just having stupid amounts of it - although again, you are still going to get lit up in terms of title odds - doubled, perhaps - by significantly inferior teams who are beautifully put together).

this is where the understanding of abilities and what ratings are required to have strong abilities is essential. aejones says in his d2/d3 guide, the most important part of the game was player evaluation - i get what he means. OR often said the most important part is team building, essentially arranging talent and player development. i am more of a mind like OR but we are all trying to express the same thing - understanding what makes players and teams good is *vastly* more valuable than throwing ridiculous talent at the problem - especially in d1 where EEs will wreck you.

this player here, hes a strong defender and a strong scorer, and has amazing stamina. hes a worthy starter not only on a title seeker, but a huge title favorite. give him that +4 per and i'd be raving about the guy. with +4 per hes capable of being the #1 player on a huge title favorite team, pulling down 20mpg on great minutes with that elite stamina of his. top few player in the world caliber - what a monster! but obviously, without the 4 per hes still awesome.

going even further - i like guys like that, MORE than guys with more talent. throw that guy another 15 ath and passing, and he's gone. give me your guy and that 4 per - then stop - ill take stamina of course, by far the most valuable marginal rating for that player once he's got his 95 or so per. anything else? its EE bait - no thanks!! you want to win a few in a row - best to fill up on guys *exactly* like yours!!

so - let's flip this script from my endless rambling to something concrete and useful. what, precisely, do you feel like you need this player to do, for him to be a worthy starter on a title favorite caliber team? or at bare minimum, the greatest 3rd man SG/SF in the history of the universe? please don't talk to me about ratings - for your own sake - think about what ability you want him to be good at, what does he need to accomplish, that he cannot accomplish? what does he need to go on the court and do that he isn't already capable of doing?

He's a great player. Like a damn great player. There's no way in hell I would have replaced him with a 100/100/100/100/100/100 guy who left after 2 years given that Almanzar staying 4 years was pretty much the key to my master plan to win a title with Illinois next year. He's a guy I could count on to stay 4 years who will break into Illinois' record books for points and 3p%, who will (fingers crossed) be a starter on a national title contender next year. He only had a 3.2% chance of leaving according to my BigBoard simulator! That's incredible given he scored 13 PPG efficiently against #7 SOS for the #3 team in the country! That being said I just don't see all-american talent in him. The stamina is sick (I think I have 2 points left still) but he has a tendency to **** the bed against good defenders (look at the Minnesota game. yuck. And that was against a 90 at 85 sp 90 de guy...) because the Ath/Per/Bh are great and not elite. He's a great scorer, but he's just not an elite one I can count on. Obviously a great defender as well at the 2 but not as in love with him as you are girl. I've had guys on every title team I've had that I consider clearly better, and they were juniors when we won. You can't tell me there isn't a large difference between Almanzar and Bascom, Tatum, Parker, Hanson, Hartman. Hanson is probably the only one that is close to him.

First of all....before you chastise me for not remotely making an effort to develop stamina on those guys I know I was obviously doing something ridiculously wrong. Idk how I won title while leaving Tatum's stamina like 18 points short of where it should have been. Anyways, we will see how the squad performs next year.

It doesn't change the fact he improved 8 points in every black and 22 points in every blue though gil and shoe ;) To be clear I wasn't complaining genuinely that WIS was screwing me out of a title by not giving me 4 more points of ATH, the screwed comment was more of a sarcastic joke that his colors were just shockingly close to switching from the day I recruited him.

7.0.1

7.0.1

those are some pretty amazing players you are throwing out there! in some cases like the 65 reb guard or the 90 passing guy, those guys bring something almanzar doesn't. but when you say 'i cant tell you there isnt a large difference between almanzar and....' - yes, i can / am telling you that - there is not a large difference between alamnzar and any of those guys, in general - it does depends what role they are filling, there are definitely better pgs than almanzar, and that 65 reb guy is a better sf, but sort of generic scoring sg? not really. you are growing his lp this year right? guys like alamanzar can and do lead some of the best teams ever.

precisely what i am saying is, if you see having guys like those others over almanzar as the primary driver of what separates a top few team in a d1 world from the greatest d1 teams ever, you are misjudging the nature of great players and great teams.

you really would need to upgrade several guys from almanzar-level to hartman-level, if you will, for it to add up to anything. a lot of the value that coaches find from these 'super players' - its really comes more in masking coaching mistakes/imperfections (perfection is impossible when arrangement of talent is considered part of coaching, which i do), than the raw talent coming through the sim engine formulas to produce better outcomes.

Thoughts and prayers.

“but not as in love with him as you are girl.”

No one is going to talk about how cubbie just Goslinged gil?

Posted by shoe3 on 5/1/2020 5:14:00 PM (view original):
“but not as in love with him as you are girl.”

No one is going to talk about how cubbie just Goslinged gil?

what does that mean?