How negatively will this impact my player? I am thinking about playing a PG at SF next season. Anyone know if there is a legitimate dropoff? anything that is worth really worrying about?

I would not mind hearing what they say in the FAQ/chats and also what people's personal experience is with playing someone 2 positions away from their 'true' (listed) position.

I've done this before Jones.. I think the biggest question is really How big your PG is? And his ATHL..

There is supposedly a small penalty for moving 2 spots away, but it is VERY small, IMO. I often will play PG or C at SF if their ratings make them a good choice there.

One of my teams made the NT game with a PG starting at SF. If your PG is your best choice there, go for it.

I dunno if this has any basis in fact, but I assign a 7% penalty to my players ratings when considering this option.

Quote: Originally Posted By dmiles1200 on 11/10/2009
I've done this before Jones.. I think the biggest question is really How big your PG is? And his ATHL..

dm, what do you mean by "How big your PG is?"

are you suggesting that his height and or weight is a factor? im pretty sure those things are non-factors.

i have tended to think that if a player seems the best option based his ratings, play him there (like sruns says).

Also, Kann could be right, there could be a 7% penalty. I would have guessed it is less than that, but it could be right.

so if you have a PG with 50RE, it would really be peanlized 7% and become 46.5RE. still prolly not a bit deal.

i wonder if everything is penalized? doesnt seem like bh, pa, pe, sp should be penalized. i can see the logic in penalizing RE, ATH, and LP, and maybe DE? but not the others. hmmmm. wonder how it works?

for a C to SF, maybe bh, pa, pe,sp and maybe de? are penalized? does that make sense?

bottom line, i tend to play them where they seem to fit. and if things dont turn out as well as i had hoped.. i do second guess myself and wonder if the penalty was a big factor, but mostly its a forgotten thing

Question on ATH for SF;

agree that ath is real important for SF? so if you had two gaurds , and one had :

40ATH-50RE

and the other had

70ATH-20RE

which is better choice at SF (assuming both would start as part of a 3gaurd lineup)? i had tended to choose the best rebounder in the past, but maybe it should be the most athletic?

I have also went to the NT with a pg at sf. It works if their ratings are such that they can play at the three spot. I don't think the penalty is too much of a factor. Go for it.

There should not be any sort of penalty like this. I have argued that for years a players position should just be purely window dressing. Are we suppose to go along with the fact that REB is different depending on what position the computer assigns him? Why do we even need positions at all if everything is based on the entirely visible ratings?

I won a title at D3 while having a pg play about 20 mpg at sf. It is very possible they just have to fit the position well, or in my case... be your only option! lol

i agree with pp.

but i do think that we need to divide DE into "perimeter defense" and "interior defense".

the main reason you wouldnt see a 4gaurd lineup suceed in HD is the lack of rebounding. but in real life there are two difficulties with a 4 gaurd lineup... rebounding and a lack of interior defense. i think the penalty is supposed to help mimick the fact that gaurds dont usually defend the interior well and bigmen dont usually defend the perimeter well. (not allways, just usually)



but yes, i agree that HD would be better off without this ambigously gay penalty.

Quote: Originally Posted By oldave on 11/12/2009
i agree with pp.

but i do think that we need to divide DE into "perimeter defense" and "interior defense".

the main reason you wouldnt see a 4gaurd lineup suceed in HD is the lack of rebounding. but in real life there are two difficulties with a 4 gaurd lineup... rebounding and a lack of interior defense. i think the penalty is supposed to help mimick the fact that gaurds dont usually defend the interior well and bigmen dont usually defend the perimeter well. (not allways, just usually)



but yes, i agree that HD would be better off without this ambigously gay penalty.

I think you may have touched directly on why the penalty exists.

yeah, zee, i figured as much, but i cant for the life of me figure out why they didnt divide DE into those two components when they divided shooting into LP and PE.

i guess now they dont do it because they have bigger fish to fry.

i guess its not really that big of a deal,, it just irritates me is all.

and, thinking out loud here...

why would the formula for this penalty need to be secret?

i mean, i know why they dont want to give away the secrets of the engine and other strategic stuff in general. but, in this case, they apparently only have this penalty in place to keep us from doing whacky stuff that might take advantage of a loophole in the system. why not just tell us what the penalty is? am i making any sense?

I guess my biggest question to you ole d is, do we really need a second defensive rating that is useless. We already have one... until DE actually means something there is no need for them to worry about spliting it up.

And when I think about it why can't DE be both? ATH/SPD can take care of most of the rest can't it?

Probably a silly question, but doesn't DE/BLK kind of reflect the interior vs perimeter defense? You almost never see a guard with high BLK.

I play a lot of zone defense, and (especially at D3) I will happily take big men with single-digit DE as long as they have good BLK. DE seems to mean a lot more on the perimeter though.

BLK is way more important in the zone then any other Defense. You want that big man that can block every shot of the guard that drives to the lane, since he will be standing down low almost all night long.

Quote: Originally Posted By porkpower on 11/12/2009There should not be any sort of penalty like this. I have argued that for years a players position should just be purely window dressing.

I completely disagree with this for the simple fact since height doesn't matter in this game there HAS to be a penalty for playing guys way out of position. Let's say your playing a team that has a dominant big, for arguments sake let's say it's D2. This big man is 75ath/45sp/85reb/85LP and he averages 18/9 a game so he gets a lot of distro. Now you're big men all have defense ratings in the 40s and 50s, but you have a SF who is a role player and has 83ath/51sp/60reb and a 95 def. Now without a penalty and without height mattering this SF should be able to play excellent defense and possibly neutralize this big man if you decide to play him at center. For situations like this you need penalties for playing somebody way out of position.