Can somebody help me understand the skill changes between years. I just don't get whats happening. I almost exclusively have skill loss on every player.

I have a freshmen who started all 30 games for me at 2.5star ratings drop down to a 1 star for his sophomore season. I just don't understand how this is possible. He went from one of my better players on my team to someone who is going to ride the pine for probably the rest of his career.

I could maybe understand if he was redshirted or never played and its some evaluation thing. But actual major skill loss from a young starter? blows my mind.

I had another player who was a sophomore when I became coach. Was 3.5 star (3.5 or 4 potential). He started all 3 years and lost a least a skill point or 2 every year.

If this is intentional behavior please help me understand. I actually have the same issue with DDS:CF 2021 and its why I stopped playing that game (freshmen dropping 4-10 in each skill as starters)

Are you practicing what you're playing as far as offensive and defensive sets are concerned. Setting this up properly both in Practice Plan and Strategy, and making sure that the two of them match up as exactly as possible is the determining factor.

Not sure why that would matter, but yes. I run 1 defense and 1 offense. Practice plan is set at 5% for each zone attack and the rest on the offense and defense I run. I really don't know what that matters though. It only represents the split of normal practice going to each set, not the overall practice as a whole.

My player proficiencys are quite high in the sets I run.

I think this was asked about last year and the answer had to deal with your coaches and their ratings. When you first recruit a player, if your coaches ratings are not too high, players can be thought of as better than they really are. As they are in your system for a year or two, your coaches get a better idea of the true abilities/talents of your players. So therefore, their potential or actual ratings were inflated.

I am just speculating as I am not sure what school you are at and your assistant coaches ratings are, but as I said this was something mentioned last year.

When I recruited the particular player he was a 1star. showed up as a 2.5star (or maybe 2 star). All his stats show a small down turn as well.

My coaching staff was pretty awful and they are pretty good for the team I am. North Andover Spartans, one of the new ones. My head coach as `~50 in player development and i think ~40 in scouting.

I'm not sure why it takes a full year and 30 starts to scout one of my own players though. Like I get having the skills page be what the coaches think, but I guess maybe my problem stems from these only changed in the off season.

You can see true skills with the commissioner right? Is there any way to show the skill history there so I can see if he actually got worse or its a coach thing.

Not that I know of. It sounds like he was rated pretty accurately during recruiting (1 star), then was overrated when he showed up for college (2 or 2.5 stars) and then got more closely rated to what he should have been (1 star) after he played a year for you and exposed what he really was like.

But as was as blazertaz said, coach rating error can result in significant re-evaluations.

It's almost certainly an over-rating of your coaches on the player. Players are only evaluated at certain points of the game so it could certainly be possible that they over rated him coming in and now maybe have even swung too far the other way in their year two evaluation.

hmmm

He nearly outplayed my 3.5star player with better offensive skills. That guy was a 3 year starter and was 1st team conference. This other guy was 2nd team conference.

What time of year and who is the evaluation done by. Head Coach, Assistant in charge of scouting, all of them?

I find it pretty strange that coaches can't get a fairly accurate read on a players skills after watching them start 30 games.

Players are evaluated at different points in the calendar year - I don't have them in front of me at the moment though and the evaluation is done by all coaches with the most weight on the HC.

This is why I honestly don't like the "star" system and kept it out of the game so long - it's not a measurement of how good or useful a player is and the game requires you to go much deeper than looking at it. You are the head coach so you have the ability to evaluate things - if he was the second best player on your team then play him - obviously your scheme was good for him, his ratings are strong in areas that are making him a success, maybe he fit in really well with a certain lineup - there could be lots of reasons why he played well and you should use those to determine what to do with him, not just a single rating

Yeah I understand the desire for no overall. Once you see that it becomes hard to ignore. BTW, Haven't seen this change besides the sim between end of year and start of off season.

I guess my issue is when they are new players and especially when its a very young team. I got no real way of knowing the players that should be playing until fairly deep into the year.
This player I was talking about lost a bunch of points in rebounding and defense so that was a bit disconcerting. He also went from a 4star potential to a 1 star potential, which is a massive change.

I didn't really have the issue with the overall changing necessarily it was just the best way to get the large skill change across without listing them all.

My coaches essentially said this guy is good and has huge potential down the road. Then they watched him start 30 games with a decent performance and decided that he was garbage and would never get better.

I'm sure a large part of the problem is my bad assistants, but I'm a low level team. If I was Durham or something I'd have much less of an issue. Seems the bad evaluation is a little extreme for having the guy on your team and watching practices/games for 4 months.

Do the evaluations cover the shooting skills, iq, discipline, and athleticism? I haven't noticed these skills changing and they aren't listed under progression.