Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

The Bean Regime wrote:

Zyme wrote:

jibbajabba614 wrote:

vincent1469 wrote:Traded up specifically for Jerome James. Happy with that pick.

Honestly whenever dealing with an A potential guy it’s a crapshoot reason there’s so many

2nd rounders with no bio written ignore the shown potential as it has little correlation with the true pot

Is there any reason to think this? I'd find it incredibly misleading if it were the case, especially since there are plenty of real-life players that don't get notes. Even a fake player with A potential had seemingly good potential (Tornopsky in this case).

I wouldn't say "little correlation" but scouted potential isn't true potential, so an A for a non-writeup guy isn't definitely in the same range as an A for a guy with a writeup (and with the writeups there are levels, as seen by Amazing/Great) for guys without that it could be in one of those two ranges, or it could just be scouting range and be in the Very Good, Good, Average levels. So not know correlation, but less accuracy. Some guys with A potential who weren't written up ended up having high potential, others didn't.

Even if an 'A' scouted potential truly reflected a '90' potential rating, there is nothing guaranteeing that potential is going to be used effectively. Might go down to 'C' with little/no movement in other ratings after TC. You were "misled" in that scenario too, so I don't see why giving a guy a '100' potential rating but a scouted potential rating of 'C' in the draft is really that much different, from a practical standpoint.

I dunno if we do it here, but way back when, when I made some draft files, I absolutely gave guys '50' true potential but '100' scouted potential and vice versa lol.

The s*** is random anyway, stop looking for hand outs

Craig wrote:Even if an 'A' scouted potential truly reflected a '90' potential rating, there is nothing guaranteeing that potential is going to be used effectively. Might go down to 'C' with little/no movement in other ratings after TC. You were "misled" in that scenario too, so I don't see why giving a guy a '100' potential rating but a scouted potential rating of 'C' in the draft is really that much different, from a practical standpoint.

I dunno if we do it here, but way back when, when I made some draft files, I absolutely gave guys '50' true potential but '100' scouted potential and vice versa lol.

The s*** is random anyway, stop looking for hand outs

Might as well ignore potential with that asinine thinking. Brad Miller shoulda gone #1.

All I'm asking for is an accurate representation of the only indication of the most important stat. No big deal. That's why the rating exists.[/color]

There's an option in FBB where you make scouted potential = true potential for the entire draft class -- I thought that's what we did with our draft files?

The Bean Regime wrote:

Craig wrote:Even if an 'A' scouted potential truly reflected a '90' potential rating, there is nothing guaranteeing that potential is going to be used effectively. Might go down to 'C' with little/no movement in other ratings after TC. You were "misled" in that scenario too, so I don't see why giving a guy a '100' potential rating but a scouted potential rating of 'C' in the draft is really that much different, from a practical standpoint.

I dunno if we do it here, but way back when, when I made some draft files, I absolutely gave guys '50' true potential but '100' scouted potential and vice versa lol.

The s*** is random anyway, stop looking for hand outs

Might as well ignore potential with that asinine thinking. Brad Miller shoulda gone #1.

All I'm asking for is an accurate representation of the only indication of the most important stat. No big deal. That's why the rating exists.[/color]

Brad Miller shoulda gone #1 either way I think

The Bean Regime wrote:

Craig wrote:Even if an 'A' scouted potential truly reflected a '90' potential rating, there is nothing guaranteeing that potential is going to be used effectively. Might go down to 'C' with little/no movement in other ratings after TC. You were "misled" in that scenario too, so I don't see why giving a guy a '100' potential rating but a scouted potential rating of 'C' in the draft is really that much different, from a practical standpoint.

I dunno if we do it here, but way back when, when I made some draft files, I absolutely gave guys '50' true potential but '100' scouted potential and vice versa lol.

The s*** is random anyway, stop looking for hand outs

Might as well ignore potential with that asinine thinking. Brad Miller shoulda gone #1.

All I'm asking for is an accurate representation of the only indication of the most important stat. No big deal. That's why the rating exists.[/color]

Obviously an 'A' will generally correlate to higher potential, but even when it's accurate, it's not a guarantee, is all I'm saying. Hell, Miller might have low potential but still blow up, in which case he shoulda been #1...it's not likely but not out of the realm of possibility lol. If we all knew exactly how every player would turn out at his peak, the trade market would be stupid, there would be no skill or luck in the draft, and everything would be less fun. You use a letter grade in the program since the intangible 'upside' assigned to players in real life is tough to translate to a simulation, but either way it's an imperfect science.

We have the added advantage of having notes where the potential is given pretty explicitly, so it's not like it would be a widespread thing, even if it happened here. But if we're talking about a 2nd rounder here or there that didn't get notes, I dunno how you can whine about some guy with 'C' blowing up into a star, or vice versa.

Craig wrote:

The Bean Regime wrote:

Craig wrote:Even if an 'A' scouted potential truly reflected a '90' potential rating, there is nothing guaranteeing that potential is going to be used effectively. Might go down to 'C' with little/no movement in other ratings after TC. You were "misled" in that scenario too, so I don't see why giving a guy a '100' potential rating but a scouted potential rating of 'C' in the draft is really that much different, from a practical standpoint.

I dunno if we do it here, but way back when, when I made some draft files, I absolutely gave guys '50' true potential but '100' scouted potential and vice versa lol.

The s*** is random anyway, stop looking for hand outs

Might as well ignore potential with that asinine thinking. Brad Miller shoulda gone #1.

All I'm asking for is an accurate representation of the only indication of the most important stat. No big deal. That's why the rating exists.[/color]

Obviously an 'A' will generally correlate to higher potential, but even when it's accurate, it's not a guarantee, is all I'm saying. Hell, Miller might have low potential but still blow up, in which case he shoulda been #1...it's not likely but not out of the realm of possibility lol. If we all knew exactly how every player would turn out at his peak, the trade market would be stupid, there would be no skill or luck in the draft, and everything would be less fun.

We have the added advantage of having notes where the potential is given pretty explicitly, so it's not like it would be a widespread thing, even if it happened here. But if we're talking about a 2nd rounder here or there that didn't get notes, I dunno how you can whine about some guy with 'C' blowing up into a star, or vice versa.

I think there might just be a miscommunication here. I love the randomness of the game, and it's what brings me to favor it and its successor over NBA 2K or Draft Day Sports.

All I'm saying is that I don't want the "50 real potential, A scouted" that you mentioned earlier, notes or not, which is what Knicks were alluding to earlier.

The Bean Regime wrote:

Craig wrote:

The Bean Regime wrote:

Craig wrote:Even if an 'A' scouted potential truly reflected a '90' potential rating, there is nothing guaranteeing that potential is going to be used effectively. Might go down to 'C' with little/no movement in other ratings after TC. You were "misled" in that scenario too, so I don't see why giving a guy a '100' potential rating but a scouted potential rating of 'C' in the draft is really that much different, from a practical standpoint.

I dunno if we do it here, but way back when, when I made some draft files, I absolutely gave guys '50' true potential but '100' scouted potential and vice versa lol.

The s*** is random anyway, stop looking for hand outs

Might as well ignore potential with that asinine thinking. Brad Miller shoulda gone #1.

All I'm asking for is an accurate representation of the only indication of the most important stat. No big deal. That's why the rating exists.[/color]

Obviously an 'A' will generally correlate to higher potential, but even when it's accurate, it's not a guarantee, is all I'm saying. Hell, Miller might have low potential but still blow up, in which case he shoulda been #1...it's not likely but not out of the realm of possibility lol. If we all knew exactly how every player would turn out at his peak, the trade market would be stupid, there would be no skill or luck in the draft, and everything would be less fun.

We have the added advantage of having notes where the potential is given pretty explicitly, so it's not like it would be a widespread thing, even if it happened here. But if we're talking about a 2nd rounder here or there that didn't get notes, I dunno how you can whine about some guy with 'C' blowing up into a star, or vice versa.

I think there might just be a miscommunication here. I love the randomness of the game, and it's what brings me to favor it and its successor over NBA 2K or Draft Day Sports.

All I'm saying is that I don't want the "50 real potential, A scouted" that you mentioned earlier, notes or not, which is what Knicks were alluding to earlier.

Meh, IMO cry me a river on that it's going to start to stabilize as a guy's career progresses and it's not going to be a widespread thing, IF it even occurred.

The Bean Regime wrote:

Zyme wrote:

jibbajabba614 wrote:

vincent1469 wrote:Traded up specifically for Jerome James. Happy with that pick.

Honestly whenever dealing with an A potential guy it’s a crapshoot reason there’s so many

2nd rounders with no bio written ignore the shown potential as it has little correlation with the true pot

Is there any reason to think this? I'd find it incredibly misleading if it were the case, especially since there are plenty of real-life players that don't get notes. Even a fake player with A potential had seemingly good potential (Tornopsky in this case).

Everyone with an “A” potential will have notes and are synced up with the notes

I scrub the draft file to remove fake players with an inflated scouted potential to avoid this confusion

Also on the question why everyone doesnt get notes, time. 50 players currently get notes and that should be plenty for players who will be in the league longer than a season or two

Is it ever intentional that guys like Charles Jones with surprisingly good ratings don't get notes? Extra 'bonus' given to the GMs who search the draft file for sleepers that don't have notes? Or is it more of a tell that he likely won't ever be good if he doesn't crack the top 10 SG in spite of his "good" ratings?

lukeyrid13 wrote:Is it ever intentional that guys like Charles Jones with surprisingly good ratings don't get notes? Extra 'bonus' given to the GMs who search the draft file for sleepers that don't have notes? Or is it more of a tell that he likely won't ever be good if he doesn't crack the top 10 SG in spite of his "good" ratings?

Jibba mentioned him like in the first page of this discussion

Oregon Ownage wrote:

The Bean Regime wrote:

Zyme wrote:

jibbajabba614 wrote:

vincent1469 wrote:Traded up specifically for Jerome James. Happy with that pick.

Honestly whenever dealing with an A potential guy it’s a crapshoot reason there’s so many

2nd rounders with no bio written ignore the shown potential as it has little correlation with the true pot

Is there any reason to think this? I'd find it incredibly misleading if it were the case, especially since there are plenty of real-life players that don't get notes. Even a fake player with A potential had seemingly good potential (Tornopsky in this case).

Everyone with an “A” potential will have notes and are synced up with the notes

I scrub the draft file to remove fake players with an inflated scouted potential to avoid this confusion

Also on the question why everyone doesnt get notes, time. 50 players currently get notes and that should be plenty for players who will be in the league longer than a season or two

Do u ever give some low potential when their notes / ratings suggest they have higher potential?

this is the debate between wolves/suns, oh which I highly side on suns point of view.

lukeyrid13 wrote:Is it ever intentional that guys like Charles Jones with surprisingly good ratings don't get notes? Extra 'bonus' given to the GMs who search the draft file for sleepers that don't have notes? Or is it more of a tell that he likely won't ever be good if he doesn't crack the top 10 SG in spite of his "good" ratings?

While we provide notes for 10 players for each position, dont assume they are the top 10. I prefer to include notes on players who have potential and this year SG was deep in that regard.

If he stood out for me, I would have included him but felt the others players were more worthy of notes

dd10snoop28 wrote:

Oregon Ownage wrote:

The Bean Regime wrote:

Zyme wrote:

jibbajabba614 wrote:

vincent1469 wrote:Traded up specifically for Jerome James. Happy with that pick.

Honestly whenever dealing with an A potential guy it’s a crapshoot reason there’s so many

2nd rounders with no bio written ignore the shown potential as it has little correlation with the true pot

Is there any reason to think this? I'd find it incredibly misleading if it were the case, especially since there are plenty of real-life players that don't get notes. Even a fake player with A potential had seemingly good potential (Tornopsky in this case).

Everyone with an “A” potential will have notes and are synced up with the notes

I scrub the draft file to remove fake players with an inflated scouted potential to avoid this confusion

Also on the question why everyone doesnt get notes, time. 50 players currently get notes and that should be plenty for players who will be in the league longer than a season or two

Do u ever give some low potential when their notes / ratings suggest they have higher potential?

this is the debate between wolves/suns, oh which I highly side on suns point of view.

No, if we say say they have great potential, it will be a high value. On draft day, scouted potential will match actual potential

I’m trying to catch up. Kind of busy today.

So in regards to players with 90-100 potential, they will be all be in the top 40-50 players with notes.

I typically will open league file and use the potential column and change all their potentials first before even starting their ratings. Ownage puts them on a spreadsheet for me so it makes life easier.

Now with the guys with no notes, I will usually either let GMs know before or after draft, just depends on the player. Shawnelle Scott I think was the last player with no notes I told GM’s about cause we had a deep big-man class that draft.

I think now that we are doing draft files by scratch it will be a lot easier to catch steals and give them a good write up. Which we have done in past before but few guys slip through the cracks of the game