Amend fouls training

[ballsohard]

So we have another thread here which we discussed solutions:

I'm rehashing this thread because the current rules are subpar. We've seen 2 people use it (Favors and Cousins) with no effectiveness and in some cases foul rate went up .

Amendment 1:

Remove the 3 fouls per game threshold ; only keep a max rating threshold

Reason: Why do we even have this? If your guy shoots 40 percent from 3 you can still improve it :. Why do we limit this

Amendment 2:
Make foul training like potentials
20 points to go from F to D
20 points to go from D to C
25 points to go from C to B
30 points to go from B to A
Max of 35

When trained the foul rating goes up 20 points.

Reason: although it's training a current and we have a different current training this really on effects one side of the ball and 5 points is simply ineffective for this training.

[Conroy]

Reason: Wig just said something about the guy I just drafted #1 overall fouling a bunch in college.

[kucoach7]

Since Ima need some of this training for Boss Hogg I'm very interested in this. I'd be interested to know how the foul rating is affected by TC. Does it change significantly over time? You could make the argument that training 5 points in any category doesn't make much of a difference and that you have to train them repeatedly to make a difference, which we can now do. However, with the current 3 foul limit, you can only train them to the point where they only average 2.9 fouls a game. Also, if TC isn't helping at all that could make a case for allowing more than 5 points at a time.

[ballsohard]

Since Ima need some of this training for Boss Hogg I'm very interested in this. I'd be interested to know how the foul rating is affected by TC. Does it change significantly over time? You could make the argument that training 5 points in any category doesn't make much of a difference and that you have to train them repeatedly to make a difference, which we can now do. However, with the current 3 foul limit, you can only train them to the point where they only average 2.9 fouls a game. Also, if TC isn't helping at all that could make a case for allowing more than 5 points at a time.

Having Cousins he went up a total of 2 in his foul rating over 4 seasons. I watched favors go up 1 point in 3 season. So yes but I have not seen big jumps; albeit It's not vary closely watched as other ratings Bc you have to look into the player editor each time.

[WigNosy]

So we have another thread here which we discussed solutions:

I'm rehashing this thread because the current rules are subpar. We've seen 2 people use it (Favors and Cousins) with no effectiveness and in some cases foul rate went up .

Amendment 1:

Remove the 3 fouls per game threshold ; only keep a max rating threshold

Reason: Why do we even have this? If your guy shoots 40 percent from 3 you can still improve it :. Why do we limit this

Amendment 2:
Make foul training like potentials
20 points to go from F to D
20 points to go from D to C
25 points to go from C to B
30 points to go from B to A
Max of 35

When trained the foul rating goes up 20 points.

Reason: although it's training a current and we have a different current training this really on effects one side of the ball and 5 points is simply ineffective for this training.

Definitely NO! Remember, potential trainings don't raise the current rating; that must be done separately. Since fouls have no potential, only current, they should be treated in the same way we treat Athletic trainings, NOT potential trainings. Which means it should go up a maximum of 5 points per season just like athletic trainings.

The reason foul ratings were broken out from athletic trainings in the first place is because the foul rating is hidden - there's no way of knowing what the rating is unless and until you ask and someone checks the player editor. To avoid an "unknown" rating forcing someone to look things up to find the right band (e.g. 1.8/2.2/2.6/3.0 points for athletic trainings), I went with a flat 2.4 points (right between the "D" and "C" bands)... and 5 points times 2.4 points of increase is 12 points. Exactly what we have now.

I also checked the foul ratings of players that averaged 35+ mpg and had foul ratings of 80 (since the max we let athletic trainings go to is 85). Guess how many fouls per game they averaged? Yup, right around 3. The "3 fouls per game" threshold wasn't pulled out of thin air. It was put in there to keep people from training players past a rating of 85 without having to actually go consult the ratings every time someone wants to train.

Yes, if a player has a horrible foul rating, it will take 4 to 5 seasons of training to get rid of the bad habits so he can play 30+ mpg and another 4 to 5 seasons of training to get him to the point where he rarely gets in foul trouble. But a guy with a low (say 15) strength or jump would take that long to improve as well and will be not terribly effective until he does so.

One of the big advantages of adding the NCAA system is that we have the college pages now which let you go scout draftees' foul ratings. The obvious example (since Conroy brought it up) is Kenneth Henderson from this year's draft (see http://pbsl.ijbl.net/NCAA/players/player3072.htm ) - he has a rating of 7 on that page. This information has been publicly available for a couple of weeks - especially since the draft file was finalized - and yes, I actually took a little time went and looked at his college page (along with other top prospects) to scout him so I would have snarky stuff to say in the liveblog even though I didn't have a first round pick (I *didn't* look at the player editor - I have no idea if he kept a 7 foul rating when imported into the league file or not).

If we want to amend the training so that it runs like other athletic trainings (no training past a rating of 85, cost based on band) - even though someone will have to let you know just how many points your training will cost - that's fine with me. I was just trying to propose a system that let people do the training themselves without having to wait on one of the members of the input team to go look first.

[ballsohard]

So we have another thread here which we discussed solutions:

I'm rehashing this thread because the current rules are subpar. We've seen 2 people use it (Favors and Cousins) with no effectiveness and in some cases foul rate went up .

Amendment 1:

Remove the 3 fouls per game threshold ; only keep a max rating threshold

Reason: Why do we even have this? If your guy shoots 40 percent from 3 you can still improve it :. Why do we limit this

Amendment 2:
Make foul training like potentials
20 points to go from F to D
20 points to go from D to C
25 points to go from C to B
30 points to go from B to A
Max of 35

When trained the foul rating goes up 20 points.

Reason: although it's training a current and we have a different current training this really on effects one side of the ball and 5 points is simply ineffective for this training.

Definitely NO! Remember, potential trainings don't raise the current rating; that must be done separately. Since fouls have no potential, only current, they should be treated in the same way we treat Athletic trainings, NOT potential trainings. Which means it should go up a maximum of 5 points per season just like athletic trainings.

The reason foul ratings were broken out from athletic trainings in the first place is because the foul rating is hidden - there's no way of knowing what the rating is unless and until you ask and someone checks the player editor. To avoid an "unknown" rating forcing someone to look things up to find the right band (e.g. 1.8/2.2/2.6/3.0 points for athletic trainings), I went with a flat 2.4 points (right between the "D" and "C" bands)... and 5 points times 2.4 points of increase is 12 points. Exactly what we have now.

I also checked the foul ratings of players that averaged 35+ mpg and had foul ratings of 80 (since the max we let athletic trainings go to is 85). Guess how many fouls per game they averaged? Yup, right around 3. The "3 fouls per game" threshold wasn't pulled out of thin air. It was put in there to keep people from training players past a rating of 85 without having to actually go consult the ratings every time someone wants to train.

Yes, if a player has a horrible foul rating, it will take 4 to 5 seasons of training to get rid of the bad habits so he can play 30+ mpg and another 4 to 5 seasons of training to get him to the point where he rarely gets in foul trouble. But a guy with a low (say 15) strength or jump would take that long to improve as well and will be not terribly effective until he does so.

One of the big advantages of adding the NCAA system is that we have the college pages now which let you go scout draftees' foul ratings. The obvious example (since Conroy brought it up) is Kenneth Henderson from this year's draft (see http://pbsl.ijbl.net/NCAA/players/player3072.htm ) - he has a rating of 7 on that page. This information has been publicly available for a couple of weeks - especially since the draft file was finalized - and yes, I actually took a little time went and looked at his college page (along with other top prospects) to scout him so I would have snarky stuff to say in the liveblog even though I didn't have a first round pick (I *didn't* look at the player editor - I have no idea if he kept a 7 foul rating when imported into the league file or not).

If we want to amend the training so that it runs like other athletic trainings - even though someone will have to let you know just how many points your training will cost - that's fine with me. I was just trying to propose a system that let people do the training themselves without having to wait on one of the members of the input team to go look first.

Feels like this is a league decision , but if you're throwing your commish veto card down then let's say thats what is specifically happening please.

While I respect your opinion on what the rating is compared to, I humbly disagree ; no athletic rating prevents players from playing in games . Athletic ratings also are "innate" ratings that are used for scoring, rebounding , defense , etc , in other words in pretty much any action except maybe free throw shooting; where a foul rating is strictly for personal fouls and typically Is only for defense.

Being able to raise this rating by 5 a season is literally worthless . How do I know ? I've seen it in action as have one other person and guess what, it's never been used again. It's a waste of time at 5 points per pop.

Your information on Henderson certainly spurned this suggestion, but to say scouting from the college league to this league has some sort of predictable translation is downright inaccurate and irresponsible (see; Conn , Sylvester). And while I I find it cute that you referenced conroy pointing it out, I'll also point to the fact that conroy has a hard on for me since the late 80's and anything nearly positive that happens to me he's got something shitty to say about it. I take the high road about 95 percent of the time with him.

Anyway, I'm up for discussion about alternative methods to embed this rule without snark unless of course this is a straight commish veto.

[Darth Vegito]

So I'm going to stay out of this totally fun and interesting banter but I will give my thoughts on foul ratings and so on.

I hate this "hidden" rating all together. It was always there But it wasn't until maybe what, 5 seasons ago, that we actually started seeing it literally keep top big off the court. In the countless sessions I don't remember it being significant at all. Then all the sudden it was.

I understand we like some randomness of the game. But I think TC provides enough of that for everyone. I don't think ANYONE should have to worry about there top 5 pick not being able to actually play basketball due to fouling. I think it's absurd and have since this problem arose. And I don't think you can ever rely on the college ratings carrying over, we've seen that.

Let's say that they did carry over, I also think it's absurd that we allow a foul rating to completely turn a great potential player into shit. This draft class wasn't great, the last one wasn't either. I don't think we should let this hidden rating that has no effect on a player's color rating or potential make a player insignificant.

I'm not offering a solution because I don't have one. In a perfect world I'd like to see this rating gone completely. I don't even think a GM should be forced to pay points to allow their player to stay on the court. I think we have enough things to pay for as it is. I didn't draft a big because I was worried about this. Drafting a stud in Asik, who couldn't play more than 20 mpg as a rookie.

TC can cost a team an entire wasted year if it destroys a top rookie. Not to mention now the players look like they will all take 23 years to develop. This foul rating should not be another thing that cripples players and teams. That's my two cents.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

[IamQuailman]

What is the current? 12 points to raise it 5 rating points? I was very against this expensive miniscule training from the get go and lobbied for larger increases. So I'll lobby for them here as well.

5 is definitely not worth 12 points. I would almost say 15 points for 10 rating increase would maybe be worth it. May be higher than your typical athletic training, but I wouldn't say this is an athletic training.

All other ratings can get substantial ratings boosts in TC but sadly this one can't. Not to mention its a hidden rating that you may not even know until after way after acquiring said player.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

[WigNosy]

Not a commish veto. Merely explaining why it was presented as it was when I put together the proposal for the other trainings since Scott wanted to know the reason it was the way it was. Please continue discussion. It's healthy.

[WigNosy]

So I noticed there is a "Text Reports" button that can dump player ratings to .CSV - and that the fouls rating is in there. I will see if I can find a quick and easy way to add that rating to the lists.php page so it at least isn't hidden any more. Because I don't like the fact it's hidden either.

[Soundwave]

I, gulp, agree with Dath Vegino

[Conroy]

Late 80s? 95% of the time? Those are some high numbers. But since you live on the high road it makes sense.

[WigNosy]

I hate this "hidden" rating all together. It was always there But it wasn't until maybe what, 5 seasons ago, that we actually started seeing it literally keep top big off the court. In the countless sessions I don't remember it being significant at all.

I don't think we should let this hidden rating that has no effect on a player's color rating or potential make a player insignificant.

In the interest of fairness, foul rating turning potential stars into garbage has been around since our very first draft and it hasn't only hit bigs. You might remember Tharon Mayes, drafted in our first rookie draft in 1990. Should have been the perfect 3 and D guard... but couldn't stay on the court.

TC can cost a team an entire wasted year if it destroys a top rookie. Not to mention now the players look like they will all take 23 years to develop. This foul rating should not be another thing that cripples players and teams.

The most important thing to the league is "are you having fun?" I agree that TC crushing guys isn't fun. It is why we came up with Tc insurance. Injuries aren't fun which is why we turn them down to 50% (this means they happen half as often and they last half as long - with injuries at 100% serious injuries can take players out for a year or more, meaning multiple seasons lost). If it is so bad it sucks all the fun out, we need to find a way to change it.

I agree that "I can't play my star enough because he always fouls" is not fun. The question is how far do we want to correct the pendulum in the other direction. Which is why this discussion is a healthy one and I am not going to say I am entrenched in my position. I am merely giving the rationale for why the foul training was restricted as it was and why it costs what it does. If you disagree with the premises I started from and want to explain how to adjust it so it works with your premises, cool. I never claimed I had a perfect solution and if someone else's idea is better I am all for it.

One other potential pitfall with a solution... unlike athletic ratings and potentials, I have not noticed foul rating declining significantly with age. So once you raise it, the benefits are basically permanent... you don't lose the training when a player gets into his 30s. So keep that in mind as well as you look to price against other ratings.

I would love to come up with a better system that works for everyone. Let's talk it out and find it,

[ballsohard]

One thing I was thinking is :

Change foul from 5 to 10 as doug suggested but

Have a minimum foul rating of 25.

Now we're talking about being able to play early in the career.

You still have the ability to train if it's a problem (albeit less of one .

Make the user use the csv file to notify the league.

You also still have a very wide range of skill in fouling and it's a factor still.

[Darth Vegito]

One thing I was thinking is :

Change foul from 5 to 10 as doug suggested but

Have a minimum foul rating of 25.

Now we're talking about being able to play early in the career.

You still have the ability to train if it's a problem (albeit less of one .

Make the user use the csv file to notify the league.

You also still have a very wide range of skill in fouling and it's a factor still.

This is the type of solution I'd rather. I think my problem is that I don't think foul trouble should be another next player breaker that it currently is. I get that it has to be a factor, I'm cool with that. But it's too great a factor right now. Too many points have to be put here just to get a player starter minutes. There are enough things that make a gm want to "retire" at times throughout the season. Let's make this one kinda moot and an afterthought in the scheme of things.

And Wig I know you named Mayes but I kinda think that's one of very very few players that we recall this being a problem with. I can name probably 10 that are currently in the league now. I really don't understand how I don't ever remember this issue before the last 3-5 seasons. And back then I was balls deep in the inner workings and I just don't recall this ever being a big problem.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

[Inner_GI]

Can I fix Brokic's injury rating?

[ballsohard]

Regarding Mayes : I don't think Bc it was acceptable years ago means it's acceptable now, the ground in which we placed the Tc insurance on was pretty much like this .. we see a problem w the logic and we correct it to make it fun for everyone

[ballsohard]

Can I fix Brokic's injury rating?

I'd be all for suggestions man .. I just don't understand the Rating enough to make one.

[IamQuailman]

One thing I was thinking is :

Change foul from 5 to 10 as doug suggested but

Have a minimum foul rating of 25.

Now we're talking about being able to play early in the career.

You still have the ability to train if it's a problem (albeit less of one .

Make the user use the csv file to notify the league.

You also still have a very wide range of skill in fouling and it's a factor still.

I say take out the minimum as it excludes player that REALLY need it. You are talking 40-60 pts and 3-5 season before these guys get to an even remotely respectable foul rating. I dont mind keeping the per36 3.0 fpg qualifier, but i can understand the case for it to be removed as well.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

[ballsohard]

One thing I was thinking is :

Change foul from 5 to 10 as doug suggested but

Have a minimum foul rating of 25.

Now we're talking about being able to play early in the career.

You still have the ability to train if it's a problem (albeit less of one .

Make the user use the csv file to notify the league.

You also still have a very wide range of skill in fouling and it's a factor still.

I say take out the minimum as it excludes player that REALLY need it. You are talking 40-60 pts and 3-5 season before these guys get to an even remotely respectable foul rating. I dont mind keeping the per36 3.0 fpg qualifier, but i can understand the case for it to be removed as well.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

By min I mean the lowest a player can have is 25.

[ballsohard]

And by lowest I mean if they're under 25 we boost it to 25 auto

[IamQuailman]

Ohhhhh I got ya.

[WigNosy]

So I noticed there is a "Text Reports" button that can dump player ratings to .CSV - and that the fouls rating is in there. I will see if I can find a quick and easy way to add that rating to the lists.php page so it at least isn't hidden any more. Because I don't like the fact it's hidden either.

This has been done. Player foul ratings (for players on teams) now show up on http://pbsl.ijbl.net/lists.php?page=playerssigned under the "PFL" column.

I will need to do some work on the import script to get a corresponding lists.php page for Free Agents and rookies. Can't promise how soon that will get done because I have to tell the script how to parse those pages.

[IamQuailman]

Are we voting on this?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

[WigNosy]

Not yet, mostly because experience has shown me that unless a rule change obviously breaks the game, it's generally best to give it a little time so its effect can be better understood before voting to change the rule again. We've only had the revised foul training in effect for a couple of seasons and it's only been used a couple of times so far. The PFL ratings have only even been published for a season. I'd prefer to take a slower pace of changes so we have enough time to evaluate what our last set of changes did.