Posted by hughesjr on 4/14/2015 10:36:00 AM (view original):
emy: You probably don't like this guy for a scorer either: Joseph Hines.
But I like him a lot. Especially how he draws fouls and makes free throws.
Nope, I like him a lot actually. With that Ath/IQ/FT combination and just enough LP/Per/BH, he could be a very valuable part of a team.
What I was trying to say earlier, and I guess I didn't make myself clear, was that players like that guy can be valuable. Very valuable in some cases, but you won't be able to win consistently with a LOT of players like that. Nothing at all wrong with a "specialist" or two on a team, but there's a lot wrong with a team FULL of them.
I LOVE players with high Athleticism ratings and good to very good free throw ratings. Those guys can give you some very efficient numbers over the course of a season or even career. But eventually, to win and win big (and this is just my humble opinion), you have to have a couple of players you can really lean on to score big points. Of course, my definition of big points is probably different than others because I tend to try to build more defense-oriented teams that grind it out and shut the other team down. Sure, it's nice to average 100 points a game, but there's nothing wrong with averaging 60 a game either, especially if you're holding the other team to less than 50 (which is usually my goal that I shoot for, pun intended).
I've probably cost myself a dozen titles (literally) because I'm too hard headed to recruit for big time scoring and stick to recruiting to stop the other team from scoring. Me personally, I'd rather win a game 60-45, than to win 95-85 but unfortunately what I've tended to notice is that the game really favors an offensive minded team over a shut down defensive-type team. Don't get me wrong, you can win titles with teams like I try to build, I've got enough titles to prove that. I just think that it's "easier" to win a title with an offensive as opposed to defensive team.
I guess what I'm trying to say, in way too many words, is that an above average offensive-minded team has a better chance to win a title than an above average-defensive minded team. If you had two teams, one that you would give an A+ offensively but only a B defensively and they faced off against a team that would be an A+ defensively but only a B offensively, the first team (in my opinion) would beat the second team more often than not. Again, in my humble opinion, a team has to be "better" defensively by a decent margin than the other team is offensively. If that makes any sense at all. I know what I'm trying to say, I just don't know if I'm getting my point across clearly.
And while we're on the subject, I also feel (again opinion only) that a team running a Zone has to be SIGNIFICANTLY better than the team they are facing in order to have a fair chance. Zone teams can win, sure, I've won titles with zone teams, but compared to a team running M2M or a FCP, they are at a huge disadvantage right off the rip. One of the biggest flaws in the game if you ask me (and I know no one did).
Enough rambling for now. Just my, well, way more than two cents I guess. Take care. Oh, and while proofreading I noticed that I offered "my opinion" way too many times, ha ha. Should have just had a disclaimer at the top that read the following is Emy's humble opinions only. They do not reflect the views of the HD community as a whole and actually will probably be met with derision, hate, lots of name calling, disagreement, and a whole bunch of flaming. Proceed with caution.....or, you know, something like that.
4/14/2015 1:06 PM (edited)