Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/20/2020 2:16:00 PM (view original):
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.

I hope we can all agree that you should always give up 15 pts in Reb for 30 pts in ath

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/20/2020 2:16:00 PM (view original):
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.

I used to think that. But for pure rebounding Ive seen low ATH/ high REB players outperform others with much higher athleticism.

While I do think the ratio of REB:ATH in the rebounding equation is definitely more than 2:1, I would still agree with Benis that I'd take the 30 points of athleticism. It's not a big enough step back in rebounding to overrule the defensive and offensive advantages of all that ATH.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/20/2020 2:16:00 PM (view original):
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.

This is correct. And I also agree with every post written on this page 5, that is above my post here.

Signed,
Fabiodogg

It's like George Constanza trying to convince people to call him T Bone.

We're not falling for it!

I don't punt rebounding, I just recruit a **** ton of Ath. Here's a nice example. This team has #4 SOS and our rebounding is trash. Center has 60 REB. We out-rebound opponents by 1.6 REB a game. Last season, we had the same bigs, just less developed rebounding. If you care enough, you can see player ratings history to see what their ratings were. Our SF had 17 REB, our PF had 59 REB, and center 75 REB. Our PF was our best rebounder by a good amount (Wulff). We won the ship, had #1 SOS, and outrebounded opponents by 3-4 REBs per game. I slack in press (and across the board) and overcome with Ath.

Some people wouldn't e even recruit this guy because they'd say he can't be a PF because REB and can't be a SF because ball skills. I love this guy as a big man in press as he can shutdown people defensively, score because of the ATH/LP, and rebound well still.

Wulff is super intetesting.

ATH: 94
DEF: 95
BLK: 51

Defensively, he's dominant in Press and Man, about what I consider starter level for zone.

ATH: 94
REB: 60

He's what I consider average in rebounding for a starter.

ATH: 94
SPD: 52
LP: 67
BH:39
PER: 11

I would consider this guy REALLY good offensively in FB and a super good fit in motion. In a triangle, I would be happy with him being my best interior scorer. I think he actually fits FLEX the worst (low PER) but I think the speed helps more in FLEX than MOTION or TRIANGLE.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/21/2020 9:47:00 AM (view original):
Wulff is super intetesting.

ATH: 94
DEF: 95
BLK: 51

Defensively, he's dominant in Press and Man, about what I consider starter level for zone.

ATH: 94
REB: 60

He's what I consider average in rebounding for a starter.

ATH: 94
SPD: 52
LP: 67
BH:39
PER: 11

I would consider this guy REALLY good offensively in FB and a super good fit in motion. In a triangle, I would be happy with him being my best interior scorer. I think he actually fits FLEX the worst (low PER) but I think the speed helps more in FLEX than MOTION or TRIANGLE.

He’s super interesting. He’s one of my more favorite players though because he was doubted then ended up really good for me. He’s a perfect fit as a defender and a 3rd scorer. I think the thing you may be overlooking which is one of his best attributes is his ST in uptempo press. That ST is killer for a big.

I am actually comparing him to SPIVA right now......I just got busy at school.

	SPIVA	WULFF
ATH	87	94
SPD	61	52
REB	49	60
DEF	94	95
BLK	59	51
LP	89	67
PER	65	11
BH	29	29
PASS	64	19
STA	89	92

Why Spiva is a 3 and Wulff a 4 (although I think SportsBulls played him at the 5):

Perimeter Defense- They are essentially equal. Spiva is better because the 9 points in SPEED is more valuable (IMO for perimeter defense) than the 7 points in ATH but it's not much. Maybe he's 3-5% better, I don't think it's incredibly significant although it is greater than zero.

Post Defense- Again, they are similar but Wulff is slightly better. I don't think speed is valuable at all in posts so in my mind the 7 points of ATH is worth more than the 9 points in BLK for all defenses except Zone. I think this advantage on post defense is low (less than 3%) but more than zero.

Rebounding- This is significant. Wulff has a 7 point advantage in ATH and 11 in REB. He is clearly the better rebounder. Spiva is a good rebounder at the 3 but when compared to 4's he becomes below average. I think Wulff is an average (maybe a touch below) when compared to what I would consider a starter on human coached NT contending team.

Scoring- Spiva is an excellent post scorer and a capable (-1) perimeter scorer. Wulff is a good post scorer. Spiva is a good scorer at the 4 but if he's matched up against guard type of 3's he's going to be very efficient. Typically your guard types have lower ATH and sub 30 BLK scorers. Those type of players are going to give us massive points in the paint to him. To sum up, he's a good scorer at the 4, he's a great scorer at the 3.

Guard Skills- Spiva is average Wulff just isn't a guard. Spiva 61/29/64 (SPD/BH/PASS) isn't ideal but it's certainly serviceable. The 87 ATH is going to help that a bit as well. I would be worried about him against good press teams but I wouldn't think twice against non-press teams about him eating major minutes at the 3.


In conclusion, Wulff's a better rebounder and can't play guard. To me that equals a 4.
Spiva is a below average rebounder at the 4 and can really maximize his scoring at the 3.

I wanted to revisit Gillespie's question from a couple of pages ago regarding Spiva as a 3 (where he thinks he should play) or a 4 (where I would play him).

I think it is based on different philosophies of what kind of guy to use at the 3. I tend to view it as a third guard who should have slightly better REB (and possibly LP) than a regular guard. So I focus on SPD, ATH, DEF, PE, and BH more at the 3 and will play guys there who have REB and LP ratings as low as low double digits if I can't do better. With this view, you can see why I would not play Spiva there unless I messed up my roster construction and had to.

I see other coaches who use PF's there. I always think that those out-of-position PF's will never be able to keep up with my third guard, who will subsequently get a lot of open looks from outside. (Of course, their coaches are probably focused more on the fact that they will likely kill me on the boards.)

What I have not seen is any kind of analysis that shows which of these approaches, if either, is superior. In the meantime, I am moderately successful and so don't really see a reason to change what kind of player I use at the position.

Just my two cents. Enjoying the discussion.

Alright, Spiva has more or less maxed out.

Posted by beachhouse on 3/2/2020 9:59:00 AM (view original):
Alright, Spiva has more or less maxed out.

Probably 5-10 left in WE to boost.

Posted by davis on 2/21/2020 11:32:00 AM (view original):
I wanted to revisit Gillespie's question from a couple of pages ago regarding Spiva as a 3 (where he thinks he should play) or a 4 (where I would play him).

I think it is based on different philosophies of what kind of guy to use at the 3. I tend to view it as a third guard who should have slightly better REB (and possibly LP) than a regular guard. So I focus on SPD, ATH, DEF, PE, and BH more at the 3 and will play guys there who have REB and LP ratings as low as low double digits if I can't do better. With this view, you can see why I would not play Spiva there unless I messed up my roster construction and had to.

I see other coaches who use PF's there. I always think that those out-of-position PF's will never be able to keep up with my third guard, who will subsequently get a lot of open looks from outside. (Of course, their coaches are probably focused more on the fact that they will likely kill me on the boards.)

What I have not seen is any kind of analysis that shows which of these approaches, if either, is superior. In the meantime, I am moderately successful and so don't really see a reason to change what kind of player I use at the position.

Just my two cents. Enjoying the discussion.

I overlooked this comment until now. But it's one of my favorite topics in HD discussions.

I'm 100% on board with what Davis is saying. I'm in the group that plays a 3rd guard at SF. But I mainly run press. What I usually do is just recruit 5 bigs, and 7 "guard-like" players. Of those 7, my starting SF is one of two types of players..... 1) the slowest of my guards that I want to start. Or if any of them have extra rebounding that the others don't. Or 2) freshman. Any time I offer a start (which i do every season basically), the SF position is where I put them generally.

I kinda feel like the SF spot defines who you are as a coach. When it's a guard you're probably a press coach by nature. If you value REB/LP here you're likely more of a M2M coach

Spiva has ended his career at +436

It would’ve been extremely cool to turn his starting rating and double it, but it wasn’t meant to be.

Congrats on some great development beach! Hope you enjoyed it!