sort of related to this thread, has anyone tried target minutes since the change,?

I'm considering trying it a bit with this year's team in selected games I'm not that worried about just to see what happens.

Posted by girt25 on 2/28/2011 8:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by arssanguinus on 2/28/2011 6:36:00 AM (view original):
SO then, if you don't like it because its 'less like real life' you then want to create more separation in the recruits that Duke, Kentucky et al are able to get and everyone else at division one, right?  Because Providence winning national titles isn't 'like real life'.

And I can't belileve I am posting this, given I have argued the other side of the fence but. . . well. . just because its like real life doesn't make it better.  Just like food being 'Organic' doesn't make it better for you.

My point wasn't that I wanted things more like real life. My point that the change came under the guise of "this'll make things more like real life", but in the end game, I don't believe it does.

I have always said, let's do what's best for HD, not simply copying real life.

I believe this is what's best for HD.  It just means that coaches should change their strategies if they want to stay on top.  This change just presents a new set of challenges for coaches.  I don't understand why you have a problem with players who were able to play 22 minutes in the old engine, now playing 26-27 mins.  I didn't hear anyone complaining when it was easy to get all of your players' STA in the 90s.  This change only seems like a big deal because you are now used to the new recruits with low stamina ratings.  If you go back to before the new recruits were created, you would see this is not such a big change at all. 

And I believe it's impossible to argue that this doesn't make "things more like real life".  Like OR pointed out, you don't see many D1 schools running 12 deep.  This is much better because in real life STA is probably the easiest rating to improve.  Before, it was extremely unrealistic to have your guys only able to play 20 minutes.  Girt, would you have had a problem with the change if they would have brought back the stamina levels of old instead? 

Posted by oldresorter on 2/27/2011 7:32:00 PM (view original):
girt your opinion is that opinion, I think the change makes the box scores more like real life, not less.  My opinion. 

I also like the team building more in the new game, as you have multiple paths to success, rather than just one.  Is the new way more or less real life, I actually could explain why it too is more, just watch what happens to the 10th thru 12th men on most of your local d1 college programs, and explain to me how the 'old' way was more real life than the 8-9 man way.  I have an alternate theory -most 10's thru 12's do not move into starting lineups, they mostly transfer to d2 programs or sit their entire careers, not all that unlike the 'new' game.

Again, I am not strongly sold, just it is ok, and the box scores with fatigue the way it is now, is more real life, it really is, at least in my opinion, unless you know of dozens of d1 programs playing 12 kids 18 minutes each?

This is pretty much inline with my thinking both on team building and fatigue.

And I would add, this fatigue deal helps lower to mid major D1 programs.  Now, we can build squads with guys that are not ready to contribute right away (don't have to worry about playing them) and then when our seniors depart, they are ready to move into a leading role after 1-2 years of growth.  Totally evens up the playing field.

If Stamina isn't going to play the type of role that it should, heck, why not get rid of the category altogether!  There should absolutely be some sort of negative effect for playing guys heavy minutes with a low stamina rating.  There are many top teams who have 6-7 guys at the minimum with very mediocre stamina ratings.   But they are able to win because they have depth on their bench.  Sure, low D-I teams don't necessarily have the depth.  I do agree that many good teams don't play their "stars" over 25 MPG in HD.  Which doesn't happen in real life, you don't see the stud on BYU playing 20-25 MPG unless he is in severe foul trouble.  Most good teams in HD go 9-10 deep, play their 9th-10th guys around 15 MPG or so.  I don't think things in HD should mirror real life, but when i see players going 28-30 minutes a game with a 60-65 ST & not getting very tired, that's a problem.  No matter what changes are made, everyone will never be satisfied. 

Posted by girt25 on 2/27/2011 5:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 2/27/2011 10:31:00 AM (view original):
mully - I sort of get this one & I am OK with this ... it has allowed in d1 two strategies to be elite, one is take fewer walkon's and have a deep roster that goes fast, the second would be try for all 800's and play with 7 or 8 or 9 and go slower.

I am near sure, seble originally planned on making fatigue less important when he decided to drop d1 ratings, then reconsidered when coaches complained, and then when the d1 game sort of struggled, he implmented what amounted to his original plan.  I say this, because in beta testing, one thing I told seble was the large number of 40 & 50 stamina players would change the game more than anything he has done, his answer was, yea, but I want to make stamina less important, which should make it a wash, but noone seems to want that.

One thing I liked about tarek, he often did what was best for the game, even when not popular, I think lessening the role of fatigue is best for the game, even if not popular.  Tarek said one other thing to me in a ticket, something along the lines, when in doubt, I make my decisions based on is this more real life or not.  In the case of fatigue, it is more real life, going to take some getting used to, but I like it.

Plus, I have been helping lots of coaches lately thru mentorship, new d3 coaches almost all play their favorite players too much, too long, this fatigue change will make that intuitive action more effective, again, real life, help the new coaches, help the star player rack up stats by staying in the game longer, I see it as a win.

OR, what I think makes things silly is that he decreased the effect on fatigue to make things a little more like real life ... but that has begat teams taking numerous walk-ons and only 8 or 9 scholarship players, which is nothing like real life whatsoever.

So the end result of his change makes the game less like real life not more. Not to mention it lessen the value of some of the really important areas related to straetegy -- such as recruiting/team building/depth chart/etc.

Bad change.

Look at Kentucky in real life ... they play 6 players with more than 26 minutes, one guy who plays about 9 and and 3 guys who play 5 or less minutes per game.  They have 9 scholarship players.

It is a valid strategy.

Posted by jpmills3 on 2/28/2011 9:38:00 AM (view original):
And I would add, this fatigue deal helps lower to mid major D1 programs.  Now, we can build squads with guys that are not ready to contribute right away (don't have to worry about playing them) and then when our seniors depart, they are ready to move into a leading role after 1-2 years of growth.  Totally evens up the playing field.

I would actually go the other way on this.

I think it may help the big boys even more than before. Previously, if you had a deep, veteran low/mid team, you could have an advantage over a younger but more talented BCS team. But now, the BCS teams can get by playing just their stud veterans and not have to dip nearly as much into their younger, low iq players.

brik - 60-65 stamina players can play 30 minutes, what I don't think anyone has proven, is that they are effective when they play that long, I looked at the one example, and the team got substantially worse at the end of the game, which has been all my experience with overplaying guys.  Trust me, if my 99 stam 930 PG was great playing 40 minutes a few days ago in the national tourny - this thread might even cause me to experiment more with it, but every indication I have seen, guys play worse when their time gets too high.  I used to have a chart I used, stamina vs ideal minutes, far as I can tell, 3-5 minutes got added to the chart, which I think might be a good thing, and it certainly is not a reason to start whining about the game.

Posted by hughesjr on 2/28/2011 12:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 2/27/2011 5:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 2/27/2011 10:31:00 AM (view original):
mully - I sort of get this one & I am OK with this ... it has allowed in d1 two strategies to be elite, one is take fewer walkon's and have a deep roster that goes fast, the second would be try for all 800's and play with 7 or 8 or 9 and go slower.

I am near sure, seble originally planned on making fatigue less important when he decided to drop d1 ratings, then reconsidered when coaches complained, and then when the d1 game sort of struggled, he implmented what amounted to his original plan.  I say this, because in beta testing, one thing I told seble was the large number of 40 & 50 stamina players would change the game more than anything he has done, his answer was, yea, but I want to make stamina less important, which should make it a wash, but noone seems to want that.

One thing I liked about tarek, he often did what was best for the game, even when not popular, I think lessening the role of fatigue is best for the game, even if not popular.  Tarek said one other thing to me in a ticket, something along the lines, when in doubt, I make my decisions based on is this more real life or not.  In the case of fatigue, it is more real life, going to take some getting used to, but I like it.

Plus, I have been helping lots of coaches lately thru mentorship, new d3 coaches almost all play their favorite players too much, too long, this fatigue change will make that intuitive action more effective, again, real life, help the new coaches, help the star player rack up stats by staying in the game longer, I see it as a win.

OR, what I think makes things silly is that he decreased the effect on fatigue to make things a little more like real life ... but that has begat teams taking numerous walk-ons and only 8 or 9 scholarship players, which is nothing like real life whatsoever.

So the end result of his change makes the game less like real life not more. Not to mention it lessen the value of some of the really important areas related to straetegy -- such as recruiting/team building/depth chart/etc.

Bad change.

Look at Kentucky in real life ... they play 6 players with more than 26 minutes, one guy who plays about 9 and and 3 guys who play 5 or less minutes per game.  They have 9 scholarship players.

It is a valid strategy.

No one is saying that it doesn't happen somtimes in real life. That's not what we're discussing.

We're discussing whether it's a good thing to have in HD, an overall positive or negative for the game.

Posted by utahjazz88 on 2/28/2011 9:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 2/28/2011 8:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by arssanguinus on 2/28/2011 6:36:00 AM (view original):
SO then, if you don't like it because its 'less like real life' you then want to create more separation in the recruits that Duke, Kentucky et al are able to get and everyone else at division one, right?  Because Providence winning national titles isn't 'like real life'.

And I can't belileve I am posting this, given I have argued the other side of the fence but. . . well. . just because its like real life doesn't make it better.  Just like food being 'Organic' doesn't make it better for you.

My point wasn't that I wanted things more like real life. My point that the change came under the guise of "this'll make things more like real life", but in the end game, I don't believe it does.

I have always said, let's do what's best for HD, not simply copying real life.

I believe this is what's best for HD.  It just means that coaches should change their strategies if they want to stay on top.  This change just presents a new set of challenges for coaches.  I don't understand why you have a problem with players who were able to play 22 minutes in the old engine, now playing 26-27 mins.  I didn't hear anyone complaining when it was easy to get all of your players' STA in the 90s.  This change only seems like a big deal because you are now used to the new recruits with low stamina ratings.  If you go back to before the new recruits were created, you would see this is not such a big change at all. 

And I believe it's impossible to argue that this doesn't make "things more like real life".  Like OR pointed out, you don't see many D1 schools running 12 deep.  This is much better because in real life STA is probably the easiest rating to improve.  Before, it was extremely unrealistic to have your guys only able to play 20 minutes.  Girt, would you have had a problem with the change if they would have brought back the stamina levels of old instead? 

You didn't have to play 12 deep before the change, even with fcp. And starters were not limited to 20 minutes before either. These are straw man arguments.

The notion of starters playing more minutes -- when viewed in a bubble -- is no doubt more like real life. But there are other unintended consequences that actually push things to be less like real life. There are many, many things that exist in real life that don't in HD (or vice versa), and for very good reason.

girt - you are way off base here - wow

Posted by oldresorter on 2/28/2011 9:03:00 AM (view original):
sort of related to this thread, has anyone tried target minutes since the change,?

Well, just one exhibition game so far, but this was with target minutes. . .
http://whatifsports.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=6720700

Posted by girt25 on 2/28/2011 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by utahjazz88 on 2/28/2011 9:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 2/28/2011 8:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by arssanguinus on 2/28/2011 6:36:00 AM (view original):
SO then, if you don't like it because its 'less like real life' you then want to create more separation in the recruits that Duke, Kentucky et al are able to get and everyone else at division one, right?  Because Providence winning national titles isn't 'like real life'.

And I can't belileve I am posting this, given I have argued the other side of the fence but. . . well. . just because its like real life doesn't make it better.  Just like food being 'Organic' doesn't make it better for you.

My point wasn't that I wanted things more like real life. My point that the change came under the guise of "this'll make things more like real life", but in the end game, I don't believe it does.

I have always said, let's do what's best for HD, not simply copying real life.

I believe this is what's best for HD.  It just means that coaches should change their strategies if they want to stay on top.  This change just presents a new set of challenges for coaches.  I don't understand why you have a problem with players who were able to play 22 minutes in the old engine, now playing 26-27 mins.  I didn't hear anyone complaining when it was easy to get all of your players' STA in the 90s.  This change only seems like a big deal because you are now used to the new recruits with low stamina ratings.  If you go back to before the new recruits were created, you would see this is not such a big change at all. 

And I believe it's impossible to argue that this doesn't make "things more like real life".  Like OR pointed out, you don't see many D1 schools running 12 deep.  This is much better because in real life STA is probably the easiest rating to improve.  Before, it was extremely unrealistic to have your guys only able to play 20 minutes.  Girt, would you have had a problem with the change if they would have brought back the stamina levels of old instead? 

You didn't have to play 12 deep before the change, even with fcp. And starters were not limited to 20 minutes before either. These are straw man arguments.

The notion of starters playing more minutes -- when viewed in a bubble -- is no doubt more like real life. But there are other unintended consequences that actually push things to be less like real life. There are many, many things that exist in real life that don't in HD (or vice versa), and for very good reason.

Name one thing in real life that isn't in HD that would justify why playing 9-10 players in HD is better than playing 7-8. I don't see how this hurts the game one little bit. I'm new, but still, I don't see it

Just look at real Top d1 teams. They have a 7 or 8 guy rotation. Sometime it's 6 like Kentucky this year. Sometimes its as many as 10 or 11 with press teams. I think besides the fact that FCP stamina logic is a little wacky, I think this new update mirrors real life. Which i think, in this case, Is a good thing

And I know your gonna say "don't blindly mirror real life" but you've said that many times, but you have failed to give a good reason why this would be bad for the game. Like OR said. This gives the games more variety, and now each coach can better carve out his own style. and two me as a new coach, that makes me want to stay with this wonderful game even more.

And I don't think we are blindly copying real life here. and besides that, even if its true we shouldn't try to make HD completely like real life, this is a basketball game based off of real life college basketball. we need to at least use real life as a close model, or we will lose sight of what this is as a game.

And besides, from my perspective, as a new coach, making the game more life like does three good things. 1. It means real life strategies that I know will probably work in HD, 2. It means that all the terminology will be similar and 3. makes it MUCH easier to relate to, as a first time HD player, but life long college BBall fan.

so my question to you is, when is there an on the court scenario when realism is not a desirable goal?