PFL Training Costs

[IamQuailman]

I'd like to propose an alteration to PFL training costs:

CURRENT STATE

SECTION IV: PERSONAL FOUL TRAINING

1. A player must have a foul rating of 80 or less (can be viewed at http://pbsl.ijbl.net/lists.php?page=playerssigned) to be eligible for foul training.

2. Foul training increases a player's foul rating by 10 points (maximum of 85) and may be applied once per player per season.

3. Cost to purchase this training is as follows based on rating prior to training.

Rating	Purchase Cost
"F" Band (0-20)	10 points
"D" Band (21-40)	15 points
"C" Band (41-60)	20 points
"B" Band (61-80)	25 points
"A" Band (81+)	Not eligible

PROPOSED STATE

SECTION IV: PERSONAL FOUL TRAINING

1. A player must have a foul rating of 80 or less (can be viewed at http://pbsl.ijbl.net/lists.php?page=playerssigned) to be eligible for foul training.

2. Foul training increases a player's foul rating by 10 points (maximum of 85) and may be applied once per player per season.

3. Cost to purchase this training is as follows based on rating prior to training.

Rating	Purchase Cost
"F" Band (0-20)	5 points
"D" Band (21-40)	10 points
"C" Band (41-60)	15 points
"B" Band (61-80)	15 points
"A" Band (81+)	Not eligible

I'd also love to propose making Foul Training not fall under the "No Purple Potential" Training restriction, but I would get accused of bias LOL But i think this could benefit plenty of people in the league.

[garbageman]

Guess you should've trained Schumann's fouls before you made him purple, huh?

[TheSyndicate]

Fwiw, I agree with the proposed change, maybe with a lower ceiling (75) or a higher ‘B’ band price. But training fouls in the F/D band could be cheaper.

[TheSyndicate]

I would also like to look at what age the potential training is lowered. Right now I believe it is 31, and I don’t think it often (or ever) is used. I’d suggest lowering to 28 (same age you stop being eligible for insurance)

[IamQuailman]

LOL yea i didn't expect Schumann to go purple... and im def gonna pay for Chaddy, but i'm just saying this seems like somewhere we could adjust a minor bit since this training is to prevent a restriction on a player whereas all the other trainings are more adding to a skill set.

[IamQuailman]

I would also like to look at what age the potential training is lowered. Right now I believe it is 31, and I don’t think it often (or ever) is used. I’d suggest lowering to 28 (same age you stop being eligible for insurance)

I still don't even think people would use it then. Training potential on an older dude just never happens.

[garbageman]

LOL yea i didn't expect Schumann to go purple... and im def gonna pay for Chaddy, but i'm just saying this seems like somewhere we could adjust a minor bit since this training is to prevent a restriction on a player whereas all the other trainings are more adding to a skill set.

I don't see PFL rating training preventing a restriction as opposed to other trainings adding a skillset. Any low rating is a restriction. If your team is lacking in a certain area, it restricts you from being able to gameplan for that area. If your team isn't good at 3 point shooting, it restricts you to not use Outside focus. Likewise, if you've got a guy who fouls, it restricts you from using more aggressive defense. I see restricting vs. adding a skill set as two sides of the same coin.

PFL training is already cheaper than training an attribute. Personally, I'd be fine with allowing PFL training in increments of 1 instead of 10, but I don't really see a compelling argument that the economics on PFL training are off. The current training schema has significantly increased the talent pool.

In a 10 season span, this is how the future attributes have broken down:

POTENTIAL COLOR BAND	2022 COUNT	2032 COUNT
Orange	13	9
Yellow	166	107
Green	99	118
Blue	88	97
Purple	9	18

In 2022, about half the players on rosters were green or better. In 2032, 2/3rds of the players are green potential or better. Granted, there's been a 9% decrease in players since contraction, but if we take the 26 worst players out of the 2022 numbers, that would still leave us with 56% of players in 2022 being green or better.

Even though PFL doesn't really affect color ratings, or a player's overall ratings in any way, we're already moving towards doing away with a need for roleplayers, so I'm not that keen on making any training any cheaper or lifting any restrictions on training purple players.

[IamQuailman]

LOL yea i didn't expect Schumann to go purple... and im def gonna pay for Chaddy, but i'm just saying this seems like somewhere we could adjust a minor bit since this training is to prevent a restriction on a player whereas all the other trainings are more adding to a skill set.

I don't see PFL rating training preventing a restriction as opposed to other trainings adding a skillset. Any low rating is a restriction. If your team is lacking in a certain area, it restricts you from being able to gameplan for that area. If your team isn't good at 3 point shooting, it restricts you to not use Outside focus. Likewise, if you've got a guy who fouls, it restricts you from using more aggressive defense. I see restricting vs. adding a skill set as two sides of the same coin.

PFL training is already cheaper than training an attribute. Personally, I'd be fine with allowing PFL training in increments of 1 instead of 10, but I don't really see a compelling argument that the economics on PFL training are off. The current training schema has significantly increased the talent pool.

In a 10 season span, this is how the future attributes have broken down:

POTENTIAL COLOR BAND	2022 COUNT	2032 COUNT
Orange	13	9
Yellow	166	107
Green	99	118
Blue	88	97
Purple	9	18

In 2022, about half the players on rosters were green or better. In 2032, 2/3rds of the players are green potential or better. Granted, there's been a 9% decrease in players since contraction, but if we take the 26 worst players out of the 2022 numbers, that would still leave us with 56% of players in 2022 being green or better.

Even though PFL doesn't really affect color ratings, or a player's overall ratings in any way, we're already moving towards doing away with a need for roleplayers, so I'm not that keen on making any training any cheaper or lifting any restrictions on training purple players.

Again I’m okay with not lifting the purple restriction on most things, but has there been any proven Correlation between foul tendency vs aggressiveness of defense. I’ll be more than happy to go 10 10 Zone-Zone 0 full court press... just to track that chadwick and Schumann each will with even the most vanilla of defenses will average over 4.5fpg per 36... for the sake of science.

If a guy shoots shitty 3s but does other stuff right you can still gameplan and rely on him being on the floor and not prematurely benched/ejected from games because of fouls. Piss poor foul rating (esp for purple potential guys) means that fouls will always and forever keep them from playing full starter minutes. TC adjustments cannot impact or adjust this at random for players (purp or not) but it can for all the other ratings. That’s while I have always (not just now since I’ve had one of these guys) advocating for making this allowance, whether it was Conroy or Ryan or anyone else arguing for it.

[greepleairport]

While in favor of lowering foul training costs in general, I think we can actually reach consensus on allowing single point increases instead of one-time 10 point increases, which I would also be in favor of doing.