I had recruited an "average potential" guy in low post. He was a freshman this season. While averaging 20 MPG, he only gained 2 points for the whole season, the teams are entering the National Tournament, so any improvements for this season are over. I also put 15 minutes of practice time into that category. His work ethic is 62. 

Does it seem abnormal based on this information he would've gained only 2 points?

A little bit.

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/20/2011 9:26:00 PM (view original):
A little bit.

It's pretty disappointing when it happens, I must admit.

Posted by thewizard10 on 9/20/2011 9:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/20/2011 9:26:00 PM (view original):
A little bit.

It's pretty disappointing when it happens, I must admit.

I agree with this... but I don't see it as abnormal. With Average it could be as few as just a few points a season improvement.

average is 7-19(ish) points of total improvement. If you are towards the 7 end, about 2 a season sounds right...

I usually work with the base assumption that avg means 10 points of improvement over 4 seasons. That likely is a bit low, but that way I set myself up to be favorably surprised. IF he has 10 of improvement to be made, 2 points in one season isnt unreasonable....then some in the offseason, rinse, repeat

Posted by metsmax on 9/21/2011 12:33:00 AM (view original):
I usually work with the base assumption that avg means 10 points of improvement over 4 seasons. That likely is a bit low, but that way I set myself up to be favorably surprised. IF he has 10 of improvement to be made, 2 points in one season isnt unreasonable....then some in the offseason, rinse, repeat

+1

I don't get it.  I'm experiencing this for the first time myself this season.  My guy finally improved to 2 points on the season in the 27th practice.

The way improvement seems to work is that it goes quite fast at the beginning unless it is starting in the teens and essentially continues to improve at essentially that same rate until it slows down *just* before maxing out.  Squeezing out those last 2-3 points seem to be the most difficult.  It's not the last 5-6 points although that seems to be what is happening in this case and also for my player as well.

I might be wrong but I expect my player is going to max out in his high potential categories before he maxes out in this average one.

Something seems broken from my vantage point.

Metsmax -- but that's not how potential is supposed to work.  Your assumption should just be that you have 10 points and stop your sentence there.  The number of seasons it takes is based on WE and minutes.   (I know you know this.)  If the WE is good enough and the minutes are being allocated in practice, it shouldn't take four seasons to max out an average potential category.

6 points can be medium and would explain the issue. i cant imagine he has above 7 total. sucks, but it happens (1 or 2 out of 14)

Posted by kujayhawk on 9/21/2011 9:51:00 PM (view original):
I don't get it.  I'm experiencing this for the first time myself this season.  My guy finally improved to 2 points on the season in the 27th practice.

The way improvement seems to work is that it goes quite fast at the beginning unless it is starting in the teens and essentially continues to improve at essentially that same rate until it slows down *just* before maxing out.  Squeezing out those last 2-3 points seem to be the most difficult.  It's not the last 5-6 points although that seems to be what is happening in this case and also for my player as well.

I might be wrong but I expect my player is going to max out in his high potential categories before he maxes out in this average one.

Something seems broken from my vantage point.

Metsmax -- but that's not how potential is supposed to work.  Your assumption should just be that you have 10 points and stop your sentence there.  The number of seasons it takes is based on WE and minutes.   (I know you know this.)  If the WE is good enough and the minutes are being allocated in practice, it shouldn't take four seasons to max out an average potential category.

Don't forget WE, that matters a lot in regards to potential as well. You may already have considered that, but since it wasn't listed in your post it could be your issue? (for your guy).

But I do agree with what mets says - it could only be 6-7 points, if that is the case and you are getting 2-3 season 1, that seems about right.

late post... what I am gathering from these rating values is that they are not accurately represented. If you think about it, everything seems to be based on a value set from 0-100. If this applies to potential as well then for such a great variation in difference it seems you would need more labels than just low, average, and high. Low could be anywhere from 0-40, average could be anywhere from 40-60, and high 60-100. Essentially you could have a guy labeled average in potential but really be a low to average guy... but you'd never know because the game doesn't have a value per say for his true potential. Your player could actually be closer to 40 instead of say 59. Then you'd have to consider his WE and how much he wants to grow and you could have a guy gaining 2 pts a year... the messed up part is it seems even when you have an idea of potential.. you still are playing a guessing game... I could be wrong...but I could be right.

Posted by rednation58 on 10/3/2011 9:29:00 PM (view original):
late post... what I am gathering from these rating values is that they are not accurately represented. If you think about it, everything seems to be based on a value set from 0-100. If this applies to potential as well then for such a great variation in difference it seems you would need more labels than just low, average, and high. Low could be anywhere from 0-40, average could be anywhere from 40-60, and high 60-100. Essentially you could have a guy labeled average in potential but really be a low to average guy... but you'd never know because the game doesn't have a value per say for his true potential. Your player could actually be closer to 40 instead of say 59. Then you'd have to consider his WE and how much he wants to grow and you could have a guy gaining 2 pts a year... the messed up part is it seems even when you have an idea of potential.. you still are playing a guessing game... I could be wrong...but I could be right.

That's not how potential works. 

This is essentially how it does work:

Low Potential: Increase of 0-6 in rating over career
Avg. Potential: Increase of 7-19 in rating over career
High Potential: Increase of 20-29 in rating over career
High-High Potential (Scouting Trip needed to find this): Increase of 30+ in rating over career

This all depends on work ethic. If a guy has WE below 15, he will hardly increase any over his career, even with modest WE gains. With 20-30 WE, he will progress about 40% slower than a player with 40-50. 50+ progresses rather quickly and 80+ reaches potentials by junior season typically. 

Posted by rednation58 on 10/3/2011 9:29:00 PM (view original):
late post... what I am gathering from these rating values is that they are not accurately represented. If you think about it, everything seems to be based on a value set from 0-100. If this applies to potential as well then for such a great variation in difference it seems you would need more labels than just low, average, and high. Low could be anywhere from 0-40, average could be anywhere from 40-60, and high 60-100. Essentially you could have a guy labeled average in potential but really be a low to average guy... but you'd never know because the game doesn't have a value per say for his true potential. Your player could actually be closer to 40 instead of say 59. Then you'd have to consider his WE and how much he wants to grow and you could have a guy gaining 2 pts a year... the messed up part is it seems even when you have an idea of potential.. you still are playing a guessing game... I could be wrong...but I could be right.

Just want to emphasize this isn't how it works. Car spelled it out perfectly above me.

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 10/3/2011 10:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednation58 on 10/3/2011 9:29:00 PM (view original):
late post... what I am gathering from these rating values is that they are not accurately represented. If you think about it, everything seems to be based on a value set from 0-100. If this applies to potential as well then for such a great variation in difference it seems you would need more labels than just low, average, and high. Low could be anywhere from 0-40, average could be anywhere from 40-60, and high 60-100. Essentially you could have a guy labeled average in potential but really be a low to average guy... but you'd never know because the game doesn't have a value per say for his true potential. Your player could actually be closer to 40 instead of say 59. Then you'd have to consider his WE and how much he wants to grow and you could have a guy gaining 2 pts a year... the messed up part is it seems even when you have an idea of potential.. you still are playing a guessing game... I could be wrong...but I could be right.

That's not how potential works. 

This is essentially how it does work:

Low Potential: Increase of 0-6 in rating over career
Avg. Potential: Increase of 7-19 in rating over career
High Potential: Increase of 20-29 in rating over career
High-High Potential (Scouting Trip needed to find this): Increase of 30+ in rating over career

This all depends on work ethic. If a guy has WE below 15, he will hardly increase any over his career, even with modest WE gains. With 20-30 WE, he will progress about 40% slower than a player with 40-50. 50+ progresses rather quickly and 80+ reaches potentials by junior season typically. 

high high starts at 28

Ok