Analysis of "Player Potential"

[Colts18]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

Question, does Play Style determine the type of potential that is achieved? Example, Avery Bradley is listed as a Defensive SG. If he is changed to a 3PT SG, will his potential focus more on 3PT shooting as opposed to defense? Hope that question makes sense.

[BigCKU]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

For the first time I got through 6 years and it seemed like every team had 2-3 guys with 90+ overalls. That was when I quit playing and haven't played anything other than My Player.

Trying to get back and reading through this thread I feel like I have a better understanding of some aspects of the potential scale but at the same time am even more confused.

I'd like to get back into creating the players and draft classes and doing season but am afraid of everyone being 90+ overalls. What is the formula some of you guys use when creating players/draft class?

[hardcor2]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

I have recently tried this
90 for the phenoms (LeBron)
85 for the annual all-stars (deron williams)
80 for team stars (kevin martin/gerald Wallace)
70 for starters/sixth men (james harden)
65 rotation players (big baby)
55 bench players (john Lucas III)

it seems to be working well so far

[zten11]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

I have recently tried this
90 for the phenoms (LeBron)
85 for the annual all-stars (deron williams)
80 for team stars (kevin martin/gerald Wallace)
70 for starters/sixth men (james harden)
65 rotation players (big baby)
55 bench players (john Lucas III)

it seems to be working well so far

How many seasons have you experienced since you set these player potentials?

[geisterhome]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

i dont play past 5 years, still working on getting past 20 games

[jules23]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

I downloaded some new rosters im trying to look into potiental, cause these are really low, kinda pointless in association

[Paul Pierce_OS]

I downloaded some new rosters im trying to look into potiental, cause these are really low, kinda pointless in association

Not really the whole point is to get a realistic experience.


Sent from Celtics Nation

[Colts18]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

I downloaded some new rosters im trying to look into potiental, cause these are really low, kinda pointless in association

How are they low?

How is it pointless?

[RayAllen20]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

Sorry to bump an old thread but I have been testing potential a lot lately and want to thank all those in the thread that have helped come up with valuable information.

I had an association with some rosters and 7 years down the road every team had a 90 overall player, and several had 3 or 4. It kind of ruined the balance of the league, and I had no idea who was really elite anymore. Every guard felt like CP3 or Wade, if you know what i mean.

So anyways, I've been doing a lot of research to help me make a really great roste,and I think DC's old scale has been working great for me. I did a test with the Celtics (granted there's so many variables), and I think if I did this with every team, the league would look amazing in six to ten years.

In the test, I had player roles on, and had the CPU manage basically everything.

Rondo, who was the only Celtics player that I gave an Unpredictable player role (the rest were Laid Back), was given an 80 potential, and he never got better for his entire career. The rosters I had, had him at an 86, and he stayed at an 86 for 5 seasons before he finally started to decline. I was pretty good with those results.

Pierce, who was rated an 84 and was given 80 potential, decreased by 2 every season until his last season where he decreased 3. He was a 77 overall when he decided to retire at age 37. Once again, I thought that turned out great.

Garnett, who was rated an 82, was given 80 potential also. He would only play 2 seasons though, as after his first season he dropped to a 79, and then retired at age 37, like Pierce.

Avery Bradley, who was rated probably too low in these rosters, was a 66, with 65 potential. He got all the way up to 70 by his 10th season. If he was rated correctly at the beginning, he probably would have been around a 75 at his peak.

What I also learned is how many variables there are for this. Even if we have the same rosters, progression won't be the same. For example, Jeff Green most likely didn't progress much in my tests because he didn't like his role. Despite being Laid Back, he was the only Celtic mad, because he thought he should be more than a role player. And at 77 overall, maybe he was right. But that most likely hurt his progression.

Injuries can obviously hurt progression, and playing time is huge. I got Fab Melo, who was a 59 at the start with only 65 potential, to turn into a solid Center at 71 overall, because I started him at Center eventually, and really helped his progression. Then he left for the Lakers, who had him as a back up and he started to decrease.

So I think DC's potential scale is still the best. There should really only be about 10 players maximum that are above 90. For example, these would only be the players that are above 90 for my 2012-2013 roster.


LeBron
Durant
Kobe
Wade
Rose
Howard
Anthony


Hopefully in 2020, it is close to that same number, so I can really tell who the superstars are.

[Bretsky523]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

I believe that better coaches make for better progression, which may corrupt these tests a little.

[beast10]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

This should be a STICKY.
Very helpful

[_-King-_]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

I believe that better coaches make for better progression, which may corrupt these tests a little.

Hard to believe this went overlooked.

[benbrown1]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

Just got done reading this whole thread. There is a ton of valuable information. I believe most of this testing was done for NBA 2k12 and I'm just wondering if all this analysis also applies to NBA 2k11.

[chinatownpwnage]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

Sorry to bump this thread again, but i had some insight and questions on a couple of things.

I thing i wanted to focus on was the difference of a players rookie overall and rookie potential. So (using sim-world rosters) I changed MKG(74 overall) to 80 potential, and changed Anthony Davis(77 overall) to 80 potential. After a few years, Anthony davis topped at 81, while MKG was 83 and going. The surprising thing to me was MKG potential was higher than Anthony's after 3 years.

So then I lowered Anthony's rookie overall to 74 and re ran the tests with everything else the same as the first test. As this test went on , they both increased in overall and potential at nearly an identical rate.

So I'm thinking that the initial distance between the overall and potential effects not only how much and how much the overall grow, but also how fast the potential rises. So where this impacts is 75 isn't the magical number that insures superstar because if i have a 74 overall at 75 potential, he will progress little to none.

What do you guys think?

[jaredtyshaf]

Re: Analysis of "Player Potential"

Yeah there seems to be a lot of varibles in the progression process.

What do most people do in terms of potential settings

Example:

Super Star: 95
All Star: 90
Starter: 80
Role Player: 70
Bench Warmer: 50