If a kid played 29, 29, 29, and 11 they wouldn't be averaging 11...  He said MPG...  Not "lowest minutes played by a regular starter in any game."  And it's not like every HD player is all-conference, so why should the game be set up under the supposition that only all-conference players are significant?  There are definitely players in low D1 and many in D2 and D3 schools whose conditioning is a problem and who have trouble eclipsing 20-25 minutes due to fatigue issues.  Which doesn't mean they won't sometimes play more if the team needs them for some reason, they'll just be tired.  I really don't get what you're trying to argue here...  I think Seble's answer was perfectly legitimate.

anyone watch Fab Melo at Syracuse this season?

I agree with rails that the answer is misleading. Beyond misleading, really. It's intellectually dishonest; seble knows better.

That said, there are some fantastic reasons for the minutes of starters to be lower in HD than real life. Having them match up with real life would dramatically reduce the important of gameplanning, recruiting, depth and team building. I think it would be an absolutely terrible idea. But the answer was a misleading one.

I think depth is a way overrated part of this game. You shouldn't be forced to play a 10 man rotation in order to be competitive. Very few teams play 10 man rotations in real life so it should be possible to play 7 or 8 man rotations in HD and not be at a significant disadvantage.

There are 2 factors in being named All-Conference - talent and the opportunity to capitalize on that.  It's true that coaches in general are going to want to play their better players more.  Obviously.  But if there were a stamina issue,  or a foul issue, or anything that limited the player's minutes, he's much less likely to be named to an All-Conference team.  Not because he's not good, but because he's not getting enough minutes.  So surveying All-Conference teams to demonstrate that All-Conference players play a lot of minutes is a self-fulfilling prophecy as a result of testing a data set for a variable that actually played a role in defining the set you're using.

Worth pointing out that Seble only counted players who started at least 80% of their teams games.  In general these are going to be the players that the coaches feel are their best players in most cases.

then choose nonfrosh who start 90% of their games.  Someone brought up Fab Melo--hopefully wasn't included becuase he's a spot starter.  NBAdraft.net is rating him on several categories, nonunlike hd.  Those categories are:  Athleticism, size, defense, strength, quickness, leadership, jump shot, nba ready, rebounding, potential, post intangibles.  Where is stamina?

Fab averages 10 mpg, but his range is from 2 to 22.  He was in single digits for mp for several times.  He is not spent from a fatigue standpoint after 10 minutes.  He is an outlier.  He is conditioning as Shaq is to FT shooting.  He is not avg.  You'll never convince me otherwise.  I think a simple survey to coaches would do the trick.  Given adequate conditioning what can the majority of players play based on fatigue alone and not any other factors.

Posted by Rails on 2/4/2011 9:21:00 AM (view original):
then choose nonfrosh who start 90% of their games.  Someone brought up Fab Melo--hopefully wasn't included becuase he's a spot starter.  NBAdraft.net is rating him on several categories, nonunlike hd.  Those categories are:  Athleticism, size, defense, strength, quickness, leadership, jump shot, nba ready, rebounding, potential, post intangibles.  Where is stamina?

Fab averages 10 mpg, but his range is from 2 to 22.  He was in single digits for mp for several times.  He is not spent from a fatigue standpoint after 10 minutes.  He is an outlier.  He is conditioning as Shaq is to FT shooting.  He is not avg.  You'll never convince me otherwise.  I think a simple survey to coaches would do the trick.  Given adequate conditioning what can the majority of players play based on fatigue alone and not any other factors.

rails, of course you are right, near every ncaa division 1,2, or 3 player could play 30 plus minutes without substantial decline in play.

I think there was one answer in yesterday's chat which implied something I am pretty sure you and I have known for close to 6 or 8 years now, when HD players get tired, they play substantially worse

It will be interesting if the little 'tweek' turns out to give most players 2-3 more minutes or more or less.  Much as I agree with your point, I am hoping for that 2-3 number, or 3-5 at the highest, jsut enough that star players can get into the 26-32 minute range, instead of the 22-28 minutes range they now seem to inhabit.

Is that where your head is at, or are you looking for even more?

It is too bad in some ways, target minutes was much more real life than fatigue, fatigue IMO was simply made to make sims more competitive, target gave coaches way more control, and was way more real life.  I have not tried target in over 2 years, maybe more, anyone using it????

Rails, why do you think tihs part has to match up to real life (we both know there are many areas that don't match up, and for good reason)?

Don't you think having starters play real-life type minutes would take away from numerous key areas of the game? (Gameplanning, recruiting, team building, depth.) If you could get away with playing all starters for 30-35 mins (admittedly, it does happen in real life), it would encourage teams even more to take numerous walk-ons.

Basically, in an attempt to blindly match up starters' minutes more with real life, you'd be hurting the game in a number of significant ways.

Posted by girt25 on 2/4/2011 9:47:00 AM (view original):
Rails, why do you think tihs part has to match up to real life (we both know there are many areas that don't match up, and for good reason)?

Don't you think having starters play real-life type minutes would take away from numerous key areas of the game? (Gameplanning, recruiting, team building, depth.) If you could get away with playing all starters for 30-35 mins (admittedly, it does happen in real life), it would encourage teams even more to take numerous walk-ons.

Basically, in an attempt to blindly match up starters' minutes more with real life, you'd be hurting the game in a number of significant ways.

100% agreed.  I don't want teams with 4 or 5 walkons winning very much, yet many D1 teams have 7-8 man rotations.

Posted by girt25 on 2/3/2011 9:54:00 PM (view original):
I agree with rails that the answer is misleading. Beyond misleading, really. It's intellectually dishonest; seble knows better.

That said, there are some fantastic reasons for the minutes of starters to be lower in HD than real life. Having them match up with real life would dramatically reduce the important of gameplanning, recruiting, depth and team building. I think it would be an absolutely terrible idea. But the answer was a misleading one.

I disagree. The fatigue effect in HD should be less than it currently is.  Guys in NCAA play a lot of minutes because their performance doesn't drop off like it does in HD.  Elite players should still be able to outplay average/good players when they are tired.  In HD, there is way too much of a performance hit for a guy who is tired.  If that wasn't the case then we would see the average approach what they are in NCAA.  Also, with the new recruit generation they did a little while back, there are far fewer players with very high stamina.  That made it even harder to get your elite guys to play 30 minutes. This was a necessary change. 

Gman, I get your points and understand.  I'll back up because I think after reading my own post I was leading my thought down a path that really isn't my main concern.  My biggest thing is that most players should be treated roughly the same--whether that's 35 minutes or 25 minutes.  I certainly agree with your point about having it be 35 and allow for more walkons.  I'm not in favor of that of course.  So I'm not even arguing that players should play 33+ minutes like they do irl.  Just that there shouldn't be a huge stam range.  Since they can tweak the rate of fatigue, they should make it so that 90% of players can play 20-25 minutes so team depth is more important.  I think adjusting the rate so that players can play effectively for 25 minutes would be fine.  Just so that the vast majority can do that.  I just don't like the 99 stam guys being able to play a lot more and allow the press to value 99 stam more than spd and ath.  IRL there are not the variances in stamina like in HD.  Having 60 stam guys in hd is commonplace and so is 85 stam guys.  That's just too big of a range and tilts the balance toward stam when it should be about team depth.  Depth is critical.  I would never want a system that would allow a team to get by with 7-8 players.  That's why I'm suggesting having a narrow range of stamina levels and tweaking the effectiveness to be about 25 minutes, not 35 because I see your point.  And with the press, have the fatigue rate so that what 27 in zone and 25 in m2m is 20 minutes in press.  But get rid of the average players who can be successful because they have 99 stam.  Let their skills do the talking, not their stam levels.  Stam is a nonissue if most if not all players could play effectively for 25 minutes.  But depth would be important.  I don't know if I provided any more clarity hoepfullly so.

OK, thanks for the clarification. And I think, with the exception of a few outliers, I agree with this part of it. There isn't a huge difference IRL between the type of minutes that most players are able to play. Just so long as any change didn't result in starters playing 30-35 mins.

I do also think you've been overstating the value of stamina, which I think is significant because if you weren't valueing it so high, it wouldn't have become such a hot-button issue for you.