Has this question been answered? Topic

ike1024
Posts: 410 (0)
Hall of Famer
59
Prospect
If someone plays a 6'3" guard with 90 ath/90 spd and 99 def at SF, is that player going to be able to effectively guard a 6'9" SF?

More succinctly, is there anything in the engine that accounts for this size difference, or would we just see an unrealistic result?
6/6/2010 11:36 AM
rockafe11a
Posts: 67 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 1 153 9 2
Prospect
Thats what she said.

But seriously the engine does not take height into account, so yes if the 6'3" guy has the ratings to guard the SF then he will do fine.
6/6/2010 11:41 AM
rockafe11a
Posts: 67 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 1 153 9 2
Prospect
Size don't matter.
6/6/2010 11:41 AM
ike1024
Posts: 410 (0)
Hall of Famer
59
Prospect
That's what I thought, thanks. I was hoping there had been some tweak to that. Just seems like something could be done, but I guess it won't change until and unless defense gets split up like per and lp.
6/6/2010 11:53 AM
oldave
Posts: 1162 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 302 12
Pro
the way you have to think of it is that it is already factored in there. maybe the 6'3" SG can really jump, or is a linebckerish-Paul-Harris type. and maybe the 6'9" SF is soft and not the type of player to take advantage of the 6" height difference,... happens all the time.
6/6/2010 12:45 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
But that's not true - defense is simply a rating for overall defense. I understand that height is factored in, but based on that, you could have a 6'0" guard effectively guard a 7-footer in the low post. That doesn't happen, sorry.

And come on, that does not happen all the time. Paul Harris didn't guard the post that often in the 2-3, and when he did, he wasn't guarding Dejuan Blair. 6'3" SGs don't guard 6'9" players in the post "all the time."

6/6/2010 1:05 PM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
I agree with you that it's not perfect. However, I think it's far from a significant issue and would want them to hammer out all of the kinks in the new engine before even attempting to address something like that. My gut feeling is that it's probably something best alone.
6/6/2010 3:03 PM
deaconsport3
Posts: 31 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 1 73 31 9
Prospect
yeah but baron davis or deron williams could probably have guarded, via physical domination, a sf like josh howard (who lacks a solid interior game) or some other lanky less than stellar 6-5/6-7 swing man...

i guess it just comes down to match-up preferences 6'3 on 6'9, not so big of a stretch for me as 6'0 on 6'10 or even 6'4 on 7'0
6/6/2010 3:05 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10041 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 292 18
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 6/06/2010
But that's not true - defense is simply a rating for overall defense. I understand that height is factored in, but based on that, you could have a 6'0" guard effectively guard a 7-footer in the low post. That doesn't happen, sorry.

And come on, that does not happen all the time. Paul Harris didn't guard the post that often in the 2-3, and when he did, he wasn't guarding Dejuan Blair. 6'3" SGs don't guard 6'9" players in the post "all the time."



Nor are most SFs 6'9'' post players. Many in this game are neither, particularly in D1 and D2. So while I can understand the concern, it's not a huge factor for this particular question. I don't think a 6'3" player defending SFs is entirely unreasonable in most cases.
6/6/2010 3:31 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
OK, let's say someone puts a SG a the C spot. The same theory applies. They would probably give up a lot in some areas, but he would be able to guard the opposing C, right?

I think we can all agree that's absurd.

I agree, it's not a huge issue (mostly because people don't put SGs at C), but for the people who want realism, this is pretty unrealistic.
6/6/2010 3:52 PM
bigbucks69
Posts: 19 (0)
Hall of Famer
196 3 4
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 6/06/2010
OK, let's say someone puts a SG a the C spot. The same theory applies. They would probably give up a lot in some areas, but he would be able to guard the opposing C, right?

I think we can all agree that's absurd.

I agree, it's not a huge issue (mostly because people don't put SGs at C), but for the people who want realism, this is pretty unrealistic.



But the sg would have a bad position penalty for being more than one spot away from his position (pg or sf). Hence he would not be able to effectively guard the c.
6/6/2010 5:34 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
There's no position penalty.
6/6/2010 5:44 PM
bigbucks69
Posts: 19 (0)
Hall of Famer
196 3 4
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 6/06/2010There's no position penalty
Very wrong.
6/6/2010 5:49 PM
Weena
Posts: 579 (0)
Hall of Famer
227 1 1 1 531 1 27
Rookie
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
6/6/2010 6:03 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By bigbucks69 on 6/06/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 6/06/2010
There's no position penalty.
Very wrong
No.
6/6/2010 6:06 PM
12 Next ▸
Has this question been answered? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.