It says right there he played 24 games at PG. I wouldn't say that's a primary position over the course of a season. I understand your argument that he should be 100% based on that, but we don't want to set a precedent for changing those unless the player is at the wrong listed position.

And Hodges only played 1112 minutes with only 6 starts.

and yet you have Hodges listed at 100% for PG that season and he started and/or played at that position a sum total of 0 times

(so go ahead and tell me again how your system works)

in the case of the 88-89 Bulls you have 3 guys playing significant minutes at PG listed 100%

the most statistically PG like player on the team however, the one who it has now been proven started multiple games at the position over the course of the season is penalized

while two players who were notable spot up shooters throughout their careers, one of whom played 0 minutes at the position let alone started are listed at 100%

in short you are wrong and now you are just being stubborn

I think anyone who can present a case this solid should be listened to and it would make the sim better if you were to allow such cases brought before you

like colonels said in this instance where is the dissenting voice?

It has nothing to do with where they actually played, other than what their listed position is. The system tells us how similar the player's numbers are to each position historically, which we use to determine how effective they'd be at each position. If we stuck to where they actually played their minutes it would be even more limiting than our current system. And of course we don't historical data for what positions each guy played.

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 8/25/2008It has nothing to do with where they actually played, other than what their listed position is. The system tells us how similar the player's numbers are to each position historically, which we use to determine how effective they'd be at each position. If we stuck to where they actually played their minutes it would be even more limiting than our current system. And of course we don't historical data for what positions each guy played

he lead his team in assists and ap48m

It doesn't just look at one number. I'm guessing his rebounds and scoring make him look less like historical PGs.

Chris Paul lead his team in scoring last season - does that mean he wasnt the PG?

conversely AI playing next to Eric Snow was the SG but you have him listed as 100% able at PG in most seasons (probably due to his apg (and height?)) and he was also the primary scorer (by far)

distribution is the primary role of the PG in most systems (outside of a couple of extraordinary players like Wilt or Bird who clearly shouldnt be playing PG or system teams like the bulls and lakers playing the triangle how often doesnt the PG lead the team in assists?)

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 8/25/2008
It has nothing to do with where they actually played, other than what their listed position is.

and let me go back to this - maybe the fact that a player actually played at a position should factor into the equation at least to some extent

if he generated the stats at that position why should he be penalized at that position?

it seems to me that maybe the equation doesnt take primary stats into consideration with enough weight - I know you dont want to wind up dragging a Wilt or Bird into the back court but it is something to think about

We have no data (other than maybe the last few seasons) for positions played.

in cases where you do maybe you should retain some flexibility in making this kind of determination

Quick breakdown of Ast/Gm leaders throughout history:

76% PG
15% SG
7% SF
2% PF
1% C

Ultimately, it's much easier for us to devise a system that is as objective as possible given the limited data and stick to that system. Once we introduce manual changes, it becomes a slippery slope. I think it's more beneficial to the game to spend time working on improving engine accuracy and adding features than moderating an argument in the forums over whether Player X from 1975-76 should be 97% effective or 100% at SF.

If there's one thing I've learned working for a sports website it's that there are almost as many differing opinions as there are users.

But Scott, in this one instance, show me someone that is saying, Michael Jordan shouldn't be 100% at PG.

Listening to your customers opinions and criticisms are key to becoming and maintaining a successful business. Remember, all criticism is somewhat constructive...so you may look at monkee as an @$$hole, but I can't think of one thing I've disagreed with him on when he suggests sim changes. He has a really good pulse for the game and has excellent basketball knowledge...listening and pondering over defending and punking...

Jordan played point guard in 88-89.

I don't know what source you're using to say that Paxson and the other guy started at point guard, but they didn't.

There's a biography/autobiography I read many years ago. I'll try and find it. Both Jordan and Doug Collins (coach of Jordan that year) discuss the experiment in a chapter.

Who should you trust more? Some website database ran by people who may or may not have even watched at the time or the coach and player themselves.

Seriously.

Changing this one Jordan is not really the point. Please read my previous post.