One of the topics of behavioral economics is how the human brain instinctively sets "baselines" that are used for decision-making.

quick example, there are better ones but they'd be very wordy:
-you come across a deli that is selling a certain type of food you've never seen before. let's call it "monkeyfish". this place is selling monkeyfish hoagies ("subs" or "grinders" for those unfamiliar with the lingo) that go for about $7 for a footlong.

two days later, you eat out at a nice diner and you see a dish on the menu; "monkeyfish stew", going for $18. you think to yourself, "holy crap that's expensive for monkeyfish, i could probably make my own for much cheaper getting monkeyfish at that deli".

-meanwhile, your brother Johnny is at a Hibachi place and notices a type of food that HE's never seen before (lets call it, for now, "donkeyloins"). they come as the main dish in a $28 meal, slightly more than the sirloin and chicken meals, a little less than the filet mignon. the people next to him appear to be very well off and one of them has ordered this exact meal.

the next day, said Johnny notices a street vendor selling these donkeyloins (the street vendor is also selling hot dogs and knishes) for $8; obviously more than the other food, but compared to the Hibachi place he thinks this is a steal and he actually tries donkeyloins for the first time.


-here's the twist (i'm sure many of you know where i'm going with this in terms of HD but i digress)...monkeyfish and donkeyloins are the same food. is it unreasonable that any of the situations i've described above can be accurate for, say, a very high-quality sausage? expensive at hibachi, $7 footlong at a deli, etc.

the point is, everyone sets "baselines" the first time they come across something. what has happened with the new recruits is everyone things they SUCK because their baseline is the old recruits.

if everyone takes a step back and tries to look at the new recruits while ignoring the old ones, there is likely NO PROBLEM with them. when people come to a conclusion such as "perhaps players with weaknesses are good for real life but not HD" they are purely going on the gut feeling that these recruits are too bad to use...and that gut feeling comes from the old recruits being a baseline.

the upshot of all this i think can be summarized one or two ways:
1.perhaps whatif and seble did not realize how difficult adjusting to new recruits would be, so they just threw us into the fire
2.perhaps whatif and seble DID realize how difficult adjusting would be for us and as a result are ignoring all the complaints because they know they're largely baseline-driven and misguided.

thoughts?

Interesting....and accurate??? 

Hard to tell.  My world (allen) has 25% new and 75% old recruits.  Teams with lots of upperclassmen are really good and teams with a ton of freshman....not so much.  I think its going to take 2-4 years until there are no more 'old' recruits around to see how these weird new recruits (my last D1 SG has a LP of 60 with high potential) will perform.

Thoughts? Psychology is a stupid science. The world is driven by greed. Hence people wanting the best recruits.

I know what i said kind of agrees, I'm just kidding around. Psych 101 was required for me as an Engineer and the only class i couldn't ace so i have a hate for it.

Good points. To add to that, all one needs to do is ask a new HD player about their opinions on recruit generation. Most will say there is nothing wrong with them and that they are very realistic in that everyone has their strengths and weaknesses.

Just like you said, someone with no previous baseline will have no problem with the new recruits

Ok, but who's only been playing since the new release? Less than 10% of users...5%?

There is a decent amount of new users, I'd say slightly over 10% (judging by D3 in Allen) but they don't post on forums and if they read them, we won't keep many because of all the gloom and doom posts by the veterans

I don't think there's anything wrong with the simple fact that they've lowered the quality of recruits. I've seen very, very few people complain about that. I am certainly in the group that thinks it was necessary and overdue.

And jet, I wholeheartedly agree with your behavorial economics thought (and not just because I love me some monkeyfish). That factor is certainly at play here.

Separate from your example and this particular issue are two others:

1. Forgetting for a moment about the actual recruit quality, have they gone overboard on weird and unrealistic recruits?
2. Is there too large a gap between the top recruits and everyone else?

To those questions, I'd answer an unequivocal yes.

Of course, I can't call myself a veteran by any means since I've only played 3 seasons with the old engine and 2 with the new

Also just because player values go down shouldn't make STATS go down. has there been any report in a major drop in FG% or PPG or any stat? If there is, I haven't read it.

Being new i can only try and argue logic while old time users seem to be going with emotions and major change to comfort zone but there it is.

Let me add my opinion to this, since I was a beta tester and have had some success under the old engine and new engine...  your baseline argument is somewhat correct, but here is one example that refutes it. I recently signed a four-star PF who will end up 800+ easily. We all agree that having teams loaded with 99 core ratings made for a lot of cookie cutter gameplanning, and players maxing out with years of eligibility was frustrating under the "potential" system. Back to my point, the player started with an 86 WE (and improved 72 overall as a freshman). He had a 51 DEF with high potential that moved up 6 points for the season, so yea, lower defense to start and continued improvement throughout his career will eventually allow him to be a decent defender. Here's what bothers me, and remember he was considered by WIS to be one of the best recruits at his position... he started with a 39 LP and 31 Per, both with low potential. And that's exactly where he is going to end his career at, because two practices into his freshman year I got a note that they were both "maxed out" already without ever increasing a single point. I understood when I signed him that he would never be a sharpshooter, but that is ridiculous.

There are players around, real life too, that simply never learn how to shoot or score well. At all.

The problem, as I posted in another thread, is that these recruits have serious trade-offs.  Do you go with the PG who has 80 PA and *very high* potential, knowing he'll have the highest PA in D2, even though he only has 30 BH and average potential?  Or do you go with the 80 BH and 30 PA guy?  Do you go with the PF with awesome cores, will be the highest ATH/REB/LP in your conference in a couple seasons but only 55 STA and *very low* potential there?  What is better?  That's the unanswered question.
There aren't very many overall well-rounded recruits now.  Almost every single one has a serious weakness.  Which weakness will be the most costly? That's the trick. 

Posted by cthomas22255 on 7/29/2010 4:57:00 PM (view original):
The problem, as I posted in another thread, is that these recruits have serious trade-offs.  Do you go with the PG who has 80 PA and *very high* potential, knowing he'll have the highest PA in D2, even though he only has 30 BH and average potential?  Or do you go with the 80 BH and 30 PA guy?  Do you go with the PF with awesome cores, will be the highest ATH/REB/LP in your conference in a couple seasons but only 55 STA and *very low* potential there?  What is better?  That's the unanswered question.
There aren't very many overall well-rounded recruits now.  Almost every single one has a serious weakness.  Which weakness will be the most costly? That's the trick. 

I don't see that as being a problem though (although I will agree that the SERIOUS tradeoffs, as opposed to the mild ones that some are blowing well out of proportion, seem to begin too high in D-I and that not enough well-rounded players are generated to sufficiently saturate the top division). At D-II and D-III, coaches in those divisions deal with serious trade-offs all the time. They sign the kids that have a ton of athleticism, but not many game skills...they sign the kids with game skills who aren't the right body type (athleticism) for D-I. They get the skilled players who don't have work ethic.  I don't see where bartering in trade-offs is a bad thing -- its a change, and because of that some folks are going to reject it simply because its human nature to resist change.  But different isn't synonymous with bad. Anyone who thought a new engine wasn't going to revamp the way they had to look and think about the game was, I think, jading themselves.

I see it as another way to put my personal signature on my group of random-number-generated basketball players.

The reason the question you ask is "unanswered" is because there IS no correct answer, nor should there be. Each coach is going to weigh in on it based upon their personal experience, beliefs and opinions. And that's just as it should be. This shouldn't be a cookie-cutter game where one singular strategy is the "correct" route to success, nor should it be a game where everyone gets EXACTLY what they need, when they need it.

i think the idea of having serious trade-offs, like rednu said, can be a good thing in terms of adding your "personal signature" to your team. similarly to how you could tell how coaches used practice time pre-potential by looking at how they developed players. 

it's very difficult to relate these tradeoffs to real life tradeoffs...obviously because real life players don't walk around with "i'm 65 athleticism with high potential" ID cards. potential and work ethic are very fluid values in real life. hence, we might not even realize it if we had as accurate of a simulation as possible.

as far as the recruit talent gap, i do want to see how often the top players declare early. its true that they might not follow a "normal" distribution talent-wise, per se. if one could create a system that condensed player talent into one rating, we could then take a look at the distribution and see if this holds true. maybe i'll take a shot at that someday...

i also only took psych 101 as an engineering major in college. i have a buddy with a good behavioral economics audiobook. lol.