BuzzerBeater Forums

Help - English > Help me understand potential

Help me understand potential

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
130264.14 in reply to 130264.13
Date: 2/5/2010 9:38:13 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155
As someone else pointed out "faster in terms of salary" or earlier. Is this also pure fiction?


I would say this is the truth, that multi-skilled players will hit the cap slightly earlier, salary wise, than a player with a few high skills.

However, some people believe in sub-levels for potential and that's why we see differences. I think the evidence points somewhere else, but I guess we can have the debate.

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
130264.15 in reply to 130264.14
Date: 2/5/2010 11:27:43 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
some people believe in sub-levels for potential

Potential clearly has sub-levels. Nearly identical players cap at different salaries all the time.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
130264.16 in reply to 130264.15
Date: 2/5/2010 11:58:04 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155
Nearly identical players cap at different salaries all the time.


Well, I would love to see your data on this. So far I have yet to see any evidence to support this theory. Usually the identical players you are talking about have different secondary skills, or people have differing definitions on when their player was capped. Some people take it to be the first sign of slow training, others think it is when training has virtually stopped (ie: one pop every 7-8 weeks).

My experience tracking 3 uni-skilled allstar Cs is they all capped at 3x tremendous in IS, ID and RB without any variation. Also, tracking 3 different SGs, they all capped towards the upper end of the capping estimate.

Was it just luck that I observed 6 different players with really high sub-levels in potential? Maybe, I do not know.

I think for now, unless you can provide the definitive proof of your theory, we are pretty much all in the dark.

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
130264.17 in reply to 130264.15
Date: 2/11/2010 8:30:30 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155

Potential clearly has sub-levels. Nearly identical players cap at different salaries all the time.


Perhaps the latest post by BB-Charles might change your idea on the sub-levels theory: (130305.38). He says that there is only a correlation between salaries and potential and not a direct link. That's why "Nearly identical players cap at different salaries all the time". The key word in that sentence being "nearly", although I suspect if we broke it down we would find that the "nearly" is not as near as you think (maybe different sub-levels on different skills or multi-skilled players).

In any case, if you still think "Potential clearly has sub-levels" I am still waiting for the "clear" evidence.

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
130264.18 in reply to 130264.17
Date: 2/11/2010 12:49:11 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
I had a nice post on this with links to about half a dozen of allstar centers from my NT coaching tenure, all capped somewhere between 50 and 80. However, a Mozilla crash ate that and I haven't had the chance to reproduce it yet.

I'd just like to point out that this point from Charles came after the salary structure has been changed, i.e. we're now in a situation where salary consists of skill-based portion + adjustment for player distribution in the game (or in other words, at this point a player can change salary even without a second of training in a season). So potential is related to the skill-based component (which used to be the entire salary, before the changes), and in this sense, just because a player changed his "new" salary doesn't mean that the "old" salary (skill-based portion) will necessarily be affected.

And obviously, if players are completely identical they will have the same salary -- my test group was centers with no secondaries to speak of and no more than proficient shot blocking.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
130264.19 in reply to 130264.18
Date: 2/11/2010 1:42:57 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155
I had a nice post on this with links to about half a dozen of allstar centers from my NT coaching tenure, all capped somewhere between 50 and 80.


Of course, without seeing the data I can't poke any holes in it, but my suspicion is that one or two of the C skills counts more towards the salary cap than it counts towards a player's actual salary. So this kind of variation is possible given either theory, although 80k seems a little out there.

I think talking about a C trained equally in IS/ID/RB with no side skills (even proficient SB is getting to be too much in my opinion, I would restrict all other skills besides those three to medicore) is more interesting, because if 30+ such players all cap at the same time, then you have a good answer. If there is any unbalance, there is no way to test either hypothesis, unless all the players were equally unbalanced.

Of course, any such study would first have to define exactly what "capping" is, since the definition varies.

Also, the fact that you saw no player capped at 40k is a big flashing light to me.

Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 2/11/2010 1:44:03 PM

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
130264.20 in reply to 130264.18
Date: 2/11/2010 1:45:16 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
And obviously, if players are completely identical they will have the same salary -- my test group was centers with no secondaries to speak of and no more than proficient shot blocking.


but you watch probdaly allstar+ which could all have the same sub, at least that would make sense to me ;)

This Post:
00
130264.21 in reply to 130264.20
Date: 2/11/2010 1:54:45 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155


but you watch probdaly allstar+ which could all have the same sub, at least that would make sense to me ;)


Or if they are allstar+ then maybe they were trained to that 80k salary before potential came into effect.

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
130264.22 in reply to 130264.21
Date: 2/11/2010 1:56:55 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
i believe there was 1 player who was at this level at this moment, and i am not sure about it i would bet he got 70k at this moment and to the next player was a gap salary wise.

This Post:
00
130264.23 in reply to 130264.18
Date: 2/11/2010 2:01:07 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155


I'd just like to point out that this point from Charles came after the salary structure has been changed, i.e. we're now in a situation where salary consists of skill-based portion + adjustment for player distribution in the game (or in other words, at this point a player can change salary even without a second of training in a season).


I personally read it as a quashing of the theory that salary and potential capping use the same formula. So something may impact salary in a big way but capping not as much. As is often with posts from Charles, though, it is open to interpretation.


And obviously, if players are completely identical they will have the same salary .


Obviously, but that was not my point. My point was if you follow certain type of player up until his cap and take a snapshot of when he capped, then you will get the same results every time (at least, that's the results from my 6 player analysis). Of course, if you keep training him after he is capped then that is a different story.


Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 2/16/2010 8:29:44 AM

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
130264.24 in reply to 130264.19
Date: 2/11/2010 3:06:43 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
Don't forget that unbalanced players will train slower, i.e. the three-skilled players you're describing may slow down in training speed faster, but not necessarily because of potential cap issues.

I'll try to replicate my player scavenging as soon as I can, then we'll talk. It's worth noting though that as far as I can recal the player with the lowest SB in the sample (mediocre) capped out at a lower salary level than at least one player with proficient SB (55 vs 70-80), But more on this when the data is up for scrutiny.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
Advertisement