I agree. I just think that in this range a change of 11 points doesn't buy you much. Like I suggested above, I think it's a fraction of 1%. So for a guy that took 216 2 point shots, if you put the over/under for how many fewer baskets he would have made this season with 31 PER instead of 42 at 2 baskets, I'd take the under. I think the point value of what you could have gotten from better passing and FT% with those practice minutes would have been more significant. But it's all pretty nitpicky, and a fraction of a PPG in difference probably doesn't matter very much in most cases. It's also hard to predict - I don't think either of us has enough experience with low-WE players to predict that the guy was going to grow by 11 points in PE in his career. If it had been 20+, it might be entirely different.

In retrospect, would you change anything about the practice plan you generated? Or are you happy with how it worked out? I assume questions like that are the real purpose for this thread.

Yeah -5 seems too high even at 1 WE. But this guy wasn't 1 WE. He was 3 and then even up to 10ish his sr season. So I would definitely have zeroed out those reds to maximize growth in stamina.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/5/2019 6:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 4/4/2019 11:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/4/2019 9:08:00 AM (view original):
He started every game all 4 years.

Have you ever considered trying a low work ethic experiment, starting and playing a player 40 minutes each game?

1 WE will always suck, no matter what you do, but was thinking maybe in the 10-15 range?

For what purpose? Starts are significantly more important to WE growth than starts. Maybe 3to 1?

I've actually noticed a decent improvement in WE from 20 to 25 minutes per game to 40. I never said starts weren't important.

"In retrospect, would you change anything about the practice plan you generated? Or are you happy with how it worked out? I assume questions like that are the real purpose for this thread."

That wasn't my original purpose. I was just interested in the data and thought I would share. My real goal was to see how much growth you could get out high potentials from low WE guys.

Posted by thewizard17 on 4/5/2019 7:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/5/2019 6:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 4/4/2019 11:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/4/2019 9:08:00 AM (view original):
He started every game all 4 years.

Have you ever considered trying a low work ethic experiment, starting and playing a player 40 minutes each game?

1 WE will always suck, no matter what you do, but was thinking maybe in the 10-15 range?

For what purpose? Starts are significantly more important to WE growth than starts. Maybe 3to 1?

I've actually noticed a decent improvement in WE from 20 to 25 minutes per game to 40. I never said starts weren't important.

Do you have any guys like that now? I would love to look at them.

i just looked at some guys with similar work ethics (60 +/- 2) and the one that played almost 30 minutes a game went up 9 points. The guy with 21 minutes per game was 8. They both started every game.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/9/2019 10:54:00 AM (view original):
"In retrospect, would you change anything about the practice plan you generated? Or are you happy with how it worked out? I assume questions like that are the real purpose for this thread."

That wasn't my original purpose. I was just interested in the data and thought I would share. My real goal was to see how much growth you could get out high potentials from low WE guys.

I'm not sure you achieved this goal. If you wanted to see how much growth you could get out of high potentials from low WE guys then you should have optimized the practice plan for that. You were too worried about losing a couple points in those reds/oranges. Putting those points in the blues/greens would have given a different (and IMHO opinion, better) outcome.

You know what, you are right, I should have put a few more minutes into a couple categories.