I think it depends on two things: 1) How important elite athleticism actually is--I've been led to believe it's VERY important to many of the other skills; and 2) How much growth Smith has left in ATH and SPD. Without knowing those two things, it's impossible to gauge a hypothetical matchup.

As for getting opinions, that's exactly what I want: opinions on how best to utilize the two players I presentd, Pak and Dolloff. It's not helpful for people to answer that question, "Recruit different guys." That's particularly the case, when the underlying assumption seems to be that a low-D1 can recruit in just the same way that a high D1 can. That's just not the case, as I learned the hard way, when I tried to win a couple of those guys in my early seasons.

1. ATH is important but it is never the most important factor in any deciding any event.  It's important because it is used in many equations.    I am a total ATH whore but it doesn't work in a vacuum.    It always help but it can't help a super low stat.

2. Smith is maxed out in ATH and SPD.  Gauge your hypothetical on his current stats.

3.   No one is saying go after top ten talent.   What we are saying is that the players you have contain serious, exploitable flaws.  You just can't play a guy with 44 REB at the 4 in D1.   You just can't play guards with 50 speed in D1.    A 90 ATH/90LP guy with 65 REB you can get away with, maybe at low d1. But a 45?  That's not a winning strategy,

1) My thinking with Pak was that I would start a great rebounding center, and a good rebounding SF around him. And, quite literally, rebounding is going to be Pak's ONLY "soft" area. Everything else that is relevant to PFs looks like he'll be dominant.

2) In looking at Smith, I just realized he's a center, not a PF. Are you saying you'd slide him over to PF to try to exploit Pak's rebounding deficiency? I think if you did that, particularly after Pak gets to his JR and SR years, Pak would do very well against him offensively, while being probably -4 or -5 rebounding wise--maybe grab 6 rebounds to Smith's 10-12.

3) I guess my thought is that Pak's one weakness (rebounding) can be shored up by the two positions on either side of him in the front court. And he's so high in his other ratings, it seems like a good bet to make, for a low-D1 school. In real life, "tweeners" like Pak play ALL THE TIME in D1.

Posted by tianyi7886 on 10/17/2013 1:43:00 PM (view original):
None of these guys should be playing the PF spot. Rebounding is now position v position, meaning whoever you put at the 4, his rebounding ability will be matched up against the other team's 4 one on one for rebounds. Simai will use a natural PF at the 4, and these guys will generally have pretty good rebounds. Smart human coaches will put their best rebounder at the 4 against you and just flat out dominate all three of these guys, cleaning up the boards.

Your best bet is to recruit a real big 90 rebound off the bat (like a 50ath/90reb kind of player ) or a 70ath/60 reb guy that has high potential in either ath or reb. 

i was under the impression there was now a matchup COMPONENT to rebounding, not that its straight position vs position. maybe you werent suggesting differently, but thats a meaningful distinction to me, and i want to make sure i have it right...

Posted by grissom97 on 10/18/2013 12:14:00 AM (view original):
That's a bad plan, you don't recruit to first get in the dance and then recruit to win once you're consistently getting there.  You're adding an unnecessary step and wasting seasons in the process.  Look at the how the better coaches in DI have put together their teams and those are the type players you're looking for.  You seem to be focusing on players with one solid attribute instead of focusing on all the attributes that contribute to a player excelling at his position.

 

i dont really agree, i think for coaches who are still learning to work their way up to d1, just trying to make the NT is a perfectly reasonable strategy. obviously experts will try to combine the two steps as you suggest.

Posted by wildcat98 on 10/17/2013 1:58:00 PM (view original):
I recruited both Pak and Dolloff because I felt like their athleticism/defense made up for their deficiency in other areas, particularly since I felt ATH was a fairly big weakness of most of my teams.

stop thinking of teams in terms of ratings. if you are thinking about strengths and weaknesses in terms of ratings, you are doing it wrong (admittedly, most coaches make that mistake). you have to think in terms of abilities. were they weak on offense? defense? rebounding? guard skills? 

Posted by wildcat98 on 10/19/2013 10:59:00 AM (view original):
1) My thinking with Pak was that I would start a great rebounding center, and a good rebounding SF around him. And, quite literally, rebounding is going to be Pak's ONLY "soft" area. Everything else that is relevant to PFs looks like he'll be dominant.

2) In looking at Smith, I just realized he's a center, not a PF. Are you saying you'd slide him over to PF to try to exploit Pak's rebounding deficiency? I think if you did that, particularly after Pak gets to his JR and SR years, Pak would do very well against him offensively, while being probably -4 or -5 rebounding wise--maybe grab 6 rebounds to Smith's 10-12.

3) I guess my thought is that Pak's one weakness (rebounding) can be shored up by the two positions on either side of him in the front court. And he's so high in his other ratings, it seems like a good bet to make, for a low-D1 school. In real life, "tweeners" like Pak play ALL THE TIME in D1.

1) pak is better as a sf than as a pf, i dont think its close. 

2) if you really expect to lose 4-5 rebounds against a non-stellar big like smith, you have to recognize you cant really make up for that in offense. say pak shoots 10% higher than the rest of your team - a VERY generous figure - whats he taking, 15 shots? that would be 1.5 extra made baskets. that does not compensate for 4-5 missed rebounds. i think both figures are a stretch but the reality is you can get good scoring elsewhere a lot easier than you can get good rebounding elsewhere. i see the merit in him, honestly i feel i can make a stronger argument against most of the rest of the guys on the team, than him.

3) this isnt real life and understanding the differences in HD and real life is critical to success! they are pretty substantially different.

let me try to demonstrate the 2 strength point with some older players who are grown. padillo - he has zero clear strengths, hes weak to mediocre in all 3 major areas - you shouldn't take guys like that. francis - hes pretty decent rebounding wise, not really good, but hes definitely not clearly strong in offense or defense, so no go. 

the trick once you get all guys with 2 clear strengths (or more) is to make sure those line up right, so you have the right amount of offense, defense, rebounding, and guard skills. if you can achieve that 2 clear strength goal, and of those 10 clear strengths between the 5 starters, you have something like 4 defense, 2 offense, 2 rebounding (4&5), two guard skills (1&2), you are pretty much guaranteed to be successful. thats basically the first step in team planning in my book, after the trivial stuff like never sign 3 bigs in a 3 man class, etc...

hope that helps!

Thanks for the tips!

As for Pak, you don't think starting a solid rebounding SF (say, 55-65 REB) and a great rebounding C (90-100 REB) would effectively make up for his rebounding weakness? The only thing that scares me about putting him at SF is his extremely poor ball handling.

With Dolloff, he has two clear strengths as I see them: his defense and his passing. He has upside remaining in REB, DEF, BH, and DUR. I also felt like, with him, that his good athleticism would make his 56/31 LP/PER ratings at least closer to adequate for a SF, since I basically only ask my SFs to be athletic defenders, who don't kill me on the boards anyway. Is that asking too much of Dolloff at that position? Should I plan on him never being more than a backup at SF/SG, even given his great athleticism, defense, and passing?