So, this is just my humble opinion, but I think its kinda obvious that a player in the depth chart at PG will outperform a player set to PF from behind the arc...given that all things are equal.

Therefore, to avoid begging the question, why is there a much larger positive correlation between performance and attributes when it comes to other things like rebounding or defense (specifically as related to man an press), but not when it relates to others???

I'm not entirely clear on what you are questioning here. Mostly because I'm not sure how you are measuring defensive performance on an individual level. But even with respect to rebounding are you asking why a guy with 90 rebounding and playing guard doesn't rebound as effectively as one with 90 rebounding and playing in the post (given all being equal)? Can you provide some examples?

Posted by nachopuzzle on 5/11/2016 9:48:00 AM (view original):
So, this is just my humble opinion, but I think its kinda obvious that a player in the depth chart at PG will outperform a player set to PF from behind the arc...given that all things are equal.

Therefore, to avoid begging the question, why is there a much larger positive correlation between performance and attributes when it comes to other things like rebounding or defense (specifically as related to man an press), but not when it relates to others???

you are taking the position penalties thing differently than intended. there is no position penalty based on *listed* position. so, if all else is equal, a PG playing PG is just as effective as a C playing PG. but, that absolutely does not suggest the position *played* does not matter. it matters hugely in almost every aspect of the game, as one would expect.

In other words, nacho, if your position is listed as center and you play point guard there are no additional penalties imposed on you beyond your ratings being inappropriate for the spot. There are still different values of different ratings based on what position your are playing in game, but those are the same for a listed pg playing pg and a listed center playing pg.

Okay, let's try this again, sorry if the original post and/or wording of the title was confusing...my bad.

Of course I'm 100% aware that there aren't any player position penalties anymore. However, as it relates to playing against man (especially) and press (to a lesser extent) defenses, there are ratings which have unequal weights strictly based on which position a player happens to be occupying in the depth chart. Which, as pointed out above makes sense in some regards, as in the case of REB for centers, PS for point guards, etta et cetera --- something that I am not arguing against, because there are certain correlations between team capabilities and individual performances....thus, a team's most athletic, quickest, best rebounding, starting big man & center can only the 3rd leading rebounder on the team over the course of two straight seasons (as just the simplest of examples).

However, all things being equal, why would a point guard with 65 SPD, 65 PER, and 65 BH shoot better a better percentage from behind the arc (or from the floor in certain respects) than a power forward??? Especially since, in the case of the defense(s) listed above, given that all things are equal, those are individual characteristics not based any more or any less on their surrounding teammates? Therefore, to avoid begging the question one last time, there aren't any player position penalties anymore based on a player's listed position, but there still remains a penalty as it relates to certain attributes in accordance with specific positions on the depth chart that in fact should be individual characteristic against half (though really 2/3rds) the defenses in this game.

At the end of the day, this will probably seem like me ******** more than it is a profound insight into the game, and I'm okay with that. I guess the more that I think about this new update, the more it ****** me off that it's still just window dressing rather than actually making the game better.

Posted by nachopuzzle on 5/11/2016 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Okay, let's try this again, sorry if the original post and/or wording of the title was confusing...my bad.

Of course I'm 100% aware that there aren't any player position penalties anymore. However, as it relates to playing against man (especially) and press (to a lesser extent) defenses, there are ratings which have unequal weights strictly based on which position a player happens to be occupying in the depth chart. Which, as pointed out above makes sense in some regards, as in the case of REB for centers, PS for point guards, etta et cetera --- something that I am not arguing against, because there are certain correlations between team capabilities and individual performances....thus, a team's most athletic, quickest, best rebounding, starting big man & center can only the 3rd leading rebounder on the team over the course of two straight seasons (as just the simplest of examples).

However, all things being equal, why would a point guard with 65 SPD, 65 PER, and 65 BH shoot better a better percentage from behind the arc (or from the floor in certain respects) than a power forward??? Especially since, in the case of the defense(s) listed above, given that all things are equal, those are individual characteristics not based any more or any less on their surrounding teammates? Therefore, to avoid begging the question one last time, there aren't any player position penalties anymore based on a player's listed position, but there still remains a penalty as it relates to certain attributes in accordance with specific positions on the depth chart that in fact should be individual characteristic against half (though really 2/3rds) the defenses in this game.

At the end of the day, this will probably seem like me ******** more than it is a profound insight into the game, and I'm okay with that. I guess the more that I think about this new update, the more it ****** me off that it's still just window dressing rather than actually making the game better.

So let me see if I understand your query.

Joe Blow has 65 SPD, 65 PER and 65 BH. Why does he normally shoot a lower percentage from outside if he plays PF instead of PG? I can think of one major reason:

If he is facing a man-to-man defense, he is more likely to be guarded by a good shot blocker at PF than at PG. We know that shot blocking doesn't just impact the number of shots blocked; it also impacts the quality of shots taken in forcing shooters to adjust to avoid the block. Given that most opposing PGs have a BLK rating of below 30 (a rating of 35-40 BLK is amazing for a D3 PG), the shots are going to be better for a PG than a PF.

I don't think this is the case - if anything, I've had better luck with perimeter shooting from bigs than guards at similar ratings. Which likely has to do with the fact that, especially against man, the guys defending them are probably poorer perimeter defenders.

i agree with dahs, im not sure it is as simple as you are making it out to be. a subpar guard is probably going to have a shittier % than a big with similar ratings, because the speed rating of the opposing defenders is going to be higher. that said... if you play a 95 spd/per/bh guy at the 4, can he still throw up 42% or whatever? maybe. i'm not convinced the answer is no. i've run 4 guard lineups on versatile teams, but i always backed out before the tournament. im trying to recall those situations better, but for the most part, i don't think the offensive performance at the 4 was my issue. my issue was i already got enough of that kind of offense from the 1-3 and could not justify the rebounding hit i was taking. really, i was looking for the press to get even better with a 4th guard, but i never saw enough to convince me i could justify the rebounding hit.

edit: without question i am happy going to war with a 20ppg SF with lesser ratings that i would require at SG. i generally am looking for 90s across the boards, to put a guard up around 20 ppg. ill also accept 90+ ath, 50+ lp, and b- or better FT, to tolerate a 70 in bh or spd. but for a sf, i could take a 70/70 95 per type dude, without the lp, and i'd still be fine jacking him up. its because the opposing defense is less tailored to prevent a beast per scorer and so you can be highly efficient at the 3 with less. that sort of goes against your premise, i get more out of my per scoring ratings at the 3 than the 1/2. now, at the 4/5, maybe it drops off, but i suspect that is mostly quantity - not quality - because the players are just naturally closer to the basket and would get less 3pta. if you force them out of position with +2, maybe the hit is more because they aren't fully accounting for how bad that would be for rebounding and such. i suppose a 4 shooting a good amount of 3s is ok, but a C doing so, that seems like a disaster.

nacho, I think you will need to provide some empirical data to back up your supposition on shooting - if it is as you say it ought not to be, but I'm not sure it is...and that's going to be tough because of sample size...and the fact that I'm not a statistician and this **** always eventually winds up as gibberish to me if we dig enough.

I play under the assumption that if my 65 perimeter player has a better speed-BH combo than his defenders speed-defense combo, then his 3 pt shooting will be a net positive, if his frequency is set reasonably (-1, or maybe 0, depending on the level of advantage). I do suspect that guards will naturally get more looks from 3 than bigs, even when the big has bigger advantages. Guards tend to get more looks in general, given equal distribution. But from a percentage standpoint, I've not noticed that bigs shoot more poorly from 3, except when they are at a speed and/or BH disadvantage.

Sorry it took me so long to respond to this thread, things get crazy sometimes yo. I will reply to everyone's later today, except for dac --- since he decided to get all like "we need 100% Imperial data (yes, Imperial) because we've already conquered this game"... and to think that smut came from HDs poet laureate???

Although billy and dahs get at the heart of the proposition, what kinda gets me off at the most initial of glances is shoe3's comments because they seem way the **** out there but his or her record seems like something not to scoff at...

"However, all things being equal, why would a point guard with 65 SPD, 65 PER, and 65 BH shoot better a better percentage from behind the arc (or from the floor in certain respects) than a power forward??? "


In my experience, this statement isn't true. The PG will shoot more 3's but not at a higher FG%.

In short, your assumption is wrong, yo.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 5/12/2016 2:35:00 PM (view original):
"However, all things being equal, why would a point guard with 65 SPD, 65 PER, and 65 BH shoot better a better percentage from behind the arc (or from the floor in certain respects) than a power forward??? "


In my experience, this statement isn't true. The PG will shoot more 3's but not at a higher FG%.

In short, your assumption is wrong, yo.

uhhhhh, don't ******* yo me, that's my finishing move yo. In all seriousness though, if this is true, then why haven't you changed you stud DIII or DII PER guard to play power forward (or center for that matter) to take advantage of the sweeeetttt match-ups that would have been in their favor...given you overwhelmingly agree that all things are equal?

Look at this guy:

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Stats.aspx?tid=13616&pid=3260836



I don't move stud perimeter players to the 4 or 5 because of defense and rebounding issues. I do, however, move my best perimeter player to the 3 ALL time time to take advantage of slower SF's or the 2-3 zone.

Lane Hasegawa
Philip George
Leonard Baptiste