Posted by pkoopman on 12/14/2014 5:01:00 PM (view original):
Not a player rating category, but one thing I'd like to see, besides splitting post and perimeter D, which is an excellent idea, is the ability to name a team captain. I think it could have a lot of fun and strategic aspects to it. For example, having your team captain on the floor can increase the IQ of the other 4 players, say somewhere between 1/3 letter grade (ie, C+ to B-) and a full grade (C+ to B+), depending on the work ethic, GPA, and IQs of the captain. And maybe it could have individual impact as well, for instance substantially increasing work ethic for the player denoted (say, 20 points or so per season). So you make a choice between naming a young and/or low work ethic captain to help that individual player maximize his potential, and choosing the high work ethic, high GPA/IQ senior (who has the stamina and defense to stay on the floor as much as possible) to maximize your game-by-game benefit for the team.

Love this idea

Posted by milwood on 12/15/2014 5:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 12/15/2014 2:47:00 AM (view original):
What about a clutch rating? How well he performs down the stretch in a close game when the pressure is on?

there is no such thing as clutch

http://research.sabr.org/journals/the-statistical-mirage-of-clutch-hitting

okay that article is specifically about hitting but it still applies

Robert Horry, Reggie Miller, and (perhaps most of all) Karl Malone and Nick Anderson would like to have a word with you.

Wouldn't Horry and Reggie prefer to have that argument with Karl and Nick? Because they aren't winning it against the math... 

i feel as adding a clutch rating would be very controversial, its very hard to define how it would affect and when it would come into play and if it is always in effect?  The only thing I could think of would have it be similar to a IQ and make it a type of rating multiplier, but only during certain times.  So for example if you have a high clutch rating during close games a player will see certain ratings receive a slight boost like shooting, bh, passing and if they have a lower clutch rating it will lower certain ratings or even IQ, but its very hard to define to implement into a game.

I do like the idea of splitting per and low post defense, but it seems like we already do in def and block you see some teams do well with big men with lower defenses, but high reb/blck and that makes up for low defense.

Posted by udm_mike on 12/15/2014 7:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by milwood on 12/15/2014 5:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 12/15/2014 2:47:00 AM (view original):
What about a clutch rating? How well he performs down the stretch in a close game when the pressure is on?

there is no such thing as clutch

http://research.sabr.org/journals/the-statistical-mirage-of-clutch-hitting

okay that article is specifically about hitting but it still applies

Robert Horry, Reggie Miller, and (perhaps most of all) Karl Malone and Nick Anderson would like to have a word with you.

Love to talk to them. They are great players and scored a lot of points and made big plays throughout games and their careers, not just in the being spot. They were almost always making the big plays not just doing it when it mattered most. The best player gets the ball I'm the big spot (usually) because they are the best at any point during the game not just in the big spot

Posted by thewizard17 on 12/15/2014 2:47:00 AM (view original):
What about a clutch rating? How well he performs down the stretch in a close game when the pressure is on?

For reasons already enumerated, I'm not in favor of a "clutch" rating. 

I've thought this for a long time, though: that HD players ought to have some kind of an emotional or personality component beyond the invisible crap we see in recruiting or the old "psychological profile" we had to dump money into back in the day.

Some players are natural leaders and subtly lift the rest of their team.  Other players are fiery, emotional lift types who can drag a team out of the doldrums when they're behind in a game.

It shouldn't be a game-breaker - an emotionally fired up D3 player still isn't going to have much impact in D1 - and I'm not sure it should really be more visible than FT ratings currently are.  In fact, it would make sense if it was set at generation and never changed (so no practice time in being emotional - this isn't women's hoops :) ).

Having a wide range of emotion ratings might give recruits some more texture or color beyond just a collection of numbers.  But maybe it's already been thought of and discarded.  If so, I could go for the mid-range/perimeter breakdown.

Or both.

Posted by udm_mike on 12/15/2014 7:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by milwood on 12/15/2014 5:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 12/15/2014 2:47:00 AM (view original):
What about a clutch rating? How well he performs down the stretch in a close game when the pressure is on?

there is no such thing as clutch

http://research.sabr.org/journals/the-statistical-mirage-of-clutch-hitting

okay that article is specifically about hitting but it still applies

Robert Horry, Reggie Miller, and (perhaps most of all) Karl Malone and Nick Anderson would like to have a word with you.

That's not an argument.

I'd be in favor of separate strength and agility ratings, rather than just athleticism. 

I'd also be in favor of height really meaning something. I know it's said that height already plays a part in the ratings, but I just don't buy that (I have had too many successful 6'1 and 6'2 small forwards with a 95 LP, 75 REB and 30 PER or so for that to really make sense. The height/weight doesn't seem often realistic with the given player's skill set. 

Posted by bbunch on 12/15/2014 1:01:00 PM (view original):
I'd be in favor of separate strength and agility ratings, rather than just athleticism. 

I'd also be in favor of height really meaning something. I know it's said that height already plays a part in the ratings, but I just don't buy that (I have had too many successful 6'1 and 6'2 small forwards with a 95 LP, 75 REB and 30 PER or so for that to really make sense. The height/weight doesn't seem often realistic with the given player's skill set. 

There are not a lot of 6'9 + d3 basketball players at least not around me I know at one of my friends d3 school their tallest player is 6'7 I don't know about bigger d3 schools.

Posted by ethan66 on 12/15/2014 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 12/15/2014 2:47:00 AM (view original):
What about a clutch rating? How well he performs down the stretch in a close game when the pressure is on?

For reasons already enumerated, I'm not in favor of a "clutch" rating. 

I've thought this for a long time, though: that HD players ought to have some kind of an emotional or personality component beyond the invisible crap we see in recruiting or the old "psychological profile" we had to dump money into back in the day.

Some players are natural leaders and subtly lift the rest of their team.  Other players are fiery, emotional lift types who can drag a team out of the doldrums when they're behind in a game.

It shouldn't be a game-breaker - an emotionally fired up D3 player still isn't going to have much impact in D1 - and I'm not sure it should really be more visible than FT ratings currently are.  In fact, it would make sense if it was set at generation and never changed (so no practice time in being emotional - this isn't women's hoops :) ).

Having a wide range of emotion ratings might give recruits some more texture or color beyond just a collection of numbers.  But maybe it's already been thought of and discarded.  If so, I could go for the mid-range/perimeter breakdown.

Or both.

I like the emotion idea.  How players react to having fouls called on them and how they react to runs.  When their team goes on a 10-0 run they are fired up and play at a higher level and the reverse when they have a 10-0 run scored on them.  And i agree that emotion should not be able to be practiced, but i think that a combination of age and starts should help improve it.  Because the majority of the time a senior will be more sound emotionally then a freshman, again, mostly but not always.

Posted by milwood on 12/15/2014 5:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 12/15/2014 2:47:00 AM (view original):
What about a clutch rating? How well he performs down the stretch in a close game when the pressure is on?

there is no such thing as clutch

http://research.sabr.org/journals/the-statistical-mirage-of-clutch-hitting

okay that article is specifically about hitting but it still applies

I disagree (sorry in finals mode and taking a break from some more dry writing), I think what this article is really saying is that you can't quantify a player as clutch, there aren't qualified statistics, "We cannot prove that clutch hitters do not exist, only that they do not exist as defined by Elias." The author also didn't address the further problem with Elias's analyses which didn't take "clutch pitchers" into account. In my opinion, yes you can't define clutch because there are hundreds of different times you can call an action clutch, and like Elias didn't mention clutch goes both way in a competitive sport, making Jordan miss a 3 at the end of the game could be clutch defense as much as failing in a clutch situation, but being clutch is still a thing.

Can you show any non-anecdotal evidence to support that being clutch is a skill that some players have and some don't?  I mean, there are sample size issues that can make it really difficult to show convincing affirmative evidence of clutchiness, but "It's a thing" isn't any more powerful an argument than "No it isn't".

This was mentioned in another thread and I've advocated for it off and on for years, but I wish/think that IQ should also have potential and have a cap (besides the A+ cap smart guy). It's stupid that with enough practice every kid on every team (minus maybe the extremely low WE guys) can reach A+'s by their senior seasons. As was said before, some kids just don't "get it". Some do. Some fast, some much faster than others. Some at a Stephen Hawking level. Some slow. Some are dumber than a bucket of hair. Some dumber than the day is long. You get the point

It would certainly add another dimension to the game. Do I recruit the badass ratings kid who won't ever get higher than say, a B- in the O and D? Or do I take the coach's son, who has solid ratings but is a whiz on the court and will hit A+'s extremely fast? Do I "really" want that PG running my offense if he can't get his IQ over a B?

It just seems stupid to me that every other rating and category in this game is based off of potential, with a cap, and arguably the most important attribute of all works on a linear level where EVERYBODY (again, the low WE guys, I know) can reach the same highest level.

Furthermore, to me, reaching an A+ level should be extremely difficult. I'm talking the high GPA, high WE kids, maybe even having to have the fifth year (redshirt) to get there. Make it actually MEAN something. Make the higher your IQ gets, the more efficient your player gets. Noticeably. Make the coach makes some damn decisions instead of getting everything spoonfed to us like we are now. It's far too easy as it is now to get a player's IQ to a max level while also maxing out his individual ratings. Choices, life is FULL of them. Make one. Do I want a smart, well trained team or do I want an extremely heavy "ratings" team who plays more undisciplined on the court? Choices, make one. Stop with the spoonfeeding. Add some decisions to the game. Make coaches actually have to stop and contemplate the results of their actions and whether it benefits the team long term but hinders them short term, or vice versa.

This game has a lot of small things that could be improved upon, but in this humble opinion, having IQ based on a linear scale is the biggest "error" in the game today. Also, BY FAR, the most unrealistic. My two and a half cents.

Interesting thread topic. Screening? Somewhat like how passing is supposed to work ("team passing" improves FG%), but the idea is this is what players w/o the ball do to help teammates get open looks. Maybe passing is more important for guards and screening for post players? Maybe it's more important in some offenses than others? Not high on my list of priorities, but an interesting thought experiment.

Posted by udm_mike on 12/15/2014 7:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by milwood on 12/15/2014 5:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 12/15/2014 2:47:00 AM (view original):
What about a clutch rating? How well he performs down the stretch in a close game when the pressure is on?

there is no such thing as clutch

http://research.sabr.org/journals/the-statistical-mirage-of-clutch-hitting

okay that article is specifically about hitting but it still applies

Robert Horry, Reggie Miller, and (perhaps most of all) Karl Malone and Nick Anderson would like to have a word with you.

To rely define "clutch" you would have to show me SOMONE who performs especially BETTER than they do on average in other situations in those situations you are defining as clutch. Reggie miller hit shots in almost any situation you put him in. Karl Malone got to the hoop and got fouled in almost any situation. Etcetera ...