Posted by dacj501 on 8/8/2011 2:35:00 PM (view original):
won't see something exactly like him anymore - no highs for stats starting below 10 (the logic for this eludes me...)

So the guys like this would have their high-highs start at 10. even better?

Posted by dacj501 on 8/8/2011 2:35:00 PM (view original):
won't see something exactly like him anymore - no highs for stats starting below 10 (the logic for this eludes me...)

it's actually the opposite, and the logic is nobody liked spending 2 seasons of practice to get a high potential from 1 to 12

no guys like this would still have the 1 in per just like he does, and it would not improve. This guys 1 went to 68, not 12...

eta: especially since I was quite particular in including the word "exactly" in my post...

that no high potential for ratings under 10 has really put a damper on moving players to positions other than what they're labeled.
I've always enjoyed finding the mediocre PG with the huge upside in some big man categories and play him at Forward.

http://whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=1729033

Posted by dacj501 on 8/8/2011 2:47:00 PM (view original):
no guys like this would still have the 1 in per just like he does, and it would not improve. This guys 1 went to 68, not 12...

eta: especially since I was quite particular in including the word "exactly" in my post...

don't know what that first sentence says, but he didn't go 1-68 in 2 seasons

Posted by pinkeye on 8/8/2011 2:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 8/8/2011 2:47:00 PM (view original):
no guys like this would still have the 1 in per just like he does, and it would not improve. This guys 1 went to 68, not 12...

eta: especially since I was quite particular in including the word "exactly" in my post...

don't know what that first sentence says, but he didn't go 1-68 in 2 seasons

I expect he didn't, but he would never go from 1 to 68 anymore, and I think that was the obvious point of my post. I stand by it.

no one is denying that

he'd start at 10 and go to 68

Posted by pinkeye on 8/8/2011 2:54:00 PM (view original):
no one is denying that

he'd start at 10 and go to 68

because no one has any stats below 10 anymore? I don't get where you are drawing this from. There are tons of players that still have 1s. Why would this kid be different from all them?

because he has high potential


and looking through the sheet from my last d3 recruiting season, i'm seeing about one "1" for every 5 players

I could just as easily say he couldn't have high potential because he starts at 1.  Does that mean that potential is determined first, and if its high the category gets a default of 10?

Looking at recruiting right now in Phelan and for D 2 I see enough 1s that I'd prefer that some of them could be raised, especially in the last season and a half of their careers when I've got 90 minutes in SH doing nothing else.

This guy, if he had higher potential, could have matched Mr. Bell. He's high in everything except per and ft:

http://whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=1934944

As I'm looking at these recruits though, I do see that 1s seem to only appear in certain categories for certain positions.  There's a really nice big who becomes less enticing when you notice his 1 bh and 1 pas. Hard to run any offense through that guy, despite his nice potential in LP, unless you love turnovers... a number of guards have 1s in LP, yet LP is vital for layups. So I guess those guys better be set to +2 so they don't shoot inside the arc or they're 1 will really be a downer for scoring...not a fan of the change is all. I guess I'm a minority though.

Posted by dacj501 on 8/8/2011 3:08:00 PM (view original):
As I'm looking at these recruits though, I do see that 1s seem to only appear in certain categories for certain positions.  There's a really nice big who becomes less enticing when you notice his 1 bh and 1 pas. Hard to run any offense through that guy, despite his nice potential in LP, unless you love turnovers... a number of guards have 1s in LP, yet LP is vital for layups. So I guess those guys better be set to +2 so they don't shoot inside the arc or they're 1 will really be a downer for scoring...not a fan of the change is all. I guess I'm a minority though.

I have yet to see bigs with low bh turn over the ball alot. 

For the record pinkeye, it seems you are correct in what you are saying - I've seen no guards with per below 10. I wasn't really paying attention to the particular category in my original post, although that was unclear.

Posted by tianyi7886 on 8/8/2011 3:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 8/8/2011 3:08:00 PM (view original):
As I'm looking at these recruits though, I do see that 1s seem to only appear in certain categories for certain positions.  There's a really nice big who becomes less enticing when you notice his 1 bh and 1 pas. Hard to run any offense through that guy, despite his nice potential in LP, unless you love turnovers... a number of guards have 1s in LP, yet LP is vital for layups. So I guess those guys better be set to +2 so they don't shoot inside the arc or they're 1 will really be a downer for scoring...not a fan of the change is all. I guess I'm a minority though.

I have yet to see bigs with low bh turn over the ball alot. 

I don't track it all that closely, but I was going from my UCF team in Rupp. I've got 2 centers who are somewhat similar that rotate in and out of starting lineup based on match-ups. Both are jrs. 1 has bh and pas of 1 each, the other has 29 and 33 respectively. For their careers the 1/1 guy averages 1.6 TO/game (.069 per minute) while the other guy avgs 1.0 per game (.056 per minute). Not really conclusive I know...