BuzzerBeater Forums

Why is it important to ask the managers if their players are capped are not.

Because this is a regression model, something like y = B1x1+B2x2+... where y is the potential and the xs are the skills. If a player is capped, I know y=the player's potential (plus or minus some fuzz due to sub-levels).

If the player is not capped, I have no idea what y is. It is probably something below the player's potential (if they are not capped), but beyond that, I do not know.

...
What is the highest possible REB (for example) of all the benchwarmer potentials. ...

This is kind of suggesting to just take players off the transfer list. Again, I have the same issue as I described above. Even if it seems certain that they are capped, there is nothing to say that they were not trained beyond their cap. Indeed, it is even impossible to say that they are capped. The only way to know is to have an idea of how training went.

Given a large data pool

I still stand by what I said before. With a large pool of bad data (or data with too many question marks), all you are going to get is a bad model.

Anyhow, no worries. I started to get more data. It may take some time, but I believe I will get there. And the last thing I want to do is take a bad path just to get answers faster.

Anyhow, no worries. I started to get more data. It may take some time, but I believe I will get there. And the last thing I want to do is take a bad path just to get answers faster.

+1

This is highly recommended when trying to understand something in opposition of just giving an answer.

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 9/7/2010 11:57:51 AM

I just wanted to share a bit more - this one is more something I am starting to believe from looking at player skills rather than something I modelled, though. As I get more and more data, I am starting to believe more in the idea of sub-levels on potential. This is tough for me to admit, since I have been adamantly against them for a long time. But hey, even smart people can get things wrong sometimes. ;-)

When I talked to Joseph Ka, he said something that I thought was interesting: that if sub-levels do exist, maybe all-time great is just a limit case of hall of fame potential. I also heard of a rare potential called "BB developer". I assume that would be the opposite (ie: a limit case of announcer). In order words, something like this:

BB developer = 0 (which possibly means capped no matter what)
announcer = 0-1
bench warmer = 1-2
role player = 2-3
6th man = 3-4
starter = 4-5
star = 5-6
allstar = 6-7
perennial allstar = 7-8
superstar = 8-9
MVP = 9-10
hall of famer = 10-11
all-time great = 11 (which possibly means never capped)

Anyhow, I do not know anything for sure yet, but if true it seems pretty interesting.

I just wanted to share a bit more - this one is more something I am starting to believe from looking at player skills rather than something I modelled, though. As I get more and more data, I am starting to believe more in the idea of sub-levels on potential. This is tough for me to admit, since I have been adamantly against them for a long time. But hey, even smart people can get things wrong sometimes. ;-)

When I talked to Joseph Ka, he said something that I thought was interesting: that if sub-levels do exist, maybe all-time great is just a limit case of hall of fame potential. I also heard of a rare potential called "BB developer". I assume that would be the opposite (ie: a limit case of announcer). In order words, something like this:

BB developer = 0 (which possibly means capped no matter what)
announcer = 0-1
bench warmer = 1-2
role player = 2-3
6th man = 3-4
starter = 4-5
star = 5-6
allstar = 6-7
perennial allstar = 7-8
superstar = 8-9
MVP = 9-10
hall of famer = 10-11
all-time great = 11 (which possibly means never capped)

Anyhow, I do not know anything for sure yet, but if true it seems pretty interesting.

Or that there isn't an ATG trained enough to be capped and we will see if sometime in the future one those ever arise.

But, that's the regular sublevels theory for potential with Josef Ka contribution.

Just found this:

(29708.11)

Your first conclusion was already known!

What Charles meant was more linked to the BB position given in the beginning by BB
Moreover, he uses salary to illustrate the potential cap :p

Just found this:

(29708.11)

Your first conclusion was already known!

Thanks - that example is very useful and a good place to start. Although he is talking in generalities, perhaps there is more there than meets the eye.

Great suggestions. Can we plan to chat some more once I have more data? I can tell you some more of my observations and you can give more suggestions. Also, if you think of anything else do not hesitate.

Sure.

One last thing, which you probably already know -- the model for skills is multiplicative, which means that any regression you want to run should have the logs of skills on the right-hand side.

One last thing, which you probably already know -- the model for skills is multiplicative, which means that any regression you want to run should have the logs of skills on the right-hand side.

Of course, assuming the formula for capping is the same as salary.

I wonder if people didn´t see this thread or if we are just too lazy to contribute.

I agree that it will be hard to find the answear but it doesnt hurt to try.