If you could fix one thing... Topic

aporter
Posts: 12 (0)
Hall of Famer
319
Prospect
Just because you have 100 speed does not make you a good 3pt. shooter when your perimeter rating is in the low 40's.
10/15/2009 1:44 PM
mrpolo09
Posts: 249 (0)
Hall of Famer
10 5 173 2 34
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by aporter on 10/15/2009Just because you have 100 speed does not make you a good 3pt. shooter when your perimeter rating is in the low 40's.

amen to that....

Speed is HD's version of "up up down down right right B A"
10/15/2009 2:03 PM
Fregoe
Posts: 1043 (0)
Hall of Famer
70 34 11 15 504 106 159 12
Prospect
select start
10/15/2009 2:31 PM
jskenner
Posts: 246 (0)
Hall of Famer
249
Prospect
This one would cause many logistical issues, but in a perfect HD world I'd like to have additional ratings:

Instead of ATH alone, split it into strength and agility.

Instead of PE alone, split it into 3 PE, mid-range PE and finishing ability (getting to the rim and MAKING the layup in traffic).

Split DEF into perimeter and low-post versions.

Add "headiness". This would be independent of IQ, which is knowledge of a system, and comes with experience. Low headiness would increase chances of turnovers and missed defensive assignments (dumb plays), while high would help create turnovers and assists and team rebounds. Would also significantly override low IQ for young players, which would allow a Mike Conley type player. In HD, a Conley is as inept at running an offense as anyone else, if he has F (or even C) in the offense being run. But give him 98 HE, and he's able to thrive.

Split REB into offensive and defensive, which are very different skills.

10/15/2009 2:32 PM
jskenner
Posts: 246 (0)
Hall of Famer
249
Prospect
By the way, there are a lot of very good ideas on this thread.
10/15/2009 2:33 PM
jenningss
Posts: 250 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 622 11 27
Rookie
At DI

Make recruits worse. Not a bell curve but the extreme right side of the curve, for ex.

90 rating - 1 player
80 rating - 2 "
70 rating - 4 "
60 rating - 8 "
50 rating - 16 "
40 rating - 32 "
30 rating - 64 "

and so on and so forth.
10/15/2009 3:41 PM
jskenner
Posts: 246 (0)
Hall of Famer
249
Prospect
You're right about that non-bell-curve, jenningss. It's a natural tendency to think of any population (for instance, the population of all D1 rebounding skill ratings) as such a curve. But in reality this population is really the TOP TIP of the GENERAL population bell-curve. That's why there are just a few top players/skills, but MANY poor skills (within only the D1 subset of the overall population). Great point!
10/15/2009 3:46 PM
johnsensing
Posts: 344 (0)
Hall of Famer
679
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 10/15/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By gw795 on 10/15/2009
More uncertainty in recruiting. It seems as if we know too much about prospects and how good they are/will be. Maybe ratings should be hidden and only accessible via scouting trips. I don't think everyone will want that to happen though.

I agree that not every player should develop at the same time. There should be some guys that reach their potential early on in college and others who hit it in senior year. Some guys never hit their fullest potential by the end of senior year.

That would be a huge change and I would love it. I have always said that I think each player should have a hidden # of minutes he has to play and then he reaches his fast growth period
Why make it hidden, zhawks? Why not have your assistant coach in evals say something like "he's extremely well-coached, and will be ready to start contributing immediately" for fast-developers, or "he's very raw -- looks like a project" for slow-developers. This has the added benefit of making evals more useful/valuable as a recruiting tool. Just my 2 cents.....
10/15/2009 4:21 PM
jbasnight
Posts: 112 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 324 3
Prospect
I'd love to see more strategy in gameplanning, and more effect on the game results from your gameplanning. To start, make sagging defenses more subject to punishment by outside shooters.
10/15/2009 4:54 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By johnsensing on 10/15/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 10/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By gw795 on 10/15/2009
More uncertainty in recruiting. It seems as if we know too much about prospects and how good they are/will be. Maybe ratings should be hidden and only accessible via scouting trips. I don't think everyone will want that to happen though.

I agree that not every player should develop at the same time. There should be some guys that reach their potential early on in college and others who hit it in senior year. Some guys never hit their fullest potential by the end of senior year.

That would be a huge change and I would love it. I have always said that I think each player should have a hidden # of minutes he has to play and then he reaches his fast growth period.
Why make it hidden, zhawks? Why not have your assistant coach in evals say something like "he's extremely well-coached, and will be ready to start contributing immediately" for fast-developers, or "he's very raw -- looks like a project" for slow-developers. This has the added benefit of making evals more useful/valuable as a recruiting tool. Just my 2 cents....




No i agree it shouldn't be completely hidden, but we don't need after 274 minutes this player will develop. Like "This kid need a few years in our system before he develops" and then its still kinda up to the coach if its by pt, the more mpg you give the kid the faster he gets to the magic number.
10/15/2009 5:09 PM
jeremyboz
Posts: 36 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 1 40 1 7
Prospect
Make double teaming a player actually mean something.
I can understand that it will have less of an impact on a guard who can ball handle and pass well but sometimes the double team seems to have very little impact.
10/15/2009 7:29 PM
jlhens1
Posts: 0 (0)
Pro
13
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By cburton23 on 10/15/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 10/15/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By srunstro on 10/15/2009

Quote: Originally posted by jlhens1 on 10/15/2009

2) I agree with cburton. I would like a setting to sub out a player based not only on fatigue but performance as well. Perhaps have a setting that allows you to chose a fg% at which he will be benched. Obviously this would have to happen after a certain number of shots, because you wouldn't want him to get pulled too soon. If, for example, you had fg% set at 33 and he goes 1-3, that would be too soon to bench him. It could be after maybe 8-10 attempts or something in that range.[

This makes very little sense to me. Unlike real life, in the SIM, a guy who has gone 0-15 has exactly the same chance to hit his 16th shot as a guy who has gone 15-15. Real life players can be streaky. In the SIM, it's all RNG.
People have convinced themselves that players can go streaky and that players have personalities.
Its not so much that players are streaky, but that you missed something in a match-up in your pre-game planning. For whatever reason your SF is 1-10 from the field, due to the defensive match-up, you could have the ability to sub that player out to what could be a better match-up
Exactly. I didn't mean that the player was on a cold streak, but rather that the defense was more proficient than expected... because of something you missed like cburton said or something like a lineup change by your opponent... whatever the reason. Sure each shot is determined independently, but if the sample size is sufficient there should be a reason why a particular player performs far below his norm.
10/15/2009 9:02 PM
bvb24
Posts: 406 (0)
Hall of Famer
181 1
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by jbasnight on 10/15/2009I'd love to see more strategy in gameplanning, and more effect on the game results from your gameplanning. To start, make sagging defenses more subject to punishment by outside shooters.
That's a great idea. I wish there was a way to combat the slowdown offense too.
10/15/2009 10:52 PM
weirdrash
Posts: 33 (0)
Hall of Famer
304
Prospect
severe upsets should be much more of a rarity. They are far too common.
10/16/2009 12:12 AM
jskenner
Posts: 246 (0)
Hall of Famer
249
Prospect
Get rid of early entries. This would fall under daalter's motto of, "It's not what is most realistic, but what is best (most satisfying) for HD (the customer)."

Of course, this would effectively guarantee that lostmyth2 would win every single NT in Phelan, from now until . . . ever. But I'm willing to accept that if it means knowing a stud Jr will become a stud Sr.
10/16/2009 11:14 AM
◂ Prev 1...3|4|5|6|7|8 Next ▸
If you could fix one thing... Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.