Charles Barkley. Dennis Rodman.  

Posted by kmasonbx on 10/6/2011 2:44:00 PM (view original):

33-32

The jump hook by Robert Shutts is blocked by Howard Roth

In of itself it doesn't seem like too big of a deal but when you consider Robert Shutts is 7'2 with 98 athleticism and Roth is 6'8 with 92ath and you think about how hard jump hooks are to block to begin with, a guy at a 6 inch height disadvantage and a slightly worse athlete probably shouldn't be able to block a jump hook. This is the equivalent to Dwyane Wade blocking a jump hook from Dwight Howard.

There are other situations where I think height+weight should be a multiplier. In this same situation if Roth was defending Shutts 1 on1 he should do a decent jump because of his 92ath/55sp/99D/A IQ to Shutts' 98ath/62sp/99lp/69per/54bh/A- IQ. Purelly off of ath/sp/D/IQ Roth is a great guy to guard Shutts but that doesn't consider that he's giving away 6 inches in height and 44 pounds in weight. Even being a great athlete and having great defensive fundamentals there is just no way you can make up the difference of the physical edge.

But it is NOT the same at all.

A person's height and weight are taken into account in the "generation" of the numbers.

They are already a multiplier.

A guy who is 7'2" is getting a better rebounding score than a guy who is 5'10". If their "natural ability" to rebound is the same, then the 7'2" guy gets a higher rating precisely because he is 7'2" already. Same thing for shot blocking, etc.

To take the same thing into account twice is not going to help anything, IMHO.

So, they could take it out of the initial numbers generation and add it in later as a multiplier ... in which case, you would then need to add it in yourself to see it ... or they can leave it like it is.

This means, for example, if a 5'10" guy has a 99 for rebounding, then his "natural ability" to rebound is MUCH GREATER than a 7"2' guy who has the same 99 rebounding rating. The 5'10" guy is ALWAYS in the correct rebounding position, can read the ball off the glass much better than most, has an uncanny ability to know where the rebound is going, etc. The 7'2" is not as good in many of those skills ... but he is 7'2" ... so that fact alone allows him to many times out rebound guys who are much better with their "natural rebounding" ability.

Posted by hughesjr on 10/8/2011 7:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kmasonbx on 10/6/2011 2:44:00 PM (view original):

33-32

The jump hook by Robert Shutts is blocked by Howard Roth

In of itself it doesn't seem like too big of a deal but when you consider Robert Shutts is 7'2 with 98 athleticism and Roth is 6'8 with 92ath and you think about how hard jump hooks are to block to begin with, a guy at a 6 inch height disadvantage and a slightly worse athlete probably shouldn't be able to block a jump hook. This is the equivalent to Dwyane Wade blocking a jump hook from Dwight Howard.

There are other situations where I think height+weight should be a multiplier. In this same situation if Roth was defending Shutts 1 on1 he should do a decent jump because of his 92ath/55sp/99D/A IQ to Shutts' 98ath/62sp/99lp/69per/54bh/A- IQ. Purelly off of ath/sp/D/IQ Roth is a great guy to guard Shutts but that doesn't consider that he's giving away 6 inches in height and 44 pounds in weight. Even being a great athlete and having great defensive fundamentals there is just no way you can make up the difference of the physical edge.

But it is NOT the same at all.

A person's height and weight are taken into account in the "generation" of the numbers.

They are already a multiplier.

A guy who is 7'2" is getting a better rebounding score than a guy who is 5'10". If their "natural ability" to rebound is the same, then the 7'2" guy gets a higher rating precisely because he is 7'2" already. Same thing for shot blocking, etc.

To take the same thing into account twice is not going to help anything, IMHO.

So, they could take it out of the initial numbers generation and add it in later as a multiplier ... in which case, you would then need to add it in yourself to see it ... or they can leave it like it is.

This means, for example, if a 5'10" guy has a 99 for rebounding, then his "natural ability" to rebound is MUCH GREATER than a 7"2' guy who has the same 99 rebounding rating. The 5'10" guy is ALWAYS in the correct rebounding position, can read the ball off the glass much better than most, has an uncanny ability to know where the rebound is going, etc. The 7'2" is not as good in many of those skills ... but he is 7'2" ... so that fact alone allows him to many times out rebound guys who are much better with their "natural rebounding" ability.

This.

Yeah, I think that's a good explanation, hughes.

Posted by isack24 on 10/8/2011 10:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 10/8/2011 2:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ike1024 on 10/7/2011 10:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 10/7/2011 10:10:00 PM (view original):
The explanation for years is that the height and weight are already cooked into the ratings. I think we all know that by now.

And a very significant point made by someone else is that trying to incorporate this in the way that kmason wants would require a major recoding. Not only is that a bad idea on its face, but the unintended consequences likely to result from such a thing frighten me to my core. We all know the history ehre.

I am very confident in saying that such an endeavor (adding height weight in the manner kmason wants) would cause many more problems than it would solve.

I totally agree with the last sentence, which is why I'm not advocating for a major change.

But I think it's ridiculous that you guys are fighting the simple issue that defensively a guard shouldn't be able to guard a C in the post (outside of rebounding), but in this game he can.

there is no such thing as "outside of rebounding" If a PG tried to guard a C the C would get a dozen pts off offensive rebounds and putbacks. That is not effective guarding. I don't know why you can't understand THAT. If you are so certain a PG can guard a C in the paint, start playing PGs at center. You keep stating something as a fact that is simply not true. A PG may be fast and athletic enough to keep up, but he'll get killed on the boards, (on his defensive boards, the C's offensive boards - notice how for the PG those are called DEFENSIVE rebounds, implying that they are a part of DEFENSE??)
So I say again. A PG cannot guard a C in this game or any other, because rebounding is part of defense at that position. I won't bother trying to explain this a 4th time.

Ugh.

In real life, can an athletic PG consistently stop a C when he gets the ball in the post?  No.

In this game, can an athletic PG stop a C when he gets the ball in the post?  Yes.

In real life, a team would dump the ball down low every time and there would be no reason to ever get offensive rebounds because the PG would be getting dunked on every time.  

Again, there may be no better way to do it, but that shouldn't happen.

For the last time (seriously) show me an example of a PG successfully guarding a C in this game. Where are the PBPs? You keep making statements of fact with no supporting evidence.

Posted by isack24 on 10/8/2011 10:52:00 AM (view original):
I think anyone who has played the game for more than five seasons knows that defense is about ath/spd/def and to a lesser extent, SB.  I have yet to hear anyone other than you disagree with the proposition that a high ath/spd/def guard could stop a medium ath/spd/lp big at the point of getting the ball in the post.

Well if no one else is bothering to argue with your unprovable point that must make it true I guess. Whatever man, I guess we'll just disagree on this - unless you can show me a PBP that proves your point, then I will graciously concede. Until then, I'm out.