Ok. I just had some little. . formula thingies I was developing to help me look at players, and was wondering if I coudl get some input on them:

Rebounding: ATH+SPD+REB
Perimeter defense: ATH+SPD+DEF
Post defense: ATH+SPD+DEF+BLK
Post OFF: ATH+SPD+REB+LP+PASS+PER
Perimeter Offense: ATH+SPD+PASS+BH+PER

I'm trying to break down what each player might be good at into a raw total number to be a starting point for sorting players I might want to look at,

Not all things are created equal so you'll have to weight them.

I figure. I was mainly trying, at the moment, to boil down what the core numbers to use for each category were. THe weighting I was thinking of later.

Or you could just use your brain looking at the players ratings.

Ars, try filtering OUT the ones that are too slow, too unathletic, too lazy, etc. Then sort through the rest on a case-by-case basis - otherwise your formula will always let a few guys slip through.

Ok Zhawks. Thank you for the extremely helpful answer. Generally finding something to sort players by IS using your brain. Coming up with a system doesn't mean you somehow AREN'T thinking. What exactly was the point of that snarky answer?

Main reason I'm doing this is I have had several players do much better than I expected them to and I'm trying to isolate why.

I finished my recruiting and I'm not into the next season yet, and this gives me a way to try to think about and organize what I am looking for in players and try to suss out what things might be leading to some players performing unexpectedly.

Quote: Originally posted by arssanguinus on 11/16/2009Ok Zhawks. Thank you for the extremely helpful answer. Generally finding something to sort players by IS using your brain. Coming up with a system doesn't mean you somehow AREN'T thinking. What exactly was the point of that snarky answer?

Main reason I'm doing this is I have had several players do much better than I expected them to and I'm trying to isolate why.

I finished my recruiting and I'm not into the next season yet, and this gives me a way to try to think about and organize what I am looking for in players and try to suss out what things might be leading to some players performing unexpectedly.

You are welcome, let me know if I can be of any more assistance.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 11/16/2009
Or you could just use your brain looking at the players ratings.

Sorry, but I agree with zhawks. I also think your formulas are really bad, if that's helpful.

And sorry, I guess I'm in a surly mood tonight.

hey, arssa, dont let these guys get you down. they are geniuses in terms of HD knowledge, but but notsomuch when it comes to manners,etc.

i shouldnt say that. oftentimes they are both extremely helpful... but they have their moments when they would just as soon **** on you as give you an answer. this seems to be oen of those moments.

i am trying to follow what it is you are doing and i do think you could clarify that a bit.

it seems most responders assumed this was part of your attempt to re-sort your database of recruits. but it seems this is not the case?.

so, what is it, exactly, that you are trying to do with these numbers? i mean, you have stated that it has to do with trying to understand why certain players seem to underperform and others seem to over perform. i guess im not sure how these formulas would help you figure that out.

as far as i can tell, your assumptions look good (aside from the fact that, as others have pointed out, the formulas would be better if each attribute was weighted... but you have said that comes later)

ST is something that is important, but hard to figure where it would fit into something like this (if at all). DU will apparently be increasing in importance, but the comment above goes ditto here.

and where does IQ fit in?

some folks (though i am not convinced of this myself..yet) feel that each offense (and defense) has a different set of core skills or at least they should be weighted differently.

i have never separated things as you have done here... have always separated pg, sg, sf, pf, c . i guess your reasons for splitting things up differently will become apparent as we understand your reasons for doing this.

Ars, you are on the right track with your thought process. Ignore Z and Dalter on this one. They missed a golden chance to help someone even though they complain that DIII offered a chance for vets to mentor rooks before reward points were sliced. They had a chance here and blew the layup. Musta forgot they were once rooks too.

At any rate, I surmise you are wondering about your formulas--whether you've got all the right skills included and down the road, what weightings to use.

Dalt had another golden chance to provide you with input as to what weighting he would use, instead unfortunately he elected to take a different approach and just say your formulas sucked.

Personally I'd probably weight Spd and ATH more since they show up on both ends of the court. I also would lower the weighting on BLK for LP defense. REB would be higher too since it goes both ways. Post offense won't have equal weightings either--LP is much more important than BH, PA or PE imho.

Once you get your formula, then it's all relative. Over the years, I changed my formulas. At times I used LP and PE as 2x and at others 1.5x.

Good luck.

As far as the categories themselves, don't forget about IQ and FT%. It may close the gap on two players who on the surface appear to be miles apart.

I'd certainly use REB as a rating in post Defense. I know you have it covered in rebounding, but it goes without saying, that defensive rebounding is part of defense. To a certain degree, BH is also part of post offense. In fact I'd maybe include REB in your defensive and offensive formulas and just eliminate the separate formula for rebounding. After all, rebounding is just a component of either offense or defense.

treating HD as a math problem =

PArt of what I am thinking is that sometimes when I am looking for a player I am looking to fill a very specific role - IE: THis team is really weak at rebounding, so I need another rebounder: But true, rebounding probably can be phased out as a separate category.

As for what I am trying to do. . . I am mainly trying to sift through players and get a better handle on exactly what ratings go into what aspects of the game, and what effect they have: Part of the checking mechanism is going back and lookign at players and trying to see what I missed on players that really performed much better than I was expecting.

I had rebounding as both an offensive and a defensive rating because I would think it effects both, at least in the post: Defensively, because, frankly, every shot you rebound is one less opportunity for the opponent to score and every offensive rebound is a chance at a ver high percentage shot, so all other aspects being equal, a high rebounding post player is likely to end up with a higher offensive efficiency than one who isn't. I've been trying just feeling things out, and its bheen working reasonably well. I'm just trying to take a systemic approach to looking at things once as seeing where it takes me.

Also, part of the reason I am splitting things up is figuring out where players belong or where they can be used: YOu are dividing it by position, I'm mainly dividing by post and guard, with someone adept in both areas being considered a small forward candidate.

Fair enough to be called out on that. As VD alluded to, it just offends my sensibilities.

You also need to factor in the O/D you're playing. If you use a slowdown triangle/zone, athleticism, speed, and stamina don't mean as much as if you are playing uptempo press. I do a similar analysis for GD, and here's how I break it down:

- Decide which 3-4 rankings are the "core" rankings for each position

- Assign those weights depending on importance. that sum up to roughly 80%

- Take the other rankings (excluding WE and durability) and assign those lower weights to reach 20%

- For HD, I'd add one modification by adding pace and O/D set adjustments, reducing the importance of stamina if playing slowdown and increasing if uptempo, and increasing the importance of ath/speed if playing FB/FCP and decreasing if going zone / triangle (which I perceive, right or wrong, as having the least amount of movement and therefore requiring slightly less athleticism)

- When reviewing the list, set minimums for each core rating that you won't accept below that score