Posted by zsap on 4/15/2011 11:48:00 AM (view original):
If a guy had a high-high and a work ethic in the 80's how much more would you think he would improve in his career then a guy with a high-high and a 40 work ethic.

Impossible to answer that really. The High-high potential is what it is, some unknown specific value, probably > 30. The 80 WE will just let him reach that faster than the 40 WE. Either player probably should max out with decent playing time.

However if you went with say 20 WE vs 40 WE, then it would make a bigger difference. There's a good chance the 20 WE won't improve fast enough to max out a High-high potential, even with lots of playing time. I don't even consider players under 20 WE anymore, and I try real hard to stay above 30 WE.

Posted by killbatman on 4/15/2011 9:55:00 AM (view original):
On the Stamina question, here's one flaw I've noticed that is "supposedly" going to be fixed. I signed a guy with something like 70 ST, low potential. He maxed out as a FR at 72 ST, and never improved a single point ever again. Through offseason drops (he had 60+ WE!?), he eventually dropped to 67 ST by the start of his SR year. At that point he showed average upside in the practice thoughts email..still never improved a single point. CS said this was a flaw and would be fixed at some point. Apparently he was "stuck" in that mode of not having room to grow.

So while they said it's limited to players like that, who were basically maxed out to start with, I get the feeling it's more widespread than that. I think the offseason drops in ST that are just about guaranteed for everyone leave players improving at a slower rate than they should (in ST). Somehow their internal rate of improvement doesn't adjust up when they lose points in the offseason.

You wouldn't notice it probably except in my scenario above, but the more I look for it, the more I see it. It seems like most of my players never reach what I think they should in ST.

I think you are on to something, because I had a player who seemed to behave as though he was nearly maxxed in stamina even though he supposedly had average stamina.  I didn't track the numbers, which is why I am not totally sure, but I remember this because he seemed stuck on 69 stamina for a very long time.  He was my best player in terms of ability and I wanted to get him as much p.t. as possible.  I kept waiting and waiting for the stamina to behave like it had room to grow, but it behaved like it was maxxed.  There seemed to be a disconnect between his potential in the asst. coach's report and how he behaved. 

I have another guy this year who may be in the same boat.  http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=1706291

Smith, if I recall correctly, ended last season with 71 stamina.  He dropped to 67 in the offseason (disappointing, considering he has such high work ethic). I got the report that his growth potential is average.  Therefore, he ough to get to at least 74 this season...in theory.  I will keep an eye on it. This is not a minor issue because if he only gets to 69 or 70, that is a big difference compared to 74+ for a guy who I would play as many minutes as possible.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed it..like I said, I haven't been tracking ratings to prove anything.  It just seems like I always have guys with average upside in ST improving a couple points their last 2 seasons..never quite maxing out, just slowly creeping up to the end.

On a possibly related note, I feel like offseason drops in ST haven't been quite as dramatic lately..a few more guys than normal are actually going up a couple points.  Anyone else notice that?  That would be one way to address the problem we're talking about.

It is just me or does it seem like if they are high durability they are always high-high as well. I've don't think i've had a guy NOT go up 40 pts in durability. My guys can't shoot straight, but they can take a Nancy  Kerrigan style crowbar to the kneecap at still play.

This player is another great example of a substantial regressions in ST for players with low potential in that area. This is the exact message I got from the scouting report  "Great physical shape - personally, I don't see much upside in terms of his conditioning." He's always received adequate playing time and has always been set to at least 15 practice minutes for this attribute (though this season he's been at 20). He has a low WE, but given his playing time and practice minutes he should at least be able to break even by the end of each season. His career began with an 88 in ST, but it just keeps going down the tubes.

http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=1731607



 

Yeah that's so disappointing when the offseason drops are just flat out permanent and unrecoverable.

If players are regressing when they shouldn't be regressing then this is proof of what Killbatman is saying.  A player who is near maxed and has an offseason drop will, as a result have his original maximum potential reduced.  I suspect this can happen to any rating, but it is most noticable in in the stamina rating because players, by their junior year, tend to near their max in stamina but also are more likely to lose points in stamina than in other categories.  Stamina is the one rating that consistently backslides in the offseason. 

Posted by jkline on 4/18/2011 3:23:00 PM (view original):
If players are regressing when they shouldn't be regressing then this is proof of what Killbatman is saying.  A player who is near maxed and has an offseason drop will, as a result have his original maximum potential reduced.  I suspect this can happen to any rating, but it is most noticable in in the stamina rating because players, by their junior year, tend to near their max in stamina but also are more likely to lose points in stamina than in other categories.  Stamina is the one rating that consistently backslides in the offseason. 

"as a result have his original maximum potential reduced."

That's exactly the point.  That's what is happening, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't intended to work that way.  I see no reason why it should.