I've never really seen any guards with high LP, and I just signed a SG with blue potential in LP already at 49.  www.whatifsports.com/hd/RecruitProfile/Scouting.aspx

 Just wondering how effective an offensive threat in FB/FCP he could be as I know Perimeter is more effective than LP, but he should end up at least 60 ath/spd with 70 lp as well as high pot in FT.

Just wondering as I've not really seen these types of players so far in HD, im assuming reallife comparison would be a d2 version of d.wade and he should get a high amount of FT?

High spd/bh/lp in guards can be a nightmare for defenses. My guard Michael Smith who graduated last season averaged 14 PPG and over 1.5 points-per-shot against the fourth strongest schedule in DIII. 

This guy played a nice role for my Millsaps team...

I play in a very hard conference and he was nice off the bench.  He kind of had a senior slump, but was still very helpful.

If you can redshirt your guy (with a 27 WE I would recommend it, he will be a slow grower), he should help.  I see your team is D2, so it will probably take awhile for him to be effective at that level.  

Posted by the0nlyis on 10/15/2014 1:06:00 PM (view original):
I've never really seen any guards with high LP, and I just signed a SG with blue potential in LP already at 49.  www.whatifsports.com/hd/RecruitProfile/Scouting.aspx

 Just wondering how effective an offensive threat in FB/FCP he could be as I know Perimeter is more effective than LP, but he should end up at least 60 ath/spd with 70 lp as well as high pot in FT.

Just wondering as I've not really seen these types of players so far in HD, im assuming reallife comparison would be a d2 version of d.wade and he should get a high amount of FT?

these guys can go either way. if they have good ath/spd, they can get to the line a lot, and with good ft%, they can be really good. some of the best guard seasons i've had were guys who couldn't shoot a 3 to save their life, who got to the line a ridiculous amount and make a bunch of them. their true shooting percentage was not quite as elite as some of the super elite guards with 90 ath/spd/bh/per, but factoring in their fouls drawn, they probably had the better season.

on the other hand, often, these guys are just not quite up to snuff with an elite per oriented guard. it feels like they do get to the line more, which helps, but often their 2 point % is annoyingly just under 50%, and if they aren't great from the line, they just won't be as efficient as a guard who is shooting similarly from 2 but hitting like 42% of their 3s or something. 

so, in short, it can go either way. they can be great, but they probably aren't quite as great in general as a great per oriented guard. you sort of have to just play him and see how it goes. 

I'm going to have to disagree a bit with you gillispie, at least at DIII. I have two pretty good examples of a perimeter-oriented guard and a driving-oriented guard on my CSC team. The PER-guard is presumably the more talented player, but it's the driver who's one of the most efficient scorers in the nation now and consistently gets opponents into foul trouble. 

www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/Stats.aspx

I've posted this guy before but he is probably the best D2 player I've ever had. He finished at 90s speed, 70s ath, high 70s LP, 28 per, and 90s for BH and passing. Unfortunately he was from before HD had good career tracking data but his senior year he average over 20 a game on almost 60% shooting, 3.5 rebounds, and 5 assists and was the NPOY. Basically carried a not great team to the sweet 16.

All-time at Lock Haven he is 1st in points, 2nd in assists, 1st in FG%

Posted by trail on 10/16/2014 12:43:00 AM (view original):
I'm going to have to disagree a bit with you gillispie, at least at DIII. I have two pretty good examples of a perimeter-oriented guard and a driving-oriented guard on my CSC team. The PER-guard is presumably the more talented player, but it's the driver who's one of the most efficient scorers in the nation now and consistently gets opponents into foul trouble. 

I'm going to attribute most of that difference to athleticism. The driving guy has good ath for a D3 player and the shooter is pretty mediocre.

Posted by blackdog3377 on 10/16/2014 1:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by trail on 10/16/2014 12:43:00 AM (view original):
I'm going to have to disagree a bit with you gillispie, at least at DIII. I have two pretty good examples of a perimeter-oriented guard and a driving-oriented guard on my CSC team. The PER-guard is presumably the more talented player, but it's the driver who's one of the most efficient scorers in the nation now and consistently gets opponents into foul trouble. 

I'm going to attribute most of that difference to athleticism. The driving guy has good ath for a D3 player and the shooter is pretty mediocre.

Well I would say he has around average athleticism for a DIII guard, but he doesn't need high athleticism to get open and shoot the ball, which he is doing incredibly efficiently by the way. I was only comparing the two to show that a guard who simply drives and draws a lot of fouls can be even more effective than a player like Blouin who is an elite perimeter scorer at DIII. 

How are you comparing efficiency?   The PER guy at 44% is pretty efficient at a glance.

Guards with high LP  and ATH can destroy their defender if they have lower ATH and a single digit block score.

I've seen it a couple places in this thread, but there are some faulty metrics all over the place (like points per shot or saying one guys is pretty efficient without saying how efficient).  

A good way to measure offensive efficiency in HD (as opposed to real life) is the point/possession used metric.  A possession used is usually calculated as FGA+TOs+.44*FTA.  You'd think .5*FTA would make sense, but it's lowered to .44 to account for and-1s where the player takes a free-throw but it shouldn't be counted as a possession used.  

So if we want to measure which of trail's guys are more efficient, Boulin, the shooter, is scoring 1.11 points per possession used (this is a really solid efficiency number) and Walker, the driving guard, is scoring 1.05 points per possession used.  So, if we were going purely by this metric, Boulin is more efficient offensively.  However, Walker does get opponents into foul trouble, which is something this metric does not take into account.  It's not a perfect measure of offensive efficiency, but it will serve you better than FG%, eFG%, or any other measures of efficiency that have been listed here already.  

Posted by tkimble on 10/16/2014 12:48:00 PM (view original):
I've seen it a couple places in this thread, but there are some faulty metrics all over the place (like points per shot or saying one guys is pretty efficient without saying how efficient).  

A good way to measure offensive efficiency in HD (as opposed to real life) is the point/possession used metric.  A possession used is usually calculated as FGA+TOs+.44*FTA.  You'd think .5*FTA would make sense, but it's lowered to .44 to account for and-1s where the player takes a free-throw but it shouldn't be counted as a possession used.  

So if we want to measure which of trail's guys are more efficient, Boulin, the shooter, is scoring 1.11 points per possession used (this is a really solid efficiency number) and Walker, the driving guard, is scoring 1.05 points per possession used.  So, if we were going purely by this metric, Boulin is more efficient offensively.  However, Walker does get opponents into foul trouble, which is something this metric does not take into account.  It's not a perfect measure of offensive efficiency, but it will serve you better than FG%, eFG%, or any other measures of efficiency that have been listed here already.  

So by that metric my guy had a 1.15 ppp. Pretty damn efficient for a PG with 28 per.

Posted by tkimble on 10/16/2014 12:48:00 PM (view original):
I've seen it a couple places in this thread, but there are some faulty metrics all over the place (like points per shot or saying one guys is pretty efficient without saying how efficient).  

A good way to measure offensive efficiency in HD (as opposed to real life) is the point/possession used metric.  A possession used is usually calculated as FGA+TOs+.44*FTA.  You'd think .5*FTA would make sense, but it's lowered to .44 to account for and-1s where the player takes a free-throw but it shouldn't be counted as a possession used.  

So if we want to measure which of trail's guys are more efficient, Boulin, the shooter, is scoring 1.11 points per possession used (this is a really solid efficiency number) and Walker, the driving guard, is scoring 1.05 points per possession used.  So, if we were going purely by this metric, Boulin is more efficient offensively.  However, Walker does get opponents into foul trouble, which is something this metric does not take into account.  It's not a perfect measure of offensive efficiency, but it will serve you better than FG%, eFG%, or any other measures of efficiency that have been listed here already.  

I wouldn't call PPS a faulty metric just because there is another metric that you feel describes a player's scoring efficiency a bit more accurately. I actually prefer to use a different equation for scoring efficiency but shared the players' PPS here because it's more commonly used. I use PTS/(TOs+FGA). Because you're not reducing efficiency for free throws attempted, I believe it better accounts for the added benefit of inducing foul trouble on your opponent. 

By this metric, Walker scores a 1.33 and Blouin scores a 1.26. But I don't have a horse in this race, I appreciate both players for their scoring abilities and think both complement each other very well. 

Posted by trail on 10/16/2014 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tkimble on 10/16/2014 12:48:00 PM (view original):
I've seen it a couple places in this thread, but there are some faulty metrics all over the place (like points per shot or saying one guys is pretty efficient without saying how efficient).  

A good way to measure offensive efficiency in HD (as opposed to real life) is the point/possession used metric.  A possession used is usually calculated as FGA+TOs+.44*FTA.  You'd think .5*FTA would make sense, but it's lowered to .44 to account for and-1s where the player takes a free-throw but it shouldn't be counted as a possession used.  

So if we want to measure which of trail's guys are more efficient, Boulin, the shooter, is scoring 1.11 points per possession used (this is a really solid efficiency number) and Walker, the driving guard, is scoring 1.05 points per possession used.  So, if we were going purely by this metric, Boulin is more efficient offensively.  However, Walker does get opponents into foul trouble, which is something this metric does not take into account.  It's not a perfect measure of offensive efficiency, but it will serve you better than FG%, eFG%, or any other measures of efficiency that have been listed here already.  

I wouldn't call PPS a faulty metric just because there is another metric that you feel describes a player's scoring efficiency a bit more accurately. I actually prefer to use a different equation for scoring efficiency but shared the players' PPS here because it's more commonly used. I use PTS/(TOs+FGA). Because you're not reducing efficiency for free throws attempted, I believe it better accounts for the added benefit of inducing foul trouble on your opponent. 

By this metric, Walker scores a 1.33 and Blouin scores a 1.26. But I don't have a horse in this race, I appreciate both players for their scoring abilities and think both complement each other very well. 

PTS/(TOs+FGA) doesn't account for the possessions used when players go to the FT line, but does take into account the points he gained at the FT line, which is why I call it a flawed metric.  If a guy goes to the FT line 4 times, shoots 8 FTs, and is 1-8 from the line, by your metric he is infinitely efficient.  If you used Point/Possession used, the metric would put out that he is extremely inefficient, which would be the correct outcome.  

Okay, I understand your argument better now. It makes sense and I still think you can gain something out of considering both metrics.