Potential

[OldNuggetsGM]

Potential does drop with time, yes.

So what does that mean exactly?  Say a player with A potential improves this TC.  Does he keep his A potential next year?  Or do the improvements this TC then bring down his potential down to a B for next year (meaning, is there a set amount of improvement, and once that's exhausted, the potential decreases)?  

If he keeps his A potential, how long does that typically last for?  And when the potential drops, does it just go down from A to B and then down to C, or could it go from an A straight to a D?

Thanks.  I'm just trying to figure out how useful the potential indicator is, and what factor it should play in my evaluation of players.

[NetsGM]

I can't really answer those questions because it's a case by case example.

First, you have to understand how potential works.  It's not truely an A-F scale, it's a 1-100 scale.  The number grades are then converted to a less specific grade.  1-20 is an F, 21-40 is a D, 41-60 is a C, 61-80 is a B and 81-100 is an A.

So that alone changes how much time in between changing of a letter grade.  A guy with an 82 potential won't have to tap into much of that potential before he falls to a B.  A guy with a 99 potential could spent numerous training camps improving before ever falling to a B.  Because of that, it's hard to say.

Second, there's the issue of scouted vs. real.  What you see on the website is scouted potential.  It sometimes varies from the players real potential.  If a player has an 83 scouted potential, but a 55 real potential, he could fall to a C within 1 training camp without ever improving.

Conversely, a player could have a D scouted potential, but truely have a 70 (B) real potential, and his potential could actually "increase" during a training camp (actually not increasing, just his scouted potential gets closer to his real potential).

[OldNuggetsGM]

Thanks.  That actually did answer my questions.

[ClippersGM-old]

Thanks Nets GM! That is by far the best explanation I have read about 'potential'. It is something that is very hard to figure out for us newbies. But this really helped.  

[NetsGM]

People have been asking me how much I weight potential when ranking draftees.  Here's what I do.

Let's base this off of a 0-12 scale, 0 for an F, 12 for an A+.  Each increased increment is worth one point (for example, b is worth 8, b+ 9, a- 10, etc).  I won't weight any attributes to keep this simple.

So, would I convert an A potential to 11, then add 11 on to the players basketball skills stats?  No.  Why?  Because (outside of Giddens last year ) there's never been a player in SSBA that's improved 11 rating scales.  It doesn't happen.  A person with C+ inside, C+ outside and C+ defense could have A-'s in all of those categories if it did.  If a player never improves that much when all is said and done, then adding straight potential to the socre would overvalue potential.

So what do I do?  Here's my formula.

I take a persons potential, divide it by 2, then subtract 1.  That's the number I think a player can OPTIMALLY improve.  Meaning that's what I think is the best case scenario.  Anything more than that would be extraordinary.

So, if I draft a player with A potential it would go like this.

11/2 = 5.5.  5.5-1 = 4.5.  So I would think, at best, he could improve 4 to 5 categories worth of attributes.  If I'm using his potential conservatively, I'd go for 2 or 3 increases.

for a player with b potential.
8/2 = 4.  4 - 1 =3.  So I'd figure in 3 attribute changes.

C:
5/2 = 2.5.  2.5 - 1 = 1.5.  Between 1 and 2 attribute changes.

Below C I figure he won't improve.

So, if I'm trying to determine whether to draft a player with D potential, or a player with A potential, if the player with A potentials ratings + 4 is still less than the player with D potentials ratings, there's no point in drafting the player with A potential.  He'll never be a better player.

Obviously, there are other things to take into consideration.  For example, if you need him to contribute now, the fact that he might be the better player 3 years down the road might not matter.  Also, all players might not reach optimum improvement.

Is my formula correct?  Honestly, I have no idea.  I don't have numerical evidence to support this.  It's just my guess.

Before this training camp I'm going to record everyone's ratings.  Then compare them to their post-tc ratings.  I'm going to calculate all the teams net improvements during tc, and I'll post which teams had the best and worst tc's.

I'll also figure out the mean and range of players improvements with A potential, B potential, and so forth.  So I know an average of what the improve, a min and a max.

I'll share with you the best/worst trainng camps.  However, you ain't getting your hands on my improvement data.  That's called competitive advantage biatches

[SpursGM-old]

Well. I downloaded everyone's ratings during the season.  And am just waiting until after TC to check changes.  But that leads me to a question.  Is there an easy way to get all players data without going to each team page individually?

And I glad to see that my guess fro potetial adjustments of +5 for A, +3 for B and +1 for C is in the same range as you use, Nets.  I tried using a formula that adjusted using a multiplier (1.1 for A, 1.05 for B, etc) but then it added more potetial to a player with higher base ratings than a player with lower ratings.  Although the potential improvement for each player could be identical.

[NetsGM]

Nope, there's no way to do it outside of going to each team page.

and I'd probably wait until after free agency to get all of the players attributes, since rosters are still changing.

[SpursGM-old]

I thought TC was after the 5 day free agency period.  My bad.

[NetsGM]

it is after the 5 day free agency period.

[GoldenStateGM]

Sort of rated to potential....
Do players who are not on a roster (still free agents) at the end of the free agency period improve/decline during Training Camp?

[NetsGM]

I believe so, but i'm not positive.

[CavsGM]

If I remember correctly from previous seasons, I think they do.