player development

[debiler]

One thing EA has to improve is player development. For example, when a player with a 3 point rating of 70 shoots 37% from beyond the line, his 3pt rating should move up by 1 or 2 points, whereas a player who has 90 in 3 point shooting could do better and so he should get a little drop in his rating.
It could also be position- and height-dependent. A point guard who averages 0.4 blocks per game should definitely get an improvement, but a starting C who averages only 0.8...you know what I mean.
Careerpkg could be used to define the range of improvement. Maybe a player with CAREERPKG of A can get an overall max of +6 per season(for outstanding performance) and one who is limited to a CAREERPKG of E only +2 each season.
What about temporary improvements during the season? Like being on fire for some games after having a week with 25pts, 8rebs and 12asts(PG example)?

I would be happy if EA did change some of these things. Even if more complicated calculations after each season would take more CPU time, I can accept a 'post-seasonal' development calculation of up to 5 minutes.

Das war mein Senf

[crimson_stallion]

One thing EA has to improve is player development. For example, when a player with a 3 point rating of 70 shoots 37% from beyond the line, his 3pt rating should move up by 1 or 2 points, whereas a player who has 90 in 3 point shooting could do better and so he should get a little drop in his rating.
It could also be position- and height-dependent. A point guard who averages 0.4 blocks per game should definitely get an improvement, but a starting C who averages only 0.8...you know what I mean.
Careerpkg could be used to define the range of improvement. Maybe a player with CAREERPKG of A can get an overall max of +6 per season(for outstanding performance) and one who is limited to a CAREERPKG of E only +2 each season.
What about temporary improvements during the season? Like being on fire for some games after having a week with 25pts, 8rebs and 12asts(PG example)?

I would be happy if EA did change some of these things. Even if more complicated calculations after each season would take more CPU time, I can accept a 'post-seasonal' development calculation of up to 5 minutes.

Das war mein Senf

Not too sure about those..development of palyers is definately an issue, but I think a players 3PT percentage should bejust determines by his 3PT rating and possibly primacy rating (i.e a guy whos a 95+ rated 3pt shooter would likely shoot 3's at a higher percentage if hes a 3rd option then if hes a teams main go-to-guy. Reason being hell be more likely to let the shots come to him as opposed to having to at times force them.

I think ratings should influence percentages/averages, rather then the other way around.

Secondly, size/position should IMO influence stats, but i dont think it should influence rate of improvement. There are quitea few 7"2 guys in the NBA who are only very average centres, dispite them having significant advantages in size for their position. Same goes for other positions. There are tall point guards who dont necessarily end up becoming all-stars simply because of this advantage.

IMO a players chance of improving/developing should be determined by :
1) age
2) years pro (e.g. in first 1 or 2 years usualy players will be far from their best, and after about 13 seasons many start to deteriorate)
3) ratings
4) primacy (young player who is 'the man' on a team is more likely to have a break out season and become a big star;same way t-mac didnt really shine until he got in orlando - carter was the #1 man, and this limited his development potential. Simliar for Drew Gooden last season.

I would also like to see a type of leadership stat. Players with high ratigns are more likely to become start players and go-to guys, while players with lower ratings (but high overall ratings) are more likely to become very solid role players or 2nd / 3rd options.

Maybe an ability to elect 1 or 2 players as captains would be interesting.
This way it would be importatn to have 1 or 2 experienced players on your team to be leaders/captains, because a 20 and 21 year olds generally woudlnt make great captains. The more better (experience, overall, leadership) the captain(s) are, the better the team plays (especially in the playoffs and in close simulated games) and the better potential fro development of young upcoming stars.

Maybe coaches and trainers could be brought into the picture as well. After guys get older and retire, some ex-stars could pop up in the 'hire staff' section as player develepment aids, assistant coaches etc. Maybe hiring a guy like ewing or hakeem could increase the chances of your young centres and forwards improving etc. You could be givena limit of 3 staff members. Maybe a coach, and two trainers. This way you would have to be specific abou twhat positions you wanted your team to major at (i.e. hire hakeem if u want a post up style team, stockton if you want to develop your backcourt players, etc. Maybe offensive ofiented players like ben wallace if hired 10 years down your franchise could develop your teams younf frontcourt defensively, while j-kidd could develop yout back court in terms of playmaking and co-ordination. No idea how good that woudl work.. but what you think?

[LeBron James]

it is all true

[Andrew]

It would be difficult to get satisfactory results if player averages and percentages had a direct impact on player development. Consider that not every human player is skilled at shooting three pointers and free throws in NBA Live. A poor start to the season shooting wise would result in a lower percentage at the season's end, thus a decline in the three point ratings. Similarly, skilled players could increase their players' ratings too easily.