Can you post the file for it because the one on his website doesn't work any more.Posted by dtm1500 on 2/22/2014 11:20:00 PM (view original):

Works for me. I use it all the time.

if you do another version what about adding FT potential? I know its a pain because it isn't really presented anywhere (well, you can see the potential on the FSS page, but it doesn't have the color coded value like other attributes). It does show as a color coded number on the recruit comparison tool on the recruiting page, but I doubt that;s helpful...Posted by yatzr on 2/23/2014 9:19:00 PM (view original):

Whoops! Sorry about that. I recently cleaned up the files on the server and only kept the latest version of each program. Apparently, I made a version 1.6 of this and forgot to update this thread. I don't even remember what changed between 1.5 and 1.6 though. If anyone has any issues with 1.6, I do still have 1.5 on my computer and could reupload it if necessary.

I am finding huge struggles with this formula for potential. I am currently using it with 24 high, 12 medium and 2 low with the guys that I recruited this past season and what they came to me with to see if I had made the right choices on recruits. I found that one guy potential is 47.06 with this formula. To me this means that he will increase by about 47 points by the time he is in his senior year correct?Posted by hughesjr on 5/27/2012 4:39:00 AM (view original):

What I do with potentials is this:

Low 0, Medium 10, High 25 ....

then this:

PG:

(A+A_P)*0.11+(SPD+SPD_P)*0.14+(REB+REB_P)*0+(DE+DE_P)*0.10+(BLK+BLK_P)*0+(LP+LP_P)*0.01+(PE+PE_P)*0.12+(BH+BH_P)*0.18+(P+P_P)*0.27+WE*0.03+(ST+ST_P)*0.03+(DU+DU_P)*0.01

SG:

(A+A_P)*0.11+(SPD+SPD_P)*0.14+(REB+REB_P)*0+(DE+DE_P)*0.10+(BLK+BLK_P)*0+(LP+LP_P)*0.03+(PE+PE_P)*0.24+(BH+BH_P)*0.13+(P+P_P)*0.18+WE*0.03+(ST+ST_P)*0.03+(DU+DU_P)*0.01

SF:

(A+A_P)*0.14+(SPD+SPD_P)*0.10+(REB+REB_P)*0.07+(DE+DE_P)*0.10+(BLK+BLK_P)*0.06+(LP+LP_P)*0.12+(PE+PE_P)*0.12+(BH+BH_P)*0.08+(P+P_P)*0.14+WE*0.03+(ST+ST_P)*0.03+(DU+DU_P)*0.01

PF:

(A+A_P)*0.19+(SPD+SPD_P)*0.08+(REB+REB_P)*0.12+(DE+DE_P)*0.10+(BLK+BLK_P)*0.08+(LP+LP_P)*0.14+(PE+PE_P)*0.09+(BH+BH_P)*0.05+(P+P_P)*0.08+WE*0.03+(ST+ST_P)*0.03+(DU+DU_P)*0.01

C:

(A+A_P)*0.18+(SPD+SPD_P)*0.03+(REB+REB_P)*0.20+(DE+DE_P)*0.10+(BLK+BLK_P)*0.15+(LP+LP_P)*0.22+(PE+PE_P)*0.01+(BH+BH_P)*0.00+(P+P_P)*0.04+WE*0.03+(ST+ST_P)*0.03+(DU+DU_P)*0.01

If I am wrong please correct me. The guy in question has already improved 41 just this season alone and that would mean that he has almost hit his peak in terms of how good he can be at the given position.

Can anyone help me with what I am doing incorrectly or if I am thinking about this all wrong.

Thanks

no, you are looking at this the wrong way. this formula is not about how much growth a player has. this is about how good the player is!Posted by obituaryconc on 3/3/2014 12:26:00 PM (view original):I am finding huge struggles with this formula for potential. I am currently using it with 24 high, 12 medium and 2 low with the guys that I recruited this past season and what they came to me with to see if I had made the right choices on recruits. I found that one guy potential is 47.06 with this formula. To me this means that he will increase by about 47 points by the time he is in his senior year correct?Posted by hughesjr on 5/27/2012 4:39:00 AM (view original):

What I do with potentials is this:

Low 0, Medium 10, High 25 ....

then this:

PG:

(A+A_P)*0.11+(SPD+SPD_P)*0.14+(REB+REB_P)*0+(DE+DE_P)*0.10+(BLK+BLK_P)*0+(LP+LP_P)*0.01+(PE+PE_P)*0.12+(BH+BH_P)*0.18+(P+P_P)*0.27+WE*0.03+(ST+ST_P)*0.03+(DU+DU_P)*0.01

SG:

(A+A_P)*0.11+(SPD+SPD_P)*0.14+(REB+REB_P)*0+(DE+DE_P)*0.10+(BLK+BLK_P)*0+(LP+LP_P)*0.03+(PE+PE_P)*0.24+(BH+BH_P)*0.13+(P+P_P)*0.18+WE*0.03+(ST+ST_P)*0.03+(DU+DU_P)*0.01

SF:

(A+A_P)*0.14+(SPD+SPD_P)*0.10+(REB+REB_P)*0.07+(DE+DE_P)*0.10+(BLK+BLK_P)*0.06+(LP+LP_P)*0.12+(PE+PE_P)*0.12+(BH+BH_P)*0.08+(P+P_P)*0.14+WE*0.03+(ST+ST_P)*0.03+(DU+DU_P)*0.01

PF:

(A+A_P)*0.19+(SPD+SPD_P)*0.08+(REB+REB_P)*0.12+(DE+DE_P)*0.10+(BLK+BLK_P)*0.08+(LP+LP_P)*0.14+(PE+PE_P)*0.09+(BH+BH_P)*0.05+(P+P_P)*0.08+WE*0.03+(ST+ST_P)*0.03+(DU+DU_P)*0.01

C:

(A+A_P)*0.18+(SPD+SPD_P)*0.03+(REB+REB_P)*0.20+(DE+DE_P)*0.10+(BLK+BLK_P)*0.15+(LP+LP_P)*0.22+(PE+PE_P)*0.01+(BH+BH_P)*0.00+(P+P_P)*0.04+WE*0.03+(ST+ST_P)*0.03+(DU+DU_P)*0.01

If I am wrong please correct me. The guy in question has already improved 41 just this season alone and that would mean that he has almost hit his peak in terms of how good he can be at the given position.

Can anyone help me with what I am doing incorrectly or if I am thinking about this all wrong.

Thanks

with yatzr's tool, and other tools others have made themselves, the advantage here is you can use a formula to sort players - instead of using crappy overall rating! basically, the approach people use is to weight the attributes, and then combine them with their ratings. those ratings can be current ratings, projected max ratings, or somewhere in between. this formula adds in their potential, and you can set the values for potential accordingly. for example, if you want a medium average cap, you use 13 - but hughes used 10 most likely because those last few points are really slow. its like, do you want to recruit the guy who will be best when he graduates? or the guy who will be best when hes a junior? or as a freshman, or what? you can use different numbers for each of these if you like. but regardless, this is all about ranking players, not projecting growth - projecting growth is just necessary to some degree to come up with half way decent ranking systems (most of us care much less about how good a freshman is now than how he is as a junior).

does that make sense?

gillispie,Posted by gillispie1 on 3/3/2014 5:43:00 PM (view original):no, you are looking at this the wrong way. this formula is not about how much growth a player has. this is about how good the player is!Posted by obituaryconc on 3/3/2014 12:26:00 PM (view original):I am finding huge struggles with this formula for potential. I am currently using it with 24 high, 12 medium and 2 low with the guys that I recruited this past season and what they came to me with to see if I had made the right choices on recruits. I found that one guy potential is 47.06 with this formula. To me this means that he will increase by about 47 points by the time he is in his senior year correct?Posted by hughesjr on 5/27/2012 4:39:00 AM (view original):

What I do with potentials is this:

Low 0, Medium 10, High 25 ....

then this:

PG:

(A+A_P)*0.11+(SPD+SPD_P)*0.14+(REB+REB_P)*0+(DE+DE_P)*0.10+(BLK+BLK_P)*0+(LP+LP_P)*0.01+(PE+PE_P)*0.12+(BH+BH_P)*0.18+(P+P_P)*0.27+WE*0.03+(ST+ST_P)*0.03+(DU+DU_P)*0.01

SG:

(A+A_P)*0.11+(SPD+SPD_P)*0.14+(REB+REB_P)*0+(DE+DE_P)*0.10+(BLK+BLK_P)*0+(LP+LP_P)*0.03+(PE+PE_P)*0.24+(BH+BH_P)*0.13+(P+P_P)*0.18+WE*0.03+(ST+ST_P)*0.03+(DU+DU_P)*0.01

SF:

(A+A_P)*0.14+(SPD+SPD_P)*0.10+(REB+REB_P)*0.07+(DE+DE_P)*0.10+(BLK+BLK_P)*0.06+(LP+LP_P)*0.12+(PE+PE_P)*0.12+(BH+BH_P)*0.08+(P+P_P)*0.14+WE*0.03+(ST+ST_P)*0.03+(DU+DU_P)*0.01

PF:

(A+A_P)*0.19+(SPD+SPD_P)*0.08+(REB+REB_P)*0.12+(DE+DE_P)*0.10+(BLK+BLK_P)*0.08+(LP+LP_P)*0.14+(PE+PE_P)*0.09+(BH+BH_P)*0.05+(P+P_P)*0.08+WE*0.03+(ST+ST_P)*0.03+(DU+DU_P)*0.01

C:

(A+A_P)*0.18+(SPD+SPD_P)*0.03+(REB+REB_P)*0.20+(DE+DE_P)*0.10+(BLK+BLK_P)*0.15+(LP+LP_P)*0.22+(PE+PE_P)*0.01+(BH+BH_P)*0.00+(P+P_P)*0.04+WE*0.03+(ST+ST_P)*0.03+(DU+DU_P)*0.01

If I am wrong please correct me. The guy in question has already improved 41 just this season alone and that would mean that he has almost hit his peak in terms of how good he can be at the given position.

Can anyone help me with what I am doing incorrectly or if I am thinking about this all wrong.

Thanks

with yatzr's tool, and other tools others have made themselves, the advantage here is you can use a formula to sort players - instead of using crappy overall rating! basically, the approach people use is to weight the attributes, and then combine them with their ratings. those ratings can be current ratings, projected max ratings, or somewhere in between. this formula adds in their potential, and you can set the values for potential accordingly. for example, if you want a medium average cap, you use 13 - but hughes used 10 most likely because those last few points are really slow. its like, do you want to recruit the guy who will be best when he graduates? or the guy who will be best when hes a junior? or as a freshman, or what? you can use different numbers for each of these if you like. but regardless, this is all about ranking players, not projecting growth - projecting growth is just necessary to some degree to come up with half way decent ranking systems (most of us care much less about how good a freshman is now than how he is as a junior).

does that make sense?

That makes total sense now that I look at it. I am realizing from the guys that I recruited, I did a darn good job last season but ended up red shirting a guy that could have produced huge for me this year and am kicking myself for it. But overall this makes total sense and I am excited to use it next season as a tool. This looks like a great tool altogether and I am glad that everyone has tested it already for me and helped me out.

Have a great rest of your day.