95 ST 99 DU Topic

a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
Five minutes a game is a significant difference.
2/1/2010 5:33 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Except that in real life, there are players who can play over thirty minutes and not be "getting tired." Their "ratings" aren't affected as they are in HD.

There are also guys who have trouble playing 20.

This stamina rating needs more variation.
2/1/2010 5:34 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
How do you know they aren't 'getting tired'? THe real life players have a bar over their head that proclaims that they are at the point which corresponds to 'getting tired' in HD?'

Again, if you played a player at the beginning of a game against the same player at the end of a game after having played forty minutes, woudl the one from the beginning of the game have an advantage over the one from the end?




2/1/2010 5:40 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
A note, I'm not trying to come across as nasty, I hope I'm not, and if I do, tell me. Its not my intention, I just have a different point off view on this.
2/1/2010 5:42 PM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 2/01/2010

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'm not saying that my ideas are always best. I am saying that I try to evaluate things from a "What do I think is best for HD?" perspective. Also, it's not a kick. It's been my mantra here for years.

I think this would make HD more realistic, and also better.

Just as long as you realize that more realistic and better have absolutely nothing to do with one another. There are plenty of things that would make HD more realistic and much, much worse.

That's also not to say that realistic necessarily = bad, only that it's not particularly relevant or positive to evaluate issues from a "What's most realistic" standpoint. The notion that we should make a change simply because that's how it is in real life is both myopic and counter productive.

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

Totally and completely disagree. I'd absolutely take the eight better players in HD. Every time, twice on Sundays.

2/1/2010 5:43 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 2/01/2010How do you know they aren't 'getting tired'? THe real life players have a bar over their head that proclaims that they are at the point which corresponds to 'getting tired' in HD?'

Again, if you played a player at the beginning of a game against the same player at the end of a game after having played forty minutes, woudl the one from the beginning of the game have an advantage over the one from the end?


(1) Because their level of play doesn't decrease. You're right, there's no actual measurement. But I'm sure we can all look at a guy like, well let's use the example I gave before - Johnny Flynn last year, and say he's still playing at an incredibly high level. He's still blazing are around the court. Now after the sixth OT he was clearly tired, but in the couple he looked like he was playing at the same level as early in the game.

(2) I don't know. Maybe. Maybe there are some guys who can do that. Allen Iverson always seemed to be that conditioned, where his level of play hadn't dropped off. It doesn't mean they could go 40-80 at the same level as when they were going 0-40, just that the level of play hadn't dropped to that point.

(3) Of course I don't take offense, a. I love the discussion!
2/1/2010 5:59 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 2/01/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 2/01/2010

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'm not saying that my ideas are always best. I am saying that I try to evaluate things from a "What do I think is best for HD?" perspective. Also, it's not a kick. It's been my mantra here for years.

I think this would make HD more realistic, and also better.

Just as long as you realize that more realistic and better have absolutely nothing to do with one another. There are plenty of things that would make HD more realistic and much, much worse.

That's also not to say that realistic necessarily = bad, only that it's not particularly relevant or positive to evaluate issues from a "What's most realistic" standpoint. The notion that we should make a change simply because that's how it is in real life is both myopic and counter productive.

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

Totally and completely disagree. I'd absolutely take the eight better players in HD. Every time, twice on Sundays.

(1) I'm not sure it's counterproductive to ask "is this realistic"? I woudl also ask if it's good for HD, but that doesn't mean that real life isn't the standard that we should strive for if possible. Most, if not all, of us play this game because we love college basketball. From that aspect, the game should mimic that which we love, so long as it's in the best interest of the game.

(2) You know better than I do, especially at a high level. But my experience is that I can beat a more talented team with slightly more depth. Some of that has to do with the rigidity of matchups/positions, and not necessarily stamina. But I could be wrong.
2/1/2010 6:05 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
2/1/2010 6:09 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Yeah, a, I don't disagree with that.

But I guess that doesn't address my main point, which is that there should be more variance. There are some guys who can play 40 minutes with, at most, a small decrease in ability. That just doesn't exist here, and I think it should.
2/1/2010 6:16 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
Eh. I wouldn't mind a bit of an increase in variance, but I don't mind it as is. I think if the new engine increases the variance between the elites and the rest of the players, then allot of the problem will go away: Those elite players, at getting tired, will still be at least equal to a normal player at fairly fresh. A probably reason that there seeem to be less and less high minute guys as you go up in divisions is probably that there is less and less fdifference between the 'elite' players and the rest: At division three, if you have a really good pulldown, its well worth it to leave him on getting tired: He still is significantly better at getting tired than most other players you will play at fairly Fresh.


2/1/2010 6:37 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 2/01/2010Eh. I wouldn't mind a bit of an increase in variance, but I don't mind it as is. I think if the new engine increases the variance between the elites and the rest of the players, then allot of the problem will go away: Those elite players, at getting tired, will still be at least equal to a normal player at fairly fresh. A probably reason that there seeem to be less and less high minute guys as you go up in divisions is probably that there is less and less fdifference between the 'elite' players and the rest: At division three, if you have a really good pulldown, its well worth it to leave him on getting tired: He still is significantly better at getting tired than most other players you will play at fairly Fresh.


Interesting. You could be right. I hope so anyway.
2/1/2010 6:48 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
2/1/2010 6:52 PM
tracyr
Posts: 1451 (0)
Hall of Famer
817 226 20 13 484 61 58 6
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By dcfonzie on 2/01/2010
Great. Another know-it-all deuchebag. How come I never noticed this about tracyr before? The list continues to grow.

this is funny, by posting that, you are basically giving yourself that label as well

and its DOUCHEBAG

someone telling me Lance freakin Armstrong, who can fly down the road at xx speed, then just dump guys off the back end going up MOUNTAINS, would be tired after playing 35 minutes of basketball? holy crap

Lance never trained for a marathon, but broke 3 hours in his first one at an advanced age

the know-it-all is the moron who thinks that Lance would be tired after 35 minutes of basketball
2/1/2010 6:53 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By tracyr on 2/01/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By dcfonzie on 2/01/2010

Great. Another know-it-all deuchebag. How come I never noticed this about tracyr before? The list continues to grow.

this is funny, by posting that, you are basically giving yourself that label as well

and its DOUCHEBAG

someone telling me Lance freakin Armstrong, who can fly down the road at xx speed, then just dump guys off the back end going up MOUNTAINS, would be tired after playing 35 minutes of basketball? holy crap

Lance never trained for a marathon, but broke 3 hours in his first one at an advanced age

the know-it-all is the moron who thinks that Lance would be tired after 35 minutes of basketball

I'm not saying Lance Armstrong would be tired, but there is a quite a distinct difference between marathon conditioning and high level basketball conditioning.

That said, I obviously agree that there are people who simply aren't tired after playing 35-40 hard minutes of basketball.
2/1/2010 7:01 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
2/1/2010 7:13 PM
◂ Prev 1...4|5|6|7 Next ▸
95 ST 99 DU Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.