BuzzerBeater Forums

I just wanted to share a bit more - this one is more something I am starting to believe from looking at player skills rather than something I modelled, though. As I get more and more data, I am starting to believe more in the idea of sub-levels on potential. This is tough for me to admit, since I have been adamantly against them for a long time. But hey, even smart people can get things wrong sometimes. ;-)

When I talked to Joseph Ka, he said something that I thought was interesting: that if sub-levels do exist, maybe all-time great is just a limit case of hall of fame potential. I also heard of a rare potential called "BB developer". I assume that would be the opposite (ie: a limit case of announcer). In order words, something like this:

BB developer = 0 (which possibly means capped no matter what)
announcer = 0-1
bench warmer = 1-2
role player = 2-3
6th man = 3-4
starter = 4-5
star = 5-6
allstar = 6-7
perennial allstar = 7-8
superstar = 8-9
MVP = 9-10
hall of famer = 10-11
all-time great = 11 (which possibly means never capped)

Anyhow, I do not know anything for sure yet, but if true it seems pretty interesting.

I just wanted to share a bit more - this one is more something I am starting to believe from looking at player skills rather than something I modelled, though. As I get more and more data, I am starting to believe more in the idea of sub-levels on potential. This is tough for me to admit, since I have been adamantly against them for a long time. But hey, even smart people can get things wrong sometimes. ;-)

When I talked to Joseph Ka, he said something that I thought was interesting: that if sub-levels do exist, maybe all-time great is just a limit case of hall of fame potential. I also heard of a rare potential called "BB developer". I assume that would be the opposite (ie: a limit case of announcer). In order words, something like this:

BB developer = 0 (which possibly means capped no matter what)
announcer = 0-1
bench warmer = 1-2
role player = 2-3
6th man = 3-4
starter = 4-5
star = 5-6
allstar = 6-7
perennial allstar = 7-8
superstar = 8-9
MVP = 9-10
hall of famer = 10-11
all-time great = 11 (which possibly means never capped)

Anyhow, I do not know anything for sure yet, but if true it seems pretty interesting.

Or that there isn't an ATG trained enough to be capped and we will see if sometime in the future one those ever arise.

But, that's the regular sublevels theory for potential with Josef Ka contribution.

Just found this:

(29708.11)

Your first conclusion was already known!

What Charles meant was more linked to the BB position given in the beginning by BB
Moreover, he uses salary to illustrate the potential cap :p

Just found this:

(29708.11)

Your first conclusion was already known!

Thanks - that example is very useful and a good place to start. Although he is talking in generalities, perhaps there is more there than meets the eye.

One last thing, which you probably already know -- the model for skills is multiplicative, which means that any regression you want to run should have the logs of skills on the right-hand side.

Of course, assuming the formula for capping is the same as salary.

I wonder if people didn´t see this thread or if we are just too lazy to contribute.

I agree that it will be hard to find the answear but it doesnt hurt to try.

I appreciate you pushing this thread to the top, Mannen. I have been stuck at around 70 data points for what seems like a long time (although maybe it just feels like a long time). Hopefully people keep me in mind if they realize their player is capped.

Is their a way that you could try and workout the potential cap by looking at players that aren't capped yet?
This would allow you to look at players on the transfer list and look at the top players at each potential and allow you to work out where the cap is, or more specifically, you could work out where the cap isn't. I think that would be a lot easier to do as you would have significantly more data points.