Do players develop based on production?

[pacers101]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

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.

Sorry but I disagree. At the risk of repeating myself, a player doesn't progress because he has put up big stats. He puts up big stats because of his ability!!


To take the example of Millsap. He didn't improve because he put up good numbers. He put up numbers because he was already good when he came into the league (clearly was much better than the scouts gave him credit for). His ceiling was also much higher than the scouts suggested, and he got playing time which would have helped him develop.


If Markel Brown got 30 minutes a night he would probably improve as a player. So progression should be linked to playing time, absolutely 100% (I think it is in 2k15 actually, but I haven't played enough seasons to be certain). But I don't see whether he gets 5ppg or 15ppg makes a difference to his development.


But anyway players can put up stats in 2k15 even if they aren't a good player, same as the NBA. That applies if you sim games or even if you play them. Again it doesn't actually affect their development. If you sim Markel Brown at 30mins per game he might average 15ppg if his tendencies etc allow for it.


I'm all for a dynamic system. I would love to get rid of the visible potentials which are far too fixed, and have a system where some players develop, some don't develop, and it can be influenced by playing time, player character, coaching etc, but even then it should still bel variable... I would love that. But linking development to statistical performance is flawed and its not something I think the community should be putting to the 2k developers- because its an easy option and they just might go for it.


Ps. The upshot of linking development to statistical performance is the best players just get better. Also some players don't put up good numbers but are still valuable and can still develop and regress just like any other player.

[joosegoose]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

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

This is what gets the excited about the potential (sorry not sorry) of having two potential ratings.

You could have so many factors tie into the likelihood a player reaches his ceiling--(coaching, morale, team chemistry, veteran presence on the team [a determent to complete tanking!], training, injuries, age, work ethic badges, production to an extent, and playing time)

Making playing time matter (of course, as only one factor of many) would make things so much fun. The one time I tried MyGM I was the Kings and my owner wanted Stauskas to play at least 24 mpg. Other than appeasing the owner there was zero motivation to do this. Far from the case irl; you can ask anyone involved with the NBA and they'll tell you there's no substitute for game time. Offseason improvement is big, and inseason training can help some, but NBA teams don't practice (I'm talking legit practices, not gameplan/film/shootaround) all that much. A player who never sees the court is much less likely to reach his ceiling.

On the flip side, it needs to be ensured that player's who get ample playing time and meet most of the other requirements are still not guaranteed to reach their ceiling. That's the beauty of the other rating. If it becomes too easy to align the stars so your players become maxed then things will become too easy for the user and ratings inflation as a whole will become a thing.

Let's close our eyes for a moment and imagine a draft where we need a SG. There are two prospects available, both 71 overall and age 20. Neither is likely to help our team this season is any meaningful way.

SG#1 has a ceiling of 95 (or A if you'd prefer), but his likelihood to reach that is a 31, or F.

SG#2 has a ceiling of 78 (or C+), but his likelihood to reach that is a 97, or A+.

Who do you take? There is some serious nuance to this decision! This decision hinges largely on where we are as a team--a non-contender will likely roll the dice on SG#1 whereas the Spurs are likely rolling with SG#2 to get a cost-controlled contributor.

Just thinking about this makes me want to start up a MyLeague and draft. People also talk about how it is difficult/impossible to properly implement busts in videogames and to an extent it is. Right now the draft is no fun because there are no surprises and after a certain point everybody is completely worthless. There are other factors that could be added to enhance the excitement and intrigue of the draft/progression process but I think this alone would improve it so much

Take a look at this guy's (Layne Vashro also known as vjl110, great work with draft projections) "Star%" to get another idea of what could be done.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...=sharing#gid=2

Could you imagine seeing something like that in the player scouting page?? Swoons

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

He would definitely be rated higher next year. However, he would also experience serious ratings boosts throughout this year, too. Perhaps the best way to implement production boosts, and keep the most people happy, would be to shift the majority of it to immediate ratings increases (younger players experience more volatility than veterans). Of course, it would have to be made sure that production alone would only produce a nominal effect or things could get out of hand.

My ideal world would involve a ratings system that is dynamic rather than static--you don't truly know a player's current stats (just a ballpark) until he's played a bit. Of course that would be ridiculously difficult to implement and goes in the "pie in the sky" drawer of ideas for now

[joosegoose]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

Sorry but I disagree. At the risk of repeating myself, a player doesn't progress because he has put up big stats. He puts up big stats because of his ability!!


To take the example of Millsap. He didn't improve because he put up good numbers. He put up numbers because he was already good when he came into the league (clearly was much better than the scouts gave him credit for). His ceiling was also much higher than the scouts suggested, and he got playing time which would have helped him develop.


If Markel Brown got 30 minutes a night he would probably improve as a player. So progression should be linked to playing time, absolutely 100% (I think it is in 2k15 actually, but I haven't played enough seasons to be certain). But I don't see whether he gets 5ppg or 15ppg makes a difference to his development.


But anyway players can put up stats in 2k15 even if they aren't a good player, same as the NBA. That applies if you sim games or even if you play them. Again it doesn't actually affect their development. If you sim Markel Brown at 30mins per game he might average 15ppg if his tendencies etc allow for it.


I'm all for a dynamic system. I would love to get rid of the visible potentials which are far too fixed, and have a system where some players develop, some don't develop, and it can be influenced by playing time, player character, coaching etc, but even then it should still bel variable... I would love that. But linking development to statistical performance is flawed and its not something I think the community should be putting to the 2k developers- because its an easy option and they just might go for it.


Ps. The upshot of linking development to statistical performance is the best players just get better. Also some players don't put up good numbers but are still valuable and can still develop and regress just like any other player.

I saw this after I submitted my last post. Let me be clear--I agree with you 100%. The trickiest thing is I believe this would be very difficult to implement. I think not only the potential rating would be dynamic (which it should be no matter what imo), but all player ratings, at least for young players, would have to be dynamic.

This would require a big overhaul. In the current system, you know exactly how good a player is right now. You're right, factoring in production would make the rich get richer, so to speak. However, if you know a rookie is 70 overall right now (which is not totally true irl), there is absolutely no chance he will turn heads with some playing time unless the user plays the games themself.

This isn't quite how it works irl. We determine that players are better or have improved when they enter a game and have a good performance out of nowhere. It's an extreme outlier, but revisit Linsanity. He probably would have been rated a 67 before his ourburst. Obviously he was better than that, but in our game if he was represented properly he would have been playing all along.

With a truly dynamic system, "ratings in mirror may be better or worse than they appear." We wouldn't truly know how good a player is until they've played a bit--the ratings get clearer the more they play. This would be very difficult to implement and I could imagine a good number of casual player not liking it. Of course, the simple solution would be to select from "static" or "dynamic" ratings at the beginning of your MyLeague

Edit: Note to all: I'm really loving this thread right now. Lots of positive/productive discussion going on.

[BluFu]

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.

this right here is the most practical way to go about progression. having the potential as an actual rating doesn't really make sense when you take into account the new badges this year. if a player has 74 potential with legendary work ethic badge but can only progress to a 74? doesn't add up.

look at kobe (sorry, pulling out that card again). everyone knows, 13th pick in the draft. ceiling was supposed to be a nick young or at absolute best, joe johnson (can't think of a 90s comparison.. maybe Richmond?). no one on earth (not even Jerry West) projected him to be a franchise leading scorer and mentioned in the same breath as Michael Jordan.

in terms of 2K, kobe would probably come into the league at a 73 rating with 84 potential and legendary work ethic. there's no way for him to be the player he was in his prime unless he was given a 90 something potential. there's no way he falls that far in the draft with that potential. hard work, minutes, and great coaching led him to HOF greatness.

having no potential rating will create a lot more diversity in player storylines.

[pacers101]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

this right here is the most practical way to go about progression. having the potential as an actual rating doesn't really make sense when you take into account the new badges this year. if a player has 74 potential with legendary work ethic badge but can only progress to a 74? doesn't add up.

look at kobe (sorry, pulling out that card again). everyone knows, 13th pick in the draft. ceiling was supposed to be a nick young or at absolute best, joe johnson (can't think of a 90s comparison.. maybe Richmond?). no one on earth (not even Jerry West) projected him to be a franchise leading scorer and mentioned in the same breath as Michael Jordan.

in terms of 2K, kobe would probably come into the league at a 73 rating with 84 potential and legendary work ethic. there's no way for him to be the player he was in his prime unless he was given a 90 something potential. there's no way he falls that far in the draft with that potential. hard work, minutes, and great coaching led him to HOF greatness.

having no potential rating will create a lot more diversity in player storylines.

+1 to Riggins post from me too.


I wish there was a way of hiding the potential rating in MyLeague. At least then it would feel unpredictable and sort of dynamic, even if it isn't! For a start I might stop scouting rookies in MyLeague and just draft blind of potential.

[fguj]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

Age, production, training and potential rating. Also as they progress one an area of expertise others decline since there was no time spent for training.

[dwayne12345]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

Draft Express has a great article up about potential and what goes into making a prospect what they become in the NBA and how teams draft.

http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Opportunity-Knocks-How-Situation-Impacts-Success-Part-II-4781

2K devs could read and learn a few things from it maybe. Not saying they haven't done any work in this direction. The ground work has been laid for them to go ALL in next year on player development.

[mullhouse]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

What effects do draft class quality and player progression rate have on this

[Melbournelad]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

Well I think its fair to say they missed a regression slider. Maybe they could add this next time and I don't think it was something left out. Sometimes things are overlooked or missed.



The thing I hate is when people are quick to say its broken or "that's 2k for you". They have been pretty perceptive and have even added people from these boards to their team.

One singular regression slider would not fix this. It would at least be slightly better than it is currently, but it does not address variance at all. Regression varies from player to player, and Vince Carter's and Derek Fisher's, or any role player in their 30's, would be impossible.

[Melbournelad]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

i don't see anyone being disrespectful towards the devs, we're just trying to point something out that's a known issue. you're not a myleague player, i get that, but don't just start discrediting what other people are observing.

the feature is not working the way the devs intended. plain & simple. i was up to date with all franchise news before release and one of the things stated specifically by the devs themselves was that players would not regress in iq & take minimal deductions in shooting. if you played one of the franchise modes extensively enough, you would see that these improvements promised for 2K15 were not integrated properly into the game.

in short, this thread is bringing light to a feature that was promised but not delivered (besides all the complications that might have been involved). a regression slider would be a welcome bandaid to the problem but it's not a "fix" that should be pushed for 2K16.

This, agree completely.

[Melbournelad]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

I'm a broken record at this point...but whatever. As long as this affects my franchise experience it's going to be a broken record in bothering me



This screen is pretty much identical to every offseason; 3-4 overall decreases from everyone regressing. Anthony Bennett is interesting because he peaked at 78 overall at the age of 25, 2 seasons ago (realistic). In a year, at age 28, he will be a nightly inactive (unrealistic).

According to 2k ratings, 71-79 overall is the range for weak starters/role players in the NBA. Above that range are starters (80 is pretty much an average starter), below it are nightly inactives. The current regression means that in 2-3 seasons players go from average/weak starters to nightly inactives. This is why it needs to be a much more gradual curve.

I'd be curious to see your results using the SimWorld roster. They have the league rated much better, and on average players are rated lower. So effectively a 70 in SimWorld is clearly better than a 70 in the default roster, and a 65 has the chance to be a role player on a number of teams and playng decent, as opposed to being out of the league. Maybe because of this lowering of many overalls, it allow regressing players to stay impactful for a few more years? IE in a default roster Thad Young being a 70 overall may mean he is barely making a roster, whereas Thad Young a 70 overall in SimWorld would mean he is still an (above) average role player, allowing him to stay in the rotation another couple years.

[joosegoose]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

I'd be curious to see your results using the SimWorld roster. They have the league rated much better, and on average players are rated lower. So effectively a 70 in SimWorld is clearly better than a 70 in the default roster, and a 65 has the chance to be a role player on a number of teams and playng decent, as opposed to being out of the league. Maybe because of this lowering of many overalls, it allow regressing players to stay impactful for a few more years? IE in a default roster Thad Young being a 70 overall may mean he is barely making a roster, whereas Thad Young a 70 overall in SimWorld would mean he is still an (above) average role player, allowing him to stay in the rotation another couple years.

Oh, how you tease me so. I've been dying to give SimWorld a whirl but until/unless the project gets ported to PC it's not happening

[Melbournelad]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

Oh, how you tease me so. I've been dying to give SimWorld a whirl but until/unless the project gets ported to PC it's not happening

Oh well, I'm nearly at the end of the first season with their roster, when I get a chance I'll test the offseason progression and league balance after a few years in terms of age distribution.

[DonWuan]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

I've had some slight success with reducing player progress and increasing training effectiveness. I'll check when I get home and post some pictures.

[xzdhftgh]

Re: Do players develop based on production?

Age, production, training and potential rating. Also as they progress one an area of expertise others decline since there was no time spent for training.