If you start him every game for 4 years ...

How high can you get his WE?

Low to mid 20s. Kind of depends how close he actually is to 8, I think. Like if he’s close to 8 and he flips early in the season, you can *possibly* get him to 11 this season, then *maybe* 15 by the end of the soph season, maybe 20 by the end of the jr year and 25-26 by the time he’s all done. That’s extremely optimistic though. If he’s closer to 7, he may not even get to 10 before the end of year, that’s how much difference the scale makes. Then it will be a struggle to get much past 20. Once he gets to 15, it will move faster, but it may take a bit to get there.

i think all recruit starting ratings are whole numbers? so hes 7.00 for sure?

i think 7->9, 9->12, 12->16, 16->20 is roughly the projection i would be expecting, assuming hes basically starting all the time with good minutes. you might be able to do a bit better if you really push it, but if he's periodically sitting for big games and stuff i could also see it being worse?

Well hopefully that wouldn't be relevant. Obviously IQ is a factor that can't be totally ignored, but a starting WE of 7 is still in the range where if you don't want to start the guy from day one you really shouldn't be recruiting him, right? So hopefully you're not planning to sit him for big games. If he can't help you in big games as a freshman, at least with significant minutes off the bench, he's never going to grow into anything useful.

Posted by gillispie on 11/13/2021 3:04:00 PM (view original):
i think all recruit starting ratings are whole numbers? so hes 7.00 for sure?

i think 7->9, 9->12, 12->16, 16->20 is roughly the projection i would be expecting, assuming hes basically starting all the time with good minutes. you might be able to do a bit better if you really push it, but if he's periodically sitting for big games and stuff i could also see it being worse?

I don’t recruit very low WE players often enough to say for sure, but it seems to me like some have moved up faster than others. You may be right though.

Thanks for the knowledge!!

Posted by shoe3 on 11/13/2021 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 11/13/2021 3:04:00 PM (view original):
i think all recruit starting ratings are whole numbers? so hes 7.00 for sure?

i think 7->9, 9->12, 12->16, 16->20 is roughly the projection i would be expecting, assuming hes basically starting all the time with good minutes. you might be able to do a bit better if you really push it, but if he's periodically sitting for big games and stuff i could also see it being worse?

I don’t recruit very low WE players often enough to say for sure, but it seems to me like some have moved up faster than others. You may be right though.

its been a long time since i got the whole numbers vs integers and how things round versus truncate, sorted cleanly in my head. but i believe the key to the whole number starting ratings was day 1 practice, you used to never see day 1 growth for rookies. now they will, but only the high categories. to me, that says they have to be starting with .0 ratings, or else we'd see the occasional yellow/red/black going +1 on day 1, like we occasionally do for older players. i suspect high blacks can be / are pushed +1 with high practice but that would still fit the model. same logic re: day 1 work ethic increases for rookies.

i do believe seble changed it in 3.0 so that displayed ratings were rounded instead of truncated. i think this is evidenced by the much increased number of 100 ratings, and also, if you watch those first 3 days of practice closely, it seems to me the +1 is easier to get than the +2, reflecting a +0.5 cutoff vs +1.5. so you tend to see a lot of first day improvements now, but i think they are still cleanly sorted into higher potential / practiced categories going +1 with the lower ones, not... so not really positive about all of this, but, i think so?

anyway, if anyone cares enough these are the things you'd look at for a conclusive determination.

A bit of a side discussion but I’m a bit leery recruiting anyone with a WE below 30. In my first season I signed a 17 WE. After 4 seasons he finished at 21, picked up 105 total points and graduated with 2 blue categories and several black.

Posted by phalla on 11/13/2021 12:12:00 PM (view original):
If you start him every game for 4 years ...

How high can you get his WE?

Here's a 7 WE thru 2 seasons.

https://imgur.com/a/LL8BNTC

Posted by topdogggbm on 11/14/2021 6:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by phalla on 11/13/2021 12:12:00 PM (view original):
If you start him every game for 4 years ...

How high can you get his WE?

Here's a 7 WE thru 2 seasons.

https://imgur.com/a/LL8BNTC

am i good or what? ;)

(it really should be 16->21 but i didn't feel like fixing it)

Posted by mg050369 on 11/14/2021 6:12:00 PM (view original):
A bit of a side discussion but I’m a bit leery recruiting anyone with a WE below 30. In my first season I signed a 17 WE. After 4 seasons he finished at 21, picked up 105 total points and graduated with 2 blue categories and several black.

Every player is different. And the important things when recruiting a low WE player are.......

You have to go into it with the understanding that you'll start him every game of his career. If he's good enough now, and/or expected to be worth it in his final 2 playing seasons after developing, then he's worthy of signing. Another HUGE factor is how many categories you expect to develop. I usually put 3 categories on 20 minutes and punt the rest. So if a guard has green REB 14, I'll never put a single practice minute in REB his entire career. If he ends at green 12 REB, so what. Because I had 20+ minutes in, say, conditioning. And he maybe gained 15 points in ATH/SPD/ST over his career.

You really wanna plan out how you intend to develop the player ahead of deciding to sign him. I don't have a WE cutoff. Because if the player is worth it, he's worth it. I'll share some nice examples later

'You really wanna plan out how you intend to develop the player ahead of deciding to sign him' - yes. this kind of planning ahead is very valuable. i guess it is super common among strategy games, but the macro level strategic decision making is what really separates the very good coaches from the best. there's some differences in things like team setup mechanics, recruiting mechanics, for sure. but the real difference maker that determines above all else, how successful someone will be, is how well are they able to factor in all the different information and circumstance, into deciding which kinds of players they need to get for their team, and how to develop them.

projecting the value of a player to your team, or projecting what type of player is ideal for your situation, its as complex and difficult as this game gets. almost everything you know about this game factors into that decision, if you are doing it right. a lot of people know a lot of stuff about this game, but the question that really cuts to the heart of how successful you can be is, how well can you utilize that knowledge to make the best possible decisions about which players to recruit and how to develop them, ala, team building.

everyone does this to some extent implicitly, but if you want to get ahead in this game, focus on it explicitly. think about your recruit's role on the team concretely, sophmore year NT, junior year NT, senior year NT. what does the team around him look like at those times, and what value does he bring... does he get you what you need? most coaches don't really plan explicitly like this before recruiting, they just kinda find some good players, maybe make sure they have a mix of guards and bigs, a pg here and there, and then kinda see how they all fit together when each season starts. those folks have no chance against someone who is deliberately aligning all this along the way, who walks into a season more or less already knowing what to expect, because they've been thinking about what this season would look like since recruiting 4 seasons ago.

this kind of planning can easily run you a couple hours a season and easily more than that, if you really get into it. i think its a lot of fun, its my favorite part of the game, pondering all the hypothetical, evaluating how the current version of the plan is going and how i can improve upon it... in short, it really helps to have vision, and you can't have vision without thinking about the future.

Erik Perkins is an example that I was using as a reference to help me remember how slow it moves at the really low levels. He’s also an example of a very low work ethic player who is *absolutely* worth pursuing, even though he left a lot of potential on the table. I usually tell folks with the really low work ethic players, it actually helps to have some attributes yellow and red, categories you can punt in the practice plan without worrying about losing a bunch of ground. It would have been helpful to have another punt-able category with Perkins, I ended up having to play maintenance with defense, ballhandling, and passing, while trying to get some actual growth in conditioning and especially perimeter (he did end up a modest perimeter threat as an upperclassman, which my flex team desperately needed at the time). One more printable category, and I might have been able to get that perimeter up over 80, which would have been big.

Sure it would have been great to see him fulfill his potential as a (possible) 100-100-100 ath-speed-defense guy, with 95-100-95 per-BH-pass skills (and 90+ stamina to boot), I mean who doesn’t want Superman on their team? But he would have been so much more expensive, and unlikely to stay past his soph season anyway, so…

Yeah, he's a stud for a low we player. Was he a starter all four seasons? Did you punt FT or try and maintain?

Posted by Basketts on 11/16/2021 11:55:00 AM (view original):
Yeah, he's a stud for a low we player. Was he a starter all four seasons? Did you punt FT or try and maintain?

4-year starter, every game. I maintained FT, I think at 6, which is why he finally slipped a little visibly as a senior, 6 is too low for the low WE players to actually tread water on high potential categories, even with lots of PT.