I promised Kelly Buford a starting gig.  My other starting guard will be Larry Delvecchio.  I think it's Delvecchio by a mile, but I'm guessing some people disagree with me, and I'd like to hear reasons why.

Buford @ PG Delvecchio at SG. 

I would prefer to play Delvecchio at PG but I don't like having a SG with ATH in the low 40's.

I'd have to agree.  If you were M2M, I'd say switch them based on def matchups, but as a zone, I don't think that matters.  Delvecchio is better at either position, but Buford has decent attributes for a freshman PG, so taking def out of the equation I think he is more effective there

I guess I'll take the other position and this is as much a question as an answer.   Do you want the guy running the point with such low IQ?  Won't that hurt the rest of the team offense dramatically?  Delvecchio is a great scorer I would have no problem putting the ball in his hands and letting him score first distribute second.  I'd put Buford at SG and set his foul trouble to less aggressive so the back up can get in as soon as Buford picks up a couple of fouls.

Buford has a D+ offensive IQ. I go with Delvecchio at the point until Buford's IQ rises to a C anyway...at least until mystery coach reveals his IQ study data...

Delvecchio at PG.  He's just a lot better player, (yes, with a much better IQ) and I'd rather have him controlling the ball the most - particularly vs. press teams.  I don't think Buford's speed advantage comes close to compensating.

Personally, I don't think Buford's speed even makes up for the passing difference.  Or the IQ difference.  Put them together and I don't think it's very close at all.  But I knew some people were going to look at those guys and see PG from Buford and SG from Vec.  Trying to understand that mindset.

given that there is really no value in having that scoring at the 1 compared to the 2, id play the stronger player at PG. to the person who said, id worry about the IQ - until recently (prompted largely, i believe, by my repeated appeals to seble), one player on the team had NO impact on another players' ability to score, except from a who is taking the shots and who is getting defended standpoint. so like, having a pg with 50 pass vs 90 did NOT get your other players better looks. at least, seble claims it does. i didnt believe it at first because i had so much success with 3 guards but having reconsidered, i concede there are plenty of reasons that helped me outside scoring, and my offensive stats were good enough to justify the fg%/3pt% without that as a factor. 

now, i think its a relatively small factor, probably less of one than we would think, especially at the pg position. the reason i mention it wasn't even a factor at all is this - generally when you'd put something like this in, you'd have to really compensate elsewhere if you made it a significant factor. and i think i'd have noticed something, especially specifically looking for it, or else, someone else would have. now, fg% and 3pt% were going up and down all over the place for a while there, but i dont believe those major changes corresponded with the new engine. they came a little later and mostly were independent of the bh/pass change, i think. when i look at the impact of bh/pass on the rest of your team, i think it is enough to see - if you look closely. but i don't think its as big as most of us would expect it to be, or as big as most of us think it is in real life. to me, having a really strong pg is going to get players a lot better looks and really help team efficiency. i dont think that is the case here, i think its just a small impact (wouldnt mind seeing a regression on fg% as a function of pg iq, bh, pass, spd, although as a rule, i don't create those myself). however, on teams with bad passing across the board, or good passing across the board, i think you can start to see a slight benefits, maybe just a few % increase in fg%. 

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/20/2012 1:26:00 PM (view original):
Personally, I don't think Buford's speed even makes up for the passing difference.  Or the IQ difference.  Put them together and I don't think it's very close at all.  But I knew some people were going to look at those guys and see PG from Buford and SG from Vec.  Trying to understand that mindset.

for me at least the thought process went like this.  Buford at least has serviceable attributes at the PG spot.  His pass and BH numbers are adequate.  He clearly is the lesser player, but you have to play him somewhere.  If you put him at the SG spot, he can't guard anyone, and he has too low ath or per to do anything on offense, so you are essentially playing 5 against 4 as he is essentially a non-factor at the sg spot. 

Why can he guard PGs and not SGs?  That doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.  Also, given that I play zone, PG and SG are defensively identical.  And I play the triangle offense, so I really don't care if one or two of my guys can't really score.

My feeling is that if I play Buford at the 1 he'll probably put up 3.5-4 TOPG and Delvecchio at the 2 will likely put up 2.5-3, for a total in the vicinity of 6.5.  If I play Vec at the 1 he'll probably turn it over 3-3.5, Buford will likely drop down to around 1.  Maybe 4.5 total.  If those numbers are reasonably close that means a 2 TO/game swing by playing Buford at the 2 instead of the 1.  That's a pretty big deal.  2 possessions/game is what, maybe 2.3-2.4 PPG?  And if anything, I think putting the better passer at PG bumps up the FG% for my other guys by a couple of percent, in this case maybe 2-3%.  That's another couple of points per game.  You really think Buford at PG is worth maybe 5-6 PPG more than he is at SG?  If so, where is he making up those points?  Not with scoring, certainly.  And as I pointed out, zone makes it a wash defensively.  Where do I win back those points?

Sounds like you already have your mind made up, yes?

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/20/2012 3:50:00 AM (view original):
I promised Kelly Buford a starting gig.  My other starting guard will be Larry Delvecchio.  I think it's Delvecchio by a mile, but I'm guessing some people disagree with me, and I'd like to hear reasons why.

Pretty much - I stated here that I think Delvecchio wins easily.  To be honest, I exaggerated a bit in my last post in the form of leaving a few minor things out, but I did estimate realistically that I would benefit about 4.5 PPG with the configuration I picked.  That's pretty much a runaway from my perspective.  That said, I was absolutely right that a number of coaches would think that Buford "looks like" a PG and Delvecchio "looks like" an SG as a result of their relative speed, LP, and PER.  Most people seem more comfortable putting a scorer at the 2.  I will say that one of the more minor things I left out is that it seems to me that elite scoring guards lose 1-2 PPG when they move from the 2 to the 1.  This is very circumstantial, based on a very small sample size.  The sample is not nearly big enough for me to say anything about FG% between the two.  It does seem guys shoot slightly less frequently when they move to the 1.  You could up the distro, but that tends to result in a small FG% penalty.  I'm actually suspicious that there's a glitch in the programming that results in "PG turnover" - IE, bringing the ball up the court, early-in-the-possession passes being picked off, etc - counting as possessions towards distro, which results in fewer shots.  Although if distro is calculated as I would want it to be - IE, every possession independently it is decided who a play is run for based on the relative distros on the floor - this shouldn't matter.  Unless PG turnovers are actually a distro result.  That seems unlikely since low-distro PGs still manage to turn it over, and it seems like early-possession turnover are additive rather than multiplicative.  So I really don't know.  But I did dock myself most of a point for playing Vec at the 1 since I don't really have anybody to do a great job of picking up the slack if he takes close to a shot less per game.

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/20/2012 3:05:00 PM (view original):
Why can he guard PGs and not SGs?  That doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.  Also, given that I play zone, PG and SG are defensively identical.  And I play the triangle offense, so I really don't care if one or two of my guys can't really score.

My feeling is that if I play Buford at the 1 he'll probably put up 3.5-4 PPG and Delvecchio at the 2 will likely put up 2.5-3, for a total in the vicinity of 6.5.  If I play Vec at the 1 he'll probably turn it over 3-3.5, Buford will likely drop down to around 1.  Maybe 4.5 total.  If those numbers are reasonably close that means a 2 TO/game swing by playing Buford at the 2 instead of the 1.  That's a pretty big deal.  2 possessions/game is what, maybe 2.3-2.4 PPG?  And if anything, I think putting the better passer at PG bumps up the FG% for my other guys by a couple of percent, in this case maybe 2-3%.  That's another couple of points per game.  You really think Buford at PG is worth maybe 5-6 PPG more than he is at SG?  If so, where is he making up those points?  Not with scoring, certainly.  And as I pointed out, zone makes it a wash defensively.  Where do I win back those points?

what the hell are you talking about? delvecchio you expect to be a 2.5-3ppg scorer if he played sg? that sounds ridiculously low. also, where in the world are you coming up with your turnover figures. you say 2 tos/game but dont say what your are predicting with each player at each positiion. and i dont think the numbers you throw out, which arent even really identified so i might be guessing wrong at what you are saying, make much sense.

i really am not following your logic dahs, for pretty much of what you said in your last couple posts. you are kind of all over the place. maybe try splitting into short paragraphs so you keep 1 topic together, and so its clear when you are switching. i think you have some serious misconceptions but its hard to identify them in what you said.

Why would you guarantee him a starter in the first place?