4/18/2013 3:50 PM
Posted by kashmir75 on 4/18/2013 3:40:00 PM (view original):
Low/High would be, I think 19/20 points improvement or thereabouts overall, while High/High could be anything from 21 to 80. Knowing which is which obviously makes 1 recruit look much better than another similar recruit.
False.  First of all to the original question, you won't see High/High in the FSS, only from a recruiting visit if the assistant coach says the recruit can grow MASSIVELY, or uses words like huge, and stuff like that, means the potential is High/High which I believe is 30+ point gain in that category.  If a recruit is blue but you don't get that message of huge gains, he's Low/High, which I believe is between 20-30 point gains.  I may be a few point off on the numbers, not a 100% sure.   But the biggest mistake in Kashmir's post, is that someone High/High potential, is gaining much more than 20 points.
4/18/2013 3:57 PM
http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=2354662


So, this player who was at 49 REB and 32 LP as a recruit with H/H potential in those 2 ratings is an illusion? Thanks for clearing that up for me.
4/18/2013 4:38 PM (edited)
Just a random search on potential yielded the thread listed below,  where someone has posted starting ratings, type of potential, and at least 1 update after 3 seasons, with still 1 more season for the player to improve. 

Dan2044 is correct that my numbers were off regarding the ranges that constitute L/H Vs. H/H.  His final statement is utterly false and proves he should research his facts before calling someone out for mistakes, when he is clearly stating either his A.) Opinion and/or B.) Personal experience.

Furthermore, in his race to showcase his lack of knowledge, he clearly didn't read my post previous to the one he quoted above. I did not say FSS gave you L/H or H/H, I clearly stated that you must do scouting trips to determine these.


http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=436867&ThreadID=9686903#l_9686903

Edited to reflect that dans numbers concerning the ranges of what constitutes L/H and H/H are correct or very nearly so.

4/18/2013 5:04 PM
Wow, why is everyone on the boards lately so damn fired up about every little thing?  LH potential is anywhere from 20-27.  HH is 28+  This means that he could improve 28, or he could improve 68 over the course of his career.  A few attributes are more prone to having higher ceilings (PER, DEF, and LP come to mind) than some. From my knowledge, ceilings also depends on WE. A player with 10 WE will not reach his ceiling at all probably, whereas a player with 50+ will almost certainly max out.

Furthermore, the amount of STs you need before you can determine LH vs. HH vary. Sometimes you will get it on the first one you do, other times you might not get it, for the attribute you want, after 10-15 STs.  There is no set amount.
4/18/2013 5:10 PM
Well, I agree with you, jkumpulanian.   My personal beef is that I was answering someones question, in honest and good intent, and someone else pops in to shout out to everyone that I'm a liar (not in so many words) and that my post was riddled with false information, which it wasn't.     Like most folks, I don't like to be called a liar and it does tend to get me riled up.    My post backs might be pointed, but they were civil and that's the way it should be.
4/18/2013 6:12 PM
Posted by kashmir75 on 4/18/2013 5:10:00 PM (view original):
Well, I agree with you, jkumpulanian.   My personal beef is that I was answering someones question, in honest and good intent, and someone else pops in to shout out to everyone that I'm a liar (not in so many words) and that my post was riddled with false information, which it wasn't.     Like most folks, I don't like to be called a liar and it does tend to get me riled up.    My post backs might be pointed, but they were civil and that's the way it should be.
He said you were wrong- which you were. No where close to calling you a liar.
4/18/2013 6:26 PM
I was wrong about what, exactly? My numbers for the range of L/H Vs. H/H were off, that I admit.  Everything else was correct, whether you agree with it or not, have experienced it or not, have seen it personally or not.
4/18/2013 6:31 PM
Posted by kashmir75 on 4/18/2013 6:26:00 PM (view original):
I was wrong about what, exactly? My numbers for the range of L/H Vs. H/H were off, that I admit.  Everything else was correct, whether you agree with it or not, have experienced it or not, have seen it personally or not.
Yea, you were wrong about the numbers, that's why he was calling you out on I believe. The correct numbers are 21-27 low high and 28+ high-high.
4/18/2013 6:35 PM
"But the biggest mistake in Kashmir's post, is that someone High/High potential, is gaining much more than 20 points."

The above is the statement that I took offense with. What I had said was not a mistake, nor was it an opinion boldly stated as a fact. It is a fact.
4/18/2013 9:56 PM

IMHO, it would be a huge mistake to introduce "randomness" into player development (e.g. increasing the overall capped potential in each category randomly during the offseason as a "diamond in the rough" meritless reward).   I think we'd all lose interest in the game, if skill were taken out of recruiting.

My preference would be to see the FSS reports be incomplete (e.g. only reporting on some of the player's category potentials or simple obfuscation: "The service thinks he has at least average room to improve").  That would force coaches to send scouting trips to determine which player to target or take their chances without knowing some relevant information about the recruit.  On the flip-side of that coin, I would suggest adjusting the scouting trips to make use of the (presently useless) player roles function to permit coaches to increase the likelihood of obtaining the information they need, dependent on the position to which they would like the player to develop, for a slightly higher cost than a regular scouting trip.  
4/19/2013 7:34 AM
Groundhog Day at WIS again.

Same original arguements, same counter arguements...................................

Just like "shhhhhh-bang" and "  "are injures up lately?"   we seem to go in endless circles about the exact same topics.
4/19/2013 11:42 AM
Posted by tkimble on 4/18/2013 6:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by kashmir75 on 4/18/2013 6:26:00 PM (view original):
I was wrong about what, exactly? My numbers for the range of L/H Vs. H/H were off, that I admit.  Everything else was correct, whether you agree with it or not, have experienced it or not, have seen it personally or not.
Yea, you were wrong about the numbers, that's why he was calling you out on I believe. The correct numbers are 21-27 low high and 28+ high-high.
this is correct
4/19/2013 11:45 AM
I for one like the fact that FSS is "never wrong". I wouldn't even waste the time with FSS if it were wrong a decent amount of the time as you might as well spend the recruiting cash on scouting trips that are more accurate.
4/19/2013 11:49 AM
my spin on this is that I would like the ability to look a year further out - the kids who are high school juniors.  BUT, I would not have FSS cover them and I would round their ratings to the nearest 5 - creating some fuzz in the information on the next season's recruiting.  Wouldnt it be cool if you could say - I am going to have a really nice guard near campus next season, so this season I will go for the big if I have to make a choice......etc
4/19/2013 11:58 AM
Posted by uwrjl93 on 4/18/2013 12:26:00 PM (view original):
Somebody brough this up in another post, but it wasn't on this topic.  Does anybody think that FSS is just way too accurate?  I mean what are the odds that scouts will be spot on in all of their evaluations?  Wouldn't it make sense to have some "randomness" built into player progression?  I have brought this up in the past, but thought it might be a good time to revisit the idea.  Not a huge percentage of players, but each year there should at least be a few that improve way more than expected and a few that improve way less than expected.  Real life examples would include Tony Mitchell of N TX, Damian Lillard of Weber St, Kylo O'Quinn of Norfolk St and CJ McCollum of Lehigh.  Recruiting isn't an exact science, but in WIS it is pretty darn close.

so I guess I'll chime in..

An exact science?  Really?  You can from FSS how many rebounds per game a player will get?  What his career shooting % will be?   How many steals he will get per game?   If so, you are miles ahead of me.

FSS tells you ratings.  Think of ratings as NFL Combine measurements.  Just because college player "A" runs a 4.3 40 or can bench 300 pounds 20 times doesn't mean he will be a good NFL player.   I don't have enough fingers and toes to be able to count how many players have over or under performed in their HD careers vs. their ratings.   If FSS could predict exaclty HOW my player would perform over his college career, then YES it is way too accurate.  Until then, the system is fine as is.


 

of 3

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.