Posted by oldresorter on 2/28/2011 6:54:00 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.

I agree with you about letting providence or even st francis have a shot, but what you said is not the basis of this change, this change did not take away the prospect of providence or even st francis of new york winning a NT.  The change might have even moved the gap between top and bottom slightly closer, maybe.

And in terms of box score, I can't think of many reasons why like real life is not better, matter of fact, that seems to be the basis upon this games success was founded, the ability to accurately and like real life sim basketball games - don't you agree?

Where I have opposed the 'like real life' is in the game's attempt to simulate basketball coaching life, things like disciplining kids, picking out their lunch menu's, building stadiums, fund raising, injuries, going to sororiety parties and hitting on coeds, an important part real life, but not what this game should do, nor has this game done it well when it tries.

Just catching up on this thread... appreciate the shout out OR. ;)

Posted by tianyi7886 on 3/10/2011 12:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 3/10/2011 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 3/10/2011 7:28:00 AM (view original):
Another problem I have with the new fatigue: It makes it very hard to get young player and/or high-quality bench players much time. Next season I'll have two very strong soph guards that I'd love to get a good amount of PT, but because they're behind two seniors, in the new system they'll both play about 10 mpg unless it's a blowout.

That's stupid, and it prevents you from leveraging quality depth.

girt  -sorry - I love the fact you have a couple of near 800 or 850 guys ready to leave you - happens all the time in real life - oops - there I go again - it simply seems slightly disingenuous  that a coach with a team that has 12 guys over 800 is complaining about losing guys because his starters are getting too many minutes, while most coaches can't even get 1 or 2 guys - I thought you didn't like it because it gave you too much of an advantage?

Why not use target minutes if you feel like your starting guards are getting too much PT even set at fairly fresh? Personally, I'm fine with my starting players playing 30mpg if they are fresh the entire game. Simply means my best players are on the court longer at 100% strength and my talent advantage (if I have one) will weigh more and allow me to win more games. 

Because target minutes is flat-out inferior. Find me one top coach who uses target minutes, lol.

Posted by oldresorter on 3/10/2011 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 3/10/2011 7:28:00 AM (view original):
Another problem I have with the new fatigue: It makes it very hard to get young player and/or high-quality bench players much time. Next season I'll have two very strong soph guards that I'd love to get a good amount of PT, but because they're behind two seniors, in the new system they'll both play about 10 mpg unless it's a blowout.

That's stupid, and it prevents you from leveraging quality depth.

girt  -sorry - I love the fact you have a couple of near 800 or 850 guys ready to leave you - happens all the time in real life - oops - there I go again - it simply seems slightly disingenuous  that a coach with a team that has 12 guys over 800 is complaining about losing guys because his starters are getting too many minutes, while most coaches can't even get 1 or 2 guys - I thought you didn't like it because it gave you too much of an advantage?

Don't understand the disenenuous comment -- please explain. May be over my head.

And I'm not complaining about losing guys.

(Nor can I tell if your "happens all the time" comment is meant to be real or sarcastic -- really, no idea.)

I guess I really just don't understand the whole post.

Posted by girt25 on 3/10/2011 7:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tianyi7886 on 3/10/2011 12:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 3/10/2011 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 3/10/2011 7:28:00 AM (view original):
Another problem I have with the new fatigue: It makes it very hard to get young player and/or high-quality bench players much time. Next season I'll have two very strong soph guards that I'd love to get a good amount of PT, but because they're behind two seniors, in the new system they'll both play about 10 mpg unless it's a blowout.

That's stupid, and it prevents you from leveraging quality depth.

girt  -sorry - I love the fact you have a couple of near 800 or 850 guys ready to leave you - happens all the time in real life - oops - there I go again - it simply seems slightly disingenuous  that a coach with a team that has 12 guys over 800 is complaining about losing guys because his starters are getting too many minutes, while most coaches can't even get 1 or 2 guys - I thought you didn't like it because it gave you too much of an advantage?

Why not use target minutes if you feel like your starting guards are getting too much PT even set at fairly fresh? Personally, I'm fine with my starting players playing 30mpg if they are fresh the entire game. Simply means my best players are on the court longer at 100% strength and my talent advantage (if I have one) will weigh more and allow me to win more games. 

Because target minutes is flat-out inferior. Find me one top coach who uses target minutes, lol.

wanting your backups to play more minutes in the first place is flat out inferior, and if the fatigue situation is half as extreme as this thread makes it out to be....target minutes aren't nearly as terrible as they've been in the past

Posted by pinkeye on 3/10/2011 8:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 3/10/2011 7:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tianyi7886 on 3/10/2011 12:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 3/10/2011 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 3/10/2011 7:28:00 AM (view original):
Another problem I have with the new fatigue: It makes it very hard to get young player and/or high-quality bench players much time. Next season I'll have two very strong soph guards that I'd love to get a good amount of PT, but because they're behind two seniors, in the new system they'll both play about 10 mpg unless it's a blowout.

That's stupid, and it prevents you from leveraging quality depth.

girt  -sorry - I love the fact you have a couple of near 800 or 850 guys ready to leave you - happens all the time in real life - oops - there I go again - it simply seems slightly disingenuous  that a coach with a team that has 12 guys over 800 is complaining about losing guys because his starters are getting too many minutes, while most coaches can't even get 1 or 2 guys - I thought you didn't like it because it gave you too much of an advantage?

Why not use target minutes if you feel like your starting guards are getting too much PT even set at fairly fresh? Personally, I'm fine with my starting players playing 30mpg if they are fresh the entire game. Simply means my best players are on the court longer at 100% strength and my talent advantage (if I have one) will weigh more and allow me to win more games. 

Because target minutes is flat-out inferior. Find me one top coach who uses target minutes, lol.

wanting your backups to play more minutes in the first place is flat out inferior, and if the fatigue situation is half as extreme as this thread makes it out to be....target minutes aren't nearly as terrible as they've been in the past

That's pretty much my point as well. If you have set your depth chart using fatigue at always fresh, and if your goal is to have optimum result (your top players playing at fresh), then shouldn't you be fine with your starters playing as many minutes as possible while still being fresh? This is the part I don't get. You can't achieve optimum results if your goal is to get your backups more minutes. 

Posted by tianyi7886 on 3/10/2011 8:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pinkeye on 3/10/2011 8:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 3/10/2011 7:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tianyi7886 on 3/10/2011 12:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 3/10/2011 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 3/10/2011 7:28:00 AM (view original):
Another problem I have with the new fatigue: It makes it very hard to get young player and/or high-quality bench players much time. Next season I'll have two very strong soph guards that I'd love to get a good amount of PT, but because they're behind two seniors, in the new system they'll both play about 10 mpg unless it's a blowout.

That's stupid, and it prevents you from leveraging quality depth.

girt  -sorry - I love the fact you have a couple of near 800 or 850 guys ready to leave you - happens all the time in real life - oops - there I go again - it simply seems slightly disingenuous  that a coach with a team that has 12 guys over 800 is complaining about losing guys because his starters are getting too many minutes, while most coaches can't even get 1 or 2 guys - I thought you didn't like it because it gave you too much of an advantage?

Why not use target minutes if you feel like your starting guards are getting too much PT even set at fairly fresh? Personally, I'm fine with my starting players playing 30mpg if they are fresh the entire game. Simply means my best players are on the court longer at 100% strength and my talent advantage (if I have one) will weigh more and allow me to win more games. 

Because target minutes is flat-out inferior. Find me one top coach who uses target minutes, lol.

wanting your backups to play more minutes in the first place is flat out inferior, and if the fatigue situation is half as extreme as this thread makes it out to be....target minutes aren't nearly as terrible as they've been in the past

That's pretty much my point as well. If you have set your depth chart using fatigue at always fresh, and if your goal is to have optimum result (your top players playing at fresh), then shouldn't you be fine with your starters playing as many minutes as possible while still being fresh? This is the part I don't get. You can't achieve optimum results if your goal is to get your backups more minutes. 

No.

If you have more depth and a significantly better bench than your opponent, you'd rather have an engine that didn't have starters playing so many minutes for everyone -- where having a deep, talented bench actually mattered.

aren't backups still averaging like 30-40% floor time?

Posted by girt25 on 3/10/2011 7:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 3/10/2011 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 3/10/2011 7:28:00 AM (view original):
Another problem I have with the new fatigue: It makes it very hard to get young player and/or high-quality bench players much time. Next season I'll have two very strong soph guards that I'd love to get a good amount of PT, but because they're behind two seniors, in the new system they'll both play about 10 mpg unless it's a blowout.

That's stupid, and it prevents you from leveraging quality depth.

girt  -sorry - I love the fact you have a couple of near 800 or 850 guys ready to leave you - happens all the time in real life - oops - there I go again - it simply seems slightly disingenuous  that a coach with a team that has 12 guys over 800 is complaining about losing guys because his starters are getting too many minutes, while most coaches can't even get 1 or 2 guys - I thought you didn't like it because it gave you too much of an advantage?

Don't understand the disenenuous comment -- please explain. May be over my head.

And I'm not complaining about losing guys.

(Nor can I tell if your "happens all the time" comment is meant to be real or sarcastic -- really, no idea.)

I guess I really just don't understand the whole post.

you don't understand?  why not?  no offense I really like you, but you are being a complete jerk about this issue - you very well understand what I am saying - there is nothing magical about the words I used - but out of respect for you I will explain:

#1 - college players leave if they don't play, they are actually encouraged to do so.  UWGB will have 2 or 3 scholy guys move on this season, last season they had 2 (might even have been more, but 2 I recall), the season before 3 - one of GB's best players transferred in from a missouri valley school and sat out last year, and I know of several other horizon league stars who started off in bigger midwest programs, so I am not being sarcastic with my comment, I would have to return the compliment, were you being sarcastic toward me? 

#2 - my other comment was simply that if a coach who had a team full of 650 guys was upset that the fatigue was causing him to lose guys I might have some sympathy, when a coach who stockpiles 12 800 level guys complains it is ..... well 'seems slightly disingenuous' - I am quite pleased the engine is sophisticated enough to entertain thoughts of leaving in your case for lack of playing time - plus - I have to admit - using fatigue, there is a way to play the backups more so they don't get mad, which I would have to think you know of too, since you stone cold know this engine as well as anyone

I really and truly didn't understand your response. It was the "ready to leave" part, which I never referenced and I'm not at all worried about. Just confused the heck out of me where you were coming from with that, because it wasn't at all part of what I was talking about, plus the fact that it was tied in w. the "disengenuous" comment. 

So now I understand why I didn't get your post -- you'd misinterpreted mine to have something to do with guys leaving the program, and it had nothing to do with that. So I was confused as hell what was going on. Problem solved!

Posted by pinkeye on 3/10/2011 8:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 3/10/2011 7:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tianyi7886 on 3/10/2011 12:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 3/10/2011 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 3/10/2011 7:28:00 AM (view original):
Another problem I have with the new fatigue: It makes it very hard to get young player and/or high-quality bench players much time. Next season I'll have two very strong soph guards that I'd love to get a good amount of PT, but because they're behind two seniors, in the new system they'll both play about 10 mpg unless it's a blowout.

That's stupid, and it prevents you from leveraging quality depth.

girt  -sorry - I love the fact you have a couple of near 800 or 850 guys ready to leave you - happens all the time in real life - oops - there I go again - it simply seems slightly disingenuous  that a coach with a team that has 12 guys over 800 is complaining about losing guys because his starters are getting too many minutes, while most coaches can't even get 1 or 2 guys - I thought you didn't like it because it gave you too much of an advantage?

Why not use target minutes if you feel like your starting guards are getting too much PT even set at fairly fresh? Personally, I'm fine with my starting players playing 30mpg if they are fresh the entire game. Simply means my best players are on the court longer at 100% strength and my talent advantage (if I have one) will weigh more and allow me to win more games. 

Because target minutes is flat-out inferior. Find me one top coach who uses target minutes, lol.

wanting your backups to play more minutes in the first place is flat out inferior, and if the fatigue situation is half as extreme as this thread makes it out to be....target minutes aren't nearly as terrible as they've been in the past

"wanting your backups to play more minutes in the first place is flat out inferior"

Thats a very narrow minded comment. Good coaches and recruiters build teams with players that compliment each other. I may have a starting SG who plays excellent defense and a backup SG who can shoot lights out. I may not want EITHER of them to soak up 30 MPG.
Same situation where I may have a PF who is a great rebounder and another who is a great LP player.

Just because a player isnt a starter, don't assume a good coach doesnt want him on the floor for 15-20 mins. If they would correct the major issues with target mins I'd use it in a heartbeat. But until they do I cant risk losing a close game late because it is trying to get my dead tired center his last 3 minutes of play.

Isn't the whole point of this thread that players almost never reach "dead tired" status, no matter how long you play them?

If fatigue is broken the way you, daalt and others claim, then you should be able to use target minutes without worrying about late-game fatigue. If fatigue isn't broken, then why are we here?

Posted by antonsirius on 3/11/2011 8:32:00 AM (view original):
Isn't the whole point of this thread that players almost never reach "dead tired" status, no matter how long you play them?

If fatigue is broken the way you, daalt and others claim, then you should be able to use target minutes without worrying about late-game fatigue. If fatigue isn't broken, then why are we here?

If I use target and you use fatigue, that's a loss for me. Fatigue is far inferior.

Honestly, if they cared about realism, target minutes wouldn't exist. Aside from the very occasional out-of-shape or recently injured player, coaches don't approach games saying, "OK, Johnson is my starting pf, he'll play roughly 22-25 minutes".

I think to be real that neither of the current choices would exist on their own.

To be real a coach would use a hybrid of the two.

Posted by mullycj on 3/11/2011 10:14:00 AM (view original):
I think to be real that neither of the current choices would exist on their own.

To be real a coach would use a hybrid of the two.

I agree mully, certainly some (quite a few?) college players are in the foul trouble only category, but those guys often sit every game on their second first half foul, end up in the 32-36 minute range I would guess most games at least, while others who are in perfectly the same stamina condition, start yet come out in a grade school like 'rotation', while yet others are in the sub out on first turnover or bad play / shot mode, some even come out because they are tired physically.  I suppose the programmers could try to simulate that for subbing - options like fto / on first to / target minutes / fatigue.  I don't think just mixing and matching target and fatigue would be impossible from a programming standpoint, sound kind of easy to me actually.

I was serious about the fatigue issue as the season wears on being an important factor, by the end of this season, the coach at GB treated his star PG's legs as if they are made of gold, and pretty much the same thing with the rising star frosh star 7'2" center.  One thing I have not tried to prove with +/- is how much advantage does a 950 type d1 guard really give a HD team, and / or does that advantage dwindle or even go away as he plays 30 - 35 minutes.  My old school take on the game is the advantage does go away with overuse, but I sure have not verified that since the 2/3 change, it would be easy enough to do.

Generally, subs in this game for strong d1 programs often have huge positive plu / minus, but that is because they often play mopup minutes vs really bad players, if that makes any sense, so one has to be careful when looking at plus / minus data for conclusions.

A lot of the discussion here has been how lower fatigue affects big-time D1 programs. While it's early, I'm starting to wonder if it has more of an effect in D3. There are rarely true superstars in D3 recruiting (even with pulldowns, every player is flawed in some way), so my focus in D3 is usually on not getting into battles, being patient and finding high-potential guys that no one else is going after, and trying to build great depth. My top 4-5 players are usually about the same as my opponents, but I usually have a better bench. And historically, that helped me beat teams that had equal / slightly better frontline talent than I did. I'd go uptempo, both sets of starters would wear down, and I'd win in the 2nd half b/c of better depth.

What I'm starting to see now is that there's less wearing down of starters, so my strategy doesn't pay off as much. And I think that evens the playing field between someone who pays attention to recruiting for all 11-12 spots, and someone who takes unnecessary risks in recruiting (or is simply inattentive), and has to take on poor bench players or walkons. To me, that's not a strategy that should be rewarded.

Anyway, it's early, and I'm curious to see how this will play out.