Player Creation Methods

[jlafavor]

Hey everyone, I worked with John to create the template for the player creation. Really, the first time through was just kind of guessing which stats should be higher than others for each position, and trying to have give and take for each position, then punching them all into FBB and making sure the letter grades were where we wanted them



This was my original listing. After posting it and thinking, I wondered what the rating distribution from the entire league was, so I decided to take all the players, sort them by position, then average out the ratings for everyone. This gave me a good idea of what the total point spread was so I can adjust that for our templates. Plus it gave me some insight as to how the ratings adjusted for each position.




Which led me to the most recent update of the ratings that John put into the player creation thread




Some of the major changes I had to make were:

• Lowering SG ratings - SG was the highest pointed position and in the league Forwards are much higher, so I had to find some areas to lower them, mostly just moving multiple ratings down 5 pts.
• Raising C ratings - primarily adding 20 pts to PerimeterD, the league average was too high for the template to be 5
• Adding PG quickness. I had to add 10 pts to that, league average PG quickness was 76, so that needed to be closer.

[bluechips23]

Personally I think more specific changes need to be made...

Center: +5 Inside, +5 Post D, +5 Blocking, +5 Strength


Power Forward: +5 Blocking, +5 Strength


Small Forward: +5 Inside, +5 Post D, +5 O Rebound, +5 Jumping


Shooting Guard: +5 inside, +5 Outside, +5 quickness, +5 stealing, +5 Jumping


Point Guard: +10 Quickness, +5 Perimeter, +10 steal


This does not consider what I think there should be declines in... I will edit it in soon.

[jlafavor]

With just the adds here are the changes to letter grades (which were set at a level john wanted)

C - C+ D D+ C+ C+ A (inside and defense going up to C+ from C)
PF- C D+ C- C+ C+ A (Def and Reb up to C+ from C)
SF- C C C C C A (stayed the same)
SG- C C C C C- A (stayed the same)
PG- C- C B- C+ C- A (Handling and Defense went up to B- and C+ up one grade each)

I can't really say whether I agree or disagree, i was just making them up and slightly tweaking. I didn't move them up and down and meticulously check them, i just tried to balance it with the league average ratings while making a below average project player that has high potential.

the ratings are higher than we determined the starting point would be, so you would have to bring those down in your lowering, but i dont know how you would do that. it also changes the balance of ratings overall

[ClauseIsAWarrior]

One thing we have to keep in mind is that FB is very unlikely to develop any ratings where there really is not anything there already. No matter how high the potential is.

[AuldDawg]

Reminds of the time I drafted a player something like this:
C C C- C+ C+ F (scouted, turned out his Potential was actually B)

What happened? The C's fluctuated up and down a bit while his potential continued to drop until there was no longer any point holding on to hope that he might have a big TC jump.

What the current situation dictates is that you run a certain type of team in order to develop that player, i.e. PG's will never be good inside shooters.

IMO, the skills should more realistically represent what they would be in RL.

The skill points should also be assignable depending on position.
The way this is set up, SF's and PF's essentially get an extra free camp (was SG's in the old format which is why I chose that position...lol)

And in addition, I think guy's should have the ability to 'build' the type of players that will best fit their managerial style.

The breakdown could involve rationed points per skills. Meaning shooting could have an overall value of 140 points but the points assigned are limited to no more than 60 max. with a minimum of 10 or 15.
Same could be done for defense, rebounding, athletic skills, etc.

As a former developer for other player creation games, my view might be a bit skewed but if you want to make this a viable part of the ITP, I think you need to give a bit more control to individual GM's since managerial styles can differ greatly.

Just my tuppence.

And in other news, I'm hoping to have a FBB college game up by season's end.
I've spoken with John about this and just haven't had the time to pursue it but we're heading into our slow season so I'll begin working on it within the week.

[AuldDawg]

jlafavor should get something for his efforts in getting this set up but I'll leave this to John to sort out.