Is that really necessary? A true low post player is a strong rebounder and obviously strong in the low post. A true point has good ball skills and passing. To me that's part of the problem. Everybody wants to quantify everything instead of applying some common sense. Hybrids are the rarity, not the other way around. I like the goal of diversity and development, but just think it's been taken too far.

I would agree with jlay's sentiment. Even at the highest levels, there are too many guys that can't do thinks that should be pretty basic for their position (i.e. pf's rebounding).

Very good idea, I still think it's better than the old recruits, but I agree that they got too "cute" with it.

Posted by grantduck on 6/19/2010 2:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dalter on 6/18/2010 9:49:00 PM (view original):
grant, I think you're confusing a lack of diversity with a lowering of ratings.

I honestly can't imagine anyone looking at recruit generation before and after and really thinking that there's less diversity now.

Even your last statement above --  "their base value appear much less diverse" -- I think really means "their base values are lower". There was precious little recruit diversity in the old engine. Now there are more bigs that can pass, shoot or dribble, more guards with lp or reb, etc. But you have to accept the fact that starting ratings are lower across the board (and they truly needed to be to fix DI), so that whereas maybe 50 in a category was good to start with before, now it might be 40.

I disagree, perhaps not overall, but on my original points.  Primarily because there are still lots of high speed guards.   Ratings may be lower across the board, but there are still plenty of guards with 60-70 spd ratings coming out.  There flat aren't enough bigs with spd ratings above 35. 

Before we saw both slow and fast big men.  Now we don't.  We saw a range before from about 10 spd up to about 65.  Now it's more from 10-35.  That's a decrease in diversity, is it not?

I also don't see any guards that are "good rebounders" as I pointed out before at the low D-1/D-II level.  Feel free to point some out if you see them.I would think we'd see some guards with ATH 40 RB 40 if they were truly going for diversity. There were a total of 5 at D-I and 2 at D-II(one of which had a WE of 1).

We can nitpick back and forth about various points, sure, but I will stand firmly behind: Big men need a speed increase in their base ratings.

Just how many fast big men do you think there really are/should be? The simple truth is that the overwhelming majority of bigs are not fast.

Posted by jlay on 6/19/2010 8:32:00 AM (view original):
Is that really necessary? A true low post player is a strong rebounder and obviously strong in the low post. A true point has good ball skills and passing. To me that's part of the problem. Everybody wants to quantify everything instead of applying some common sense. Hybrids are the rarity, not the other way around. I like the goal of diversity and development, but just think it's been taken too far.

QUantifying things is a way to make sure you are talking abotu the same thing;  What someone else views as adequate in those rating areas to be a 'true point' might not be the same as you.

I went on record quite early in opposition of seble's rating plan.  I dropped it when it was obvious I was not making headway, sometime in the beta test process. 

I can see why he did it, as at least half the coaches who voice their opinions appear to be in favor of diverse ratings or lets say a change to the rating system, which is a pretty big %, since few changes are really ever wanted by a majority of the coaches in this game.  I could easily make all kinds of points in favor of seble's system, so don't bore me with flaming attempts.

The problem is if the engine blows up with the d1 level 40-60 reb PF and 40-60 pass pg's playing, and if players don't improve,  and if recruiting no longer is fun because no good players are available, we are stuck with the mess for 4 to 6 months.  Those of us who suffered thru FSS recall this lengthly time one is stuck with bad ratings systems, and also recall the mass exodus of coaches when the game quit working.  The risk of this new system is immense.

Ratings are the heart of this game. 

1-How ratings cause the engine to behave gives us box score results, which is why we play. 

2-Improvement in ratings thru practice plans gives us hope, when wins and losses are not going our way.  The less the potential for improvement, the less hope.

3-And next year's recruitment class, is always waiting, to bolster the ranks when things look pretty depleted.  The more hope that one has a shot at a good class, the better

As far as I know, the new system takes something away from both points 2 & 3, and minimally point 1 with the new rating system is a "Noone knows" at this juncture in time.

By the way flamers, I wrote this to seble 2 weeks ago, he responded very clearly and very positively to my feedback, and told me' he gets it', and to give the new system a chance.  

That is what I am going to do & I suggest others need to also.  I am not excited at all about the prospects,  however I do have my fingers crossed.

What I see happening is this. 1) Teams with a heavy roster of developed returning players from the old system will do well initially. 2) Top Tier teams will continue to grab the few players that have the best ratings for their positions and who are ready to make the most immediate impact. 3) Second tier teams will see a drop off in success while they await their recruits to reach their potential which has been slowed and will be drawn out due to the lower starting point of the ratings.

My guess is top teir teams will remain top teir teams and be weighted even more heavily under this new system. I think it will take longer and make nearly impossible the task of building a program to prominence. Evening out recruiting classes will be of the utmost importance because a large class that needs alot of development will be costly to the program. Lower tier teams will struggle even more under this system since basketball iq is less of a factor. That was one factor that helped even things out, and oddly enough, was one of the more realistic attributes of the game (an experienced team with less talent will often beat a young more talented group). 

Talking about d2-- I think the recruits just look retarded. Too many guys are high in everything, low in really weird things-- illogical things. Don't get me wrong, I was dying for random SGs to be high in rebounding, but jesus this is over the top. Really fast PGs who can't get any faster, etc. Guys randomly high in ath and low in speed, guys who are low across the board, etc. 

Posted by daalter on 6/19/2010 10:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by grantduck on 6/19/2010 2:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dalter on 6/18/2010 9:49:00 PM (view original):
grant, I think you're confusing a lack of diversity with a lowering of ratings.

I honestly can't imagine anyone looking at recruit generation before and after and really thinking that there's less diversity now.

Even your last statement above --  "their base value appear much less diverse" -- I think really means "their base values are lower". There was precious little recruit diversity in the old engine. Now there are more bigs that can pass, shoot or dribble, more guards with lp or reb, etc. But you have to accept the fact that starting ratings are lower across the board (and they truly needed to be to fix DI), so that whereas maybe 50 in a category was good to start with before, now it might be 40.

I disagree, perhaps not overall, but on my original points.  Primarily because there are still lots of high speed guards.   Ratings may be lower across the board, but there are still plenty of guards with 60-70 spd ratings coming out.  There flat aren't enough bigs with spd ratings above 35. 

Before we saw both slow and fast big men.  Now we don't.  We saw a range before from about 10 spd up to about 65.  Now it's more from 10-35.  That's a decrease in diversity, is it not?

I also don't see any guards that are "good rebounders" as I pointed out before at the low D-1/D-II level.  Feel free to point some out if you see them.I would think we'd see some guards with ATH 40 RB 40 if they were truly going for diversity. There were a total of 5 at D-I and 2 at D-II(one of which had a WE of 1).

We can nitpick back and forth about various points, sure, but I will stand firmly behind: Big men need a speed increase in their base ratings.

Just how many fast big men do you think there really are/should be? The simple truth is that the overwhelming majority of bigs are not fast.

Dalter, fast is a relative term.  It might be a rare find to get a big that's got 60+SPD equivalent of that to a decent SF or SG(though it does happen), but it should not be a rare find to find a big that is 3/4 as fast as a guard or 1/2 as fast.

It was that way before, not sure why the significant change. 

Posted by a_in_the_b on 6/19/2010 7:36:00 AM (view original):
SInce good rebounding guards go against other good rebounding guards and not good rebounding bigs, what difference does it make?  ANd having it so the best rebounding guards aren't as good of rebounders as mediocre bigs, I'm sorry, makes sense.  And likewise with speed - and low post.

As for your speed search. . huh?

I just did a search on bigs:  I've gone down the first three hundred players sorted by speed and have yet to find ANY speeds under 41, so I'm not sure where you are getting this 10 - 35 range.

96 of those also have 50+ reb
.  
in wooden there are close to 200 post players meeting that 40/50 mark.

Likewise, sorted by rebounding, fifteen guards with over 40 rebounding and 100 with over thirty.



(Keeo in mind, this is pre potential only)



 

A-Inthe_B, Search Naismith using the terms I've posted, you'll find it's not wrong. 40ATH /40SPD/50RBD.

And of those supposed 96, how many are possible D-II pulldowns?  In Naismith, sure there's plenty, but there's zero viable D-II players from the bunch(all are either top 150 recruits or not for another reason viable).  Whereas before there were 50+.  The problem from every search I do, comes when I add speed into the search terms for PF and C. 

I'm simply asking why the significant decrease in the SPD of big men?  It doesn't make sense.

First, I can only examine the worlds I am in, not Naismith. . but the worlds I am in use the same recruit generation model, so. . .

Second. . .

If the general population of ratings has moved down on average, then your benchmarks should move down with them.   YOu said there were a number of fast guards:  Yes there are, but there aren't as many at the top end as there used to be.  Also, its not just initial ratings that matter, unless you plan on having Fresmen play major minutes roles on your team.

Why was the previous speed 'Correct'?  

IN other words, the appropriate benchmarks might be 35/35/45 instead of 40/40/50.

Posted by jlay on 6/19/2010 11:04:00 PM (view original):
What I see happening is this. 1) Teams with a heavy roster of developed returning players from the old system will do well initially. 2) Top Tier teams will continue to grab the few players that have the best ratings for their positions and who are ready to make the most immediate impact. 3) Second tier teams will see a drop off in success while they await their recruits to reach their potential which has been slowed and will be drawn out due to the lower starting point of the ratings.

My guess is top teir teams will remain top teir teams and be weighted even more heavily under this new system. I think it will take longer and make nearly impossible the task of building a program to prominence. Evening out recruiting classes will be of the utmost importance because a large class that needs alot of development will be costly to the program. Lower tier teams will struggle even more under this system since basketball iq is less of a factor. That was one factor that helped even things out, and oddly enough, was one of the more realistic attributes of the game (an experienced team with less talent will often beat a young more talented group). 

+1

Posted by a_in_the_b on 6/20/2010 6:22:00 AM (view original):
First, I can only examine the worlds I am in, not Naismith. . but the worlds I am in use the same recruit generation model, so. . .

Second. . .

If the general population of ratings has moved down on average, then your benchmarks should move down with them.   YOu said there were a number of fast guards:  Yes there are, but there aren't as many at the top end as there used to be.  Also, its not just initial ratings that matter, unless you plan on having Fresmen play major minutes roles on your team.

Why was the previous speed 'Correct'?  

Because the speed ratio was significantly more realistic and because now there are zero viable big men that are half as fast as a good guard.

HD is essentially giving us that a fast player can no longer be a good rebounder, which is nonense.

Name five big men that have almost the speed of a guard?  Most of the ones you could describe that way woudl more adequately have been statted as Small forwards anyhow.
 

 

Posted by arssanguinus on 6/21/2010 7:38:00 AM (view original):

Name five big men that have almost the speed of a guard?  Most of the ones you could describe that way woudl more adequately have been statted as Small forwards anyhow.
 

 

on most college teams all players come pretty close to tying on one court length runs.  This is even true high school top players i've coached, coached a few 6'9" kids in aau 2 summers ago, one of them consistently was top 3 on our minute drill, the other was 17 years old, weighed 260, and probably lost on 12 length of the floor runs by maybe 4 or 5 steps to the fastest players. 

Recruiting big men for d1 in real life for big men is pretty much about ATH/SP along with the obvious size - the notion that d1 guards are 90-99sp and big men are 1-10 sp simply is wrong.  Of course, the HD 'system' is another story, as seble can rig the ratings to mean whatever he wants,

but the truth is, there is only a very small difference in basketball between speed top to bottom, .1 to .3 seconds in transition maybe (transition is only about 25 yards)

so to answer your question - name 5 big men that almost have the speed of a guard, answer ALL OF THEM