vandy brings up another great point. If he has much more PE, that would use SPD more, and LP would use ATH. For me, it would really be a combination of several such factors as above.

I would take B, just because the improved athleticism will help with rebounding, which I need out of my SF, and the speed will still be much higher than most SF's I would face in D3

Quote: Originally Posted By jskenner on 11/20/2009vandy brings up another great point. If he has much more PE, that would use SPD more, and LP would use ATH. For me, it would really be a combination of several such factors as above

I wouldn't be recruiting a sf that has much higher LP then PER.

I tend to agree, z. But I can see the possibility of a such a SF working for me, higher ATH than SPD and higher LP than PE, IF my system and the rest of the lineup fit with his strengths. Still, it would be rare for me to build a team with such a makeup.

I know some will argue that there is virtually no difference between offensive sets. I tend to disagree. So for that reason there could be advantages to all three depending on the set.

I've never run a FB offense before so I can't comment on which player would be the best fit for that, but I've had a lot of experience with Flex and Triangle and a decent amount of time with Motion.

With the Flex, I've had my best success with small speedy lineups, often going with three guards. I want guys that can get open on the perimeter and knock down the shot so C is my choice.

With Triangle, similar to flex in that I want guys to get open outside shots, but I find that I can usually rely on two good perimeter guards to do that so I want a SF that can get inside and grab a board, yet I want the option to get him open on the outside as well and take the shot, depending on the matchup, so I may go with the balanced guy. B

With Motion, I want a guy who can crash the boards. I like to play the motion offense close to the baseline so I want a SF that can take a pass from a slashing guard and work to the hoop for a shot. I also want him to grab a lot of offensive boards for easy putbacks so A would be my choice.

Now of course it also depends on what kind of weaknesses I have when recruiting.

b....anytime I can get a player with mid 40's to start out with I have a tough time not grabbing them. I prefer speed but 30 ath isn't enough for me to pass on b

B. I have no factual reason for this. I'm just hoping the sim engine treats the SPD/ATH effects as a kind of multiplier instead of a sum. And I treat SF's as the avg player - not leaning toward big or small play.

But really i would get whichever of the three I could recruit most easily.

Quote: Originally Posted By jenningss on 11/20/2009B. I have no factual reason for this. I'm just hoping the sim engine treats the SPD/ATH effects as a kind of multiplier instead of a sum. And I treat SF's as the avg player - not leaning toward big or small play.

But really i would get whichever of the three I could recruit most easily.

xactly

I gotta stand and testify here, brothers and sisters, I'd gladly recruit 'em all. Prob'ly start 'em all too.

interesting, thanks to everyone, and keep firing away, when I started the topic, I would have answered A for me, and thought the majority would have said B, probably could have put a D and E - all of the above and none of the above. I looked at a few of my teams, I have a pretty equal smattering of all 3 types of SF;s, some of my best ones look more like c than a in all honesty, shows what I know.

My best advice to newcomers reading this as result of the input so far, is many of these coaches have had success, yet they widely vary in opinion, there are many ways to succeed at this, don't get to hung up on any one opinion or method to guide your actions.

I am with Z on this. C with no question about it. I like my SF to be a 3rd guard (especially if that player is my best scorer off the bench), and I care much more about PER than LP in my SF's (in a perfect world). Reason for 3rd guard approach is just based on the fact that I consistently have post players that underperform their respective ratings, while my guards generally perform closer to their expected level. Would rather error on the side of guys who perform as expected. Just my observation from my own teams.

Personally I always wanted the highest ATH possible in a SF and was willing to sacrifice speed to get it. In this particular case I'd probably go with A.

For SF and for bigs, I would much rather have athleticism. In my experience my bigger guys with very high athleticism have insanely high shooting percentages and I am very focused on shooting percentage for my shot allocations.

I use alot of SF's... some teams will have 3-5. The other numbers will make a difference for me... If these guys have PF numbers then A. If they have good PE/BH/Pa and a 20 in RB then C is the guy and he probably will be played alot at the 2. I have a title in DIII on another account with only one C and one PF. Had 5 SF's and just ate teams up. Haven't ever quite got a group together like that again... was my most fun team ever tho.

*edit.. also had an E-8 and F-4 in DII with a team with 4 guards 5 sf's and 3 bigs... but both this and the one above were pre-potential,, when you could recruit and mold the guy your way.... not gonna happen today.

Quote: Originally posted by jpmills3 on 11/20/2009I am with Z on this.  C with no question about it.  I like my SF to be a 3rd guard (especially if that player is my best scorer off the bench), and I care much more about PER than LP in my SF's (in a perfect world).  Reason for 3rd guard approach is just based on the fact that I consistently have post players that underperform their respective ratings, while my guards generally perform closer to their expected level.  Would rather error on the side of guys who perform as expected.  Just my observation from my own teams.

Not trying to single out jp on this one but I have noticed alot of people saying this. If you want your SF to be more like a guard, then recruit more SG and play them at that position. For me, I would answer B and make sure that he has better REB and LP to be more of a presence down low and use my extra SG as his sub to give me a better mis-match from outside.