#SLOE: People's Basketball Sim League

OBSERVATION: I ran a TC sim on a copy of our league file and collated before/after deltas for players under 28 whose potential ratings changed. 303 players fell in the range, 51 declined (17%) and 27 jumped (9%). When training camp affects a young player's potential ratings, the potential change (not counting "Physical Attributes" without potential such as quickness, jump, strength, etc.) averaged about 70 points of change.

FACT: Paid Trainings currently cost 40 points and grant you +6 or +8 attribute points depending on what you choose.

NUMBER CRUNCHING: TC insurance is 10 points and can save you from an average of 70 points of decrease. Players have about a 17% chance of declining every year so spending 10 league points on TC Insurance saves an average of 11.9 (17%*70) attribute points. If you spent 40 points on TC insurance, you're getting, on aveage, 47.6 points of attribute potential out of it... in other words, it's 6 to 8 times more cost-effective.

PROPOSITION: Our TC insurance costs are about right. I could say it "feels" right but objectively we are now seeing about 500 points per year spent on TC insurance. The revised point system was explicitly designed to pump around 1000 points into the ecosystem each season - slightly more if everyone actively participates - which means half the points are being spent "protecting teams' investments" but the other half is still available for spending on luxury tax and paid player trainings. If we raised TC insurance to even twice its current amount, to say nothing of 6 to 8 times its current amount, it would become totally unfeasible.

CONCLUSION: Our "paid trainings" aren't effective enough. We need a new system.

GOALS:
1. It should be easier to "keep things" than to "improve things" - so any new paid trainings system should not be as efficient as TC insurance.
2. It should be easier to improve a mediocre player than a star. Originally the points system was defended as a way of building up a mediocre player; in practice its use has been almost exclusively to enhance star players.
3. It should be easy. Tracking all-league team members, how many trainings people have already had, and so on is a lot of extra paperwork. Let's get rid of that.
4. If possible, it should be flexible enough to incorporate or maybe even replace free rookie trainings and/or deal with players without respect to the color system.

My proposal itself will be in the next post.

PROPOSAL: Replace the current training system in its entirety with the following.

SECTION I: RATINGS WITH POTENTIAL (INCLUDES INS, JPS, FTS, 3PS, HND, PAS, ORB, DRB, PSD, PRD, STL, BLK)

1. All paid trainings to take place in the Paid Training period prior to the start of the regular season (no more All-Star Break paid trainings).

2. Potential "Bands" correspond to ratings as follows: A (81+), B (61-80), C (41-60), D (21-40), F (0-20).

3. A player's "Potential" rating in a single attribute may be increased by 20 points (increase is 21 points if the current potential is 0; this guarantees the potential is moved into the next band) at a cost based on his current potential rating as follows:

F = 20 points
D = 20 points
C = 25 points
B = 30 points
A = may not be improved

4. A player may only receive one paid training affecting Potential per season.

5. A player's "Current" rating in a single attribute may be increased as long as the "current" rating is below that player's "Potential Band" (i.e., a player with a potential of "B" may train a rating as long as it is under 60; once it reaches 61 it falls within the potential band and cannot be raised unless the potential is raised first).

6. A player may receive any number of paid trainings affecting "current" ratings; however, any given rating may be increased by no more than 10 points per season (i.e., you can train ORB, DRB, BLK, and PSD if you wish but no more than a 10 point increase in any one rating is allowed).

7. Cost per point of increase for current ratings is based on the band the "current" rating falls into as follows:

F = 1.2 points
D = 1.5 points
C = 1.8 points
B = 2.1 points
A = may not be trained

8. Cost for multiple increases to a single attribute may be aggregated; round all fractions up. For example, increasing a rating of 35 (D band) costs 1.5 points to increase to 36; another 1.5 points to increase to 37 (3.0 total), 1.5 points to increase to 38 (4.5 total), 1.5 points to increase to 39 (6.0 total), 1.5 points to increase to 40 (7.5 total), and 1.5 points to increase to 41 (9.0 total). At this point the rating is in the C band and the cost increases to 1.8 points so increasing the rating to 42 costs 1.8 points (10.8 total), increasing to 43 is another 1.8 points (12.6 total), increasing to 44 is another 1.8 points (14.4 total) and increasing to 45 - the maximum 10-point increase for a single season - costs 1.8 more points (16.2 total, round up to 17). Note that if a player's potential were a C, the increases would have had to stop at 41 (since 40 is in the D-band, it can be increased; as soon as it reaches 41 it is in the C band and cannot be increased unless potential is increased).

SECTION II: RATINGS WITH NO POTENTIAL (QKN, STR, JMP, STA)

1. All paid trainings to take place in the Paid Training period prior to the start of the regular season (no more All-Star Break paid trainings).

2. A player's rating in a single rating with no potential may be increased as long as it is under 81, but each rating may be increase by no more than 5 points per season.

3. Cost per point of increase for current ratings is based on the current rating:

0-20 = 1.6 points
21-40 = 2.2 points
41-60 = 2.6 points
61-80 = 3.0 points
81+ = may not be trained

SECTION III: PERSONAL FOUL (HIDDEN RATING)

1. All paid trainings to take place in the Paid Training period prior to the start of the regular season (no more All-Star Break paid trainings).

2. A player must have averaged at least 3 fouls per game the previous season to take this training.

3. Since it is a "hidden" rating (does not appear in HTML exports or in game outside of league editor) and cannot easily be broken into bands, taking PF training raises the rating by 5 points (regardless of current rating) for a flat fee of 12 points.

4. This training may be applied once per player per season.

NOTE: Fractional point costs for all trainings taking place on the same player at the same time may be aggregated; always round resulting fractions up. Fractional point costs for trainings on DIFFERENT players may not be aggregated.

A clarifying question, and one suggestion.

Let's assume a player has an Inside rating of 50 with C potential. May an owner spend 25 points to raise the potential to the 'B' band, and then 18 points (10x1.8) to raise the current to a 60 in the same training session? Or will they have to be done in separate seasons?

A suggestion for the fouls training, to accommodate young players, can the requirement be based on 3 fouls per 36mins?

TheSyndicate wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:34 pm

A clarifying question, and one suggestion.

Let's assume a player has an Inside rating of 50 with C potential. May an owner spend 25 points to raise the potential to the 'B' band, and then 18 points (10x1.8) to raise the current to a 60 in the same training session? Or will they have to be done in separate seasons?

Clarification: Yes, you can raise the potential band and train the current in the same training session.

A suggestion for the fouls training, to accommodate young players, can the requirement be based on 3 fouls per 36mins?

I'm not 100% opposed but would prefer to make it as simple as possible - 3 fouls per game is trivially easy to check. 3 fouls per 36 minutes is not.

For the love of God let's vote on personal fouls right now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think raising a whole band is too much personally but I really like the bones of this structure.

I think we should split out the foul training from this since implementing that training could be independent of the rest of the post

Sent from my Phone
No Trade List: Hornets

I'm kind of with Balls on this. It seems too much growth for too little but I love the structure of this. 17 points to go from a D to a C. Seems too easy.

kucoach7 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:23 am

I'm kind of with Balls on this. It seems too much growth for too little but I love the structure of this. 17 points to go from a D to a C. Seems too easy.

But that's 17 points to go from 35 to 45 on a rating...I don't know, seems pretty reasonable to me. Plus you're going to need to keep your points for TC insurance anyway.

30 points seems a little cheap for someone to jump a potential to the next level + insurance to keep it there. Overall, I think this is a great idea.

Maybe a max of 10 points or something to get them to a tier

Just in case anyone wondering here is the point totals for each team that their current bank states, as best I could tell.
(edited to sort greatest to smallest)

SUNS 178
CLIPPERS 156
HAWKS 156
KNICKS 99
BUCKS 87
LAKERS 79
TWOLVES 70
HEAT 67
76ERS 66
BLAZERS 64
BULLS 62
HORNETS 62
RAPTORS 55
PISTONS 55
KINGS 45
MAVS 45
NUGGETS 42
WARRIORS 38
SONICS 37
NETS 31
CAVS 17
GRIZZLIES 14
SPURS 13
ROCKETS 9
CELTICS 7
WIZARDS 5
MAGIC 4
JAZZ 1

Are we not voting on this item this year?

IMO this was introduced too close to the start of the voting period and had not been fully discussed to be in a "ready for voting" state. I'd like to see a little more back and forth on why the point values for Sections I and II are too high/too low/just right so we can get a consensus on what the proposal should look like (or at least give ourselves options for voting).

Need to reopen discussion on this thread, so some quick-hitters.

Inner_GI wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:33 pm

30 points seems a little cheap for someone to jump a potential to the next level + insurance to keep it there. Overall, I think this is a great idea.

Bear in mind that 30 points jumps potential to the next level... but since training takes place after TC, you have to wait a season to see any benefit from boosting potential (unless you spend MORE points to raise the score immediately). And it takes at least two more seasons, and possibly more seasons to reach that new potential (since the highest jump we've ever seen in current ratings is 10).

Also, it strikes me that raising potential by a band is a way to keep older players viable longer (though drops can be more than -10); when a star player's potential dips into B's in his early 30's, you could raise a couple of areas back up to A's - while his potential will continue to drop over the next couple of years (eventually undoing your spend), we could see stars still effective until 32 or 33 (not in all areas since that would be too expensive, but in one or two areas - e.g., scoring or defense). Remember, this boost comes AFTER TC so the older player's potential will drop again the next TC before you can see his current try to bounce back up, which means for older players you won't ever see the 20-point boost - but it still works to extend the player's career.

After re-reading, I really like this proposal. It leaves a lot of flexibility in training, kinda a la carte training.

What about making potential training for players over 31 being at a discounted rate (or current proposed rate) and make potential boosts for players under 31 a little more (maybe 5pts more expensive per band?)

I read this proposed system again and I think it's great. I have one question though.

When you train potential, does it go to the next letter grade at it's lowest score?

For example, if we have a player with INS Current of 55 and Potential of 60, if we train that player's potential, do you only get +1 in potential to INS? If so, how should we handle situations like that. At that point it becomes completely cost ineffective, and the GM really has no way to know the exact potential score.

Also for those that fear this may be too cheap, I wanted to see what it would cost to raise a player from the lowest C to the lowest B.

If a player has a current rating of 41 and the potential is in the C band as well, it would cost 60 points to then have a current potential of B and a current rating of 60. Granted, this would take 2 full seasons to realize because of the 10 point increase limit on currents. I think this is totally reasonable.

Inner_GI wrote:I read this proposed system again and I think it's great. I have one question though.

When you train potential, does it go to the next letter grade at it's lowest score?

For example, if we have a player with INS Current of 55 and Potential of 60, if we train that player's potential, do you only get +1 in potential to INS? If so, how should we handle situations like that. At that point it becomes completely cost ineffective, and the GM really has no way to know the exact potential score.

Potential goes up 20 points when you train it (except 0 goes up by 21 points). So if you have a 55 potential (high C) it jumps not to 61 points (minimum B) but to 75 (+20, high B).

I'm 100% on board with this... although I'm on #TeamASWTraining. I'd like to see 2 chances to train in the season. Maybe we can make that part of the vote... Option 1: no change, Option 2: This system, no ASW training, Option 3: This system, ASW training

I think adding a cap to how much potential can increase is needed. If you bump a player to A potential it should cap at 85 or something. We don't need players getting bumped from a B 79 to an A 99 all across the league.

Inner_GI wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 06, 2017 8:13 am

I think adding a cap to how much potential can increase is needed. If you bump a player to A potential it should cap at 85 or something. We don't need players getting bumped from a B 79 to an A 99 all across the league.

That's a good point, Logan. I definitely agree that a potential cap for As would be smart. And to train it up to A you would still have to pay full price whether you get a 20 rating pt increase or 10 rating pt increase.

Wig, I know we have a few sims, but I think we have 90% acceptance here with 10% room for improvement/suggestions for change. If the potential cap, potential cost, and Training Dates (only pre-season or pre-season + ASW) are all points of discussion, how do we move to vote? Do we do 1 poll for voting the new system in? and then 3 dependent polls to vote for those three areas for improvement like we did in a previous year?

Was this going to be put up for vote this season?

Xist2Inspire wrote:Was this going to be put up for vote this season?

I hope so!

Sent from my Phone
No Trade List: Hornets