I was wondering if any coaches out there were feeling like they were maybe overvaluing any attributes. That is, placing too much value on a specific attribute during the recruiting process.  Conversely, are there any coaches that think they might be undervaluing, or not emphasizing enough, any given attribute?

Personally, I think I may tend to focus too much on passing and ball handling (even for my bigs) and let weak rebounding slide (again, even for my bigs and especially at the SF). For example, if a recruit can't BH or Pass well, I might be too quick to nix him BUT if he can't realize a high REB, I might be too quick to let him slide...

Any fellow coaches find themselves maybe overvaluing or undervaluing anything? 

A lot of veteran coaches may disagree with me on this one, but I used to overvalue rebounding at the SF position. Don't get me wrong... I still try to get it if I can. But I am no longer so picky about this. Now granted, you can't take one rating in a vacuum. It all depends on the player's other ratings, and the ratings of the other players around him. But I have had very good success at high-level D1 with some teams that had starting SF's with a rebounding rating in the 30's.

As a general observation, I think a lot of coaches undervalue Ath in their guards.

I think I personally undervalue speed and perimeter.

But I mean.. when you aren't at an A/A+ type school, you kind of have to pick your poison, right? You aren't going to get many players who excel in every area.

Depends on the system, I play FCP and would never undervalue SPD. However, I have undervalued REB (by accident, just overlooked it) and BLK, and my team is still doing okay.

I over valued passing over ball handling for a long time. I agree about the rebounding at the SF too. I now value a guard with bh/pass there and try to make sure I recruit elite rebounders at the big positions.

I used to undervalue REB mainly because I ran Flex, a Perimeter offense, and went smaller and faster with my line-up.  But I was getting killed on REB so I started focusing more.  Funny thing is, I noticed a couple of my players who are very high on REB were getting killed on the boards by opponents with much lower REB and much higher ATH.  So Now I value ATH over REB.  I kinda view ATH as the magnifying  factor for other skills.

I undervalue Shot Blocking too, for the same reason.  If I can get it, fine.  But I have never made a recruiting choice based on it.

I overvalue blocking. I need to value bh more

I honestly look at Blocking about as much as Durability.


maybe I should change that....

I think most coaches undervalue BLK.  They just kinda look at it as an afterthought and consider DEF and ATH the most important determinants of defensive ability, with SPD 3rd.  Based on some regression over hundreds of teams I ran a year or so ago BLK correlates to OPPFG% more than any other individual rating, even for guards.

I may well be over-emphasizing rebounding, to the point where I won't consider anyone at center who isn't 85+. If he's great elsewhere but only 70 rebounding, he'd have to be someone I feel comfortable playing at PF (and even there I look for 85+ in rebounding). With a zone though, I still think that extreme emphasis makes some sense.

I likely undervalue FT. My teams often draw a lot of fouls, but we seem to always miss a higher percentage than the national average, so those extra misses really add up. I need to change that.

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/18/2012 3:13:00 PM (view original):
I think most coaches undervalue BLK.  They just kinda look at it as an afterthought and consider DEF and ATH the most important determinants of defensive ability, with SPD 3rd.  Based on some regression over hundreds of teams I ran a year or so ago BLK correlates to OPPFG% more than any other individual rating, even for guards.

You apparently have the stats to back it up, but I have a really tough time believing BLK is more important to OppFG% than DEF.

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/18/2012 3:13:00 PM (view original):
I think most coaches undervalue BLK.  They just kinda look at it as an afterthought and consider DEF and ATH the most important determinants of defensive ability, with SPD 3rd.  Based on some regression over hundreds of teams I ran a year or so ago BLK correlates to OPPFG% more than any other individual rating, even for guards.

Any interaction terms in the regression. I imagine the term def*blk would be significant. 

Not particularly significant, actually.  Both Def*ATH and Blk*Ath were significant, also Def*SPD.  I still suspect they all actually interact to produce, at most, an outside and inside overall defensive efficiency rating, and I'm sure if I'd manipulated the model a bit I could have made it look however I wanted with regards to interactions.  I was more interested in regressions based on individual ratings for what I was looking at.

these are some fascinating comments...