Does FT effect (at all) the position of a player on the big board?

I’ve often loaded FT for sophs and juniors on the big board, to avoid growth in higher impact areas, and don’t recall ever being burned (ie, watch them move up the board anyway). Doesn’t mean there is *no* effect, but it would be negligible, I think.

Wait, whut?
This seems pretty significant.
Are there ratings levels that increase the probability of a guy leaving early?
Overall rating? Or LP-PER? Or something else?

Posted by npb7768 on 9/26/2020 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Wait, whut?
This seems pretty significant.
Are there ratings levels that increase the probability of a guy leaving early?
Overall rating? Or LP-PER? Or something else?

Fairly certain that the core ratings of the position that the Big Board projects your player to be drafted as have larger effects on movement.

If you have a player the computer projects as a PG/SG, he'll move up the board more with improvements in SPD/BH/PASS/PER. If you have a player the computer projects as a PF/C, he'll move up the board more with improvements in REB/BLK/LP.

Everyone moves up the board well with improvements in ATH/DEF.

From what I hear (no experience myself) the PER/LP is the biggest factor. That's assuming the player is "eye test draft worthy" in other ratings. I once heard a coach say his player moved up 20 spots on the draft board when his PER went from 79 to 80.

Is 80 a threshold that puts players in the next tier (I love tiers!)? I don't know. Was 20 full spots an exaggeration? Maybe but I don't know. Were there possible other factors that moved a player up the board? Surely. But I don't know.

but I can get an efficient 15-18ppg out of a player at D2 that has no PER or LP. I'm not sure that can be done at D1

Posted by topdogggbm on 9/26/2020 1:59:00 PM (view original):
From what I hear (no experience myself) the PER/LP is the biggest factor. That's assuming the player is "eye test draft worthy" in other ratings. I once heard a coach say his player moved up 20 spots on the draft board when his PER went from 79 to 80.

Is 80 a threshold that puts players in the next tier (I love tiers!)? I don't know. Was 20 full spots an exaggeration? Maybe but I don't know. Were there possible other factors that moved a player up the board? Surely. But I don't know.

but I can get an efficient 15-18ppg out of a player at D2 that has no PER or LP. I'm not sure that can be done at D1

20 spots means there was a formula switch position wise, not meeting a specific benchmark. I had a player that was bouncing between 35 and 70 his sopfomore year based on which categories developed each day. He would be 40 after a spdpoint and drop down to 70 after a reb point. After this happened 2/3 times, I caught on to this and axed his BH time to 0. He stuck in the 70s with normal movement for the rest of the year. He maxed his cores at the end of JR year and was mid-50s.

He's 18 at the start of senior year.

i think there's some folks who don't realize that its just ratings that drives the big board, not mpg or ppg or any actual stats - so i figured i'd just mention that. when people talk about holding players back etc its only ratings, not play.

They really need to fix the big board manipulation. Overhauling the entire EE process is probably the answer.

Posted by Baums_away on 9/27/2020 12:10:00 PM (view original):
They really need to fix the big board manipulation. Overhauling the entire EE process is probably the answer.

What’s broken? If the “problem“ is that some coaches choose to develop acquired talent in ways that don’t appear, at first glance, to immediately maximize or optimize potential, I couldn’t disagree more. That’s a valid gameplay choice. It’s rational, it’s reasonably realistic (coaches have all sorts of approaches on how and when to drill the physical cores, and when to fully develop the primary and secondary skills on different types of players), and most importantly it presents a good balanced approach to gameplay that lets users decide for themselves how they want to play, and what strategies to pursue, instead of embedding hidden tracks that must be followed for success.

If you’re talking about the relatively rare, strange cases where players daily bounce 30+ spots up and down based on a point here or there, because the system has decided to evaluate them as a different type of player, I agree. That’s goofy, and while it doesn’t happen very often, if you have that kind of player, you can manipulate that into much better odds than you should be able to. I would be on board with revising the system to smooth out the evaluation process to avoid those kinds of cases.

Posted by shoe3 on 9/27/2020 4:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Baums_away on 9/27/2020 12:10:00 PM (view original):
They really need to fix the big board manipulation. Overhauling the entire EE process is probably the answer.

What’s broken? If the “problem“ is that some coaches choose to develop acquired talent in ways that don’t appear, at first glance, to immediately maximize or optimize potential, I couldn’t disagree more. That’s a valid gameplay choice. It’s rational, it’s reasonably realistic (coaches have all sorts of approaches on how and when to drill the physical cores, and when to fully develop the primary and secondary skills on different types of players), and most importantly it presents a good balanced approach to gameplay that lets users decide for themselves how they want to play, and what strategies to pursue, instead of embedding hidden tracks that must be followed for success.

If you’re talking about the relatively rare, strange cases where players daily bounce 30+ spots up and down based on a point here or there, because the system has decided to evaluate them as a different type of player, I agree. That’s goofy, and while it doesn’t happen very often, if you have that kind of player, you can manipulate that into much better odds than you should be able to. I would be on board with revising the system to smooth out the evaluation process to avoid those kinds of cases.

Yes shoe, nothing is more fun than pulling the wings out of the players I recruit so they can't develop in order to gain a massive competitive advantage over the people who haven't figured out that they actually shouldn't let their 5 stars develop.

If it isn’t fun for you, don’t do it that way. Plenty of great coaches fully develop their players right away. Develop them fast or slow. Your choice. There’s no “massive competitive advantage.” You take the chance at a possible extra year or two and the IQ, but then you have to put up with less production from the roster spot. You might increase your odds a bit by holding back a junior to “on the fence,” but he could still leave, and then what did you give up? Gameplay choices are indeed fun. The game would be seriously flawed if there was a one-right-way to manage it.

Posted by shoe3 on 9/27/2020 7:30:00 PM (view original):
If it isn’t fun for you, don’t do it that way. Plenty of great coaches fully develop their players right away. Develop them fast or slow. Your choice. There’s no “massive competitive advantage.” You take the chance at a possible extra year or two and the IQ, but then you have to put up with less production from the roster spot. You might increase your odds a bit by holding back a junior to “on the fence,” but he could still leave, and then what did you give up? Gameplay choices are indeed fun. The game would be seriously flawed if there was a one-right-way to manage it.

Idk man, I dropped from 3.3 to 2.1 projected EEs with Illinois last year and went from 3rd to 4th in my team evaluation rating throughout the season based on my practice plans. Seems like a decent trade-off.

But are you having fun? If not, it isn’t a good trade-off. ;)

It has no basis in real life basketball. Which isn’t necessarily a problem if it makes the game better but it’s gimmicky as hell.

I am all for more gameplay choices though, just don’t think this should be one of them.

Posted by Baums_away on 9/27/2020 8:19:00 PM (view original):
It has no basis in real life basketball. Which isn’t necessarily a problem if it makes the game better but it’s gimmicky as hell.

I am all for more gameplay choices though, just don’t think this should be one of them.

It has more basis than absolute, tangible numbers representing abilities, with color-coded potential. If it’s a gimmick, it’s because users are making gameplay choices, not because the system is designed to favor the choice. And like I said, not all coaches are making that choice. Some pretty good ones don’t worry about it, and just re-stock.

Up until 1999, no Duke Blue Devil had ever left early for the NBA. That isn’t necessarily because Coach K was “clipping their wings” - I don’t know how he ran his practice plans - but I do think its valid for a college basketball simulation to at least try to leave an approximation of that approach to success open.