What I learned about training camp last year
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:41 pm
Last year after TC, Nola reached out to me and told me that he had found a very effective training method that produced consistently very good results. He put 8 on inside, 5 on outside and 3’s everywhere else. Based on the results, it seemed like the method produced incredible TC boosts for players with room to grow in those areas. So I put it to the test, along with a few other training schemes to see if Tani had really cracked the code. Once again I chose a handful of players from my team Ball, Hibbert, Rose, and Kimbrough (2 old and 2 young) and ran TC 10 time for each of 5 different training schemes. Again, the results are here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0
Is 8,5,3 really magic?
Yes and no. I assigned the 8 to the area for which the player had the most room to grow and the 5 to the area with the second most room to grow. It was the worst method for both of the older players, the best for Ball, and the second best for Kimbrough based on average overall increase.
But didn’t you say that all 3s and a 10 (in athleticism) was the best?
Yes, I did say that last year. It was the best by a significant margin for the two old guys this year. This is because many skill attribute outcomes for these old guys will not change AT ALL depending on the training method but athleticism varies significantly. In short, all 3s and a 10 is great for old guys and it also produced average increases in athleticism approximately double that of other methods (using 3 for conditioning) for the young guys so it is good if you have an under 30 guy that doesn’t have a lot of unmet skill potential or that you want to be more athletic.
But what if we took it to 11?
In my first training camp article, I found evidence that using inputs above 5 really didn’t help any more than just using a 5. This is not true. Inputing a 10 in the area where the player had the most unmet potential produced the best results for those specific areas for all of the players except Kimbrough. For example, using 10 on handles for Lavar got his handling up to 79 essentially every time but using an 8, it maxed out at 78. However, this method did achieve lower results on average than the magic 8,5,3 method. So if there is one area that a player has a lot of unmet potential and that is all you care about, take it to 11 my friend. . . EXCEPT FOR ONE THING. . .
What about Kimbrough?
So Kimbrough has a ton of unmet inside scoring potential but it went from 25 to 28 everytime whether I input a 10, 8, 5, or 3. However, when I went with the recommended that used a 9 it went to 30 every time. This makes literally no sense to me and I have no explanation of this.
Is it true that there are sacrificial lambs on a team?
I find no evidence that the overall level of training camp outcomes is balanced over a whole team and that some guys have to die for other guys to do well. I cut my roster down to these 4 guys and over the 50 simulations I performed I had a max of 10 and min of -80.
This is great and all but all I care about is that my player ends up #tcblessed and not ded.
So I actually lied when I said 8,5,3 was the best for Lavar. Recommended was actually the best because he was #tcblessed (purple potential!) twice and only died once with recommended but was #tc blessed only once and died 3 times with 8,5,3. I’m not going to read too much into this but you can if you want. Kimbrough was the opposite case he got a boost once and died three times with recommended and got one boost and one death from 8,5,3.
Is 8,5,3 really magic?
Yes and no. I assigned the 8 to the area for which the player had the most room to grow and the 5 to the area with the second most room to grow. It was the worst method for both of the older players, the best for Ball, and the second best for Kimbrough based on average overall increase.
But didn’t you say that all 3s and a 10 (in athleticism) was the best?
Yes, I did say that last year. It was the best by a significant margin for the two old guys this year. This is because many skill attribute outcomes for these old guys will not change AT ALL depending on the training method but athleticism varies significantly. In short, all 3s and a 10 is great for old guys and it also produced average increases in athleticism approximately double that of other methods (using 3 for conditioning) for the young guys so it is good if you have an under 30 guy that doesn’t have a lot of unmet skill potential or that you want to be more athletic.
But what if we took it to 11?
In my first training camp article, I found evidence that using inputs above 5 really didn’t help any more than just using a 5. This is not true. Inputing a 10 in the area where the player had the most unmet potential produced the best results for those specific areas for all of the players except Kimbrough. For example, using 10 on handles for Lavar got his handling up to 79 essentially every time but using an 8, it maxed out at 78. However, this method did achieve lower results on average than the magic 8,5,3 method. So if there is one area that a player has a lot of unmet potential and that is all you care about, take it to 11 my friend. . . EXCEPT FOR ONE THING. . .
What about Kimbrough?
So Kimbrough has a ton of unmet inside scoring potential but it went from 25 to 28 everytime whether I input a 10, 8, 5, or 3. However, when I went with the recommended that used a 9 it went to 30 every time. This makes literally no sense to me and I have no explanation of this.
Is it true that there are sacrificial lambs on a team?
I find no evidence that the overall level of training camp outcomes is balanced over a whole team and that some guys have to die for other guys to do well. I cut my roster down to these 4 guys and over the 50 simulations I performed I had a max of 10 and min of -80.
This is great and all but all I care about is that my player ends up #tcblessed and not ded.
So I actually lied when I said 8,5,3 was the best for Lavar. Recommended was actually the best because he was #tcblessed (purple potential!) twice and only died once with recommended but was #tc blessed only once and died 3 times with 8,5,3. I’m not going to read too much into this but you can if you want. Kimbrough was the opposite case he got a boost once and died three times with recommended and got one boost and one death from 8,5,3.