Do players develop based on production?

[joosegoose]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

Figured something out after my test. My example will be Channing Frye. Going into MyLeague Year 3.

Year 2 Channing Frye was rated a 73. His Shot IQ rating was an 80 at the start of the season. During the season I left him to train at his natural style which caused his Shot IQ to increase 2 points by the end of the season to an 82. In the off season Frye dropped 4 points to a 69 overall. However when looking at the specific ratings that dropped it was physicals like speed, quickness, lateral, shot blocking, dunk, vertical. I looked at his Shot IQ rating and it in fact only dropped a point. It was at 81.

I focused on a few other individual players like Bogut and Pekovic. This leads me to believe that IQ is in fact staying put as long as it matches the player type. Offensive players will retain Shot IQ. Defensive players will retain Low Post or On Ball Defense IQ.

The thing that's causing ratings to drop so drastically is that 2k's rating formula seems to favor athleticism greatly when it comes to overall rating.

I went to Andre Iguodola in roster creator to test this theory. I dropped all of his athleticism based stats 10 points. That would be Driving and Standing Layup, lateral quickness, blocking, Standing and driving dunk, speed, quickness, vertical and stamina. This takes his overall rating from an 82 to a 79. That's -3 without dropping ANY IQ based ratings or shooting based ratings at all. Which means if a guy is losing 10 points per season after his prime in his athleticism ratings and not losing ANY points in shooting or IQ he is still dropping 3 points.

If you wanted to add in losing the ability to finish around the basket as something you lose with time that would make his overall drop -4 points without touching any IQ based ratings.

My tests will continue in further seasons to see if IQ ratings are indeed dropping on a consistent basis. As of now it seems as though that is not the case.

Nice job getting this info. I will admit I haven't really been checking to see if IQ has actually been retained or not--I assumed it fell like every other attribute that I did check.

I do know that shooting regresses nearly uniformly for everybody regardless of player type or training type, though. It even extends to free throws which I find especially troubling. I've found some aged veterans with free throw stats in the 30s before.

Your test with physical attributes and ratings is especially encouraging. Losing 10 in each attribute is pretty extreme, yet it causes roughly the same regression that we currently see. If the physical regression was kept the way it currently is and non-physical regression were cut back like it should be, I think regression would be just about right.

[ManiacMatt1782]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

The post and comments area example that basketball gamers who think they are sim aren't actually sim at all.



There are a lot of real life players who sharply regress and not every player will progress and regress the same and yes there are guys who regress in their late 20s and early 30s but you don't want the game to express that for some reason.



Now if every player just kept going up and progressing well into their late 30s then you all would have a problem with that. This system is trying to vary things based on a lot of factors like chemistry, injury, playing time, training, etc...and instead of thinking about that some of you just yell out "its broken, its broken, its broken"



Its starting to turn into the boy who cried wolf in here.

What I find unrealistic is the plateau, or lack there of I should say. Guys will progress until they are 25, and then Decline at 27-28, your plateau should be a longer period, 5-6 years before you start seeing the drop off, with varying results, the problem is most player plateau for 2-3 seasons tops before hitting their dropoff. Also Seniors should progress and plateau quicker than a Freshman who has entered the draft.

[joosegoose]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

What I find unrealistic is the plateau, or lack there of I should say. Guys will progress until they are 25, and then Decline at 27-28, your plateau should be a longer period, 5-6 years before you start seeing the drop off, with varying results, the problem is most player plateau for 2-3 seasons tops before hitting their dropoff.

On post #55 there's a graph from fivethirtyeight that suggests a player's plateau is from years 3-8 in the league. You're right, the game doesn't even come close to approaching this.

[Soundtrack2C]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

On post #55 there's a graph from fivethirtyeight that suggests a player's plateau is from years 3-8 in the league. You're right, the game doesn't even come close to approaching this.

I don't think it would surprise me or anyone in this thread if this goes un-fixed until 2k16.

This may actually be the first basketball game, not 2k game, basketball game period, in which I haven't started a franchise mode.

Insane.

-An injury system that randomly spits out values (you can have a player out 4-6 weeks with a concussion or have a player out 2-4 months with an ACL)

-Rookies drafted with ridiculous tendencies (Drafting a center with 0 shot contest tendency, drafting a scoring player with a shot taking tendency in the 40's)

-Broken potential system returns for the 7th year in a row (forces players to meet an overall number, regardless of whether they average 5 points and 5 rebounds or 20/10)

-Degradation system that drops players overalls by 4-5 points per year, regardless of production (just like the broken potential system), once they hit the magical required age that the game decides, which in the past was the magical age of 30, now its anywhere between 28-30.

-Not being able to see box scores from teams you don't control

I'd go further but its depressing just to type this. This is likely the last year I buy sports games until maybe 2017. I need a break. Each year getting told "here's our cool new feature we're introducing, it may or may not work, but don't worry, you won't care about it because we're going to break something else in the process that will impede your experience."

[dwayne12345]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

I don't think it would surprise me or anyone in this thread if this goes un-fixed until 2k16.

This may actually be the first basketball game, not 2k game, basketball game period, in which I haven't started a franchise mode.

Insane.

-An injury system that randomly spits out values (you can have a player out 4-6 weeks with a concussion or have a player out 2-4 months with an ACL)

-Rookies drafted with ridiculous tendencies (Drafting a center with 0 shot contest tendency, drafting a scoring player with a shot taking tendency in the 40's)

-Broken potential system returns for the 7th year in a row (forces players to meet an overall number, regardless of whether they average 5 points and 5 rebounds or 20/10)

-Degradation system that drops players overalls by 4-5 points per year, regardless of production (just like the broken potential system), once they hit the magical required age that the game decides, which in the past was the magical age of 30, now its anywhere between 28-30.

-Not being able to see box scores from teams you don't control

I'd go further but its depressing just to type this. This is likely the last year I buy sports games until maybe 2017. I need a break. Each year getting told "here's our cool new feature we're introducing, it may or may not work, but don't worry, you won't care about it because we're going to break something else in the process that will impede your experience."

- Injury's are a problem that I expressed to Leftos. He answered me in one of these threads and said that they were aware and are patching it.

- I can see box scores of CPU games. Is that an issue that people are having?

But yea progression and regression haven't been done properly EVER in my 2k Association Mode experience. This year is better than previous years for me but it's far from optimal or even good. For me it's bearable and I wouldn't call it broken. I would just say that it needs a few small tweaks to get it perfect.

Here's what I would suggest for progression system:

- Players have a potential rating which plays heavily into what contract offers they receive. A 70 rated Center with an 84 potential can get 10, 11, 12 million a year off of promise alone (See Larry Sanders, Javale McGee, Marc Gasol, Derrick Favors, and the list goes on).

- Potential rating is the max a player CAN become rated with optimal training, playing time, and healthy seasons.

- If a player doesn't have good health, good playing time, and/or high training level they WILL NOT reach their potential rating.

- Players regress physically after their primes (late 20's) and need to start focusing on IQ and shooting to stay in the league.

- Some players see major IQ/shooting spikes in their 30's while continuing athletic regression. Athleticism can be a uniform decrease by age. I would be OK with that.

- IQ rating increases should depend on player work ethic, good health, and team in season and off season training choices.

I think those small coding fixes would fix the progression system leaps and bounds. Guys can still drop major points in a season but it would be based on low work ethic or injuries as oppose to a hard coded value that triggers on players age.

[joosegoose]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

- Injury's are a problem that I expressed to Leftos. He answered me in one of these threads and said that they were aware and are patching it.

- I can see box scores of CPU games. Is that an issue that people are having?

But yea progression and regression haven't been done properly EVER in my 2k Association Mode experience. This year is better than previous years for me but it's far from optimal or even good. For me it's bearable and I wouldn't call it broken. I would just say that it needs a few small tweaks to get it perfect.

Here's what I would suggest for progression system:

- Players have a potential rating which plays heavily into what contract offers they receive. A 70 rated Center with an 84 potential can get 10, 11, 12 million a year off of promise alone (See Larry Sanders, Javale McGee, Marc Gasol, Derrick Favors, and the list goes on).

- Potential rating is the max a player CAN become rated with optimal training, playing time, and healthy seasons.

- If a player doesn't have good health, good playing time, and/or high training level they WILL NOT reach their potential rating.

- Players regress physically after their primes (late 20's) and need to start focusing on IQ and shooting to stay in the league.

- Some players see major IQ/shooting spikes in their 30's while continuing athletic regression. Athleticism can be a uniform decrease by age. I would be OK with that.

- IQ rating increases should depend on player work ethic, good health, and team in season and off season training choices.

I think those small coding fixes would fix the progression system leaps and bounds. Guys can still drop major points in a season but it would be based on low work ethic or injuries as oppose to a hard coded value that triggers on players age.

All awesome stuff. To add to this: I'd love to see potential broken into 2 measures.

1) Ceiling. This is what you described--a player's absolute maximum. I think it would be kind of cool though if players had a small chance to exceed this (maybe with the legendary work ethic badge?). Kevin Love was seen as a very good, safe prospect but very few saw All-NBA potential until he completely transformed his body and game.

2) "Bust" potential (or the opposite of this, I don't know what you would call it). This would be a player's likelihood of actually reaching his ceiling assuming the factors you listed go in the player's favor. Zach LaVine has a very high ceiling thanks largely to his athleticism, but what are the odds he actually turns into a solid player even? Some guys never adjust their game to the NBA properly despite being dealt a good hand.

A guy can dream...

Side note- LeBron James got to age 37 in my franchise and is worse than Paul Pierce at 37. His shooting numbers are in the 60s across the board (including free throws). The fact that any player, even the mighty King James, made it to 37 is impressive, though.

[Soundtrack2C]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

- Injury's are a problem that I expressed to Leftos. He answered me in one of these threads and said that they were aware and are patching it.

- I can see box scores of CPU games. Is that an issue that people are having?

But yea progression and regression haven't been done properly EVER in my 2k Association Mode experience. This year is better than previous years for me but it's far from optimal or even good. For me it's bearable and I wouldn't call it broken. I would just say that it needs a few small tweaks to get it perfect.

Here's what I would suggest for progression system:

- Players have a potential rating which plays heavily into what contract offers they receive. A 70 rated Center with an 84 potential can get 10, 11, 12 million a year off of promise alone (See Larry Sanders, Javale McGee, Marc Gasol, Derrick Favors, and the list goes on).

- Potential rating is the max a player CAN become rated with optimal training, playing time, and healthy seasons.

- If a player doesn't have good health, good playing time, and/or high training level they WILL NOT reach their potential rating.

- Players regress physically after their primes (late 20's) and need to start focusing on IQ and shooting to stay in the league.

- Some players see major IQ/shooting spikes in their 30's while continuing athletic regression. Athleticism can be a uniform decrease by age. I would be OK with that.

- IQ rating increases should depend on player work ethic, good health, and team in season and off season training choices.

I think those small coding fixes would fix the progression system leaps and bounds. Guys can still drop major points in a season but it would be based on low work ethic or injuries as oppose to a hard coded value that triggers on players age.

I have a similar thought process on how the progression system should work. I feel that the potential system is too restrictive. Potential shouldn't be a specific rating, it should be a letter grade. A,B or C

For example. You draft a player, lets say his name is Michael Watts.

Michael Watts has a potential grade of a B and an overall rating of 65 when you draft him, meaning that he can, by means of progression only, can become anywhere between an overall of 80-90.

This makes it so he isn't capped to only become an overall 81 or 82 guy, and he also can't jump into the 90's by means of 2k magic.

The way this system should work is that Michael has 4 years to get into what I would call his "potential bubble".

I chose this number because typically after 3-4 years, we know who a player is, and who he isn't. If during that time, he progresses to an overall of 85, because his on court play dictates, by means of progression, that he has earned that, then he has made it and lived up to his potential.

However lets say Michael gets injured during his first 4 years, or only plays 20 mpg or something, and doesn't get enough playing time to get into the bubble, and after 4 years he only reaches an overall of 77, then his potential should drop to a C (70-80), and he can no longer progress past this point, unless he has an "outlier" season.

So lets say in this scenario, Michael is a Center that averages 7 points and 5 rebounds on 52% shooting to go along with a block per game in 17 minutes of action. He has been around this area for the past 4 years and is pretty much locked into being who he is.

In his fifth season, the starting center on his team gets injured and he ends up being the starter for 60 games and finishes the season averaging 12, 10, 2 blocks in 30 minutes per game. Then he should see his overall get a decent bump after the season, he becomes an overall 80 and then his potential increases to a B.

Meaning that at this point that if he continues to get better, his overall will increase and if he falls back from this, his overall will decrease. And if he continues to play well, he can potentially exceed his potential and get into the next potential block.

Basically what I'm saying is that the potential system should not be static, it should be dynamic based on performance and age.

In this system, you can still have the physical increases and decreases with age, however everything else would be left to on court activity, and not 2k magic that forces players to meet whatever potential they are given at all costs.

If you want to say "by X age, players start to lose their athleticism", then do it in a smart way. Don't say "Oh hey, your'e age 29? -4 speed, for every year until you retire.

Do something simple, create a standard. If a player is age 27 and has 98 speed, 99 stamina, 98 quickness, 99 vertical, then by age 28, take off a point for each

Age 28- speed 97, stamina 98, quickness 97, vertical 98

Age 29- speed 96, stamina 97, quickeness 96, vertical 97

Age 30 take off a little more- Speed 94, stamina 95, quickness 94, vertical 95

Age 31- Speed 91, Stamina 93, quickness 91, vertical 92

etc

So by age 34, your athletic pg or wing player has 84 speed and 88 stamina and 84 quickness, 85 vertical etc

Don't take it all away in one full swoop, take things off gradually, don't just wipe the whole slate away and make it impossible to have good veteran players in the game. Take things off slowly and do it in moderation so that in the end, you get your result. You take a athletic superstar and make him into a player with speed consistent with the averages for his position.

You take the star and make him a #3 or #4 guy on a team instead of a #1 guy, but don't do it overnight. Do it gradually, like real life

[JasonMartin]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

others decline since there was no time spent for training.

No time for training? They have got a whole off-season to practice. Teams/players who aren't in the playoffs have more time (not looking at Olympics/FIBA tournaments/vacation).

I read an article recently about a handling/skills coach who worked out with Nate Robinson, KD, .... on their ball handling skills. I think they work with him for a few days, then they continue working on their skills themselves and they work out with other coaches.

But the thing is, I'm sure KD is able to manage and create a proper workout in which he works on his 1. ballhandling skills 2. shooting 3. post-game 4. passing 5. defense and so forth.

I realize KD is a superstar and very gifted and already above average in everything but still. A lot of players have a lot of time to practice and work on multiple parts of their game.

[Soundtrack2C]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

All awesome stuff. To add to this: I'd love to see potential broken into 2 measures.

1) Ceiling. This is what you described--a player's absolute maximum. I think it would be kind of cool though if players had a small chance to exceed this (maybe with the legendary work ethic badge?). Kevin Love was seen as a very good, safe prospect but very few saw All-NBA potential until he completely transformed his body and game.

2) "Bust" potential (or the opposite of this, I don't know what you would call it). This would be a player's likelihood of actually reaching his ceiling assuming the factors you listed go in the player's favor. Zach LaVine has a very high ceiling thanks largely to his athleticism, but what are the odds he actually turns into a solid player even? Some guys never adjust their game to the NBA properly despite being dealt a good hand.

A guy can dream...

Side note- LeBron James got to age 37 in my franchise and is worse than Paul Pierce at 37. His shooting numbers are in the 60s across the board (including free throws). The fact that any player, even the mighty King James, made it to 37 is impressive, though.

I agree, there should be some sort of ceiling and a floor. Players should be capable of meeting or exceeding expectations, or even not making them at all.

It should be possible for my overall 70 rookie to be overall 90 in 4 seasons if he plays to that level. Or overall 80 in 4 seasons. Or overall 74 in 4 seasons.

Ratings and potential should be dynamic. Let me draft a guy and find out what he is, don't tell me what he is and then make it so. Give me a player and lets see if we can meet or exceed those expectations together. Let me draft a player high and let me see that he isn't what they said he could be.

Don't give me a overall 70 player, tell me he's going to be an overall 80 player, and then make it happen regardless of whether he plays 10 or 35 minutes per game

[dwayne12345]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

I have a similar thought process on how the progression system should work. I feel that the potential system is too restrictive. Potential shouldn't be a specific rating, it should be a letter grade. A,B or C

For example. You draft a player, lets say his name is Michael Watts.

Michael Watts has a potential grade of a B and an overall rating of 65 when you draft him, meaning that he can, by means of progression only, can become anywhere between an overall of 80-90.

This makes it so he isn't capped to only become an overall 81 or 82 guy, and he also can't jump into the 90's by means of 2k magic.

The way this system should work is that Michael has 4 years to get into what I would call his "potential bubble".

I chose this number because typically after 3-4 years, we know who a player is, and who he isn't. If during that time, he progresses to an overall of 85, because his on court play dictates, by means of progression, that he has earned that, then he has made it and lived up to his potential.

However lets say Michael gets injured during his first 4 years, or only plays 20 mpg or something, and doesn't get enough playing time to get into the bubble, and after 4 years he only reaches an overall of 77, then his potential should drop to a C (70-80), and he can no longer progress past this point, unless he has an "outlier" season.

So lets say in this scenario, Michael is a Center that averages 7 points and 5 rebounds on 52% shooting to go along with a block per game in 17 minutes of action. He has been around this area for the past 4 years and is pretty much locked into being who he is.

In his fifth season, the starting center on his team gets injured and he ends up being the starter for 60 games and finishes the season averaging 12, 10, 2 blocks in 30 minutes per game. Then he should see his overall get a decent bump after the season, he becomes an overall 80 and then his potential increases to a B.

Meaning that at this point that if he continues to get better, his overall will increase and if he falls back from this, his overall will decrease. And if he continues to play well, he can potentially exceed his potential and get into the next potential block.

Basically what I'm saying is that the potential system should not be static, it should be dynamic based on performance and age.

In this system, you can still have the physical increases and decreases with age, however everything else would be left to on court activity, and not 2k magic that forces players to meet whatever potential they are given at all costs.

If you want to say "by X age, players start to lose their athleticism", then do it in a smart way. Don't say "Oh hey, your'e age 29? -4 speed, for every year until you retire.

Do something simple, create a standard. If a player is age 27 and has 98 speed, 99 stamina, 98 quickness, 99 vertical, then by age 28, take off a point for each

Age 28- speed 97, stamina 98, quickness 97, vertical 98

Age 29- speed 96, stamina 97, quickeness 96, vertical 97

Age 30 take off a little more- Speed 94, stamina 95, quickness 94, vertical 95

Age 31- Speed 91, Stamina 93, quickness 91, vertical 92

etc

So by age 34, your athletic pg or wing player has 84 speed and 88 stamina and 84 quickness, 85 vertical etc

Don't take it all away in one full swoop, take things off gradually, don't just wipe the whole slate away and make it impossible to have good veteran players in the game. Take things off slowly and do it in moderation so that in the end, you get your result. You take a athletic superstar and make him into a player with speed consistent with the averages for his position.

You take the star and make him a #3 or #4 guy on a team instead of a #1 guy, but don't do it overnight. Do it gradually, like real life

I love your idea I just have small issue.

2K tried to have the non static potential and botched it SO BAD it's not even funny. You'd set a guy's potential and it would always raise causing EVERY team to have a bunch of great players. I like your idea of non static potential ratings for future games but they need time to not flummox it like they were doing in previous 2K iterations.

But I freaking LOVE performance based increases and decreases. NO SIM SPORTS GAME HAS DONE THIS YET EVER. Not even Madden. I remember playing full seasons in Madden and throwing a ridiculous amount of TD's with a 70 something QB and seeing minimal ratings uptick. 2K can absolutely change the game for hardcore gamers by adding performance based ratings that go up AND down based on minutes, averages, and injuries. It's not patchable but optimistic 2k16 thought process.

2) "Bust" potential (or the opposite of this, I don't know what you would call it). This would be a player's likelihood of actually reaching his ceiling assuming the factors you listed go in the player's favor. Zach LaVine has a very high ceiling thanks largely to his athleticism, but what are the odds he actually turns into a solid player even? Some guys never adjust their game to the NBA properly despite being dealt a good hand.

I love this. Again not a patchable fix here but a dam great future iteration of 2k concept right there.

[Riggins]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

I'm starting to think the potential rating should even exist. People talk about a player's upside, but it's not an actual physical thing that should be rated. One could say an athletic 7 footer who's game is green has more upside than an average athlete good 3 point shooter who has a more polished game. But you can't measure potential. There's no guarantee that the 7 footer might ever amount to anything. Likewise, there's also no guarantee that the average athlete might not become prime Peja Stojakavic.

I think there should be multiple factors that go into progression. Even if upside is one of them, what about the player's personality, ability to stay healthy, his work ethic, coaching should be huge. What team a player plays on should have a lot to do with how he progresses. To me maybe it should be an option to hire other staff such as shooting coaches.

If Chip England is your team's shooting coach, and he's working with an average shooter, odds are usually that shooter's skills are going to go down initially and then steadily improve. But I guess it's really hard to ask a video game to be that deep, bc in that case in real life some players change their form some too. LeBron, Kawhi Leonard, etc.

[pacers101]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

I agree with most of what is being said here, but if I hear one more person say that progression/regression/potential should be related to production/performance I am going to lose the plot!!!


Playing time should affect progression, as should training, potential, coaches etc. But not actual statistical performance. Production/performance is a result of a player's ability, and not the other way round.

[pacers101]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

Some great ideas here for a more advanced potential system. Would love to see some of these ideas explored for 2k16.


But in the meantime they can definitely patch 2k15 to make it work better... surely it is just a case of tweaking the severity of regression especially for guys under 32. Failing to address such a fundamental and obvious issue would be very disappointing for me.


I'm a bit frustrated right now because I have an awesome MyLeague going on right now, and I feel that it has been ruined a little bit by this regression issue.

[darkknightrises]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

I agree with most of what is being said here, but if I hear one more person say that progression/regression/potential should be related to production/performance I am going to lose the plot!!!


Playing time should affect progression, as should training, potential, coaches etc. But not actual statistical performance. Production/performance is a result of a player's ability, and not the other way round.

I think it should be based off statistical performance plus age and training, potential and coaches and other things. I don't see how it should not be off statistical performances at list some. The reason I say that is for 2 reasons. One if you have it just tied with the other stuff form the sound of things you can only go up so much witch I think is messed up. The reason I say that is that if a guy has low potential but has a really good season he should not be limited to only go up say 2 points because in real life there are some guys that don't live up to there potential and other guys that live past it. Now if you limit progression to much to potential then how are you going to have guys who end up way better then people think and how are you going to have guys that don't end up has while has people think? Second why I think it should have to do with stats is that if a guy is getting older and his stats get worse I think he should go down because it is simulating that he is having a drop off in play.


Now if a guy has a great season and is still kind of young then he should go up because that is simulating that he is getting better. I fell like If you do it that way then you could have guys show a drop with out it being to be of a drop or guys doing better if they get better. The reason I say that is if they have a bad year and get worse then it is more likely that the next year they are going to drop off even more. Now if they have a good season and there stats go up there is a better changes there stats will go up again. I think progression and regression should go something like this. 14% is age, 14% health, 14% coach, 14% stats, 14% training, 14% playing time and 14% potential. I think this would be a good idea for sever reason. Age because has you get older you are going to beable to watch more film and have more changes to play and learn and a lot of guys at like 20-21 are not has strong has they are at say 25-30. Also of course has you get older you are going to get less athletic and so you are going to have to improve other parts of your game to make up for the lose of athleticism has you get older. Health because the more injures the less changes to play and get into a rhythm and also the more injures the younger you are going to be when you lose start to lose athleticisms.


Coaching because the better coach the faster and more you are going to learn. Also some coaches may give you more opportunities to play even when you make mistakes and come coaches may not fit a players playing style. Stats because of what I already said. Training because the more you practice the better you are going to get. I belive the thing that separates guys like Kobe and say a above average but not HOF player is how much they want it and how hard the practice to get better and keep in shape. Playing time because the more you play the more changes you are going to have to adjust to the NBA game after coming form collage and the more changes to learn form you mistakes and get more confident in what you can do. Potential because that is how good people think you can be but again some time people are way off on how good some one is or isn't.


Also with the age thing and stats I think has you get older you should get a bigger punishment for have a worse stat year then normal compared to if you are younger. If you are younger I think stats should have a bigger impact on your progression. So say a guy is 32 and has a 20-10 season I think the stats should not reward if they same has if a guy has a 20-10 season at 25.

[dwayne12345]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

I agree with most of what is being said here, but if I hear one more person say that progression/regression/potential should be related to production/performance I am going to lose the plot!!!


Playing time should affect progression, as should training, potential, coaches etc. But not actual statistical performance. Production/performance is a result of a player's ability, and not the other way round.

I hear you about statiscal performance but remember that it is a video game.

Would you rather potential be linked to a static rating like it is now.

Or performance like it has never been before.

For example Paul Milsap came into the league as a 2nd rounder with little upside. He was supposed to be a Faried like energy player at best. However he got some minutes and played lights out and now he's a fringe all-star.

If Markel Brown from the Nets got 30 minutes a night this year irl and averaged 15 ppg that alone would give him a ratings increase in the following year's 2K installment. I wouldn't have a problem with progression in Franchise mode working similar to that.