I expect this has been asked before, and I apologize. But when looking at scouting reports and predicting where a guy will max out, what is the mean improvement you use for each level of potential (low, medium, high, and high/high)?

I'd always used 3, 10, 20, and 30 respectfully, but I'm pretty sure that's badly underestimating on the whole.

MASSIVE            28+                  High-High      (significantly, tremendous, sky’s the limit, massive)

SUBSTANTIAL  21 – 27.99      Low-High      (above average, substantial, really improve, major, big, lot, fairly significant)

GOOD                 7 – 20.99        Average         (good upside, decent, can improve, help improve, able to/should/could improve)

NOT MUCH        3.0 - 6.99        Low                (not anticipating…much, don’t think/see…much more, probably not…much, etc.) 

NOT ANY            0 - 2.9              Low-Low       (don’t see any, doubt any, etc.

Just going off red/black/blue

I estimate the lowest for each one so red-0 black-7 blue-20 so this is worst case potential growth, and generally most potentially gets higher than that, but you do get players who don't max out.

 semirealted questions..

i think its fairly well known that when LP and PE are high-high the growth can be nearly unlimited with growth of 60-70 points or more not unusual.    
with the other categories that kind of growth is rare at best from my observations.

what im not sure of is this...
with high-high LP/PE,   is it always unlimited  ("skys the limit" ...so to speak)?  or is there a range of possibilities for high-high LP/PE so that sometimes it is 30 and sometimes it is 90?  any guesses as to the frequency of these extremely high growth potential cases?  

as for the other categories..  any guesses as to the maximum for each?  or the frequency of a "reallyhigh-high" vs 28-30 point improvement?

Thanks, theonly. That's a handy chart to have.

Dave's question is more of what I was going for. I'd love to know if anybody has run some data analysis on the actual average for each potential. Also, if LP and PER are much more significant than other categories.

Posted by ab90 on 2/9/2015 8:19:00 PM (view original):
Thanks, theonly. That's a handy chart to have.

Dave's question is more of what I was going for. I'd love to know if anybody has run some data analysis on the actual average for each potential. Also, if LP and PER are much more significant than other categories.

i just looked at some of my past rosters and blues besides lp/per seemed to be maxing out around 35-40ish for me but thats just looking at a handful of plahyers.

I've had a wide variety of lp and per growth, from one who had 85!!! To 29.

The 85 was quite a revelation. Picked him up to be a no score point guard, noting mildly the fact that he had a high high per, since he had something like an 11 in it. By the end of his career ... Yeah. He was a scoring guard. Recruited another point man to slide him over.

Does WE have any effect on the AMOUNT of growth within those ranges?  Or does it purely determine how fast a player grows?

The latter.

I've got a guard that has a potential 45 points of passing improvement (just turned black) and unknown in PER (already up 32).  That's pretty good news.  However, on that same team I have a guard that was HH in PER, but was capped at 36 points of improvement, but has 54 in LP.   

I would think that in every category, except LP & PER, HH should mean between 28-45 potential improvement (maybe more, but I don't have any examples and know that you shouldn't count on it).  In LP & PER, it seems possible to have a recruit with potential to improve between 28-89 points.   Here's an example that was close (I'd choose a better one, but they are older than the ratings history): Valeri Zmolek.

As long as we are on the subject, I will also ask this: the responses aren't always equated into hard-and-fast results are they?  For example, I just checked the assistant coach scouting report on one of my current freshmen and he indicated high-high in five areas.  Of those five, three turned from blue to black during the season with improvements of 10 in all categories (that's year-end improvement, not when they turned to black).

I assume it's just one of those things where random variance exists, and sometimes you get lucky and sometimes you don't.  Is this a correct assumption?

Posted by steviescott on 2/10/2015 12:54:00 PM (view original):
As long as we are on the subject, I will also ask this: the responses aren't always equated into hard-and-fast results are they?  For example, I just checked the assistant coach scouting report on one of my current freshmen and he indicated high-high in five areas.  Of those five, three turned from blue to black during the season with improvements of 10 in all categories (that's year-end improvement, not when they turned to black).

I assume it's just one of those things where random variance exists, and sometimes you get lucky and sometimes you don't.  Is this a correct assumption?

i didn't understand this as well so when I asked this question, this is what I got.

When a player goes from Blue to black its his remaining potential so we know max black is basically 20.  So after 10 points of growth he turns black meaning he still has about 20 growth points however the last few will be hard to come by so his actually potential will max out around 30 which is still considered high/high.  You will notice that in about 13-15ish more growth points he'll turn red in that category meaning about only 7 points left.  But still end up near 30 total development points which is high/high

So for a better example:
assume player is high/high in Ath current rating is 40 that means he is gaurenteed 28+ development points black potential would be 19/20 points left so when he switches blue->black he only has 19/20 points left but adding to what he has already gained it would still be high/high so he could develped 11 points before turning black which means his actualy potential was 30/31 

Posted by rogelio on 2/10/2015 12:19:00 PM (view original):
I've got a guard that has a potential 45 points of passing improvement (just turned black) and unknown in PER (already up 32).  That's pretty good news.  However, on that same team I have a guard that was HH in PER, but was capped at 36 points of improvement, but has 54 in LP.   

I would think that in every category, except LP & PER, HH should mean between 28-45 potential improvement (maybe more, but I don't have any examples and know that you shouldn't count on it).  In LP & PER, it seems possible to have a recruit with potential to improve between 28-89 points.   Here's an example that was close (I'd choose a better one, but they are older than the ratings history): Valeri Zmolek.

Generally agree that LP/Per have more frequent extreme h/h, but don't believe they are exclusive to those ratings.
Currently have a player already with 33 improvement on Pass and still blue.  Endicott has player who went up 50 in defense.  Know I've seen more than 50 on speed recently

I have seen speed and pass top 40 before, never 50 though.......ATH is the one i never see monster growth out of 35ish is top.

average number of points gained for players with high potential.
categories with the most growth listed first:

LP,  PER, PAS,  DUR,  DEF,  REB,  BH,  ATH,  SPD,  STA,  BLK

I ran an Excel macro to pull data on some past rosters.  I specifically looked at players whose first season in Crum was Season 67 (the first season they started tracking starting ratings and ending ratings).  The data set includes 2,466 players.  To clarify the table the columns show the number of players with ratings growth in each range listed on the far left (so 1,090 of the 2,466 players I pulled data on had an increase in athleticism ranging from 0 to 6 points, etc, etc.,) the "minimum"and "maximum" rows show the highest and lowest growth in each category and the "average" row is the average increase of all players in this grouping.

I didn't include it in the chart below but there were 16 players who showed overall increases of 300 points or better over their careers.  11 of those 16 were five-year players.  The greatest increase was 364 points.  The greatest increase for a four-year player was 339 points and the average player increased by 158.7 points.

 

	# of Players
Rat. Growth	Ath	Spd	Reb	Def	Blk	LP	Per	BH	Pa	WE	St	Du
Negative	26	23	99	12	10	254	250	188	64	182	204	0
0 to 6	1090	954	1124	594	1290	1173	1108	940	1021	273	489	629
7 to 13	526	413	364	499	400	182	162	404	390	577	596	424
14 to 20	423	435	295	490	334	159	163	304	336	683	560	494
21 to 27	241	327	271	404	248	161	205	283	289	518	355	449
28 to 40	158	292	275	415	179	252	285	263	271	233	252	410
41 to 50	2	22	37	50	5	141	138	77	83	0	10	53
51 to 60	0	0	1	2	0	90	87	7	11	0	0	6
61 to 70	0	0	0	0	0	38	45	0	1	0	0	1
71 to 80	0	0	0	0	0	15	21	0	0	0	0	0
81 to 90	0	0	0	0	0	1	2	0	0	0	0	0
TOTALS	2466	2466	2466	2466	2466	2466	2466	2466	2466	2466	2466	2466
Minimum	-6	-4	-20	-29	-23	-42	-17	-18	-6	-51	-13	0
Maximum	42	46	51	52	45	82	84	53	62	36	50	62
Average	10.5	13	11.3	16.5	10.1	13.2	14.2	12.1	13	14.6	13.5	16.7