I think the listed attributes are probably fine just like they are currently, having specific aspects like perimeter defense, post defense, or mid-range shooting be determined by a combination of different attributes instead of one definite attribute adds a certain level of flexibility to each player. Personally, I don't think it's that difficult to decipher whether a player is and/or will be good at those specific aspects of the game previously mentioned...everybody has their own little formula for guessing at them and I'd be willing to bet they're not all that different across the board.

Posted by llamanunts on 12/15/2014 6:09:00 PM (view original):
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".

Like I said "it's a thing" is my opinion. The best example I can think of would be a closer in baseball. His job is to pitch the very last inning in the close situations. There are other relief pitchers who may pitch in the same circumstances the inning before, but they aren't the closer, and can't lose the game irrevocably for their team. I'm an Angels fan, closers have been an issue for us, and there have been a few times when we have guys pitch well in the 8th inning who then absolutely tank when they came in in the 9th, like Fernando Rodney. 
This isn't always the case, Joe Smith for the Angels last year pitched well in both roles, and Rodney seems to have figured it out elsewhere, but I think there is still something to be said for the extra whatever it is that separates a good reliever from a closer and makes him able to pitch that last inning, and something like that I think could be called clutch. 

As far as the whole "clutch" argument goes, as a very early fan of Bill James ( I'm talking back in the early 1980's when his "Baseball Abstract" was first published nationally), I do appreciate that there have been many things in sports anecdotally taken for fact when they are actually based on either far too small of sample size or on an overly preconceived and biased notion. I tend to favor what the numbers say as opposed to what the overall sentiment about a subject may be (as long as the person compiling the numbers is competent and unbiased in their analysis). However, after watching sports for several decades now, I can say that, as a fan, over time you begin to recognize that there are certain players you want to have the ball with the game on the line, and other players you don't want any way involved. As an Indy sports fan, I've had the privilege of seeing some of the great clutch performers of our time. Did Reggie Miller always come through? No, he had his share of failures, but, after years and years of watching the Pacers, he was the one who I wanted to have the ball at the end of a tight game. Peyton Manning is an interesting dichotomy on this topic. Some of his late game heroics of pulling victories out from certain defeats are still difficult for me to believe. You can't tell me he isn't one of the great clutch performers of all time. In the regular season that is. Come playoff time, Manning has been underwhelming at best. The one Super Bowl he has to his credit is a result of a defense that jelled at the right time and dominated opponets even as Peyton and the Colts' offense sputtered though the playoffs. 

Not sure what light this may cast on the relevance of the clutch rating topic (probably none Lol). I do know that I've characterized some of my HD players as not very good clutch players based on (what seem to be) consistently poor performances in big games, even though the sample size is very small. Is that a result of their ratings actually not being conducive to that kind of match-up against a quality opponent, or just the randomness that is inherent to this kind of game? Don't really have the time to sort it out, so, unless Bill James takes an interest in HD, it might forever remain a mystery. 

So, what part of the game didn't you want the ball in Reggie millers hands. As a pacers fan you saw he come through in the "clutch" probably as often as he did at any other time in the game. Isn't it a little peculiar that the "clutch" player is almost always the best player on the team

Like I said, I understand the unscientific approach and inherent risk of bias when taking things at face value, but I will still contend that there are players who are able to exceed even their own high level of ability in a "clutch" situation, while others will consistently disappoint. 

"I'm aware of the disqualifying flaws inherent in my argument, but I will continue to make it."

I'd like to see size separated from athleticism. Height should matter A LOT.Defensive rating should be deemphasized. The foul frequency should be turned way down on the zone defense and the lower defense settings.

As the game sits now, you can take a high defense, high athleticism team with no ability to shoot or handle the ball and they'll force 25-30 TOs and shoot 40 FTs. That happens in no basketball game EVER!!! 

Posted by iamjoeyd on 12/16/2014 12:14:00 PM (view original):
I'd like to see size separated from athleticism. Height should matter A LOT.Defensive rating should be deemphasized. The foul frequency should be turned way down on the zone defense and the lower defense settings.

As the game sits now, you can take a high defense, high athleticism team with no ability to shoot or handle the ball and they'll force 25-30 TOs and shoot 40 FTs. That happens in no basketball game EVER!!! 

Yeah, I love seeing those D3 teams with overall ratings of 75 ATH, 45 SPD, 75 DEF, 25 BH, 25 P who run FB/FCP, force 25+ turnovers (while turning it over <15 times) and draw 35 fouls (while fouling 15 times). 

I mean, it wins championships, and I guess it takes some skill to build up that kind of defense and athleticism, but I just can't bring myself to build a team like that, no matter how effective it is, because it runs contrary to everything that SHOULD work. 

Posted by tarvolon on 12/16/2014 3:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by iamjoeyd on 12/16/2014 12:14:00 PM (view original):
I'd like to see size separated from athleticism. Height should matter A LOT.Defensive rating should be deemphasized. The foul frequency should be turned way down on the zone defense and the lower defense settings.

As the game sits now, you can take a high defense, high athleticism team with no ability to shoot or handle the ball and they'll force 25-30 TOs and shoot 40 FTs. That happens in no basketball game EVER!!! 

Yeah, I love seeing those D3 teams with overall ratings of 75 ATH, 45 SPD, 75 DEF, 25 BH, 25 P who run FB/FCP, force 25+ turnovers (while turning it over <15 times) and draw 35 fouls (while fouling 15 times). 

I mean, it wins championships, and I guess it takes some skill to build up that kind of defense and athleticism, but I just can't bring myself to build a team like that, no matter how effective it is, because it runs contrary to everything that SHOULD work. 

not to mention that nobody on the team has a perimeter or low post rating over 50

Posted by tarvolon on 12/16/2014 3:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by iamjoeyd on 12/16/2014 12:14:00 PM (view original):
I'd like to see size separated from athleticism. Height should matter A LOT.Defensive rating should be deemphasized. The foul frequency should be turned way down on the zone defense and the lower defense settings.

As the game sits now, you can take a high defense, high athleticism team with no ability to shoot or handle the ball and they'll force 25-30 TOs and shoot 40 FTs. That happens in no basketball game EVER!!! 

Yeah, I love seeing those D3 teams with overall ratings of 75 ATH, 45 SPD, 75 DEF, 25 BH, 25 P who run FB/FCP, force 25+ turnovers (while turning it over <15 times) and draw 35 fouls (while fouling 15 times). 

I mean, it wins championships, and I guess it takes some skill to build up that kind of defense and athleticism, but I just can't bring myself to build a team like that, no matter how effective it is, because it runs contrary to everything that SHOULD work. 

As others have alluded too. I'd much rather see tweaks in how current ratings are created/what those ratings mean than worrying about new ratings to add. Personally, I think ratings are way too high across the board, 90+ ratings should be extremely rare in any category. Obviously, ATH/DEF are overvalued. Offensive ratings are generally undervalued.

If new ratings were added I agree with people who think they should be more psychologically driven. There are plenty of great athletes who are terrible. There are also plenty of subpar athletes who are great basketball players. What would Steve Nash's ratings be on WIS? 80 speed/40 ath/45 Def/99 BH/99 Pass/75 Per? Yet he's a two time MVP and was an annual All-Star. In WIS no one would even recruit him and he'd be terrible at D1 and foul out in 5 minutes played. But, his intangibles were off the charts. Meanwhile there are plenty of insanely gifted athletes playing ball in Europe, or not playing at all, due to their mentalities.