Phelan - 17 EE's, None Are Guards Topic

professor17
Posts: 366 (0)
Hall of Famer
222 13
Rookie
So a player's listed position is actually taken into consideration when deciding on EE/draft logic? Shouldn't it strictly be ratings? OK, I concede Conti only has 74 Passing, which would hurt him if he was strictly being considered as a PG (his listed position), but his skills are much better suited to being a SG, as which he would probably be just about the best one out there. It doesn't seem right that whether a player is listed as a "PG" or "SG" is what determines whether a player gets drafted or goes EE, which seems to be the case here. Is there any doubt Conti would be a high draft pick if he was listed as a "SG"? 
6/27/2012 2:07 PM (edited)
grecianfox
Posts: 131 (0)
Hall of Famer
760 5 72 11
Rookie
Thanks for checking in Seble. I really appreciate your attention to this since it is important to many of us, especially the group of coaches that have high level DI teams. Quick questions - Does the EE formula look at different criteria for PGs and SGs? In the above post you noted the Montigo only has a 76 BH and 84 PA but his ATH, SPD and PER would probably place him in elite status when compared to other SGs. If you have a different formulafor each position I think that there should only be 3 categories (guards, sfs, and bigs).
6/27/2012 2:05 PM
grecianfox
Posts: 131 (0)
Hall of Famer
760 5 72 11
Rookie
Posted by buddhagamer on 6/27/2012 2:00:00 PM (view original):
So I'm guessing my soph PF was unlucky then?  Since he was a sophmore I am assuming he'll be drafted in the higher portion of the 1st round then?  It would REALLY suck if he was picked in the second round as a sophmore and I were to lose a stud player and not even get a prestige bump to boot.

It seems to me that just getting to the NT put me on the same playing field as all those elite programs above me which all I'm trying to do is to reach an even playing field to recruit the same players.  As it is, I'm at a huge disadvantage to those that are already have a higher prestige AND making deep tourney runs than I can accomplish trying to rebuild.
Under the old logic I am pretty sure that sophomores and freshmen who declared were drafted in the first round. I don't think that has changed.
6/27/2012 2:06 PM
buddhagamer
Posts: 4054 (0)
Hall of Famer
513 249 118
Pro
My issue with all of this was I was under the impression that post season success was going to have a bigger influence on whether you have EEs or not.  When a A+ program loses a player to EE, they just look around at the nearest 5 star and begin to plan how to recruit that player versus any nearby high prestige school (usually on a level playing field).

For a non A prestige school (even in a big 6 conference), this is more problematic since the higher prestige schools have a distinct advantage over me to replace that player.  I wouldn't even be balking if I was actually making a deep run and increasing my prestige but it isn't moving AND I'm losing players that I need to compete which is making it doubly difficult to compete in my conference.
6/27/2012 2:15 PM
jdno
Posts: 655 (0)
Hall of Famer
152
Rookie
I agree with professor and grecian on those 3 guards in question.  It seems the narrow focus on passing for a PG is too stringent if it's excluding the elite ratings in ATH/SP/DEF/PER.  It would seem that the positional formula could use some tweaking.  If they're EE-eligible and decide to stay, I guess that's one thing.  But to say they don't meet the hurdle of even being EE-eligible b/c of their overall talent seems erroneous.


6/27/2012 2:16 PM
gillispie1
Posts: 5030 (0)
Hall of Famer
95
Veteran
seble - thanks for the quick responses! as professor said, its MUCH appreciated. those numbers you posted on people deciding to stay makes it sound like roughly half stayed. thats interesting - but i am a little concerned at the ratios, based on the sheer number of specific guards listed, if we assume as many guards decided to stay as bigs, but only one guard (or zero) decided to leave early, compared to teens of bigs - that just sounds kind of skewed. i dont know if its just bad luck, but if guards and bigs make decisions similarly, it seems pretty unlikely the current scenario would happen. 1 guard out of 9, if its 50/50, is a 1 in 50 scenario (ish). if its 0 out of 8 in the other world, that would be 1 in 256, 0 in 10, 1 in 1024. are my numbers off? or did that we get that extreme of an RNG? or am i missing something (my money is on the latter, for what its worth - which is exactly why i am so curious).

i would also like to hear the answer to the PG/SG equation thing. do you consider players by listed position? this would be important to know - then, for example, a SG who is really a PG, is better than an equally talented PG, assuming he will be looked upon less favorably as a SG. similarly with SGs in PG clothing, and all other cases like that.

also, can you confirm that there is nothing in place (other than 6 limit) that makes teams less likely to lose a bunch of EEs? i never saw anything in your notes or posts about it, like, the 2nd player to get drafted is more likely to opt to stay, or anything like that. yet, the numbers look fairly balanced, except that the couple schools who lost multiple don't really sound right. re: BC - great or not, players largely dont get drafted off schools out of the limelight, you cant prove you are the best if you never even play the good. and the common scenario for BC type situation - a bad team with a couple great players - is that a coach leaves, a sim takes over, a new coach comes in, trying to capitalize on the few good players left before they are gone. in that case, those couple players can be the difference between a team that is a complete wreck, and a salvageable team. i think its in our best interests to keep these kinds of situations salvageable, and it is more realistic, i think.

also, can someone in one of those worlds post a bit more about the BYU situation? did BYU really lose 3 early? that just sounds wrong, unless its you know, a lost myth st bon type of mid major. if so, then they probably should have lost 4 or 5 ;) but really -  can anyone in that world elaborate a bit? would love to see it!

thanks again seble for your more active role these days. it is arguably the best change ive ever seen in HD.
6/27/2012 2:18 PM
gillispie1
Posts: 5030 (0)
Hall of Famer
95
Veteran
Posted by grecianfox on 6/27/2012 2:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by buddhagamer on 6/27/2012 2:00:00 PM (view original):
So I'm guessing my soph PF was unlucky then?  Since he was a sophmore I am assuming he'll be drafted in the higher portion of the 1st round then?  It would REALLY suck if he was picked in the second round as a sophmore and I were to lose a stud player and not even get a prestige bump to boot.

It seems to me that just getting to the NT put me on the same playing field as all those elite programs above me which all I'm trying to do is to reach an even playing field to recruit the same players.  As it is, I'm at a huge disadvantage to those that are already have a higher prestige AND making deep tourney runs than I can accomplish trying to rebuild.
Under the old logic I am pretty sure that sophomores and freshmen who declared were drafted in the first round. I don't think that has changed.
interesting. i cant think of a counter example, but i never realized this. seble - can you confirm what GF says is still true (im not doubting it WAS true, but is it still?)
6/27/2012 2:19 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
seble is potential included in the EE formula at all?
6/27/2012 2:22 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Professor - of the players you posted I think that Silvester is very draftable, by far over the other two.

http://www.wisjournal.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=2152379
6/27/2012 2:25 PM
professor17
Posts: 366 (0)
Hall of Famer
222 13
Rookie
Actually, it was grecianfox who offered his appreciation for seble's attention to this, but I would certainly like to second (or third) that sentiment. It's encouraging to know you're willing to discuss such issues with us.
6/27/2012 2:29 PM
buddhagamer
Posts: 4054 (0)
Hall of Famer
513 249 118
Pro
Posted by professor17 on 6/27/2012 2:07:00 PM (view original):
So a player's listed position is actually taken into consideration when deciding on EE/draft logic? Shouldn't it strictly be ratings? OK, I concede Conti only has 74 Passing, which would hurt him if he was strictly being considered as a PG (his listed position), but his skills are much better suited to being a SG, as which he would probably be just about the best one out there. It doesn't seem right that whether a player is listed as a "PG" or "SG" is what determines whether a player gets drafted or goes EE, which seems to be the case here. Is there any doubt Conti would be a high draft pick if he was listed as a "SG"? 

Conti started every single game as the SG starter this past season... and on the flip side a SG (with 91 Pass) played the starting PG position for Miami as well.

6/27/2012 2:36 PM
gillispie1
Posts: 5030 (0)
Hall of Famer
95
Veteran
Posted by professor17 on 6/27/2012 2:29:00 PM (view original):
Actually, it was grecianfox who offered his appreciation for seble's attention to this, but I would certainly like to second (or third) that sentiment. It's encouraging to know you're willing to discuss such issues with us.
oh, my bad, your post was right on top and i glanced wrong when i was typing out who i was seconding :)
6/27/2012 2:40 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Posted by gillispie1 on 6/27/2012 2:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by professor17 on 6/27/2012 2:29:00 PM (view original):
Actually, it was grecianfox who offered his appreciation for seble's attention to this, but I would certainly like to second (or third) that sentiment. It's encouraging to know you're willing to discuss such issues with us.
oh, my bad, your post was right on top and i glanced wrong when i was typing out who i was seconding :)
I'll 4th, 5th and 6th it. Regardless of whether seble agrees with some of the things the coaches are saying or not (either here or in other threads) it's great to see the devs spend a bit of time interacting with their customers and most importantly helping us understand the changes that just went into effect.

Thanks seble
6/27/2012 2:45 PM
seble
Posts: 880 (0)
Hall of Famer
24 44 35 306 121 185
Prospect
Posted by professor17 on 6/27/2012 2:07:00 PM (view original):
So a player's listed position is actually taken into consideration when deciding on EE/draft logic? Shouldn't it strictly be ratings? OK, I concede Conti only has 74 Passing, which would hurt him if he was strictly being considered as a PG (his listed position), but his skills are much better suited to being a SG, as which he would probably be just about the best one out there. It doesn't seem right that whether a player is listed as a "PG" or "SG" is what determines whether a player gets drafted or goes EE, which seems to be the case here. Is there any doubt Conti would be a high draft pick if he was listed as a "SG"? 
It's a position-specific weighted rating formula, and then compared to the world average for that position.  In some cases you have a point about position, but the vast majority will be strongest at their listed position.  And really, it's somewhat realistic that a question about position fit can hurt draft stock.  Not that I was going for that.
6/27/2012 2:49 PM
seble
Posts: 880 (0)
Hall of Famer
24 44 35 306 121 185
Prospect
Posted by zhawks on 6/27/2012 2:22:00 PM (view original):
seble is potential included in the EE formula at all?
No.
6/27/2012 2:50 PM
◂ Prev 123456 Next ▸
Phelan - 17 EE's, None Are Guards Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.