Quote: Originally Posted By jbob23 on 5/19/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 5/19/2010
Years ago, they used to have players like this -- guards with 1 sp or ath, etc. I'm definitely a fan of varying the player ratings, but stuff like this above is ridiculously dumb.

I agree and like you I don't understand the guards with sp or ath that low. I did come across another player (sf) with 83 ath and 19 reb.

I don't mind varying ratings but to the extreme may not be the way.

Absolutely nothing wrong with high ath and low reb. Plenty of players like that that in real life.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

There are players in real life who are revolving doors on defense but talented in other areas.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 5/20/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 5/20/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By tmacfan12 on 5/19/2010

Quote: Originally posted by ryanderson on 5/19/2010
I know I was exaggerating, but I still don't think any college player should have such a low rating in a category as core as defense

The ratings compare the players to each other.... 1 is the worst you can be. Some people need to be the worst, its that simple.



This makes a lot of sense and I think that's what Seble was going for with the new engine. If players are judged on a scale of 1-100, than the least athletic players should have ratings of 1. Same way the worst shooters have PER ratings of 1.

No, it still doesn't make sense to have a guard with sp or ath of 1. If it was a morbidly obese center, I could buy it, but not a guard

The morbidly obese comment shows that you are thinking in terms for a 1ath meaning the player is as unathletic as a human gets but that's not how I take it or how I think Seble inteded it. What you should be doing is comparing them to other college basketball players. If somebody has a 1ath or 1sp it means they are as unathletic or slow as a collegiate basketball player gets. I do think no Division 1 player should have 1 for his ath or speed. However for D2 or D3 players I think it's entirely possible and plausible that there are either really unathletic or really slow players that have excellent skills. When it comes to D1 the vast majority of schools would shy away from any player that was slow as dirt or extremely unathletic.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 5/20/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 5/20/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 5/20/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By tmacfan12 on 5/19/2010

Quote: Originally posted by ryanderson on 5/19/2010
I know I was exaggerating, but I still don't think any college player should have such a low rating in a category as core as defense

The ratings compare the players to each other.... 1 is the worst you can be. Some people need to be the worst, its that simple.



This makes a lot of sense and I think that's what Seble was going for with the new engine. If players are judged on a scale of 1-100, than the least athletic players should have ratings of 1. Same way the worst shooters have PER ratings of 1.

No, it still doesn't make sense to have a guard with sp or ath of 1. If it was a morbidly obese center, I could buy it, but not a guard.

The morbidly obese comment shows that you are thinking in terms for a 1ath meaning the player is as unathletic as a human gets but that's not how I take it or how I think Seble inteded it. What you should be doing is comparing them to other college basketball players. If somebody has a 1ath or 1sp it means they are as unathletic or slow as a collegiate basketball player gets. I do think no Division 1 player should have 1 for his ath or speed. However for D2 or D3 players I think it's entirely possible and plausible that there are either really unathletic or really slow players that have excellent skills. When it comes to D1 the vast majority of schools would shy away from any player that was slow as dirt or extremely unathletic.

Morbidly obese was obviously said tongue-in-cheek. I'm comparing them to basketball players, not the population at large.

There should not be a guard with 1 sp/ath. If you had a few big men with a 1 in those categories, that I could see. But not guards. The simple fact that a guard is slower than even the most sloth-like big man would preclude him from being able to play college basketball.

Are there any guards with a speed rating of 1? I don't know because I'm not in a World that has generated new recruits.

I am in IBA and I believe we just rolled over to the new engine if I am not mistaken if not then some body can let me know but if we did this is what I found.

PG

DI - Lowest Speed Rating = 36

DII - Lowest Speed Rating = 24

DIII - Lowest Speed Rating = 15

SG

DI - Lowest Speed Rating = 32

DII - Lowest Speed Rating = 17

DIII - Lowest Speed Rating = 10

Granted these guys probably suck big time, and probably wont be recruited. Again I am not 100% if IBA has rolled over to the new engine with this new recruit generation but if so those are the lowest in Speed that I found.

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 5/20/2010Are there any guards with a speed rating of 1? I don't know because I'm not in a World that has generated new recruits.

For Smith:

Two SG's at Div III with 11 speed.

Two SG's at Div II with 14 speed.

A PG with 33 and a SG with 35 at Div I.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 5/20/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By jbob23 on 5/19/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 5/19/2010
Years ago, they used to have players like this -- guards with 1 sp or ath, etc. I'm definitely a fan of varying the player ratings, but stuff like this above is ridiculously dumb.

I agree and like you I don't understand the guards with sp or ath that low. I did come across another player (sf) with 83 ath and 19 reb.

I don't mind varying ratings but to the extreme may not be the way.

Absolutely nothing wrong with high ath and low reb. Plenty of players like that that in real life.

I don't have a problem with high ath and low rebound. I just thought 83 and 19 on a small forward were a bit extreme. Someone so athletic and can't rebound better then that would be hard to believe in real life. Of course it would be much worse in a PF.

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 5/20/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 5/20/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 5/20/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By tmacfan12 on 5/19/2010

Quote: Originally posted by ryanderson on 5/19/2010
I know I was exaggerating, but I still don't think any college player should have such a low rating in a category as core as defense

The ratings compare the players to each other.... 1 is the worst you can be. Some people need to be the worst, its that simple.



This makes a lot of sense and I think that's what Seble was going for with the new engine. If players are judged on a scale of 1-100, than the least athletic players should have ratings of 1. Same way the worst shooters have PER ratings of 1.

No, it still doesn't make sense to have a guard with sp or ath of 1. If it was a morbidly obese center, I could buy it, but not a guard.

The morbidly obese comment shows that you are thinking in terms for a 1ath meaning the player is as unathletic as a human gets but that's not how I take it or how I think Seble inteded it. What you should be doing is comparing them to other college basketball players. If somebody has a 1ath or 1sp it means they are as unathletic or slow as a collegiate basketball player gets. I do think no Division 1 player should have 1 for his ath or speed. However for D2 or D3 players I think it's entirely possible and plausible that there are either really unathletic or really slow players that have excellent skills. When it comes to D1 the vast majority of schools would shy away from any player that was slow as dirt or extremely unathletic.

kmason I also see yours and maybe seble's point of view, hence my J.J. Redick comment. My question is this, What's going to be the difference in a low athleticism guard and a low athleticism big? If a one means he is on the low end of his peers will his one be a better one then the big?

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

I just feel as if a player needs to have athleticism a little more then a desire to rebound to be good at it. I understand knowing positioning and boxing out are very important. I also understand that a Shawn Bradley will never be as good of a rebounder as a Dwight Howard no matter what each knows about rebounding.

Quote: Originally posted by jbob23 on 5/20/2010I just feel as if a player needs to have athleticism a little more then a desire to rebound to be good at it. I understand knowing positioning and boxing out are very important. I also understand that a Shawn Bradley will never be as good of a rebounder as a Dwight Howard no matter what each knows about rebounding.

That is absolutely true ... and the REB and ATH attributes both need to be be good to have a good rebounder. The guide even says this.