From my understanding let me know if i am wrong:

Ath for guards is more relevant for defensive ability and spd is relevant for FCP def and then offensive abiltiy.

Ath for big men is a bit more relevant for a big mans offense and not sure where spd plays the most effect on for big men.

Can players be serviceable with low ath(under 30) and above average speed(60+) and low def ratings(20's).

A guard with high speed and low ath/def could still be an effective offensive player provided they have good cores but would give all of that back on defense. Sometimes it can be nice to have someone like that off the bench but I would never want to start them.

Also athleticism is relevant for pretty much everything.

1. Ath and Spd are both important in the defensive equation for guards. They are close to equal when pressing but generally ath is more important. I think, and I don't know if this is widely accepted as fact, that ATH is used more in defense in 2 point shots and SPD is used more when covering 3 point shots.

2. Speed is more important on offense for players with higher PER scores. ATH is more important for players with high LP scores.

3.In D3, I think you could get away with a 30-60-30 (ATH, SPD, DEF) if he has a really high PERIMETER score (70+) if you are trying to make the NT. IF you are trying to win the NT, the speed and perimeter score should be in the 90's like Yanks guy.

4. I agree with Blackdog, those types of guys are best used off the bench. It's hard to tell how many points bad defenders give up but he will get exploited in a man to man defense by a competent coach.

Posted by yanks250125 on 7/17/2014 7:02:00 AM (view original):
www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx

More efficient player than most people would think (although far from great).

tkimble- it's hard to be inefficient when you shoot 37% for 3FGA right? Isn't something like shooting 55% for 2FGA's?

I know that TO and FT's get factored in to but FG% is the bulk of the formula isn't it for guys who take a lot of shots, right?

When I figure efficiency, I use Pts / (FGA + (0.44 * FTA)).  That guy is 1.08 which is below average.  Average is about 1.10 in my experience and elite is around 1.30 and above.  For the number of field goal attempts that he takes, he does not get to the line a lot.  This is okay if you shoot over 40% from three, but starts to hurt under that threshold.

He'd be a lot more efficient if he wasn't jacking up 50% of the team's shots.  Drop his distro to a more respectable 25-30%, and I'd imagine all of his percentages will take a jump.  Seble started throttling bing ball a while ago and efficiencies take a big hit when total distro gets too high, often thought to be 25-30% area.  
Could be wrong, but this looks like an attempt to set scoring records

that's certainly the case duke.  he's going to fall short, but still fun to try once in a while.  yeah, the over-the-top distro did factor in many seasons ago, after I had set some records in Knight D3

Posted by bullman17 on 7/17/2014 11:26:00 AM (view original):
When I figure efficiency, I use Pts / (FGA + (0.44 * FTA)).  That guy is 1.08 which is below average.  Average is about 1.10 in my experience and elite is around 1.30 and above.  For the number of field goal attempts that he takes, he does not get to the line a lot.  This is okay if you shoot over 40% from three, but starts to hurt under that threshold.

he's obviously at +2 for 3 pters, which is on purpose with his low ATH

Posted by bullman17 on 7/17/2014 11:26:00 AM (view original):
When I figure efficiency, I use Pts / (FGA + (0.44 * FTA)).  That guy is 1.08 which is below average.  Average is about 1.10 in my experience and elite is around 1.30 and above.  For the number of field goal attempts that he takes, he does not get to the line a lot.  This is okay if you shoot over 40% from three, but starts to hurt under that threshold.

If you're going to look at efficiency, you should also factor in TOs because just like FGA and FTA, he's ending the possession.  This makes an easy eye-ball calculation -> FGA + a little less than half of FTA + TOs and compare that to their total points.  If points are higher, he's decently efficient, if he's only a little lower on points, he's okay, if he's way lower, he's very inefficient.  

Posted by tkimble on 7/17/2014 5:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bullman17 on 7/17/2014 11:26:00 AM (view original):
When I figure efficiency, I use Pts / (FGA + (0.44 * FTA)).  That guy is 1.08 which is below average.  Average is about 1.10 in my experience and elite is around 1.30 and above.  For the number of field goal attempts that he takes, he does not get to the line a lot.  This is okay if you shoot over 40% from three, but starts to hurt under that threshold.

If you're going to look at efficiency, you should also factor in TOs because just like FGA and FTA, he's ending the possession.  This makes an easy eye-ball calculation -> FGA + a little less than half of FTA + TOs and compare that to their total points.  If points are higher, he's decently efficient, if he's only a little lower on points, he's okay, if he's way lower, he's very inefficient.  

Do you take into account turnovers unrelated to taking a shot?  It seems to me that it would artificially lower the ratings, especially for the ball handlers.  I have thought about including turnovers as part of it but did not want to mess up distro settings by punishing my point guard for turnovers unrelated to his distro setting.

Posted by bullman17 on 7/17/2014 11:26:00 AM (view original):
When I figure efficiency, I use Pts / (FGA + (0.44 * FTA)).  That guy is 1.08 which is below average.  Average is about 1.10 in my experience and elite is around 1.30 and above.  For the number of field goal attempts that he takes, he does not get to the line a lot.  This is okay if you shoot over 40% from three, but starts to hurt under that threshold.

what you use is just twice true shooting percentage, just in case you didn't know that, that is common scale used by many people. a 1.08 on your scale is a .54 in true shooting percentage, which is pretty crappy for a lead scorer in a lower division, IMO. where you expect to compete and the strength of schedule have a big impact on what average is, but personally i consider about .58 to .60 as average for a good team against a hard schedule.

Posted by scaturo on 7/17/2014 8:56:00 AM (view original):
tkimble- it's hard to be inefficient when you shoot 37% for 3FGA right? Isn't something like shooting 55% for 2FGA's?

I know that TO and FT's get factored in to but FG% is the bulk of the formula isn't it for guys who take a lot of shots, right?

no, his efficiency is pretty awful. which is to be expected, at those ridiculous levels of scoring. if the surrounding team is terrible, it might be the right way to utilize that player, but if there is decent offensive talent on the team, the overuse is probably significantly hurting the offensive efficiency of the team.

Posted by gillispie1 on 7/18/2014 5:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bullman17 on 7/17/2014 11:26:00 AM (view original):
When I figure efficiency, I use Pts / (FGA + (0.44 * FTA)).  That guy is 1.08 which is below average.  Average is about 1.10 in my experience and elite is around 1.30 and above.  For the number of field goal attempts that he takes, he does not get to the line a lot.  This is okay if you shoot over 40% from three, but starts to hurt under that threshold.

what you use is just twice true shooting percentage, just in case you didn't know that, that is common scale used by many people. a 1.08 on your scale is a .54 in true shooting percentage, which is pretty crappy for a lead scorer in a lower division, IMO. where you expect to compete and the strength of schedule have a big impact on what average is, but personally i consider about .58 to .60 as average for a good team against a hard schedule.

True shooting percentage, huh?  Now I have something to call it, thanks :)