Quote: Originally Posted By armst24 on 10/21/2009I realize this might be getting a bit far off the original topic, but I think there is a point that folks are missing regarding the lowering of player attributes with respect to recruiting. I am assuming that when the player attributes change to decrease the # of stud maxed out in everything players, this is going to result in not only far fewer of these types of players but more specialists (i.e. guys that have 100 in one key catergory but have several weakness.) These types of players aren't particularly useful now because they don't perform well compared to the well rounded, maxed out in nearly every attribute player. But if that changes and there are only 10-20 players in the world with say a 100 in PER; I think it adds quite a bit of strategy with regards to building your team. Like do you want a SG that is a knock down 3pt shooter or a quick guard with a good handle. I think this is really going to make recruiting more interesting because different coaches are going to value different attributes putting another level of strategy into the game (something that is greatly needed, I think we all can agree).

arm - I know all of the minor league guys love this idea and are hailing it as novel, but how is the 'specialist' idea any different than playing d2 / d3 right now? My current d2 team has some specialists and some well rounding 60 something guys, I think they all do????

my d1 UWGB team probably is half specialists and half top notch guys.

The beauty of the current system d1, is anyone can recruit core skill guys who max out, and winning is about how you handle the non core areas - d2 / d3 is kind of the opposite -

all the idea on the table does is make all 3 levels the same.

OR, i guess that last sentence is correct to some degree. but i guess i would prefer to say that the idea on the table takes something that works well in the minor leagues and introduces it to the big leagues.

if you prefer to say that all three levels are different and that there are different things to like about each one. I can go with that, and have even said as much before. so that explains why many longtimers like to have teams at each level.

BUT... HD has made clear that they do not want longtimers at D2 or D3 (see rewardpointTaxScandal, etc). they dont want to create 3 different games within HD and so they "encourage" all longtimers to gravitate toward D1. So, if there is a part of D3 that I like, then i prefer to see it added to the D1 game.

i would think that the difference with the D1 speicalists is that they might be more extreme, if that makes any sense.

So, OR, given your recent comments, is it accurate to say that you really like the game as it is right now and are concerned about changes that might end up making the game worse instead of better?

or do you want to see the game changed... but you feel that Seble may be focusing on the wrong changes?

Forgive me if youve clarified this previously, just trying to get a handle on where you stand.

Now that i think about it.... i think OR prefers changes be focused on recruiting... right?

Quote: Originally posted by oldresorter on 10/21/2009[/QUOTE]arm - I know all of the minor league guys love this idea and are hailing it as novel, but how is the 'specialist' idea any different than playing d2 / d3 right now?  My current d2 team has some specialists and some well rounding 60 something guys, I think they all do????my d1 UWGB team probably is half specialists and half top notch guys.The beauty of the current system d1, is anyone can recruit core skill guys who max out, and winning is about how you handle the non core areas - d2 / d3 is kind of the opposite - all the idea on the table does is make all 3 levels the same.

OR, I agree that this would make DI more like DII, but I don't think that is such a bad thing. The problem with DII in my opinion is the lack of competition as it is so empty, but I enjoy it more in terms of the flexibility of creating different style of teams. And it would also make DI alot more like real life, where the star players are not always well rounded (off the top of my head...JJ Redick, Tyler Hansborough, Kevin Durant, etc.)

Quote: Originally Posted By oldave on 10/21/2009

So, OR, given your recent comments, is it accurate to say that you really like the game as it is right now and are concerned about changes that might end up making the game worse instead of better?

or do you want to see the game changed... but you feel that Seble may be focusing on the wrong changes?

Forgive me if youve clarified this previously, just trying to get a handle on where you stand.

Now that i think about it.... i think OR prefers changes be focused on recruiting... right?

i want 100% of the effort to be on the engine. I want statistically sound results for slo, reg, uptempo. I want -5 thru +5 to work better. I want shot selection to work better -2 thru +2. I want to be able to start different lineups for zones, fcp, m2m. I want to be able to pick some man matchups. I want man defense to work better, but be the hardest to run. I want the offenses to be more definined on how thehy work, so that triangle definitely needs something like bh, motion definitely needs something like per, whatever, I just want them to be most definitely different. I want the IQ's to work so that we can run them all each game, maybe even 50% mtoion, 25% FB, 25% triangle. I want to be able to have more say in what I improve when I practice. I want 25-24 games because two ACC teams decide to play slow down to go away. that is just a 2 minute snap shot, I am sure there is much more.

I frankly could care less about the player ratings, for all the crap I said, does not matter if we are playing with all 90's or all 70's, relative to each other going to be the same game.

I agree wholeheartedly, OR. My #1, 2 and 3 priorities ... the sim engine.

And I've said this before, but if the engine were working properly, we wouldn't be so focused on recruit differentiation to try and get better results. Don't get me wrong, I think recruit differentiation is a good thing, but the sim engine is what's driving everything.

If seble can get the engine to work well, everything else will really fall into place.

Im glad i asked OR. I guess I knew that, but i hadnt seen you put it all in one place like that before.

i agree that all those engine issues should be at or near the top of the list, but im going to hold on to my facination with player differentiation for now. you have certainly pointed out some flaws, but i am not quite ready to dump out the baby with the bathwater. i think player differentiation, recruiting and increased importance of practice planning warrant attention along with the engine issues. I would have to give it some more though before i could say what my top 2 or 3 or 4 things are.

od, here's an example for you to show why the engine is (far-and-away) the #1 issue to be addressed:

People like to blame weird statistical results for stud players on the fact that there are so many stud players. And that may indeed be a contributing factor.

But the fact is, that some stud players perform like studs, some stud players perform like duds, and some duds perform like studs. And I'm often talking about guys on the same team vs. the same schedule.

If it was really an issue of there being too many studs, than as bad as the underachieving stud players performed, the dud players would perform significantly worse. I can show you example after example of that not being the case. And that effectively demonstrates that the major problem, at heart, is a sim engine issue.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 10/21/2009
od, here's an example for you to show why the engine is (far-and-away) the #1 issue to be addressed:

People like to blame weird statistical results for stud players on the fact that there are so many stud players. And that may indeed be a contributing factor.

But the fact is, that some stud players perform like studs, some stud players perform like duds, and some duds perform like studs. And I'm often talking about guys on the same team vs. the same schedule.

If it was really an issue of there being too many studs, than as bad as the underachieving stud players performed, the dud players would perform significantly worse. I can show you example after example of that not being the case. And that effectively demonstrates that the major problem, at heart, is a sim engine issue.

While I agree with you there daalter, I am just curious to see what the sims would look like with fewer super elite players. Maybe the engine just isn't meant to handle so many 95+ guys?

Stud duds are an interesting topic - indulge me a longish discussion

I'll give my take - first I do think there is an engine issue

BUT, I also think there is a demographic issue. Stephen Gould - a biologist - made the point long ago that athletes in any sport that we watch are not a bell curve of ability (as some might imagine) but rather are the extreme, itsy witsy (technical jargon here) right tail of the bell curve. They are the very bestest extreme. He wrote in the context of baseball, but it applies, of course, to hoops also

NOW, in real life ALL DI hoops players are at the extreme right end of the ability curve in hoops. that tail is thin and the tip of that tail - the Durants, Melos, etc etc is a very very thin tip.

IN HD this is not really the case. We dont have as thin a tail and we dont have as itsy witsy a tip of the tail. There are plenty of guys who have 95+ in every category that matters.

So what you say? Well, if you accept that I am right about that, there are several implications

1. the details of the engine now become really key - how do these different stud players perform under that engine

2. randomness matters more - cause they are similar

3. nonintutive, unforeseen, undecipherable differences may matter more - if all the PFs have 95+ in all the categories that you think would matter then maybe (I'm making this up) it matters that one guy has PERI of 30 and the other has PERI of 10, even though one would think, know, believe that PERI doesnt matter much for a PF.......

Hence, sameness of the studs - or better similarness of the studs - makes defects in the engine and any counterintutive, lurking features (we could rename those counterintuitiuve features "bugs" but the IT guys where I work always insist that counterintutive features are not bugs) end up mattering more and confounding game play

Thats my take - we need a thinner tail of the distribution to make the engine and the game work right

Good stuff, mets. And I do think what you're saying has credence -- to an extent.

But it doesn't explain why we routinely see guys with 98 lp, 90 ath get outperformed by guys who are 78 lp, 50 ath. (And again, I'm talking about guys on the same team, and/or on comparable teams with comparable skeds ... and since seble recently revealed that your teammates don't impact your ability to hit shots, that's not a factor, either.)

It's the fact that I routinely see inferior players succeeding on the same team or in the same conference where vastly superior players are failing tells me that -- though I do think the sameness of the players contributes -- the major problem is with the sim itself.

I agree that I see that too dalt but you have to remember you need to think of who they are playing against (I know you know that but sometimes that hides behind the scene). My only thought is that maybe the engine can't handle the massive amount of maxed out players we see now. Was there a reason we all didn't know about that capped players ratings for the start of the season way back when?

I think your teammates do impact, not sure what Seble said, but I can tell you for certain there is a direct correlation between fg pct and the passing rating of a team (all other things being close to equal).

I think Mets is right that the talent curve is askew and that does make minor things much more important. I remember a guy I used to play poker with, he was a great gamesman period world class backgammon, chess, gin, the whole gamut, and he use to say if a game is 98% luck and 2% skill then it's really 100% skill, because that 2% is going to seperate you and I.

When I first heard him say it I dismissed it as semantics, but I realize now he's right. The thing is, the higher the luck factor in a game the more permutations it takes to find out who has the most skill. And I think that's the problem with people's expectations of HD is that we all have different expectations of how many permutations it should take to prove who has the most skill.

On one extreme are the guys who every time there is an upset say the engine is broken and how could my team have possibly lost that game. As we've seen on the forums there is usually a very simple explanation for why they lost. Not sure what the other extreme is, but I would guess that right now LOstmyth doesn't think there is a helluva lot of luck in HD. He's probably fairly confident that the skill factor is 100%.:)

But as far as players go, maybe it's the same thing, maybe that 2% that seperates two guys is a big difference. Or maybe their "hidden" attributes like being teen wolf etc are what makes the difference, I dunno.

excellent stuff. this is worth the price of admission right herre even if the engine sucks.

its incredible that i just read posts by 3 different guys and each has a slightly different opinion (in some cases a drastically different opinion).... and i agree with all three of them!!!

daalty had me swung back over the fence to the 'fix the engine' side and then comes the maximummetropolitan... that is some good stuff right there. the best part is how he kinda 'dumbed it down' , its soooo important to know your audience.

so, sorry daalty, but ive just climbed back on the 'fix the distribution of players' bandwagon.

im still open though if you guys want to try to swing me back to the other side of the fence.

Quote: Originally Posted By daveymac on 10/21/2009
I think your teammates do impact, not sure what Seble said, but I can tell you for certain there is a direct correlation between fg pct and the passing rating of a team (all other things being close to equal).

I think Mets is right that the talent curve is askew and that does make minor things much more important. I remember a guy I used to play poker with, he was a great gamesman period world class backgammon, chess, gin, the whole gamut, and he use to say if a game is 98% luck and 2% skill then it's really 100% skill, because that 2% is going to seperate you and I.

When I first heard him say it I dismissed it as semantics, but I realize now he's right. The thing is, the higher the luck factor in a game the more permutations it takes to find out who has the most skill. And I think that's the problem with people's expectations of HD is that we all have different expectations of how many permutations it should take to prove who has the most skill.

On one extreme are the guys who every time there is an upset say the engine is broken and how could my team have possibly lost that game. As we've seen on the forums there is usually a very simple explanation for why they lost. Not sure what the other extreme is, but I would guess that right now LOstmyth doesn't think there is a helluva lot of luck in HD. He's probably fairly confident that the skill factor is 100%.:)

But as far as players go, maybe it's the same thing, maybe that 2% that seperates two guys is a big difference. Or maybe their "hidden" attributes like being teen wolf etc are what makes the difference, I dunno.

Good points Davey, I really do like that quote too.