Posted by rowle1js on 6/15/2011 9:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by milkamania on 6/15/2011 9:48:00 PM (view original):
Its not necessarily mislabeling.  In HS, the best player may play the "point" just to get the ball in his hands more often cause he is just that much better than the rest of the team.  In that instance, he comes up as a PG, but may be better off at the 2 or even 3 in college. 
I used to be like the OP in that I wanted each player at his listed position, but my opinion has gradually changed.  I tend now to look at PG's to play SG mostly to get better BH as I've been burned by the press too often.  I still like to get actual SF's to play the position though just because so many people avoid them you can find steals for cheap. 

Yeah that's true, and like you I think this is going to change how I recruit. I just always just mentally decided, like if I have a only one SF on my team I just automatically looked at the best SF I could get w/o even looking at any other position to fill since they weren't a SF.

the rest of us do the same thing. the difference is, when we only have one SF on our team, we mean by guys who are SFs, by skill - not the window dressing that is listed position (it has no impact on the simulation of the engine, anywhere). and, when we go to look for a guy, we probably do it by putting some cutoffs in the rating boxes to find guys who have the skills to be a SF. i very rarely use the box for listed position - and if i do, its *never* a single position to find a single position. i might have found my guards and look for pf/c but id never look for just c or just pf. cuts your options in half. literally.

Look at it in football in real life.  How many good players were high school quarterbacks?  They'd be listed as QB in here, but they'd play any number of positions. Same thing with this.  The listed position is only the position they played in high school.  Means nothing once you get to college.

I sort of wish you could do a three position search:  "PG/SG/SF" or "SF/PF/C"

I really don't see what the big deal is, either. I could say something more, but everything has pretty much been said already.

i load up on point guards and power forwards. i don't do it on purpose, but the players just fit my needs the best.

Give me a SG with reb and LP of 50 and I'll show you a world class D1 SF.

On my teams I currently have only 1 SF per.  I recruit the best guards and best bigs I can find.  And if there's a really high-rated SF nearby...great.  Otherwise you can EASILY fill that skillset with other positions.  The skillset is so general that putting in a big with decent speed pass/bh works because you overindex on REB, SB, and LP and putting in a guard works because you overindex on SPD, PER, BH and Passing.

I worry about cores first, listed position last.  I've found in the last few recruiting cycles that there have been a lot more PGs with good cores available to me than SGs.  Though I have 3 PGs already, when my Sr SG graduates it's entirely possible I'll replace him with another PG if I can find one with high PER.

I typically don't actively look for SFs because you have to spread their practice time  between LP and PER rather than focusing on one or the other - but having said that, I have one decent SF already and another one who redshirted and I expect both to play major roles on my team for the next couple of seasons.  If I have a SG with good REB and SPD,  I figure he makes a killer wing guy even if I have to set him to -2 on 3point and make him drive.

As for C vs PF, in theory I prefer PFs if they have good BH and a combination of ATH and SPD, but if you dangle a C in front of me who has high ATH, DEF and LP but low in everything else,  I'm a sucker.  

Posted by billscnb on 6/16/2011 11:20:00 AM (view original):
I really don't see what the big deal is, either. I could say something more, but everything has pretty much been said already.

There isn't a big deal, I was just generally curious on why people were recruiting like this. I am always looking how to become a better coach and recruiter. And this is the forums, if I'm not mistaken that's where you go when you have a question. So, if you don't have anything to say don't post.

The important message to take from this would be listed positions mean nothing, its all about the cores for the position. Folks have different opinions on the relative value of one ability over another, and that is the tricky thing...

I think he understands that, I just think he's being stubborn about the players' sim-generated labels.

Posted by ethan66 on 6/16/2011 2:00:00 PM (view original):
I worry about cores first, listed position last.  I've found in the last few recruiting cycles that there have been a lot more PGs with good cores available to me than SGs.  Though I have 3 PGs already, when my Sr SG graduates it's entirely possible I'll replace him with another PG if I can find one with high PER.

I typically don't actively look for SFs because you have to spread their practice time  between LP and PER rather than focusing on one or the other - but having said that, I have one decent SF already and another one who redshirted and I expect both to play major roles on my team for the next couple of seasons.  If I have a SG with good REB and SPD,  I figure he makes a killer wing guy even if I have to set him to -2 on 3point and make him drive.

As for C vs PF, in theory I prefer PFs if they have good BH and a combination of ATH and SPD, but if you dangle a C in front of me who has high ATH, DEF and LP but low in everything else,  I'm a sucker.  

Only focusing on either LP or Per when a guy is high in both is a mistake. The best scorers are the guys who are good in both.