This is a slight bit of venting, but i dont understand this game sometimes. This is dealing with a Div II team to keep expectations in mind. Maybe my perception of a solid player is a bit off, but i think this guy is pretty solid for Div II minus his FT shooting.

I just imagine he would average more than 9 points a game or 37% shooting. He can be a slasher or mid range perimeter guy imo and seems to fail at both. He has the 2nd highest distro just behind my C which should mean decent scoring and there are talented guys around him. He has A IQ.

I just expected more out of this player and am a bit disappointed. Any thoughts on possible flaws in usage?

I mostly use him at a -1 to 0 setting depending on the defense i play.

http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=12114&pid=1333338

The only thing I could come up with is that his ball handling is slightly less than, and many have said that BH is a key cog in perimeter shooting performance.

The other problem is that he's a shooting guard, and therefore will underachieve, no matter what you do. I get your venting; my last 2 starting SG's (at DII as well), were both 60-70 ATH, 85+SPD, 90+PER (one guy was a 97 PER), and I struggled to get either of them to shoot over 35% against humans.

For what its worth, I try to play fast ballhandlers at both guards and put either fast and athletic bigs at SF or put my good PER SG at the 3 - for some reason the shooters seem to perform better there...

it was a thought before. I just didnt want to play him at SF because of his low rebounding.

he is only avg div 2 player in my estimation. His numbers aren't that surprising.

He is one of the better scorers in all of D2 and is def underachieving. With those ATH, SPD, and PER numbers he should be doing better then he currently is. It could be a small sample size, but this happens to all of us and is frustrating as hell!

Thanks for the input guys. This was more about venting obviously, but i like to see what constructive criticism i can recieve whenever the opportunity shows. You never know what you could be missing on gameplanning or as i said, if perception is a bit off, so it's good to get opinions.

i am going to throw this one out there, and feel free to hammer me on it. i know seble, in that sim engine thread and possibly in a couple CS tickets, has specifically responded that a players fg% is not affected by the passing rating of any other player on the team. further, when a guy has the ball, the chance of him making it is supposedly independent of the ratings of the rest of the players on the team.

well, as i have said a few times, from a design standpoint, it makes 0 sense. sim league basketball's sim engine description, which follows a very similar logic path to HD, uses the assists of other players in calculating a player's chance of scoring. i believe this was to capture the effect where, for example, a great pg gets his guys better open looks, so their fg% will clearly go up. in HD, there are no assist stats, as these are not real players. but does passing, among other things, not approximate the same ability? i believe HD is a translation of the sim league engine, done by the same guy (not positive but it seems pretty likely). why would he leave that out, when it is such an obvious component of real life basketball? when virtually every other real life stat used in sim league basketball appears to be approximated for HD players with their ratings?

since that discussion, i have attempted the same type of strategy i have employed on virtually every team ive had in the last year and a half, but i've tried starting a poor passing sf at the 3 (compared to a quality passing guard). also, there is a corresponding hit to bh, and in one case, speed. well, when i do it, i just can't get my offense to gel as i would expect, if CSs claim was true. nor how i know they can perform if set up right. these are small forwards who put up good scoring number in both the starting and backup role, so i don't feel there is a loss of an offensive threat to justify what i am seeing.

maybe its the ball handling, but when you consider how much bh effects the scoring of a guard as well as turnovers, compared to passing, you would think passing would have a significantly greater impact on the rest of the team than bh. maybe it is just in turnovers, as CS claims. but this should not impact fg%. i have a small sample size, but my intuition since i've started to do well with this strategy my #2 focus has been excellent bh/passing at the 1 and 3. as soon as i start to waver, i feel the hit. maybe its the RNG, maybe its some other attributes. in one case, i had 0 seniors, so iq was obviously a factor. theres definitely a lot of things out there working to cloud my judgement in every case. but, when i make a switch and see a shift in results, most of the effects in play before the switch, remain in play after the switch. i can't help but key on the passing, or, an assist rating approximation (which could be something like, a player by player analysis of assist ability, weighted by position, where the formula for a guard would consist primarily of passing, but also significant amount of bh, offensive iq, spd, and a little ath).

I do agree their explanation that the pa of other players not factoring in doesn't make any sense. I have not been tracking that specifically. But I think of my Montana team:

Last season I started a pf at sf. He was not a good passer. This season I've started a sg at sf, with a pa rating in the 80's. I had the same four guards, and three of the four same bigs around him. My starting guards are actually performing worse offensively (and my starting center is performing considerably worse) with the much superior passer at sf.

Now, maybe two seasons isn't a large enough sample size. But the roster is virtually identical, the SOS is virtually identical and the players all have better iq/ratings than last season. So at the very least it's made me wonder.

i start a 29 pa true sf on my d2 team, he is backed up by a 10 pa true sf, everyone else on the team is a good to great passer. my assist to TO ratio is approx 16.5 to 13.5, and I am averaging 70 ppg running normal pace. The team has 3 seniors, but 2 are juco's, so IQ's are ok, but not thru the roof (2 jrs, 4 so, 3 frosh)

http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=14189

I am 22-3, but all 3 of my losses were to top 10 teams by a basket or two, 2 in ot, other one on the road - the only thing at all abnormal is the 10 PA guy seems to be maybe .5 TO higher than normal. The 10 pa guy is an absolute beast, a redshirt frosh who may average 10ppg by seasons end, so his hi to rate might simply be due to his high number of touches.

I think things like pass ratings get added up to form a team value, and the team value determines as much or more than individual values do, I also think that sf pa is factored, so pg and sg pass mean more than sf, pf or c pass.

this game is highly speculative, truth is noone knows exactly, keeps us guessing. that is why I sometimes laugh when coaches get real deterministic about strategy, yet can't answer with any certainty even the most basic questions, like how important is sf passing?

thanks guys for sharing this stuff. very interesting.

count me in as well as one who feels that sebles comment about the effect of teammmates passing makes zero sense.

and i agree that it doesnt jive with what i think i have seen with my teams. i have not studies my teams even to the degree that doc has, but i, too get the sense that passing makes a difference.

OR's point about a "team rating" makes sense. and it seems to correlate well with what i see, too.

what i mean is that when i have a strong, deep team, it seems as though i get alot of these "run-of-the-mill benchplayers" who play way over thier head. for instance, when i have a good deep team, i can get gaurds with 45PE to be real three point threats... guys who take half of their shots from behing the arc and make 45%+ from out there. that happens all the time. could be other factors too, but i think the "team rating" thing makes sense.

OR, any guess as to whether the engine constantly recalculates this "team rating" based on who is one the floor? I would hope so.

good stuff

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 12/04/2009
iI think things like pass ratings get added up to form a team value, and the team value determines as much or more than individual values do, I also think that sf pa is factored, so pg and sg pass mean more than sf, pf or c pass.

From what I have seen, I think this is true with most of the ratings (ie - rebounding/speed/ATH/defense). It also explains why it seems individual matchups don't mean anything in HD.

Quote: Originally posted by oldresorter on 12/04/2009i start a 29 pa true sf on my d2 team, he is backed up by a 10 pa true sf, everyone else on the team is a good to great passer.  my assist to TO ratio is approx 16.5 to 13.5, and I am averaging 70 ppg running normal pace.  The team has 3 seniors, but 2 are juco's, so IQ's are ok, but not thru the roof (2 jrs, 4 so, 3 frosh)http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=14189 I am 22-3, but all 3 of my losses were to top 10 teams by a basket or two, 2 in ot, other one on the road - the only thing at all abnormal is the 10 PA guy seems to be maybe .5 TO higher than normal.  The 10 pa guy is an absolute beast, a redshirt frosh who may average 10ppg by seasons end, so his hi to rate might simply be due to his high number of touches.I think things like pass ratings get added up to form a team value, and the team value determines as much or more than individual values do, I also think that sf pa is factored, so pg and sg pass mean more than sf, pf or c pass.this game is highly speculative, truth is noone knows exactly, keeps us guessing.  that is why I sometimes laugh when coaches get real deterministic about strategy, yet can't answer with any certainty even the most basic questions, like how important is sf passing? 

a little misleading - as it is the most basic questions that are the hardest to answer. the are the most open ended, and the least specific. plus, i think small forwards have their place, and the answer would change more than slightly based on the other factors. not that i am disagreeing - i don't.

Quote: Originally posted by oldave on 12/04/2009thanks guys for sharing this stuff.  very interesting.count me in as well  as one who feels that sebles comment about the effect of teammmates passing makes zero sense.and i agree that it doesnt jive with what i think  i have seen with my teams.   i have not studies my teams even to the degree that doc has,  but i, too get the sense that passing makes a difference.OR's point about a "team rating"  makes sense.  and it seems to correlate well with what i see, too.what i mean is that when i have a strong, deep team,  it seems as though i get alot of these "run-of-the-mill benchplayers" who play way over thier head.  for instance,  when i have a good deep team,  i can get gaurds with 45PE to be real three point threats... guys who take half of their shots from behing the arc and make 45%+ from out there.   that happens all the time.  could be other factors too,  but i think the "team rating" thing makes sense.OR,  any guess as to whether the engine constantly recalculates this "team rating" based on who is one the floor?  I would hope so.good stuff

i am on board with a team rating concept as well. whether you call it that or not, CS has said and everyone seems to accept, a player is effected by his team mates' ratings... so there have to be estimations of the quality of his team mates in some respect all over the place, in the sim engine.

but, it doesn't do 1 bit to explain the fg% stuff. not that anybody said it did (i think), but i am just saying. once a guy has the ball, and is in the shooting process, team ratings are not a factor, according to CS.

i would guess the engine almost definitely recalculates the team rating based on who is on the floor