Analysis of "Player Potential"

[CWSapp757]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

Its actually weird how the draft classes work. You can definitely have busts in there though. During my tests, I had one guy from my first class get selected third overall and the highest that he got was a 72. The next test I did, he was selected fifth and got all the way to an 81. I'm thinking a lot of this has to do with the fact that he was one of the best players on the team each year during the second test run which means that he got a lot more playing time. I was really excited to see that there was some variation in there though.

[youALREADYknow]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

Ive been working on a 2012 draft class since 2k12 launch and have monitored this thread for reference to potentials in that draft class.

Im having a hard time finding a clear cut formula(if there is one) to distribute the proper potentials for these players.

Barnes, Drummond, Davis and Perry Jones are the only guys I have over an 80 potential(highest is Barnes at 85) with their ratings starting at 76, 74, 74, & 73 respectively.
Patric Young who is the tenth ranked player in my class has a rating of 69 and is also the last guy to have a potential of 70 or greater. The rest(have 30 finished) are under 70 potential but all in the 60-69 potential range.

Appreciate all the hard work and hope I can get some guidance to make what I think is going to be a great created 2012 class, even greater.

To each his own, but those ratings and potentials are way too high. Any prospect under the age of 21 who is starting at 70+ OVR and 80+ POT is going to end up a superstar (85+ OVR) in 2K12 unless they have multiple season-ending injuries.

Look at how many guys are rated under 70 OVR in the 2K rosters and ask yourself if these prospects are currently better basketball players. In most cases they are not.

[Jukeman]

I was just thinking maybe play styles determine the progression in abilities?




Sent from my HumancentiPad using Tapatalk

[Brew]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

To each his own, but those ratings and potentials are way too high. Any prospect under the age of 21 who is starting at 70+ OVR and 80+ POT is going to end up a superstar (85+ OVR) in 2K12 unless they have multiple season-ending injuries.

Look at how many guys are rated under 70 OVR in the 2K rosters and ask yourself if these prospects are currently better basketball players. In most cases they are not.

This just shows how flawed the potential and ratings logic is in 2k especially considering how actual rookies have been rated the past few iterations. There is usually a few rookies that are rated in the low to mid 70s every year and for draft class rookies to be rated lower just to compensate for their progression is obviously flawed.

I dont understand why players like Barnes, Sullinger, or Drummond should be rated lower than guys like Blake Griffin, John Wall, Tyreke Evans, Evan Turner or DeMarcus Cousins who were all rated in the low to mid 70s as rookies in 2k.

Is it possible to keep the higher ratings to coincide with real rookies and only lower potential so they dont progress as fast or as much?

Having all draftees under 70 render them 10th man bench material for there first season which shouldnt be the case when a guy like Barnes would be starting on Toronto, Charlotte, Washington or any other bottom feeder team on Day 1.

[CWSapp757]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

I don't think its a rule that all players in a draft should be under 70. I think what he was saying that its too many players with a high overall mixed with high potential. That combination of those four overalls with 80+ potential pretty much guarantees four players in one draft reaching 90+ overall. That would make this one of the best drafts ever by 2K's ranking system.

I'm not here to tell you how to do your drafts man because everyone has a different perception of how they think these players will turn out. However, just remember that it can (and probably will) lead to a bunch of extremely high overalls.

[youALREADYknow]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

This just shows how flawed the potential and ratings logic is in 2k especially considering how actual rookies have been rated the past few iterations. There is usually a few rookies that are rated in the low to mid 70s every year and for draft class rookies to be rated lower just to compensate for their progression is obviously flawed.

I dont understand why players like Barnes, Sullinger, or Drummond should be rated lower than guys like Blake Griffin, John Wall, Tyreke Evans, Evan Turner or DeMarcus Cousins who were all rated in the low to mid 70s as rookies in 2k.

Is it possible to keep the higher ratings to coincide with real rookies and only lower potential so they dont progress as fast or as much?

Having all draftees under 70 render them 10th man bench material for there first season which shouldnt be the case when a guy like Barnes would be starting on Toronto, Charlotte, Washington or any other bottom feeder team on Day 1.

It's not the 70 OVR alone that presents a problem. It's the combination of a 70+ OVR and 80 POT that becomes the problem. For example, Harrison Barnes is a polished player but he doesn't possess the once-in-a-lifetime upside of a player like LeBron, Rose, or Wall. In that case, his POT rating should be in the low 70's at the highest. We all know that 75 POT is where players start experiencing drastic progression, so a quick off the top of my head guess would be somewhere in the 70-73 POT range for Barnes if you're giving him an OVR in the 70's.

I'm seeing a lot of people use these broad ranges for POT with prospects and the whole purpose of this thread was to get objective data to prove where potential should be set. All of the evidence has pointed to an effective potential range of 65-80. At 65, most players will not progress at the rate of a star player regardless of performance. At 80, most players progress like stars regardless of playing time or performance. At this point, I can't really understand giving any unproven draft prospect a POT rating above 80. With the way the potential attribute progresses, they would end up at 90 POT by year 5-6 of their career if they performed on the court.

Also, if you're basing ratings off of decisions made by 2K in last year's game then I doubt you'll end up with good draft classes for this year's game.

[ronyell]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

It's not the 70 OVR alone that presents a problem. It's the combination of a 70+ OVR and 80 POT that becomes the problem. For example, Harrison Barnes is a polished player but he doesn't possess the once-in-a-lifetime upside of a player like LeBron, Rose, or Wall. In that case, his POT rating should be in the low 70's at the highest. We all know that 75 POT is where players start experiencing drastic progression, so a quick off the top of my head guess would be somewhere in the 70-73 POT range for Barnes if you're giving him an OVR in the 70's.

I'm seeing a lot of people use these broad ranges for POT with prospects and the whole purpose of this thread was to get objective data to prove where potential should be set. All of the evidence has pointed to an effective potential range of 65-80. At 65, most players will not progress at the rate of a star player regardless of performance. At 80, most players progress like stars regardless of playing time or performance. At this point, I can't really understand giving any unproven draft prospect a POT rating above 80. With the way the potential attribute progresses, they would end up at 90 POT by year 5-6 of their career if they performed on the court.

Also, if you're basing ratings off of decisions made by 2K in last year's game then I doubt you'll end up with good draft classes for this year's game.

to piggy back you ALREADYknow, its also a factor of age in the draft classes that you are talking about Brew. ages 19 to 23 see the largest increases per year (in most cases). because most players come in raw & unpolished if they are young & drafted on potential they WILL sit the bench a bit & develope & most of them would be below a 70 OVR... BUT on a BAD team... (who probably gets top picks) a 70 will probably land them in the starting line-up.

not a rule, but there should not be many players ever above 75 OVR in a draft class with a potential above 75. basically... younger players are more raw talent (lower OVR rating) with high potential (70 - 80), older drafted players probably come in with a little bit higher OVR because they are a lil more polished but less potential because they are older & there are rare occassions where a player has both... (once every 3 to 4 years) & then theres the once ina lifetime guys with HIGH OVERALL period... but there potential could be anything.

[Synchromesh]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

Simming now, XBOX has frozen on me twice... Didn't save Association while simming the first time, learned my lesson

[Synchromesh]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

Done just have to throw everything on Google Docs, which I'll do a bit later... - Didn't get a chance to monitor abilities development, and also didn't pay much attention to attribute improvement... But in the first few years attribute improvement was pretty much occurring across the board by 1-2 points, physical attributes like quickness, etc. seemed to increase slightly slower but I could be wrong as I just quickly eye-balled the individual attributes here and there...
\
- Also ran into a slightly weird incident twice where a player's overall rating was increasing and then randomly decreased a point for a year before increasing again (have seen this happen before), doesn't really impact the game / player development at all though so this can probably be ignored...

- Another thing in some of the years in which a player's overall rating increased some of their attribute ratings WENT DOWN. In one year I had a player go from an 82 to a 83 but when I looked at the individual attributes I saw his FT, 3PT, MED, INS all went down 1 point while his quickness and defense went up 1 (other categories also went up and down, I didn't record them all but the net change was +1 to the player's overall rating)...

[Jukeman]

Done just have to throw everything on Google Docs, which I'll do a bit later... - Didn't get a chance to monitor abilities development, and also didn't pay much attention to attribute improvement... But in the first few years attribute improvement was pretty much occurring across the board by 1-2 points, physical attributes like quickness, etc. seemed to increase slightly slower but I could be wrong as I just quickly eye-balled the individual attributes here and there...
\
- Also ran into a slightly weird incident twice where a player's overall rating was increasing and then randomly decreased a point for a year before increasing again (have seen this happen before), doesn't really impact the game / player development at all though so this can probably be ignored...

- Another thing in some of the years in which a player's overall rating increased some of their attribute ratings WENT DOWN. In one year I had a player go from an 82 to a 83 but when I looked at the individual attributes I saw his FT, 3PT, MED, INS all went down 1 point while his quickness and defense went up 1 (other categories also went up and down, I didn't record them all but the net change was +1 to the player's overall rating)...

I noticed the the decreases also, It "seem" like it's stat based.

One of the guys I was following would increase and decrease in the rebound rating in alternating years depending on his rebound stats (good year he'll go up and bad year he'll go down)

Maybe it's the "production" kicking in?


Sent from my HumancentiPad using Tapatalk

[Brew]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

Thanks for the feedback guys!

Its frustrating having to figure out all this stuff just to have a realistic draft class. This stuff takes forever! With the time I have to do it almost makes it not worth the work. Ive been able to get about 1-2 guys done a day lately which isnt a whole lot of progress. However, I really want to do an association this year that goes longer than 2 years and for it to happen this must be done!

I tweaked the draft class last night. Lowering everyones ratings some along with potentials. Highest potential is Drummond at 80. Barnes has the highest overall at 73 with only 4 guys are now in the 70s.

Im running out of patience to finish this class myself. However, I feel I do a very good job with the player faces and not too bad on ratings and tendencies. I currently have 30 players finished but all most likely need ratings & tendency tweaks. Maybe we could make an OS community Draft Class(360) using my class as a base? If anyone is willing to help me finish this it would be much appreciated. I also wanted to do a 2013 class.

[Synchromesh]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

I put up the new information from Sim 4 here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...SNWRYZXc#gid=4

GoogleDocs cell formatting is terrible so some of the coloring might be off (even though it appears properly when I'm editing the spreadsheet )

[apollooff320]

I think you guys are doing to much. How many ppl you think play association pass 5 years?

[CWSapp757]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

Every friend that I have that plays NBA 2K goes way past five years. But that's just me.

[Jukeman]

I think you guys are doing to much. How many ppl you think play association pass 5 years?

I play pass 5 years and apparently most of the people in this thread do as well.

Otherwise the thread would be dead lol

Besides, season mode is for guys who do not care for a in-depth NBA franchise mode.


Sent from my HumancentiPad using Tapatalk