Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"
On second thought I might due fewer classes of potential and vary player age instead...
On second thought I might due fewer classes of potential and vary player age instead...
-
-
Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"
Syncro,
We need to link up lol.
CW and I have been analyzing player potential for the past few weeks over in this thread:
http://www.operationsports.com/forum...iation-19.html
Page 19 has a breakdown of all of my recommended potential edits for every current player in the league.
I understand you're taking a look at draft classes, and putting our heads together can DEFINITELY help the community out.
Here are some things I've noticed:
- Every association you run will bring different results. Players progress slightly differently each time (which is a good thing - variability!). The difference in a player's PEAK OVL typically varies by 1-4 points.
- Once a player reaches a certain potential, his potential rating itself will increase year to year...this is why guys take quantum leaps forward. If we could find out this magic #, we could really control where we want guys to end up.
- To me, a huge reason this game becomes unbalanced in later years of the association, when there's too many overpowered guys in the league, you see 75% of the younger players taking 5 and even 6 point jumps season to season. There HAS to be a way to slow their progress down to a more even 1-2 points so everyone isn't developing into Kevin Durants.
- For the older players, their potential directly affects how quickly they age. If you lower guys like Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan, Steve Nash, and Jason Kidd down by 10 points, they retire faster and decline much more rapidly.
- The potential rating varies dramatically from player to player who is already coded into the game. 2K12 has hard-coding for certain players, and it takes a considerable amount of tweaking to create a new potential rating to reflect where they "should" end up in real life 5-10 years down the road. (If you're handling CAPS and draft classes, you don't need to worry about this).
Some believe a CAP's potential determines the exact peak overall they end up with. I disagree...I think there's more to it. Would love to see some more of your tests and figure out more about player potential.
Great work so far!
- SwaggerComment
-
Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"
Hmmm good stuff, some of the things you've mentioned I have definitely been noticing as well. I was a bit surprised myself when I saw that a player's potential rating was changing from what I had set it at, but if I'm not mistaken wasn't the swing only a couple of points (I didn't track it too closely, just saw that the #'s were changing)?
As you can see from my last few posts I keep flip-flopping on what I want to do but a part of me wants to start messing around with the potential ratings of actual players to see how their overall ratings change.Comment
-
Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"
Another variable you have to record, player mpg. It directly affects how quickly they develop or regress. Any look at potential has to take that into account or its basically skewed results cause the guy with 80 potential can progress just as fast as the guy with 99 potential if the former is getting 30+mpg and the later is only getting 10.Comment
-
Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"
Good stuff.
Before you experiment with current player's potential, understand that 2K has a TON of hardcoding into the game.
Taking a CAP rookie into the league at 70 overall and age 20 with 80 potential and comparing him to a 70 overall, age 20, 80 potential current player...you would expect them to end up with similar OVL in the future.
Interestingly enough, this is seldomly the case. CAPS and current players develop differently...even if you set a CAP to match up perfectly with a current player.
For some current players, their peak OVL doesn't change unless you dramatically alter their potential.
Ricky Rubio is the perfect example. Here he is out of the box:
OVERALL: 67
POTENTIAL: 88
PEAK OVERALL: 95
Here is is after dramatically lowering his potential:
OVERALL: 67
POTENTIAL: 74 (-14)
PEAK OVERALL: 88 (-7)
Every current player's potential has to be fine-tuned to get desired results...I've noticed you can't just make sweeping adjustments to every player in the league...you won't see conclusive results.
Also, note that if you set a player's potential to anything below 60, you won't see any differences in potential change...IE 25 potential is the same as 50.Comment
-
Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"
WEIGHT DOES AFFECT player potential.
More on this in a bit.Comment
-
Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"
Yeah... I have no idea what's going on...
...I might document the ranges and then see if they hold true for other positions.Code:POT. WEIGHT GRADE 99 145 B+ 99 147 A- 99 150 A 99 153 A+ 99 167 B 99 225 A 99 242 B (241 LBS = A+) 99 244 B+ 99 247 A-
edit: I'm going to leave this here but ignore it for now, I may be completely wrong (more on this later
)
Last edited by Synchromesh; 10-17-2011, 12:41 PM.Comment
-
Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"
lol interesting stuff though.Yeah... I have no idea what's going on...
...I might document the ranges and then see if they hold true for other positions.Code:POT. WEIGHT GRADE 99 145 B+ 99 147 A- 99 150 A 99 153 A+ 99 167 B 99 225 A 99 242 B (241 LBS = A+) 99 244 B+ 99 247 A-
edit: I'm going to leave this here but ignore it for now, I may be completely wrong (more on this later)
I'd be really curious to see if/how much MPG affects potential and overall.Comment
-
Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"
I was actually about to try the MPG thing but then I stumbled upon this
I have some idea how weight affects potential though, there's actually a formula I worked out that's helping me track the weight ranges where the potential grade rating bumps up and down.Comment
-
Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"
---Code:WEIGHT POT. HEIGHT FROM TO GRADE G. INC. RANGE 99 6'5'' 145 146 B+ --- 1 99 6'5'' 147 149 A- 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 150 152 A 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 153 166 A+ 0.50 13 99 6'5'' 167 168 B -1.50 1 99 6'5'' 169 171 B+ 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 172 174 A- 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 175 177 A 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 178 191 A+ 0.50 13 99 6'5'' 192 193 B -1.50 1 99 6'5'' 194 196 B+ 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 197 199 A- 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 200 202 A 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 203 216 A+ 0.50 13 99 6'5'' 217 218 B -1.50 1 99 6'5'' 219 221 B+ 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 222 224 A- 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 225 227 A 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 228 241 A+ 0.50 13 99 6'5'' 242 243 B -1.50 1 99 6'5'' 244 246 B+ 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 247 249 A- 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 250 252 A 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 253 266 A+ 0.50 13 99 6'5'' 267 268 B -1.50 1 99 6'5'' 269 271 B+ 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 272 274 A- 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 275 277 A 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 278 291 A+ 0.50 13 99 6'5'' 292 293 B -1.50 1 99 6'5'' 294 296 B+ 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 297 299 A- 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 300 302 A 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 303 316 A+ 0.50 13 99 6'5'' 317 318 B -1.50 1 99 6'5'' 319 321 B+ 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 322 324 A- 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 325 327 A 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 328 341 A+ 0.50 13 99 6'5'' 342 343 B -1.50 1 99 6'5'' 344 346 B+ 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 347 349 A- 0.50 2 99 6'5'' 350 350 A 0.50 0
G. Inc = Grade Increase (Going from a letter grade (B) to a letter grade+ (B+) = 0.50)
Range = # of weight values or which letter grade holds true. I ended up stumbling upon the range pattern and created a formula which made completing the above table a cinch.
---
Now the thing is... If I alter a player's height their letter grade for "potential" always stays the same where as if I alter their weight as you can see from the above table the letter grade changes... This causes me to raise an eyebrow because I'm pretty sure from my first sim that height does affect a player's overall rating.
I'm also not sure if the above table holds true when potential is changed from 99 to another #. That's what I plan on checking in a little bit though...Last edited by Synchromesh; 10-17-2011, 01:34 PM.Comment
-
Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"
So every 25 pounds represents a range from A+ to A+. That is an amazing find and the correlation is 100%.
I'm sure draft class creators will be able to use this to target a specific weight for top 5 prospects and another weight for 2nd rounders. The difference between A+ and B is only 2 pounds.Comment
-
Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"
I think the range is slightly different when you change the potential from 99 but I'm sure there's a formula / pattern there as well.
I'm through 6 years in my second simulation, I'm testing a couple of different things including how minutes played affect player progression.
In year 6 I have two identical players to date one has played 3 times as many minutes as the other (both are 99 pot.) the player who has played more minutes is a 88 while the other one is a 82.Comment
-
Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"
*I'm also loosely tracking how potential changes from year to year.Comment
Comment