mabe "choose" would be a better choice of words?

I use pretty simple formulas to sort players at each position, and then use the eyeball/experience method to select from the top tier of players my spreadsheet gives me.

I apply a pretty simple correction for high/normal/low potential that gives me a pretty good estimate of where the ratings will end up, in relation to other players.

All in all, I think it works pretty well for me. I wouldn't blindly take a higher rated guy based on the spreadsheet, but it does a good job of separating the studs from the duds, so to speak.

I don't do any fancy programming either, strictly copy and paste into Excel with some simple manipulation.

Well, really its kinda why I had things chunked into "Rebounding', "Low post offense" "Low post defense" "Perimeter defense", "Perimeter offense" For division three, at least, trying to look at it more in terms of roles with sets of skills I might be able to find together as decent to good, given a 'complete' player isn't coming at dIII.

I developed formulas that I use to compare my lineup to my opponents lineup to search for weaknesses that either of us might exploit via gameplanning (which I know seems to have minimal impact in outcomes currently). Since the formulas compare my players to his position by position, ultimately they don't have to be perfect, since they are both graded the same they give me a rough idea how much better or worse I might be at a position...

I have formulas too, they are really complex, and I am not sure I understand them all anymore. But they started simple like this and kept getting more and more complex.

And regarding the eyeball test, I would use that too, especially to figure out why your formula and your eyeball test disagree and then change one or the other to make them agree. Saves a ton of time in the end.

And formulas like this CAN be used in recruiting in the post-potential world kujayhawk, you have have to add terms for the potentials, which is a bit tedious.

And turning HD into a big math problem IS fun, for us enginerds who love math like myself.

In my case, the formulaic approach helps me analyze my "Eyeball tests" and so far, even using just what I had up there even without weighting, I can see pretty much what my "Eyeball tests' are looking at - and I've gotten a few new ideas for types of players I might want to look for.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 11/16/2009

Quote: Originally posted by arssanguinus on 11/16/2009 Ok Zhawks. Thank you for the extremely helpful answer. Generally finding something to sort players by IS using your brain. Coming up with a system doesn't mean you somehow AREN'T thinking. What exactly was the point of that snarky answer?

Main reason I'm doing this is I have had several players do much better than I expected them to and I'm trying to isolate why.

I finished my recruiting and I'm not into the next season yet, and this gives me a way to try to think about and organize what I am looking for in players and try to suss out what things might be leading to some players performing unexpectedly.

You are welcome, let me know if I can be of any more assistance

the more you hang out in these forums, the more of a ***** you become. i thought i didn't like your act before, now its confirmed. what a jerk.

why dont all of you nerds just start posting in binary

Vandy, if you don't like the topic, why don't you just ignore it?

i love the topic.

Quote: Originally posted by arssanguinus on 11/17/2009Well, really its kinda why I had things chunked into "Rebounding', "Low post offense"  "Low post defense"  "Perimeter defense", "Perimeter offense"  For division three, at least, trying to look at it more in terms of roles with sets of skills I might be able to find together as decent to good, given a 'complete' player isn't coming at dIII.

okay, i guess i understand that. but what if you simplified just a bit?

for instance, you could look for four types of players

offensive bigman
defensive bigman
offensive perimeter player
defensive perimeter player


i dont think you are going to want to totally ignore rebounding for either your offensive or defensive players.

and, even in d3, you should be able to get bigmen who are decent at two of three things (LP, RE, DE)

and, just in case you are afraid some great rebounders are getting "sorted out", do a sort of the original HD list by RE and take a closer look at the top RE guys that are not already identified in the offensive or defensive group. in fact, i like to do that with most of the "key cores". in other words, check out the fastest guys, and the most athletic and the best shooters, etc to see if any of them are so good in thier key core, that you are actually willing to put up with uglier warts than you thought you could.

if you do it that way, i would make sure to include RE for gaurds, and BH and PE for bigmen. I think for bigmen i would include everything there is... but some things like PE and BH would be weighted very low. for gaurds i would include everything but LP and BLK.

as for the issue of trying to do this with just core skills and no weighting. I dont really think that accomplishes much. (just my opinion)

I think if you are going to do this, you have to use weighted ratings.

not sure if that helps at all, especially after you got so much good response, but it gives you a bit more food for thought to chew on.

good luck and have fun.

Quote: Originally Posted By vandydave on 11/17/2009why dont all of you nerds just start posting in binar

10110001010 1010111100010101 your idea.

arssanguinus, you are on the right track here. i once made a program where i could copy in recruits, 50 at a time, and it would apply my formulas, including modifications for potential. in this program, i would make sets of formulas, there could be multiple for each offense, defense, division, and position (although i only made 20 sets or so). now, i don't even use the program, but the exercise was invaluable. it REALLY makes you think about what makes a recruit good, and what stats are really only good when other stats are good, and what stats are multiplied by others, etc.

in my program, you could make arbitrarily complex formulas, often i'd use a bunch of if-then type statements too, for example, with work ethic, i felt the first 30 points were a hell of a lot more important than 70-100. i highly recommend you take the time to work your formulas, and continue refining over time, it is some great thought that will help you in all facets of the game, not just recruiting.

heres a couple tips on how you might want to approach it: one thing i did is, i made a few sets of formulas for different roles, not just for a position. for example, you can't apples to apples compare a pg who is not a shooter vs one who is a shooter, so i made a set of ratings for a non shooting pg, a shooting pg, a shooting specialist sg, a regular sg, a rebounding sg, and a rebounding sg who would play sf. it was very helpful to think about how all these roles were different, and how much perspective effects the quality of a player - that is, how he can be great in one role and just decent in another role, both of which may be appropriate for a player with his position.

another thing i did was, make each player's final rating a sum of a few common sub ratings. for example, a big man might be his offensive ability + defensive ability + rebounding + work ethic + misc other stuff, where each of those categories was a formula, in some cases, a very very complex one. the reason to do this is, it is MUCH easier to calibrate category by category. in calibrating your forumlas, you probably are going to look at some set of data, and look at one player then the next, and so on, trying to make sure the rating puts them in correct order of quality. well, that is hard to get a handle on - its much easier to say which big man is better offensively and how big of a difference that should be in their ratings (like should it be a 120 vs 150 or 120 vs 130?). also, this later will allow you to sort based on your needs - for example, if you just have 1 generic big man formula, and this season, you need 2, one really good offense, and one really good rebounder/defender, then you can get a lot more out of your ranking system, by looking not only at overall but the important, meaningful subcategories.

good luck in your pursuit! always keep in mind, you never want to just rely on the formulas, always eye ball it in the end :)


edit: i hadn't read everything, yes, you are right to break it into categories. but you definitely want to weight them. also, in a system where like, you have an offense and running the point category for a guard, you very easily can have a stat (like ball handling) appearing in multiple categories. that is a good thing.

I hear allot of people sort of dismiss BH for post players. .anyone have any thoughts on that? I've sort of been tabbing any post, mentally, with decent ath and speed, and a good BH and speed as a potential SF candidate depending on other qualities. I sort of treat SF< usually, as a place to get more of whatever I think I am lacking at the other four positions.

Quote: Originally posted by coach_billyg on 11/18/2009arssanguinus, you are on the right track here. i once made a program where i could copy in recruits, 50 at a time, and it would apply my formulas, including modifications for potential. in this program, i would make sets of formulas, there could be multiple for each offense, defense, division, and position (although i only made 20 sets or so). now, i don't even use the program, but the exercise was invaluable. it REALLY makes you think about what makes a recruit good, and what stats are really only good when other stats are good, and what stats are multiplied by others, etc.

in my program, you could make arbitrarily complex formulas, often i'd use a bunch of if-then type statements too, for example, with work ethic, i felt the first 30 points were a hell of a lot more important than 70-100. i highly recommend you take the time to work your formulas, and continue refining over time, it is some great thought that will help you in all facets of the game, not just recruiting.

heres a couple tips on how you might want to approach it: one thing i did is, i made a few sets of formulas for different roles, not just for a position. for example, you can't apples to apples compare a pg who is not a shooter vs one who is a shooter, so i made a set of ratings for a non shooting pg, a shooting pg, a shooting specialist sg, a regular sg, a rebounding sg, and a rebounding sg who would play sf. it was very helpful to think about how all these roles were different, and how much perspective effects the quality of a player - that is, how he can be great in one role and just decent in another role, both of which may be appropriate for a player with his position.

another thing i did was, make each player's final rating a sum of a few common sub ratings. for example, a big man might be his offensive ability + defensive ability + rebounding + work ethic + misc other stuff, where each of those categories was a formula, in some cases, a very very complex one. the reason to do this is, it is MUCH easier to calibrate category by category. in calibrating your forumlas, you probably are going to look at some set of data, and look at one player then the next, and so on, trying to make sure the rating puts them in correct order of quality. well, that is hard to get a handle on - its much easier to say which big man is better offensively and how big of a difference that should be in their ratings (like should it be a 120 vs 150 or 120 vs 130?). also, this later will allow you to sort based on your needs - for example, if you just have 1 generic big man formula, and this season, you need 2, one really good offense, and one really good rebounder/defender, then you can get a lot more out of your ranking system, by looking not only at overall but the important, meaningful subcategories.

good luck in your pursuit! always keep in mind, you never want to just rely on the formulas, always eye ball it in the end :)


edit: i hadn't read everything, yes, you are right to break it into categories. but you definitely want to weight them. also, in a system where like, you have an offense and running the point category for a guard, you very easily can have a stat (like ball handling) appearing in multiple categories. that is a good thing.

Oddly enough, due to the vagaries of recruiting, I have a guard playing small forward, who probably has the best Pass/BH combo on the team. And at least so far he has been rather deadly there.