THen why do we need a speed rating, if everyone has close to the same speed?  Four or five steps in basketball is huge.  If there is barely any difference between guards and bigs, then surely there is no significant difference whatsoever between various guards.

 

 

Posted by a_in_the_b on 6/21/2010 10:03:00 AM (view original):

THen why do we need a speed rating, if everyone has close to the same speed?  Four or five steps in basketball is huge.  If there is barely any difference between guards and bigs, then surely there is no significant difference whatsoever between various guards.

 

 

yep, that is why real life would have a speed rating that is closer to the old way and farther from the new way - since the difference is not as great as you made it sound by your ? of comparing big men and guards.  there are also some slow guards compared to some big men playing d1 college ball, if you watched a practice when they run, you would be surprised - but again, the difference is minimal top to bottom.

Those who played buckets are very familiar with 12 up and downs,  the kids call them suicides, we called them 'minute drills' when I played, if the ENTIRE team did not complete 12 up and downs in a minute, we got a minute break and had to rerun, on those usually the fastest and slowest kids are about 4 or 5 lengths difference.  On once up, maybe one step apart - the 25 yards or .1 to .3 seconds - you only cover about 3 feet in .3 seconds if you do the math - a little less actually - did you even read what I wrote?

anyhow, you are not right on this, just admit it and move on

Posted by oldresorter on 6/21/2010 10:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 6/21/2010 10:03:00 AM (view original):

THen why do we need a speed rating, if everyone has close to the same speed?  Four or five steps in basketball is huge.  If there is barely any difference between guards and bigs, then surely there is no significant difference whatsoever between various guards.

 

 

yep, that is why real life would have a speed rating that is closer to the old way and farther from the new way - since the difference is not as great as you made it sound by your ? of comparing big men and guards.  there are also some slow guards compared to some big men playing d1 college ball, if you watched a practice when they run, you would be surprised - but again, the difference is minimal top to bottom.

Those who played buckets are very familiar with 12 up and downs,  the kids call them suicides, we called them 'minute drills' when I played, if the ENTIRE team did not complete 12 up and downs in a minute, we got a minute break and had to rerun, on those usually the fastest and slowest kids are about 4 or 5 lengths difference.  On once up, maybe one step apart - the 25 yards or .1 to .3 seconds - you only cover about 3 feet in .3 seconds if you do the math - a little less actually - did you even read what I wrote?

anyhow, you are not right on this, just admit it and move on

I don't think that is fair at all ...

The 0-100 rating is a "Relative Rating".

It makes no difference if the end result is .1 seconds or 10 seconds between the players.

The slowest guy out there gets a 1 and the fastest guy gets 100 ... everyone else is somewhere in between.

Why does someone have to be right and someone else have to be wrong?

Unless you know the exact code used to evaluate speed (and neither of you do), then neither of you know what exactly a 1 or a 100 speed means.

hughes I agree with every word you said, I am replying only to a in the b / arguenesses notion that there is a huge gap between speed among d1 college basketball players,  

also, using 1 to 100 the way you mention, has not been consistent with the past, nor does it appear to be consistent with the present, as there appears to be multiple nodes of populations, not some sort of bell curve or even linear curve which is more what you are describing , but seble can indeed rig the system to work the way you stated, I agree.

finally, I will add, the other skill rating appear to be working more like the 'old way', speed appears to be simply generated in an odd manner, inconsistent with reality, with other ratings in the new game, and finally inconsistent with the old rating system

Since the argument, in the context of a BASKETBALL simulation is obviously about basketball speed, I don't really see your point.  SInce Huges point is really my position anyway.

In terms of basketball, 4 or five steps is a HUGE difference.

Why should I care if that huge difference is .3 or .4 seconds?  I read exactly what you wrote.  its you who  apparently didn't read what _I_ wrote, or even bother to try.

Someone being at the other end of the court a half second ahead of someone else is equates to someone having the opportunity to be on highlight reels.

DIvision oen Knight, quick search of recruits:

 

Top 30 fastest bigs(High schoolers only) ranges from 60 down to 43.

The thirty slowest guards ranges from 25 up to 46.

Add in that many SF's can play as bigs and that would increase the number of potential "Fast bigs"

 

 

 

 

I would guess a lot depends on what combines into the Speed rating. 

Is it the time it takes to run a straight distancea SPD or ATH attribute?   At the past NBA camp in Chicago, John Wall ran the length of the court in 3.14 seconds.  DeMarcus Cousins ran it in 3.55.  Like OR mentioned, not a huge difference.  Maybe somewhere in the 10-15% range for that event.   The agility drill (which includes straight ahead, side shuffle, and back pedalling around the FT box) was a bit wider of a discrepancy closer to 25% (10.8 vs 13.4).

For scouting at the D2 level I always take the numbers of the #151-200 rated recruits to get an idea of the available numbers.  With the current Allen recruits the #151-200 PG has an average ATH rating of 37.  For the C it's 35.  Not much of a difference.  For SPD the range, as discussed is much greater, with the PGs at 63 and the Cs at 27. 

Could Speed be considered more of a quickness rating?  I'm guessing an average PG is noticeably "quicker" than an average C.  If it's hand speed,  an explosive first step, or the reaction time to slide one step on defense, I think the measure is much more than the 10-15% on pure straight ahead speed.

Posted by oldresorter on 6/21/2010 10:42:00 AM (view original):
hughes I agree with every word you said, I am replying only to a in the b / arguenesses notion that there is a huge gap between speed among d1 college basketball players,  

also, using 1 to 100 the way you mention, has not been consistent with the past, nor does it appear to be consistent with the present, as there appears to be multiple nodes of populations, not some sort of bell curve or even linear curve which is more what you are describing , but seble can indeed rig the system to work the way you stated, I agree.

finally, I will add, the other skill rating appear to be working more like the 'old way', speed appears to be simply generated in an odd manner, inconsistent with reality, with other ratings in the new game, and finally inconsistent with the old rating system

I am not trying to be negative, and it might be true that the ratings are inconsistent. 

All I am saying is that the guy who wrote the new engine knows what he is looking for as far as speed goes.  We can ask him what the ratings mean ... or we can look at a 1 SPD PF on our team and see how he performs.

It may be a 1-100 bell curve ... it may also be a X speed from baseline to baseline is 50, and Y speed is 35, etc.

If it is 1 to 100 with the slowest guy at 1 (regardless of his speed) then I would expect to see a huge difference between the normal C and the normal PG.  If it was based specifically on time, I might expect not to see anyone less than 25 and not many above 75.

All that really matters though is that the engine knows what 1 means and 100 means.

The players guide (which may need to be updated for the new engine) says this about speed:

Speed (spd): refers to a player's quickness. Like athleticism, speed is important on both sides of the ball and the importance of which varies by position on the court, e.g. it's much more important for guards to be quick than for post players. On offense, speed is important for perimeter players to effectively be able to get to the basket. On defense, quickness is vital for overall defense, especially against guards and forwards but can benefit big men by giving them the ability to cause turnovers and it helps with shot blocking.

Quickness might not even refer to how fast a guy can go from baseline to baseline, but how fast he might react to a situation and get the first step (or first 4 steps, etc).

I don't know for sure what speed means in context to the game.  I just know it is most important for PG and SG, kind of important for SF and less important for PF and C 

I woudl think speed having a big role in creating turnovers and blocking shots would tilt things somewhat towards the fast reactions interpretation. ..

I woudl think speed having a big role in creating turnovers and blocking shots would tilt things somewhat towards the fast reactions interpretation. ..

interesting stuff..

 a  few thoughts for what they are worth:

1. OR has consistently said (from the day that seble announced he was retooling the engine and that in the new recruits would be more "diverse")  that he was concerened that these "more diverese recruits" might  ruin the game,  or at the very least cause some screwy stuff that the proponents of divesity did not expect.
2. I have consistenly been in favor of recuit diversity.  In particular,  I have long advocated a a system that would significantly reduce the number of 90+ rated players in D1.  it just seems to me that there are just wayyy too many of these 90s floating around.  Lets take rebouning, for instance.  It would seem to me that there is some group of 5 or 10 or 15 D1 players in real life who are "great" rebounders.  In other words,  they are significantly better rebounders than even the "very good" rebounders (of which tere my be something like 100 or 150 accross the country, with a few elite teams having 2 or 3 such "very god rebounders", but most teams would count themselves lucky to find have just one such "very good" rebounder on their team.  In the old system, it seemed that every top50 team had at least 3 or 4 kids with >95RE.  I suspect there were 300 or 400 of these "elite" rebounders in D1 plus a fair number of them in D2/D3.  OR allways said the devil was in the details and that not all 95RE players are elite rebounders.  te elite rebounders, i suppose are te ones that combine RE and ath.  okay,  i am rambling now and also i am making ORs argument for him.  anyway,  i want diversity and applaud any move that lowers the overall ratingsaccross the board.  i realize it will take some of he fun out of recruiting at first.... but pretty soon it will all even out... becuase its al relative.  that main thing is not just to get "great" recruits... its to make sure yor recruits are better than the recruits your competitors are getting.
3. now, in the short run, it is very easy for me to like the weaker recruits... as I had zero seniors last season and have zero open schollies in my first full year with the new engine.   (yes,  i am loving life  ;-)
4. I will admit that it concerns me greatly to hear that big men may be slower accross the board.  i know that my sound contrary to what i said above,,, and perhaps it is... but wat i am trying to say is that  i hope that the new bigs are not so slow that the FB offense is dealt yet another blow.   in other words,  i hope to see sme diversity amongst the bigs so that i might find some bigs who will give me a speed advantage over my opponents  (perhaps at the expense of  LP or maybe DE)

By the way, a_in_the_b is looking at Wooden's list, which is pre-engine release.  That's not going to tell you anything about new recruit generation.

Actually, that was in KNight.  Not wooden.

Whoops, thought you said Wooden somewhere, my bad.

Or for Phelan. . .

THe bottom thirty guards and the top 30 posts at:

D1:
35 - 49
62 - 42

d2:
11 - 36
50 - 36

d3:

 

 

Well, early on in the thread, I did accidentally mention wooden.  I realized the error, but since we had moved past it and noone was brining it up for or against, I saw no reason to mention it again.  The latest numbers being used are knight, then just now, Phelan.