As a couple of people have mentioned, I don't think he is a 3 because of his SPD and BH. I'd have played him as a 4 (but then I place less weight on REB than most coaches).

Posted by davis on 2/17/2020 4:52:00 PM (view original):
As a couple of people have mentioned, I don't think he is a 3 because of his SPD and BH. I'd have played him as a 4 (but then I place less weight on REB than most coaches).

I'm with ya brother. On every word of this post

Posted by topdogggbm on 2/17/2020 6:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by davis on 2/17/2020 4:52:00 PM (view original):
As a couple of people have mentioned, I don't think he is a 3 because of his SPD and BH. I'd have played him as a 4 (but then I place less weight on REB than most coaches).

I'm with ya brother. On every word of this post

+1

Totally agree, I got myself in a position where it wasn’t possible this season.

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=8219

thats the team.

Nice looking team tho. 83 ST wow!

how come you guys would play him at the 4 over the 3? is it just the lower ball handling? or is it more about his offense and where you perceive maximum offensive efficiency, with that great lp?

beachhouse, i would personally have played him at the 3 (without looking at your team). i mean, his defense is SO good, i would very possibly be moving him around based on opponent. but to me, its not really even close, vis-a-vis his natural position. hes a 3 all day long.

i suspect a lot of this comes down to a difference in approach. i am all about abilities - extremely so. if a co-coach or someone requesting help tells me they like a guy because of 1 awesome rating, or dislike him, i won't even accept that as like, proper english. so what? tell me what that means for the player - do you not think hes a good enough rebounder, do you think hes a great scorer, what? this game does runs on aggregates, aka abilities, and i strongly recommend to everyone to think - and talk - about things that way. its simpler while being more informative. plus it just results in much better alignment between how you think about the game and how it actually works, leading to significantly improved outcomes - IMO.

anyway, i look at this guy, and i have no problem with him at SF. hes a fantastic defender for the 3, and a fantastic scorer - so the speed doesn't phase me for a second. hes a solid rebounder but struggles significantly as a PF rebounder - a middling ability goes from neutral (roughly) to a major weakness - so that part isn't even close. on guard skills front, hes a quite acceptable passer. the ball handling causing turnovers, reducing the efficiency of his offense, is the only concern i have. and SFs do turn over more than PFs, so you are amplifying that negative, a little bit. not a lot. IMO, its not even close to the rebounding difference. i consider this a -2 3pt setting player, at SF or PF, so i am not concerned about facing better per defense (on average) at the 3, or about the BH impact on 3s being potentially greater in magnitude at the 3 than 4 (which may or may not even be true).

is this guy a better scorer or a better defender, at the 4? (i don't generally include TOs in scoring - i split them for simplicity, even though this is not 100% aligned with how things actually work). i don't think so, but i think an argument would need to be made to that effect to make this close - because outside of scoring and D, its not even close?

i know i launched from a question right into a rebuttal - but i am curious what you guys feel so strongly about to offset that rebounding, and how you'd respond to my view on the subject. its cool we all see things differently and all that jazz!

Posted by gillispie1 on 2/17/2020 8:42:00 PM (view original):
how come you guys would play him at the 4 over the 3? is it just the lower ball handling? or is it more about his offense and where you perceive maximum offensive efficiency, with that great lp?

beachhouse, i would personally have played him at the 3 (without looking at your team). i mean, his defense is SO good, i would very possibly be moving him around based on opponent. but to me, its not really even close, vis-a-vis his natural position. hes a 3 all day long.

i suspect a lot of this comes down to a difference in approach. i am all about abilities - extremely so. if a co-coach or someone requesting help tells me they like a guy because of 1 awesome rating, or dislike him, i won't even accept that as like, proper english. so what? tell me what that means for the player - do you not think hes a good enough rebounder, do you think hes a great scorer, what? this game does runs on aggregates, aka abilities, and i strongly recommend to everyone to think - and talk - about things that way. its simpler while being more informative. plus it just results in much better alignment between how you think about the game and how it actually works, leading to significantly improved outcomes - IMO.

anyway, i look at this guy, and i have no problem with him at SF. hes a fantastic defender for the 3, and a fantastic scorer - so the speed doesn't phase me for a second. hes a solid rebounder but struggles significantly as a PF rebounder - a middling ability goes from neutral (roughly) to a major weakness - so that part isn't even close. on guard skills front, hes a quite acceptable passer. the ball handling causing turnovers, reducing the efficiency of his offense, is the only concern i have. and SFs do turn over more than PFs, so you are amplifying that negative, a little bit. not a lot. IMO, its not even close to the rebounding difference. i consider this a -2 3pt setting player, at SF or PF, so i am not concerned about facing better per defense (on average) at the 3, or about the BH impact on 3s being potentially greater in magnitude at the 3 than 4 (which may or may not even be true).

is this guy a better scorer or a better defender, at the 4? (i don't generally include TOs in scoring - i split them for simplicity, even though this is not 100% aligned with how things actually work). i don't think so, but i think an argument would need to be made to that effect to make this close - because outside of scoring and D, its not even close?

i know i launched from a question right into a rebuttal - but i am curious what you guys feel so strongly about to offset that rebounding, and how you'd respond to my view on the subject. its cool we all see things differently and all that jazz!

A few things to add to this. One is that he's developed some since I last took a look at him. So I could see an argument for him to play the 3.

The biggest difference between your opinion and my opinion gil, is D1 and D2. At least I think that's why. In D2 while running press, I could literally care less about rebounding ratings. Steals and TOs forced is the big strength there. I play guys all the time with 50 REB or 60 REB at the 4 and I don't get outrebounded hardly at all. I mean sure, 40-35 rebound advantage in favor of my opponent. But I think "in HD only" (NOT real life), at the lower levels, REB is by far the most over rated attribute (unless playing zone maybe).

In addition to this, I've mentioned that my SF spot is usually just a 3rd guard. Running press at D2 seems to be much better that way than running a traditional SF at the 3. So for me, I want roughly 60/60 ball skills at the 3. And usually what I do is decide who my 3 starting guards will be, and whoever is the slowest will play the 3.

I don't think you can play that way as effectively at D1. And that's why you may not see it the same as I do

I think along the same lines as Billy when it comes to roles and aggregate abilities. This is how I see Spiva:

Below Average Guard Skills (SPD/BH/PASS)
Below Average Rebounding for a post player (ATH/REB)
EXCELLENT perimeter defender (ATH/SPD/DEF)
Excellent post defender (ATH/DEF/BLK)
Excellent LP scoring (ATH/LP/BH)
Below Average 3 point shooting (SPD/PER/BH)

I would play him at the 3 because:

1. His LP Scoring will be defended by worse post defenders at the 3 than the 4. He'll be a more efficient scorer at the 3.
2. In a man/motion I wouldn't punt rebounding at the 4. You can get away with it in FB/FCP but in motion/man I think you are probably costing yourself too much. If he's playing 30 minutes a game you might be costing yourself an 3-4 rebounds per game.
3. He has below average guard skills (61 SPD, 64 Pass, 29 BH) but he isn't playing quard. My threshold for guard skills at the 3 at D2 are about 60. In a perfect world I would like to see the sum of those 3 skills be 180 at D2 for my SF (his is 154) but the 87 ATH helps a little there. It isn't a CORE for me but it's a very high secondary.

He's not a bad 4 but he's a pretty good 3. Comparing him to my D2 team (which is good but not great, probably S16ish):

He 100% starts at the 3 over this guy.

He's probably be my third big behind this guy and this guy. Maybe he starts over the second guy...it's pretty close. My point is he's a much better 3 than 4.

One mistake I made..... I thought beach ran press there. So if that's not accurate, shame on me Haha.

I don't punt rebounding as much in M2M as I do in press

I've seen a lot of guys punting rebounding these days. It doesn't make any sense to me. The most efficient offense is a perimeter-oriented offense. In tough games, your perimeter shooters are, at the absolute best, a little better than 40%. That means there will be a lot of rebounds to go around. You just talked about getting outrebounded 40-35 as being outrebounded "hardly at all." That's 5 bonus possessions for the other team! You need to generate 5 more turnovers to get that value back (assuming 1 rebound-initiated possession ~ 1 TO-initiated possession, which is close enough; offensive rebounds lead to high percentage shots, but so do some press turnovers). Given that you already want high-athleticism types in general, I think it's easier to find 2.5 rebounds to get even on possessions than it is to find 5 turnovers.

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/19/2020 2:50:00 PM (view original):
I've seen a lot of guys punting rebounding these days. It doesn't make any sense to me. The most efficient offense is a perimeter-oriented offense. In tough games, your perimeter shooters are, at the absolute best, a little better than 40%. That means there will be a lot of rebounds to go around. You just talked about getting outrebounded 40-35 as being outrebounded "hardly at all." That's 5 bonus possessions for the other team! You need to generate 5 more turnovers to get that value back (assuming 1 rebound-initiated possession ~ 1 TO-initiated possession, which is close enough; offensive rebounds lead to high percentage shots, but so do some press turnovers). Given that you already want high-athleticism types in general, I think it's easier to find 2.5 rebounds to get even on possessions than it is to find 5 turnovers.

In the game of HD, we can't have everything we want. So to clarify what exactly I mean........

Sacrifices always have to be made since I can't get 100 ratings across the board. Rebounding has proven to be the easiest by far, to sacrifice in a press defense. And here's what I mean by that......

If I run press with rebounders that are 90 and guards that have a 60 speed, while having all other ratings meet "decent levels of ability related to position", I will fail. My guards will get destroyed, but I'll win the rebounding advantage. But if I have rebounders that are 60 and guards that have 90 speed, I'll barely get outrebounded (even if it's 40-35. Hell it might be 40-40) and my guards will dominate.

I don't have a single team, any season, where I get outrebounded. Sure sim games play a role, individual NT games don't care what the team average rebounding says. But all I mean is that it's clearly the easiest attribute to overlook. A 60 rebounder against an 80 rebounder plays out equal in a given game MORE OFTEN than a 60/80 comparison in other ratings comparison.

Add in..... I won't sign a PG with bad ball skills. I won't sign anybody with bad ATH. I won't sign slow guards. I try not to sign more than 1 bad defender. But when it comes to bigs, I will sign guys with bad rebounding all day. It just works and I feel I've proven that. But I will say that I do want a good rebounder playing along side of him if possible. I'm more than comfy if my bigs on my roster have rebounding ratings of 100, 72, 70, 67, and 55. I win with that all the time. (D2)

I will also say that I thought this idea was ridiculous at first as well. In real basketball, rebounding is HUGE. And also while running press I tried to think about "the possession game". And how rebounds would get you more possessions. Just as you said. But we have to remember, we're playing a game, and it's not a perfect system. So we find things that work and don't work, no matter what makes sense to us. Sacrificing rebounding for other areas definitely works with press. If I ran zone I wouldn't do this. M2M? A little trickier. But if you have any press teams, try it! You will see.

My Post team just rolled. I have rebounding ratings of 91, 79, 65, 65, and 50. And I play in a top 5 conference in D2 across all worlds. (I'll argue that it's top 2. Shout out to heartland in Crum). And I'll report back at the end of the season to share stats.

Totally agree with Top. If you're gonna give up something on a press team, give up rebounding for other more important attributes.

Ya know, I always wanted to go by Dogg here. But once your nickname is set, it's set. I can't pick my own nickname anyways, that's for y'all to decide. If I could, I'd go by Fabio or something that represents me better Haha

Top it is!

I think it's important to note the ToppDog doesn't punt rebounding the skill, he is punting rebounding the attribute. Rebounding is mostly (85%ish) decided by ATH+REB. An 80 ATH 60 REB is probably just as good as a 50ATH 75 REB type of guy.