BuzzerBeater Forums

I have a little question: What about the possibility of decimal in the potential? I don't know if it's the case, but the question deserves to be asked

Why just ask this about potential? Why not also ask the question for skills?

Anyhow, I will answer the question myself. ;-) The reason why Joseph Ka's salary analysis worked is because he knew that the salary value was (basically) correct. However, he also knew that there was error in the skill component (because of sub-levels). But that is not an issue with a regression model (like the one he used). You can accept error in the dependent variables. It may mean that it takes more data to get to the end result. But his error coefficients were pretty good, so he was comfortable that he was not missing the data.

So, if I could know or assume that there is no error in the potential value, I could be quite comfortable using a regression model. And that is where I started with my analysis. But because of the results so far, and because of people like you who keep bringing up the possibility of sub-levels in potential, I looked around for other options. And I think I might be on to something here: (155261.24). This "total least squares" approach lets you model with errors in both your response variable (in this case, potential) and also in your explanatory variables (in this case, skills).

Now, what I would like to be able to do is limit the error for potential. I think we can all agree that, even if there are sub-levels, allstar potential is probably going to fall somewhere between 6-7 (or maybe 5-6, I don't know). But like I said, that is beyond my programming knowledge at the moment. So all I can model is for some type of error in potential, but what kind of error, I can't specify without some help on the programming side.

I have a little question: What about the possibility of decimal in the potential? I don't know if it's the case, but the question deserves to be asked :)

I guess that's what he's referring to when saying "potential sublevels" for the new model.

It is an unsolved question about potentials :/

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 9/1/2010 2:59:25 PM

Now - if someone knows of an easier way to go about this, I would really love to hear different options.

That would make it too easy, you don't want all the formulas and calculations given to you or else everyone would just be doing the same thing.

Having a lot of factors largely unknown (or leaving it up to the community to work out) leaves things open to individual interpretation which means everyone can have different ideas and tactics etc

Man, imho, BB's should have some sort of a progress bar (sort of like the rate of pop bars for supporters) or let the user know when the player has reached his potential. I find it kind of ludicrous people have to blindly train a guy for weeks to judge rate of skill pops, just to know if his potential has been fulfilled.

Why is it ludicrous to give managers a bit of a challenge?

And we're not training blindly. We have some cool and generous people who figured out where things are. Imagine if nobody shared information here... You'd be training your benchwarmer and wondering why he won't pop anymore at 5k salary.

I would also like to see a comparison between your approach and others, with the same data.

Honestly, the most interesting will be, in the end, to see what method is the most operational and precise.

Personally, I am fond of the method of Josef-Ka, and what we could do with how8 (now, you just need to add +6% because of the reforms of salary, but it still is nicely accurate).


What I am a bit afraid of with your method for the moment is the fact that you seem to use just 2 items to start with : potential and skill caps.
For potential, you seem to base yourself on the theory that there are sub levels, finally.
For skills, you have to trust the fact that players from the data you received have truly capped quite enough.
In my opinion, there is truly a risk that it won't give tools accurate enough.

In any case, it obliterates for example the idea that skills have different coefficients, according to their proportion and the position (like with how8).
So, I truly hope that there will be a comparison between both methods.

I'll be following this interesting thread and waiting for more details

Otherwise, for your theory, I think that SF with a low or medium potential would be really among the most interesting ones to analyze, as they would be the ones that would permit the most directly to precise the strength or the limits of a relationship between the position and the potential cap, basing on your hypothesis that there is not.

I mean that there is a relation between :
- skills and potential cap
But also
- skills and salary
And also
- skills and position
This is for sure.

An interesting question is how much might be linked these relations between themselves (or not).
But the most interesting application will be to help trainers to foresee more precisely when a player will be truly close to the cap, and how much will be his salary.

If there is 2 methods more accurate than only 1 to answer both problems, it doesn't matter.
What is interesting is truly that we can understand, that it works and that it might be easier to calculate in order to train more efficiently, by enjoying these calculations:)

So anyway, I do not only hope that there will be a comparison. I also hope that you will go on in your own way by interesting yourself to salaries, later ;)


Last edited by Dunker Joe at 9/3/2010 3:45:13 AM

I would also like to see a comparison between your approach and others, with the same data.

I think I am pretty much considering all possible options at the moment. I mean, I have never been a believer in potential sub-levels, but I am trying to make sure they are considered in the model. And I am allowing for the possibilty that the formula varies by position. If there is anything else that I am missing, I would appreciate it if you could tell me. ;-)

Personally, I am fond of the method of Josef-Ka, and what we could do with how8 (now, you just need to add +6% because of the reforms of salary, but it still is nicely accurate).

This assumes that salary is directly linked to potential. Maybe that is the case, I don't know. But this model also allows for that possibility.

For skills, you have to trust the fact that players from the data you received have truly capped quite enough.
In my opinion, there is truly a risk that it won't give tools accurate enough.

Indeed, there is a risk that the data is garbage. So what do you propose? No study at all? Actually, my major concern is that if there are sub-levels, then finding any equation to fit the data becomes very difficult and perhaps impossible.

In any case, it obliterates for example the idea that skills have different coefficients, according to their proportion and the position (like with how8).
So, I truly hope that there will be a comparison between both methods.

I don't follow you here, since the main model I am using is in line with Joesph Ka's formulas. I am open to there being a different formula for skill caps (perhaps a more linear one, as Joseph Ka guessed in another topic). So I am testing different things. But to be honest, the data is just not there at the moment to say anything about possible different models.

Otherwise, for your theory, I think that SF with a low or medium potential would be really among the most interesting ones to analyze, as they would be the ones that would permit the most directly to precise the strength or the limits of a relationship between the position and the potential cap, basing on your hypothesis that there is not.

If you see my reply to Joseph Ka above, you will see that I am testing both possibilities (no position vs position in the model). But actually, I do have a couple of these low potential SFs thanks to some of my friends. Although, I could always use more. But I would not just pick on SFs, any player with a potential outside of allstar would really help.

But the most interesting application will be to help trainers to foresee more precisely when a player will be truly close to the cap, and how much will be his salary.

Well, to me, the most interesting thing would be to know if it is actually salary that determines the cap. Because if it is not salary, then in theory you could take a low potential player and train him longer, provided you knew what you were doing. Now, such a player might not be so desirable. For example: I am sure not many people would want an all shot blocking player. But who knows. ;-)

So anyway, I do not only hope that there will be a comparison. I also hope that you will go on in your own way by interesting yourself to salaries, later ;)

In the end, I have realized that it does not matter if I include salaries in the model. Because if indeed the cap is determined directly by salary, what I should end up with is just Joseph Ka's coefficients back again (or something close to them, at any rate). But if I end up with something different enough, well, I will let you draw your own conclusions. ;-) In any case, I am gathering salary whenever possible. So it is certainly something I will look at.

Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 9/3/2010 8:02:19 AM