Posted by girt25 on 2/4/2011 9:47:00 AM (view original):
Rails, why do you think tihs part has to match up to real life (we both know there are many areas that don't match up, and for good reason)?

Don't you think having starters play real-life type minutes would take away from numerous key areas of the game? (Gameplanning, recruiting, team building, depth.) If you could get away with playing all starters for 30-35 mins (admittedly, it does happen in real life), it would encourage teams even more to take numerous walk-ons.

Basically, in an attempt to blindly match up starters' minutes more with real life, you'd be hurting the game in a number of significant ways.

Posted by Rails on 2/4/2011 9:21:00 AM (view original):
then choose nonfrosh who start 90% of their games.  Someone brought up Fab Melo--hopefully wasn't included becuase he's a spot starter.  NBAdraft.net is rating him on several categories, nonunlike hd.  Those categories are:  Athleticism, size, defense, strength, quickness, leadership, jump shot, nba ready, rebounding, potential, post intangibles.  Where is stamina?

Fab averages 10 mpg, but his range is from 2 to 22.  He was in single digits for mp for several times.  He is not spent from a fatigue standpoint after 10 minutes.  He is an outlier.  He is conditioning as Shaq is to FT shooting.  He is not avg.  You'll never convince me otherwise.  I think a simple survey to coaches would do the trick.  Given adequate conditioning what can the majority of players play based on fatigue alone and not any other factors.

I'm not saying 10 consecutive minutes I'm saying 10 minutes in a game or better, 2.5 minutes to start the game and 2.5 to finish the first half etc. You think he is spent from a fatigue standpoint from playing a total of 10 minutes in a game? If so, his HOF coach has him playing in games where he has played 22.

Posted by coach_billyg on 2/4/2011 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Rails on 2/4/2011 11:18:00 AM (view original):
Gman, I get your points and understand.  I'll back up because I think after reading my own post I was leading my thought down a path that really isn't my main concern.  My biggest thing is that most players should be treated roughly the same--whether that's 35 minutes or 25 minutes.  I certainly agree with your point about having it be 35 and allow for more walkons.  I'm not in favor of that of course.  So I'm not even arguing that players should play 33+ minutes like they do irl.  Just that there shouldn't be a huge stam range.  Since they can tweak the rate of fatigue, they should make it so that 90% of players can play 20-25 minutes so team depth is more important.  I think adjusting the rate so that players can play effectively for 25 minutes would be fine.  Just so that the vast majority can do that.  I just don't like the 99 stam guys being able to play a lot more and allow the press to value 99 stam more than spd and ath.  IRL there are not the variances in stamina like in HD.  Having 60 stam guys in hd is commonplace and so is 85 stam guys.  That's just too big of a range and tilts the balance toward stam when it should be about team depth.  Depth is critical.  I would never want a system that would allow a team to get by with 7-8 players.  That's why I'm suggesting having a narrow range of stamina levels and tweaking the effectiveness to be about 25 minutes, not 35 because I see your point.  And with the press, have the fatigue rate so that what 27 in zone and 25 in m2m is 20 minutes in press.  But get rid of the average players who can be successful because they have 99 stam.  Let their skills do the talking, not their stam levels.  Stam is a nonissue if most if not all players could play effectively for 25 minutes.  But depth would be important.  I don't know if I provided any more clarity hoepfullly so.

i agree with most of this. my 1 point of contention is the last bit - "But get rid of the average players who can be successful because they have 99 stam"

here is how i characterize stamina. stamina is that kind of rating that can make a great player good, or a great player exceptional. but its not going to ever make a mediocre player anything but mediocre.

i guess that is not 100% true but that is the way stamina feels to me. i really barely care at all if a guy i am not too happy with outside stamina is 70 sta or 100. i mean i hope hes not 60 mostly because he will just get really tired and suck a lot. but i dont even want him to play more minutes than he can on 70 sta, because it just lets me play a bad player longer. whats the good in that? on the other hand, when my favorite guard has 80 stamina, i would *love* to get that up to 100, because i can get significantly more out of him.

so i guess i would totally disagree that a bunch of average players become good because of great stamina. and i think it is fairly realistic the way stamina works for elites, when it is in the 70-100 range. the sub 70s stamina is kind of retarded. but anyway when you watch real life bball, there are great players who can play almost 40 minutes, and there are guys who suffer playing more than 30 or so. now, HD levels are lower, but i really like having a similar effect between say 23 and 28 minutes for my great players. it is just one more way to differentiate elite players.