OR - you are correct in your initial post about what i was suggesting there. i definitely agree with you that these math formulas are quite important as well. i spent a good 6 months working regularly on formulas to rank recruits that were basically exactly what you have here (and i've always done this kind of excercise).

one small difference is i don't force the sum of the attributes to 1 (that would drive me mad as i tweaked something small, having to adjust everything else, especially when i would also combine different formulas into 1 to rank a type of recruit, like, non scoring big or shooting star sg). but that really doesn't change anything.

i also allowed for cross factors, in some cases. its not needed here but i would recommend the advanced coaches use them in things like scoring, where something like per is a lot more useful in the presence of good spd, so i would use something like A x spd + B x per + C x (spd*per) + ...   i would definitely not start with cross products but if you already have done this kind of formula stuff in the past and are fairly comfortable, it might be worth looking at.

anyway, to your last question. first, i would say the 5 factors i would consider in evaluating how well a player will rebound (ignoring opponent and hca, which is something i do in all of these formulas) are reb, ath, def type, def iq, and stamina (not necc. in that order). and health if you want to be picky ;) i used to believe spd, def, and sb probably played a small part, but seble said they dont (i am pretty sure he did at least), and my last set of formulas i left def and sb at 0 and spd was always small, for all positions, so i just took what he said as true.

now, when i first read your question, my gut was, no, ath is second (in my opinion). but, now that you are making me think about it, i could definitely see situations where that is not true. especially as i really only put ath as .3-.4 of rebounding (ath = .3, reb = 1 type of thing, you can adjust to sum to 1 if you like).

i could see in low fatigue situations, stamina trumping ath in the impact on rebounding. i wouldn't be surprised at all. but, with what i consider generally normal and/or good conditions for fatigue and stamina, i think i would stick with ath > sta. so if you play press on very tired, maybe its stamina, or if you are recruiting those obscene bigs who start with like 38 stamina, then maybe its stamina. but all in all i would go with ath above stamina.

i could also potentially see defensive iq rivaling ath in some cases, but am less inclined to believe this is the case. usually the place i would look for abnormalities like this is the low end of the iq range, at which i have always felt scoring and defense take notably bigger hits than rebounding ability.

is one of those what you were getting at? or is there another i am missing altogether?

Not sure if it's right, but I tend to think of REB as being 95%+ determined by 4 factors: REB, ATH, STA, and IQ's. And I think reb and ath are the 2 most important. I think STA is third if it's at an extreme (a 46 STA will have a dramatic effect on your rebounding), but otherwise I think of IQ's as third. I've had centers who basically maxed out on ATH, REB and STA by their junior year, yet still showed significant improvement in rebounding rates during their senior year - I'm guessing because of the better IQ's.

Posted by Rails on 11/11/2010 5:13:00 PM (view original):
In reality I think it also might depend on the defense and offense since ATH is valued slight more/less.  I think the main point is that it's definately not A.

definitely agree on the main point being not A, and that defense could impact the equation. seble has said offense doesn't effect offensive rebounding which i could see as true, i never was able to get any idea which offense was better for rebounding. but i also figured if it was any offense, it would be FB that was the most different, and i havent played it much. so regardless i wouldn't be surprised if it did matter either. also i wouldn't rule out tempo as a small factor, especially in the cases when you never get to the standard half court set part of the simulation.

the 2 star pupils / visiting professors get A's for the day - stamina - would be third in my mind, maybe second, but you both missed a good one .... 

position played, I have a team with some real interesting guys on it, a pair of near identical ath/sp/reb/stam players, one has always played center the other has always played PF.  I included the two backups also.  Note how center richardson is outrebounding PF davis, he did last season also, both as starters, by about the same amount.  Also note how ath,stam,reb playing center Strong's rebounding per minute compares with C Richardson and PF Davis.

Name	Yr.	Pos.	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	FT	TOT
Samuel Davis	Sr.	PF	81	83	96	96	97	90	42	19	45	60	91	70	C+	870
Ronald Strong	So.	C	84	2	91	95	83	73	1	1	14	65	82	72	B	663
Gilbert Richardson	Sr.	PF	70	70	88	100	77	61	19	12	27	69	96	66	B	755
Samuel Allen	So.	C	59	18	78	74	77	81	19	28	40	58	79	49	B	660

Name	Yr.	Pos	GP	GS	MIN	FG%	FG3%	FT%	OREB	REB	AST	TO	STL	BLK	PF	PTS
S. Davis	Sr.	PF	15	15	27.1	.542	.250	.729	1.8	5.7	0.9	1.5	0.8	1.7	1.9	15.7
G. Richardson	Sr.	PF	15	15	27.6	.500	.250	.630	2.5	8.9	0.5	1.1	0.6	0.9	1.8	8.3
S. Allen	So.	C	15	0	12.7	.567		.714	0.5	2.9	0.5	0.5	0.3	0.6	1.3	2.9
R. Strong	So.	C	15	0	13.1	.621		.765	1.5	4.6	0.2	0.4	0.3	0.4	1.0	3.3

Posted by oldresorter on 11/12/2010 1:34:00 PM (view original):
the 2 star pupils / visiting professors get A's for the day - stamina - would be third in my mind, maybe second, but you both missed a good one .... 

position played, I have a team with some real interesting guys on it, a pair of near identical ath/sp/reb/stam players, one has always played center the other has always played PF.  I included the two backups also.  Note how center richardson is outrebounding PF davis, he did last season also, both as starters, by about the same amount.  Also note how ath,stam,reb playing center Strong's rebounding per minute compares with C Richardson and PF Davis.

Name	Yr.	Pos.	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	FT	TOT
Samuel Davis	Sr.	PF	81	83	96	96	97	90	42	19	45	60	91	70	C+	870
Ronald Strong	So.	C	84	2	91	95	83	73	1	1	14	65	82	72	B	663
Gilbert Richardson	Sr.	PF	70	70	88	100	77	61	19	12	27	69	96	66	B	755
Samuel Allen	So.	C	59	18	78	74	77	81	19	28	40	58	79	49	B	660

Name	Yr.	Pos	GP	GS	MIN	FG%	FG3%	FT%	OREB	REB	AST	TO	STL	BLK	PF	PTS
S. Davis	Sr.	PF	15	15	27.1	.542	.250	.729	1.8	5.7	0.9	1.5	0.8	1.7	1.9	15.7
G. Richardson	Sr.	PF	15	15	27.6	.500	.250	.630	2.5	8.9	0.5	1.1	0.6	0.9	1.8	8.3
S. Allen	So.	C	15	0	12.7	.567		.714	0.5	2.9	0.5	0.5	0.3	0.6	1.3	2.9
R. Strong	So.	C	15	0	13.1	.621		.765	1.5	4.6	0.2	0.4	0.3	0.4	1.0	3.3

Interesting.  That certainly seems to suggest that SPD does not matter.  Strong gets just as many REB/min as Richardson does at C, and Strong essentially has no speed.  I'm a newbie, so take this for what it is worth, but I have been running a lot of calculations and it appears to me as though the 2 factors that strongly outweigh everything else with regard to REB are REB and ATH.  I do think REB is more important than ATH, but I'm not sure how much.  I just assumed that LP had no impact on defense and rebounding, but was just used to help determine low post scoring ability.  Maybe it matters too?

Posted by oldresorter on 11/12/2010 1:34:00 PM (view original):
the 2 star pupils / visiting professors get A's for the day - stamina - would be third in my mind, maybe second, but you both missed a good one .... 

position played, I have a team with some real interesting guys on it, a pair of near identical ath/sp/reb/stam players, one has always played center the other has always played PF.  I included the two backups also.  Note how center richardson is outrebounding PF davis, he did last season also, both as starters, by about the same amount.  Also note how ath,stam,reb playing center Strong's rebounding per minute compares with C Richardson and PF Davis.

Name	Yr.	Pos.	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	FT	TOT
Samuel Davis	Sr.	PF	81	83	96	96	97	90	42	19	45	60	91	70	C+	870
Ronald Strong	So.	C	84	2	91	95	83	73	1	1	14	65	82	72	B	663
Gilbert Richardson	Sr.	PF	70	70	88	100	77	61	19	12	27	69	96	66	B	755
Samuel Allen	So.	C	59	18	78	74	77	81	19	28	40	58	79	49	B	660

Name	Yr.	Pos	GP	GS	MIN	FG%	FG3%	FT%	OREB	REB	AST	TO	STL	BLK	PF	PTS
S. Davis	Sr.	PF	15	15	27.1	.542	.250	.729	1.8	5.7	0.9	1.5	0.8	1.7	1.9	15.7
G. Richardson	Sr.	PF	15	15	27.6	.500	.250	.630	2.5	8.9	0.5	1.1	0.6	0.9	1.8	8.3
S. Allen	So.	C	15	0	12.7	.567		.714	0.5	2.9	0.5	0.5	0.3	0.6	1.3	2.9
R. Strong	So.	C	15	0	13.1	.621		.765	1.5	4.6	0.2	0.4	0.3	0.4	1.0	3.3

i actually considered posting after i finished, mentioning that position was another consideration - but that doesn't make one player fundamentally a better or worse rebounder, that is situational, so i decided against it. also, for example, rebounding for a pg is a different than a center, so i felt it was sort of implied. but while i guess that is obvious to most, using different formulas for pf/c is not, so im glad you mentioned it. and actually, i do use the same formula for evaluating the rebounding potential of a pf and a c, but if you asked me how many rebounds a guy would get, then i would have to know the position.

also, i would say your example is a good one (although it overstates the importance of the position, IMO). the closer you are to the basket, the more rebounds you get, although im not sure this is true at the 1/2. it is absolutely true at every other position, at least that is what i have seen. i think its good to note, because when i started, people would say reb is more important at the 4 than the 5, which i agree with (in relative terms only), but only because scoring is more important at the 5 and thus the guy who is more geared to rebounding than scoring usually goes at the 4. however, if you have 2 guys who are equal scorers and defenders, i always would put the better rebounder at the 5, and i would bet a lot of people don't realize that.

on a final note, along with the theme of explaining the value of doing formulas like this, i would expand that to say generally speaking these formulas can all vary by position. you can sometimes get away without it, like my perimeter shooting formula for a 1 and 2 are not split out in my recruiting program. actually very little is split out for a 1/2, i only split out for 1/2 by role (edit: well that is a bit misleading, my roles are, true pg, scoring pg, and sg. so really there is no allowance for a pg to play the 2 in my roles. but my scoring formula for a scoring pg and true sg are the same. however, since i stopped working on those formulas, my perceptions have changes. so i would actually change my roles to include 3 point scoring sg, lp scoring sg, and spd/bh/ft scoring sg, all of which would weight things significantly differently). but i do use different formulas for 2, 3, 4, 5 for virtually everything, so usually as a starting point when trying to develop these formulas, i would pick a position and once i was happy, tweak slightly for other positions.

Posted by mduncanhogs on 11/12/2010 3:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 11/12/2010 1:34:00 PM (view original):
the 2 star pupils / visiting professors get A's for the day - stamina - would be third in my mind, maybe second, but you both missed a good one .... 

position played, I have a team with some real interesting guys on it, a pair of near identical ath/sp/reb/stam players, one has always played center the other has always played PF.  I included the two backups also.  Note how center richardson is outrebounding PF davis, he did last season also, both as starters, by about the same amount.  Also note how ath,stam,reb playing center Strong's rebounding per minute compares with C Richardson and PF Davis.

Name	Yr.	Pos.	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	FT	TOT
Samuel Davis	Sr.	PF	81	83	96	96	97	90	42	19	45	60	91	70	C+	870
Ronald Strong	So.	C	84	2	91	95	83	73	1	1	14	65	82	72	B	663
Gilbert Richardson	Sr.	PF	70	70	88	100	77	61	19	12	27	69	96	66	B	755
Samuel Allen	So.	C	59	18	78	74	77	81	19	28	40	58	79	49	B	660

Name	Yr.	Pos	GP	GS	MIN	FG%	FG3%	FT%	OREB	REB	AST	TO	STL	BLK	PF	PTS
S. Davis	Sr.	PF	15	15	27.1	.542	.250	.729	1.8	5.7	0.9	1.5	0.8	1.7	1.9	15.7
G. Richardson	Sr.	PF	15	15	27.6	.500	.250	.630	2.5	8.9	0.5	1.1	0.6	0.9	1.8	8.3
S. Allen	So.	C	15	0	12.7	.567		.714	0.5	2.9	0.5	0.5	0.3	0.6	1.3	2.9
R. Strong	So.	C	15	0	13.1	.621		.765	1.5	4.6	0.2	0.4	0.3	0.4	1.0	3.3

Interesting.  That certainly seems to suggest that SPD does not matter.  Strong gets just as many REB/min as Richardson does at C, and Strong essentially has no speed.  I'm a newbie, so take this for what it is worth, but I have been running a lot of calculations and it appears to me as though the 2 factors that strongly outweigh everything else with regard to REB are REB and ATH.  I do think REB is more important than ATH, but I'm not sure how much.  I just assumed that LP had no impact on defense and rebounding, but was just used to help determine low post scoring ability.  Maybe it matters too?

take it for what its worth, but seble has stated the only ratings that impact rebounding are ath, reb, iq, and stamina. and i guess durability if you want to be extremely thorough. speed is not a factor, which i think is wrong, but i guess that is irrelevant?

it is nice to have a good back and forth with you again OR, its been too long. i wish you'd post in these forums more, the whole community has really lost quite a bit by your relative absence!

Posted by coach_billyg on 11/12/2010 3:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mduncanhogs on 11/12/2010 3:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 11/12/2010 1:34:00 PM (view original):
the 2 star pupils / visiting professors get A's for the day - stamina - would be third in my mind, maybe second, but you both missed a good one .... 

position played, I have a team with some real interesting guys on it, a pair of near identical ath/sp/reb/stam players, one has always played center the other has always played PF.  I included the two backups also.  Note how center richardson is outrebounding PF davis, he did last season also, both as starters, by about the same amount.  Also note how ath,stam,reb playing center Strong's rebounding per minute compares with C Richardson and PF Davis.

Name	Yr.	Pos.	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	FT	TOT
Samuel Davis	Sr.	PF	81	83	96	96	97	90	42	19	45	60	91	70	C+	870
Ronald Strong	So.	C	84	2	91	95	83	73	1	1	14	65	82	72	B	663
Gilbert Richardson	Sr.	PF	70	70	88	100	77	61	19	12	27	69	96	66	B	755
Samuel Allen	So.	C	59	18	78	74	77	81	19	28	40	58	79	49	B	660

Name	Yr.	Pos	GP	GS	MIN	FG%	FG3%	FT%	OREB	REB	AST	TO	STL	BLK	PF	PTS
S. Davis	Sr.	PF	15	15	27.1	.542	.250	.729	1.8	5.7	0.9	1.5	0.8	1.7	1.9	15.7
G. Richardson	Sr.	PF	15	15	27.6	.500	.250	.630	2.5	8.9	0.5	1.1	0.6	0.9	1.8	8.3
S. Allen	So.	C	15	0	12.7	.567		.714	0.5	2.9	0.5	0.5	0.3	0.6	1.3	2.9
R. Strong	So.	C	15	0	13.1	.621		.765	1.5	4.6	0.2	0.4	0.3	0.4	1.0	3.3

Interesting.  That certainly seems to suggest that SPD does not matter.  Strong gets just as many REB/min as Richardson does at C, and Strong essentially has no speed.  I'm a newbie, so take this for what it is worth, but I have been running a lot of calculations and it appears to me as though the 2 factors that strongly outweigh everything else with regard to REB are REB and ATH.  I do think REB is more important than ATH, but I'm not sure how much.  I just assumed that LP had no impact on defense and rebounding, but was just used to help determine low post scoring ability.  Maybe it matters too?

take it for what its worth, but seble has stated the only ratings that impact rebounding are ath, reb, iq, and stamina. and i guess durability if you want to be extremely thorough. speed is not a factor, which i think is wrong, but i guess that is irrelevant?

So does stamina matter only when a player reaches "tired" or does it matter even at the opening tip?  In other words, if player A has an ST rating of 90 and player B has an ST rating of 70 and both players have identical ATH, REB and IQ will their rebounding ability be the same until player B reaches "tired" status first?

I will be vindicated and appalled if stamina actually is part of the formula.  It shouldn't matter other than how many minutes a kid gets at Fresh, FF or Tired, which would have an impact.  But if a kid with lower stamina kid and a higher stamina kid were set to come out at fresh, in theory they wouldn't be be playing at times other than when they were fresh.  I also have to believe speed has an impact, esecially for an offensive board, but as a defensive board as well.

Posted by Rails on 11/12/2010 3:55:00 PM (view original):
I will be vindicated and appalled if stamina actually is part of the formula.  It shouldn't matter other than how many minutes a kid gets at Fresh, FF or Tired, which would have an impact.  But if a kid with lower stamina kid and a higher stamina kid were set to come out at fresh, in theory they wouldn't be be playing at times other than when they were fresh.  I also have to believe speed has an impact, esecially for an offensive board, but as a defensive board as well.

why vindicated? did you argue stamina was part of it but CS shot you down?

also, i see what you are saying on the fatigue stuff, but i disagree to some extent. if you could sub a guy at any point in time, and you could take out at exactly a level of stamina, then i would probably agree. but in the press, with guys on fairly fresh, they get to getting tired literally all the time (more often than not IMO) before taking them out, and often beyond getting tired. the level of fatigue beyond the designated time to remove a player is certainly affected by stamina and then affects rebounding.

also i guess team stamina, by the above argument, and actually more precisely the stamina and depth at the position in question, would also have a significant impact on rebounding. i guess we all missed that one, but i can't see how it is not a factor.

i would agree with you on spd, i had the exact same sentiment that it was more important for offense, and still can't see how it shouldn't matter, particularly for fb or uptempo. but seble disagrees. so i don't know. maybe the best thing to do it meet in the middle for future assumptions. other coaches - what do you think? before seble said spd wasn't a factor, did you think it was? how strongly?

Good discussion.

Two things that were pointed out in this thread that WIS should consider tweaking:

1) The fact that speed doesn't factor into rebounding. It clearly should, albeit to a smaller degree than ath/sp/IQ. It could perhaps be only situational (long rebounds, fastbreak/open court situations, an out of position ++defense) but it seems a no-brainer that speed and quickness should impact rebounding in some way.

2)The fact that the new engine seems to have the C position rebound more effectively than the PF position. I've noticed this for a few seasons now and I'm glad OR confirmed my observations. I frequently will move around my bigs and whoever is playing center tends to overperform relative to the PF on the floor, and vice versa...seemingly regardless of ratings or matchups. Many real-life basketball systems clearly use the PF as the primary rebounder, and a PF is almost always in just as good of a position(or better...high post offense, etc.) as C to secure a rebound. This also needs to change IMO.

narcotico - i think the C position has rebounded more effectively than the PF position in the old engine as well. but maybe i am wrong.

lots of comments I could make, might log on later and make a few more, but just a wuick one, I think that even in d1, a 70 reb, 40 ath, 85 stam plus or minus a few points, could average about 15 rebounds per game.  Anyone agree or disagree?  Anyone know how?

Posted by oldresorter on 11/12/2010 4:36:00 PM (view original):
lots of comments I could make, might log on later and make a few more, but just a wuick one, I think that even in d1, a 70 reb, 40 ath, 85 stam plus or minus a few points, could average about 15 rebounds per game.  Anyone agree or disagree?  Anyone know how?

Not me but im listening