He’s clearly very valuable, and you’re using him pretty well. I don’t think any change to the BB is called for, though. Part of coaching is understanding how the ratings work functionally, and how the game’s evaluation (both recruit rankings and BB evaluations are part of that) diverge from actual usage value. I guess you can be a little frustrated he’s not going to help your prestige by getting drafted in the first round, as his performance might have warranted, but that’s a realistic minor annoyance we can live with, I think.

To be clear, I'm not annoyed in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I was ecstatic to keep him for 4 years, no matter his draft position. I just thought it was funny that the 2-time ACC DPoY (he'll get it again this season) was sliding down the board despite having a fantastic season and career.

I agree that there doesn't necessarily need to be changes to the formulas because we've already adapted to the current ones. Changing them now doesn't necessarily improve anything. Some players would be rated higher and some lower, but it wouldn't make a huge difference to the game.

Posted by mlitney on 9/27/2021 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 9/27/2021 11:38:00 AM (view original):
i don't think i'd go as high as 15-20, an ideal end result IMO would still see lp-based scoring at the 1/2 valued meaningfully lower than 3pt scoring. but he's clearly way too low. probably end of first round for me

Hmm, this makes me think that I'm over-valuing him, and maybe this is why I haven't won a championship yet lol.

i love guys like that. but obviously he’d be even more effective with 100 per 100 bh and 1 lp

Posted by shoe3 on 9/27/2021 1:54:00 PM (view original):
He’s clearly very valuable, and you’re using him pretty well. I don’t think any change to the BB is called for, though. Part of coaching is understanding how the ratings work functionally, and how the game’s evaluation (both recruit rankings and BB evaluations are part of that) diverge from actual usage value. I guess you can be a little frustrated he’s not going to help your prestige by getting drafted in the first round, as his performance might have warranted, but that’s a realistic minor annoyance we can live with, I think.

i think the big board is ok but there's a relatively clear imbalance on the pg formula vs the rest. it over values higher per pg and under values lower per pg consistently.

the board rankings should sort of generally be balanced. i agree in general its fine, in the sense that, its not like super messed up or anything. but i find the rest of the rankings to be at least decent. i enjoy finding the guys in those sweet spots where you get 4yr player too - that is WAY more valuable than the draft prestige. but i do think the pg formula is basically pretty far out of whack if you look at it. it cuts both ways, you'll see 80 on the board pgs who really shouldn't be in danger there too

Posted by mlitney on 9/27/2021 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 9/27/2021 12:20:00 PM (view original):
maybe bottom of first round was too high - quality wise, i think that's about the right spot, but for big board cohesion, probably earlier in the 2nd is better. here is an example of a guy who i had drafted around 50 on the board as a junior, bottom of the first round (26), who is substantially better than your guy or mine, objectively but especially from a team composition standpoint. granted, this is roughly a perfect package - about as good as players get in this game. so his draft spot was low too. but still, the point is, there's a couple echelons between a pg like this and yours and mine, and he was low 1st round too.

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/Ratings.aspx?&pid=4234143

From your examples, I might just be overrating athleticism at the guard positions. To me, Johnson is an ideal SF, which is where his 100 spd/ath would be most utilized, and also where he fits best from a team composition standpoint. He can better be surrounded by shooters at the 1/2 and even backup 3. Maybe part of the problem is that the BB formulas aren't sophisticated enough to consider some of the nuances of a player's actual value. Or maybe the formulas just aren't very good. You're pretty certain that he's on the PG formula?

johnson's passing, and incredibly ath/spd/def, really call for him to play a guard position in press. if you were over valuing ath, in guards, wouldn't you want him to play guard?

he's a strong sf for sure, i think he can play multiple spots. that's kinda why i was saying to george (because the reply was constructive generally) i kinda agreed he's not the best sg but hes a premium pg / sf.

he's a strong sf for sure, i mean, if you can have that defense, that bh/pass, quality 2pt scoring and some reb in your sf spot, that is pretty much plenty. i didn't look at your team but its a stretch for me to imagine you have enough defensive and bh/pass abilities at the 1-2, for him to actually be an ideal fit at the 3, though. if you do you have a championship coming for sure. if you have less defense (ability) and bh/pass than him at the 1-2, then him at the 3 is wasting all of those things, because they are all more valuable to the left. assuming you press based on his iq. in m2m whatever is fine, move him around maybe? and his reb is a weakness at the 3 vs a strength at the 1-2.

his bh is a bit weak at the 1, but its obviously fine IMO with that passing. i think the main thing is, your best players generally need to play where they are best, in a way that is relative to the team, and for him i just have to imagine - again, unless you are the #1 team in your world, perhaps by a mile - that at the 3, his talents are not being fully utilized. but really bottom line, if you have two 3pt scorers to pair him with on the starting line, hes going to be highly effective from any spot 1-3. if not, then his style of offense makes him somewhat of a team planning liability, but hey, that is true of pgs all the time, and plenty of them don't have near his skills. same story for sf but again, your team would have to be tremendous for him to really be ideal playing at sf. it might be your best option anyway, because realities are what they are... but still

and just to be clear this guy we are talking about is probably using the SG formula. or the SF formula. he SHOULD be using the PG formula but he's not because the formula is dumb and ranks him lower than the SG/SF formulas, most likely.

Lots of good info there, thanks gill. Just to show you how much quality I have at guard, this is my starting PG:
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=4879747

I also have to get starts for this freshman:
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=4919012

Then I've got some quality depth with this guy backing up the 1 and 2.
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=4879746

There's another guard that needs to start so he's currently at the 4 despite sub-par reb rating. The depth chart has been a bit of a mess, but I'll be able to sort it out for the postseason.

I love guys like that because they are likely to stay and they will be terrific at several useful things. They wont be volume scorers. Fine, we'll find that somewhere else. Play him at the 1, 2, or 3 depending on the rest of the roster and your scheme. Love these guys

Posted by gillispie on 9/27/2021 4:29:00 PM (view original):
and just to be clear this guy we are talking about is probably using the SG formula. or the SF formula. he SHOULD be using the PG formula but he's not because the formula is dumb and ranks him lower than the SG/SF formulas, most likely.

I was actually going to say this in response to your last post, lol.

Posted by shoe3 on 9/28/2021 1:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 9/27/2021 4:29:00 PM (view original):
and just to be clear this guy we are talking about is probably using the SG formula. or the SF formula. he SHOULD be using the PG formula but he's not because the formula is dumb and ranks him lower than the SG/SF formulas, most likely.

I was actually going to say this in response to your last post, lol.

Yeah, that's why I asked. haha. Thanks for the discussion. I initially just wanted to point out something that I found strange and somewhat silly, but I ended up learning a bunch of stuff.

Posted by gillispie on 9/27/2021 11:05:00 AM (view original):
i would definitely support a tweak to the pg formula. some players it rates meaningfully too high, others drastically too low. i just had a great pg barely get drafted at like 105 on the board, probably an elite pg, its hard with pgs to draw the line though because the max ceiling on pgs is uniquely insane. but i'd call him elite (quality starter for a championship level team), he was much like yours. had other pgs higher on the board who were vastly worse. so much of the pg formula turns on per, it really doesn't make a ton of sense.

This kid was ranked like 150th as a senior and went undrafted and while I get his passing could be better I'm guessing he was heavily penalized for his lack of PER but he's a legit pure PG: https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/Ratings.aspx?&pid=4838128

Posted by sol_phenom3 on 9/29/2021 9:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 9/27/2021 11:05:00 AM (view original):
i would definitely support a tweak to the pg formula. some players it rates meaningfully too high, others drastically too low. i just had a great pg barely get drafted at like 105 on the board, probably an elite pg, its hard with pgs to draw the line though because the max ceiling on pgs is uniquely insane. but i'd call him elite (quality starter for a championship level team), he was much like yours. had other pgs higher on the board who were vastly worse. so much of the pg formula turns on per, it really doesn't make a ton of sense.

This kid was ranked like 150th as a senior and went undrafted and while I get his passing could be better I'm guessing he was heavily penalized for his lack of PER but he's a legit pure PG: https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/Ratings.aspx?&pid=4838128

It will be interesting to see what happens to Gary Howton next season. He will end up with upper 90s speed, 100 perimeter, 86-88 BH, 88-92 passing (I wasn’t paying attention), but only a point or two left on defense (so 91-92), and he’s maxed at 51 athleticism. He isn’t on the Big Board yet. The athleticism may keep him off, despite elite pg skills

I don't feel like either of the above players would be big board material. Maybe I'm not very good at judging it yet. But as you mentioned shoe, 54 ATH? Are there ever players with that low of athleticism on the board? I don't pay as much attention to it as some of you do. That just seems really low