For some reason I didn't notice it before but how come every team anymore has 5 PG's and 5 C's on their team and maybe 1 SG, SF, and PF to fill in, I know that's thirteen players but you get my point. What ever happened to the traditional line-ups of starting each player at their supposedly position, I know sometimes I may start a C at the PF position but that just seems ridiculous. I understand obviously people are doing this because of some advantage in the system but it just doesn't seem right to start three PG's or C's. Guess I am just a traditional coach, anyone else thoughts? 

Ever since I started playing this game I've never recruited solely based on a player's listed position. Also you have to understand even in real life there are guys who played PG in high school that play SG in college or PFs who play SF. The difference is we can't change the listed position where in real life it does get changed.

Honestly, I may be one of the most guilty coaches in WIS of doing this. I pretty much exclusively recruit PGs and Cs, but it isn't like I only search for those guys in recruiting, it's just that I end up with them because they fit my needs the best.     

That may be true but that wasn't my point, it seems coaches are purposely targeting just PG's and C's mainly....and by the looks of it, almost all your teams are doing this exactly same thing 

I seem to recruit no SFs, but everything else some.  Hard to find PGs or C to play SF I think, I usually find SGs that can rebound. 

It's all about the numbers. If I find a PG that can shoot the perimeter jumper, why wouldn't I recruit him to play SG? If he happens to have strong pass and BH ratings as well, hey, bonus points because now I can get quality minutes at PG for him too. I don't even look at listed positions any more. I recruit for players whose potentials will fit my need at one, preferably two, floor positions. 

If that means I have an SF handling the rock at point, so be it. I think a lot of people are grabbing PG's because there are a good number of PG's that have good perimeter ratings as well as the core BH and Pass. They're grabbing C's because of the higher rebound/LP/Block numbers compared to the standard PF (personally, I like the added speed/athleticism that PF's have compared to the uber-low speed numbers found in C's post-update, but that's just me...)

Posted by rowle1js on 6/15/2011 7:41:00 PM (view original):
For some reason I didn't notice it before but how come every team anymore has 5 PG's and 5 C's on their team and maybe 1 SG, SF, and PF to fill in, I know that's thirteen players but you get my point. What ever happened to the traditional line-ups of starting each player at their supposedly position, I know sometimes I may start a C at the PF position but that just seems ridiculous. I understand obviously people are doing this because of some advantage in the system but it just doesn't seem right to start three PG's or C's. Guess I am just a traditional coach, anyone else thoughts? 

Your underlying premise is flawed.  Ratings seem to have less correlation to position these days.  It's not our fault that the engine mis-labels positions.  If I find a PG with 95 per/60 bh/60 pass, why would I play him at PG?  The bigger problem is that the recruits are labeled at all.

It's nothing that anybody does purposely it just turns out that often times PGs make the best PGs and SGs. It's much more likely you find a PG who can play SG than it is you find a SG who can play PG. A lot of coaches look at their PF and C position the same and put rebounding as one of the top priorities however the way recruit generation works now PFs have a lot lower reboudng rating on average than Cs so as a result guys tend to recruit a lot of Cs since they will rebound better. PFs will have higher per/bh/pa ratings than Cs so a lot of times coaches will put PFs at SF to create a rebounding advantage. SFs are usually pigeonholed into 1 position except for the very best who you can play lots of positions so that's why you don't see as many SFs.

I could be wrong but it seems like the best PGs are listed as PGs.... the best SGs are also listed as PGs.  The best Cs are listed as Cs.... an the best PFs are also listed as Cs.

I have noticed a LOT more people going with smaller teams, however. Giving ground in the REB ratings to have smaller guys on the court and playing a press or something. Seems to be pretty successful, too.

Posted by isack24 on 6/15/2011 8:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rowle1js on 6/15/2011 7:41:00 PM (view original):
For some reason I didn't notice it before but how come every team anymore has 5 PG's and 5 C's on their team and maybe 1 SG, SF, and PF to fill in, I know that's thirteen players but you get my point. What ever happened to the traditional line-ups of starting each player at their supposedly position, I know sometimes I may start a C at the PF position but that just seems ridiculous. I understand obviously people are doing this because of some advantage in the system but it just doesn't seem right to start three PG's or C's. Guess I am just a traditional coach, anyone else thoughts? 

Your underlying premise is flawed.  Ratings seem to have less correlation to position these days.  It's not our fault that the engine mis-labels positions.  If I find a PG with 95 per/60 bh/60 pass, why would I play him at PG?  The bigger problem is that the recruits are labeled at all.

No I understand that ratings mean everything and my premise isn't flawed if you look at a lot of the better coached teams they have a lot more PG's and C's than other positions but it seems they are they better players and it is WhatifSports that is flawed at labeling positions. Really, when you are recruiting you know what position you are recruiting for so it should be an option when recruiting that maybe a PG you want as a SG so if he does sign hes listed as a SG and not a PG. But I guess that is just my weakness I like a PG playing PG , SG playing SG, etc.

Yeah, I would definitely say that's your weakness.  Trying to pigeonhole every recruit into his listed position cuts down significantly on your recruiting/coaching options and puts you at an enormous disadvantage when compared with coaches who are willing to be a little more flexible.

Posted by rowle1js on 6/15/2011 9:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 6/15/2011 8:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rowle1js on 6/15/2011 7:41:00 PM (view original):
For some reason I didn't notice it before but how come every team anymore has 5 PG's and 5 C's on their team and maybe 1 SG, SF, and PF to fill in, I know that's thirteen players but you get my point. What ever happened to the traditional line-ups of starting each player at their supposedly position, I know sometimes I may start a C at the PF position but that just seems ridiculous. I understand obviously people are doing this because of some advantage in the system but it just doesn't seem right to start three PG's or C's. Guess I am just a traditional coach, anyone else thoughts? 

Your underlying premise is flawed.  Ratings seem to have less correlation to position these days.  It's not our fault that the engine mis-labels positions.  If I find a PG with 95 per/60 bh/60 pass, why would I play him at PG?  The bigger problem is that the recruits are labeled at all.

No I understand that ratings mean everything and my premise isn't flawed if you look at a lot of the better coached teams they have a lot more PG's and C's than other positions but it seems they are they better players and it is WhatifSports that is flawed at labeling positions. Really, when you are recruiting you know what position you are recruiting for so it should be an option when recruiting that maybe a PG you want as a SG so if he does sign hes listed as a SG and not a PG. But I guess that is just my weakness I like a PG playing PG , SG playing SG, etc.

Well yeah, but your premise is that a player is a PG because he's listed as a PG.  That's what I see as flawed.  I guess to some extent the player is what he is labeled, but I don't think of a player as a PG simply because WIS mis-labels him.

Its not necessarily mislabeling.  In HS, the best player may play the "point" just to get the ball in his hands more often cause he is just that much better than the rest of the team.  In that instance, he comes up as a PG, but may be better off at the 2 or even 3 in college. 
I used to be like the OP in that I wanted each player at his listed position, but my opinion has gradually changed.  I tend now to look at PG's to play SG mostly to get better BH as I've been burned by the press too often.  I still like to get actual SF's to play the position though just because so many people avoid them you can find steals for cheap. 

Posted by milkamania on 6/15/2011 9:48:00 PM (view original):
Its not necessarily mislabeling.  In HS, the best player may play the "point" just to get the ball in his hands more often cause he is just that much better than the rest of the team.  In that instance, he comes up as a PG, but may be better off at the 2 or even 3 in college. 
I used to be like the OP in that I wanted each player at his listed position, but my opinion has gradually changed.  I tend now to look at PG's to play SG mostly to get better BH as I've been burned by the press too often.  I still like to get actual SF's to play the position though just because so many people avoid them you can find steals for cheap. 

Yeah that's true, and like you I think this is going to change how I recruit. I just always just mentally decided, like if I have a only one SF on my team I just automatically looked at the best SF I could get w/o even looking at any other position to fill since they weren't a SF.

I recruit for three positions - Big, Guard and SF.  For SF, I will look at guards with strong REB and at Bigs with strong BH, pass and SPD.  Exactly how I emphasize those and other ratings depends on what off and def we run and the rest of the roster.

The labels PG and SG and C and PF just dont matter as I view it