THat he was fresh and not tired the entire game, and ended it exactly as fresh as he started? Yes.



That he played 48 min? No.

Would he really have averaged 50-25 in a season if he was gassed?

Yes. He was just that much better than everyone around him at that time. They had to invent new rules to contain him. That much of a mismatch. . . . and b. . I didn't say "Gassed' - that would be VERY tired.

Tired. Not fairly fresh, not very tired.

Quote: Originally Posted By schroedess26 on 1/31/2010Ya players in the NCAA don't just breeze up and down the court for 30-40 mins easy peasy.

Some do. Hell, didn't Johnny Flynn play like 50 minutes last year during the middle of a four-games-in-four-days stretch?

If you have 100 stamina, you should rarely have to come out. I don't know why that's debatable.

Dalter made a point that he likes it the way it is because depth is better for HD, but I disagree. I think having 7 or 8 very good players (assuming the stamina is good) should be better than having 10 above average players, and I'm not sure that's the case right now.

They DON'T have to come out. Set them to "FOul only" and they will cnly come out due to fouls.

But if you set them to be "Fresh as a daisy" they are going to spend some time resting.

Sure, but that doesn't really solve the problem because the player will actually get tired. The fact is, the most conditioned player in college can basketball can play 40 minutes without slowing down.

Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 2/01/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By schroedess26 on 1/31/2010
Ya players in the NCAA don't just breeze up and down the court for 30-40 mins easy peasy.

Some do. Hell, didn't Johnny Flynn play like 50 minutes last year during the middle of a four-games-in-four-days stretch?

If you have 100 stamina, you should rarely have to come out. I don't know why that's debatable.

Dalter made a point that he likes it the way it is because depth is better for HD, but I disagree. I think having 7 or 8 very good players (assuming the stamina is good) should be better than having 10 above average players, and I'm not sure that's the case right now.

But you have to consider and understand the ramifications of what you're asking for (I'm talking mostly at DI).

This would result in an all-in fest in recruiting for the best players at DI. Bad, bad idea.

And at all levels it would cause the rich to get richer. Right now, you can't necessarily be great every season because some are just rebuilding years where you're not deep enough. But if you can get by on 7-man rotations like some do in real life, the best teams w. the top handful of players would be even more dominant.

Again, the question should be, "What is best for HD?"

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 2/01/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 2/01/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By schroedess26 on 1/31/2010
Ya players in the NCAA don't just breeze up and down the court for 30-40 mins easy peasy.

Some do. Hell, didn't Johnny Flynn play like 50 minutes last year during the middle of a four-games-in-four-days stretch?

If you have 100 stamina, you should rarely have to come out. I don't know why that's debatable.

Dalter made a point that he likes it the way it is because depth is better for HD, but I disagree. I think having 7 or 8 very good players (assuming the stamina is good) should be better than having 10 above average players, and I'm not sure that's the case right now.

But you have to consider and understand the ramifications of what you're asking for (I'm talking mostly at DI).

This would result in an all-in fest in recruiting for the best players at DI. Bad, bad idea.

And at all levels it would cause the rich to get richer. Right now, you can't necessarily be great every season because some are just rebuilding years where you're not deep enough. But if you can get by on 7-man rotations like some do in real life, the best teams w. the top handful of players would be even more dominant.

Again, the question should be, "What is best for HD?"

Only if stamina ratings remain the same. I think they should be changed and adjusted for less elite conditioned players. Isn't that what seble is doing with other ratings anyway?

If you have guys with 75 stamina, you'd still need to recruit good depth.

And I'm not totally sure why you're on this "what's best for HD" kick as if by you saying that, it means your ideas are best for HD. I think this would make HD more realistic, and also better.

Again give me 8 very good players, and you can have 10 above average players, and I'll win every time. Except in HD.

Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 2/01/2010Sure, but that doesn't really solve the problem because the player will actually get tired. The fact is, the most conditioned player in college can basketball can play 40 minutes without slowing down

SO if that player played himself, one version from the beginning of the game the other having played forty minutes, the one from the beginning woudl have absolutely no advantage?

No, it would affect his fatigue, just like it does now, simply at a slower rate. The point is, it wouldn't be enough that he would need to come out of the game.

This happens all the time. I'm not sure why it wouldn't benefit HD to have elite conditioned players, otherwise stamina is worthless as a rating. It adds another dimension to the game, one that is both practical and important.

So its worthless as a rating unless the player is fresh the whole game? I'm sorry, I just don't see that. I could stand it being tweaked a bit, but. . .

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 2/01/2010So its worthless as a rating unless the player is fresh the whole game? I'm sorry, I just don't see that. I could stand it being tweaked a bit, but. . .

What do you mean?

It's worthless unless there is variation. As of now, there is almost none because everyone plays between 20-25 min at "fairly fresh."

And?

If you want a player going over thirty minutes, put them at 'getting tired'