This is gold.

thanks possum!   that is great stuff.

yep, thanks!

I'm favoriting the **** out of this thread. Let's keep the discourse flowing.

So looking at stamina, it seems it almost never is sensible to take a guy high/high but starting in the 50's.

Posted by ab90 on 2/11/2015 11:50:00 AM (view original):
I'm favoriting the **** out of this thread. Let's keep the discourse flowing.

So looking at stamina, it seems it almost never is sensible to take a guy high/high but starting in the 50's.

As long as they have enough blues in the right spots, you guys can pass on them all day. I'll take every last one of them.

Posted by emy1013 on 2/12/2015 1:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ab90 on 2/11/2015 11:50:00 AM (view original):
I'm favoriting the **** out of this thread. Let's keep the discourse flowing.

So looking at stamina, it seems it almost never is sensible to take a guy high/high but starting in the 50's.

As long as they have enough blues in the right spots, you guys can pass on them all day. I'll take every last one of them.

me too.

Posted by possumfiend on 2/11/2015 2:03:00 AM (view original):
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

Wow, what a post.  Anybody else want to join me in a standing ovation?  

Anyway, looks like what people have been saying is true.  Your freak growths are going to come from LP and Per.  Only 2 WE got over 41 and the best was a 42, that is interesting.  

First,a big thank you to possumfiend for doing this and showing it.

Second, couple of observations:

1. It appears it is impossible to lose durability, as a big fat ZERO is up there for the number of guys who went negative in that category - the only such category where no one regressed.

2. Athleticism appears to be an area where huge growth is particularly difficult to obtain. Other than WE, it is the lowest number of guys at 41 to 50, but there's more than that - it shows lower numbers at 28-40 than any other category.

3. Defense is quite robust - discounting durability, it has by far the highest number of 28-40 guys, with 21-27 up there as well. It is also fifth behind LP, PER, BH, and PASS for growth of 41 to 50. On the other end, it has the LEAST number of guys at just 0-6 growth.

4. It is more rare and to less of an extent than LP and PER, but BH and PASS also have a slight potential for explosive growth.

oh my ... that table is outstanding info :)

Incredibly useful.Thankyou!

HAs anyone seen "sky's the limit" to describe anything but LP?

Each ratings category has its own high-high message. That one is unique to LP

Adding my name to the list of those who have expressed gratitude for summarizing this data.

The takeaway I find most interesting is that if you know a guy is H/H in PER or LP, he is actually more likely to have >41 points of growth than not.

The numbers show it is exactly the way it should be; recruit on current ratings for "inherent" ability like ATH/SPE and recruit on potential for "teachable" ability like scoring.

bump

bump