Top, I find your statement you don't consider anyone with under 80 LP to be a good scorer ridiculous. I understand you're exaggerating for effect, but its also extremely wrong to say the difference between 50 and 15 LP isn't massive. It's wrong to say that Player A isn't a *much* better scorer. Based on my formula calculations he should be about 25% better, and I have a player comp below that supports 25% as a pretty decent estimate. B has the Sp/Ath adv but A has a decent BH advantage and then 45 (!) points of LP.

Let me illustrate the difference between 15 and 45 LP to newer players:

Douglas Clark vs. Scott Haas

Clark is 0 Ath, -2 Spd, -3 BH, +4 Sta +2 Per B vs B+ FT and of course, 46 vs 15 LP. These players both had 2 years against Top 3 SOS and a year each against 13 and 15 SOS. Both players ran primarily normal for 2 years and primarily slowdown 2 years. Both players were on 2 truly elite teams and 2 solidly Top10 to Top 15 teams. Literally a perfect experiment. Couldn't have designed it better. Everything is the same except that LP difference.

Clark:
Points per Minute: .377
EFG%: 59.6%

Haas:
Points per Minute: .284
EFG%: 60.7%

Obviously this is a massive difference. Clark scored 32.7% more points at roughly the same efficiency despite having a slight disadvantage in non LP ratings. Haas is a truly great player but with 30 more points of LP he turns into the best player ever AKA Douglas Clark.

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/28/2020 9:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Sportsbulls on 6/28/2020 6:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 6/27/2020 11:18:00 PM (view original):
Neither player has a scoring category (LP and PER) over 60. so I wouldn't use either of them for scoring. With that said, player B has better ATH/SPD/DEF/ST. So I prefer him easily.

More of you will argue with me, than stand with me on this, but if PER/LP isn't up to 80, I don't consider them to be a high scorer on my teams anyways. (Unless I have a team without any 80s. But that never happens).

Both players could be low scorers for me. Roughly 6 to 9ppg. But even then, I still look at the grouping of ATH/SPD/BH/ST for that role. And by that, player B is still better.

One last thing to mention..... I don't value REB in a SF. If you're looking at that as well. I run guards with 1 REB at SF all the time. Player A's best benefit are his ball skills. But player B isn't lacking in that area either

I highly disagree here with this reason: guard LP of 50 and above is stellar. Players can be great scorers with 60 LP.

Here are some really nice scorers on championship caliber (or championship) teams with lower than 80 in both PER/LP: Timothy Labadie (second leading scorer on 35-0 #1 RPI Championship Team), Robert Horner (leading scorer on different 35-0 #1 RPI Championship Team), James Huff, Austin Barker, Mark Sell, Kevin Lal, William Lavalley, Stuart Tasker (80 PER but still worth noting because that's right on your border), James Bolling (pure BH and speed scorer), Quon Chu, Robert Wilson, Clyde Yuan.

Even some D2 guys: Micheal Heffron, Joe Buhl (second leading scorer on #7 RPI E8 team), Derek Lovell (leading scorer on #1 RPI F4 Team), Hal Jones (second leading scorer on #1 RPI F4 Team), Michael Wulff (second leading scorer on #1 RPI NT Runner Up), Robert Lewis, Eugene Gray.

Hell, Jones and Lovell were the two leading scorers by a large margin on a team that was the #1 PR, #1 RPI, and likely best or second best in the nation by my evaluation (basically tied with the eventual champion), and lost to the eventual champion in the F4 (who we beat in the CT).

These are a lot of examples of super nice players with lower LP/PER. I would for sure avoid the generalization you made.

i don't really disagree with you - i mostly agree with dogg too (outside fb) but the lp scoring guards can be good.

but, i want to make an important port, to you, specifically. with a schedule as you had this year, almost no meaningful conclusions can be drawn about what your team is like. in today's d3 wasteland - 17 sos is awful. don't be mislead by the figure seeming reasonable, its not. really, 17 sim games on your schedule is unthinkable, 17 of 30 is... 57%? ballpark. that is atrocious. you can't calibrate for late NT play when the majority of your stats are pure, 100% garbage. a coach as promising as yourself - you should pretty much have the toughest schedule in the country every year, and often by a wide margin - especially if you talk true strength of schedule not the truly awful sos measure used by this game (and real life). i realize this means you would need to shuffle your teams. you mentioned once most of your bad NT upsets have come from millsaps - not sure if your other teams play in wasteland conferences - but if not, perhaps that is why. every stat, for every player, every team stat... its worse than garbage, its misleading.

edit: i say this because as i clicked through some of your guys, their stats were outside the range i consider reasonable for teams of that caliber. as in, too high. also those couple 35-0s at millsaps in such a short period are a major red flag. only one conclusion - you aren't challenging yourself enough in the regular season.

In Millsaps I am in a sim conference so my SOS is poor, but my non-conference schedule is a non-conference tourney with 9 of the best teams in D3 and there are similar PPG (and all these guys were efficient during non-conf, I didn't send some that weren't). But yeah, you're right about Millsaps.

Though, that's why I provided Knight players, where our SOS is respectively (since I got out of rebuild): 3, 1, 2, 1, 8, 22, 19, 9, 16, 4, 15, 13, 17, 2, 1 , 8.

And in Phelan (which is D2, not D3) our SOS since getting out of rebuild is respectively: 1, 1, 1, 3, 2, 1, 2.

So sure, you can disregard some seasons of Knight and most Millsaps seasons. But key in on the seasons where i had top 5/10 SOS and had these guys as great scorers.

Posted by topdogggbm on 6/28/2020 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Sportsbulls on 6/28/2020 6:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 6/27/2020 11:18:00 PM (view original):
Neither player has a scoring category (LP and PER) over 60. so I wouldn't use either of them for scoring. With that said, player B has better ATH/SPD/DEF/ST. So I prefer him easily.

More of you will argue with me, than stand with me on this, but if PER/LP isn't up to 80, I don't consider them to be a high scorer on my teams anyways. (Unless I have a team without any 80s. But that never happens).

Both players could be low scorers for me. Roughly 6 to 9ppg. But even then, I still look at the grouping of ATH/SPD/BH/ST for that role. And by that, player B is still better.

One last thing to mention..... I don't value REB in a SF. If you're looking at that as well. I run guards with 1 REB at SF all the time. Player A's best benefit are his ball skills. But player B isn't lacking in that area either

I highly disagree here with this reason: guard LP of 50 and above is stellar. Players can be great scorers with 60 LP.

Here are some really nice scorers on championship caliber (or championship) teams with lower than 80 in both PER/LP: Timothy Labadie (second leading scorer on 35-0 #1 RPI Championship Team), Robert Horner (leading scorer on different 35-0 #1 RPI Championship Team), James Huff, Austin Barker, Mark Sell, Kevin Lal, William Lavalley, Stuart Tasker (80 PER but still worth noting because that's right on your border), James Bolling (pure BH and speed scorer), Quon Chu, Robert Wilson, Clyde Yuan.

Even some D2 guys: Micheal Heffron, Joe Buhl (second leading scorer on #7 RPI E8 team), Derek Lovell (leading scorer on #1 RPI F4 Team), Hal Jones (second leading scorer on #1 RPI F4 Team), Michael Wulff (second leading scorer on #1 RPI NT Runner Up), Robert Lewis, Eugene Gray.

Hell, Jones and Lovell were the two leading scorers by a large margin on a team that was the #1 PR, #1 RPI, and likely best or second best in the nation by my evaluation (basically tied with the eventual champion), and lost to the eventual champion in the F4 (who we beat in the CT).

These are a lot of examples of super nice players with lower LP/PER. I would for sure avoid the generalization you made.

Jones and Lovell are EXTREME cases that don't really fit what I'm saying. Lovell is a big, with 99 ST and 87 ATH. Jones is 77 ATH and 95 SPD, capable of being solid on a D1 team! Those players could score well if they had 0 LP/PER because of their athletic ability.

The players in the OP are not super elite athletes compared to the players you pointed out. I didn't look at all of them. Only the two you mentioned separately. And they are extreme cases. I have players like that as well, that I have as high scorers as well. But where I guess I should've been more clear, is that I don't even view Jones and Lovell as the same type of players as the ones the OP is discussing. I view Jones and Lovell as far superior, and players that shouldn't even fall to D2 or D3.

So sure, there are exceptions. And I have some I could share as well. But I'm talking more about the standard type of players signed at D2 and D3. Not the absolute best of players signed at D2 and D3. Using your examples, Huff is the best example I can use for my point. As a Soph, you had him averaging 21ppg. Amazing. But as a Jr and especially as a Sr, he dipped. All the way down below 10ppg. And the reason for that (I'm going to assume) is by the time he was a Sr, you had better options on your team for scoring. But you needed him to be a scorer earlier in his career. Is that fair to say? Because THAT is more along the lines of what I'm trying to say

Sure, but your original point was saying they would be low scorers for you. I think a player like OP can and should easily get double digits efficiently on a competing roster. For D3 he has good Ath/SP, paired with good LP and BH. He can be a 3rd scorer.

Posted by Sportsbulls on 6/28/2020 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 6/28/2020 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Sportsbulls on 6/28/2020 6:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 6/27/2020 11:18:00 PM (view original):
Neither player has a scoring category (LP and PER) over 60. so I wouldn't use either of them for scoring. With that said, player B has better ATH/SPD/DEF/ST. So I prefer him easily.

More of you will argue with me, than stand with me on this, but if PER/LP isn't up to 80, I don't consider them to be a high scorer on my teams anyways. (Unless I have a team without any 80s. But that never happens).

Both players could be low scorers for me. Roughly 6 to 9ppg. But even then, I still look at the grouping of ATH/SPD/BH/ST for that role. And by that, player B is still better.

One last thing to mention..... I don't value REB in a SF. If you're looking at that as well. I run guards with 1 REB at SF all the time. Player A's best benefit are his ball skills. But player B isn't lacking in that area either

I highly disagree here with this reason: guard LP of 50 and above is stellar. Players can be great scorers with 60 LP.

Here are some really nice scorers on championship caliber (or championship) teams with lower than 80 in both PER/LP: Timothy Labadie (second leading scorer on 35-0 #1 RPI Championship Team), Robert Horner (leading scorer on different 35-0 #1 RPI Championship Team), James Huff, Austin Barker, Mark Sell, Kevin Lal, William Lavalley, Stuart Tasker (80 PER but still worth noting because that's right on your border), James Bolling (pure BH and speed scorer), Quon Chu, Robert Wilson, Clyde Yuan.

Even some D2 guys: Micheal Heffron, Joe Buhl (second leading scorer on #7 RPI E8 team), Derek Lovell (leading scorer on #1 RPI F4 Team), Hal Jones (second leading scorer on #1 RPI F4 Team), Michael Wulff (second leading scorer on #1 RPI NT Runner Up), Robert Lewis, Eugene Gray.

Hell, Jones and Lovell were the two leading scorers by a large margin on a team that was the #1 PR, #1 RPI, and likely best or second best in the nation by my evaluation (basically tied with the eventual champion), and lost to the eventual champion in the F4 (who we beat in the CT).

These are a lot of examples of super nice players with lower LP/PER. I would for sure avoid the generalization you made.

Jones and Lovell are EXTREME cases that don't really fit what I'm saying. Lovell is a big, with 99 ST and 87 ATH. Jones is 77 ATH and 95 SPD, capable of being solid on a D1 team! Those players could score well if they had 0 LP/PER because of their athletic ability.

The players in the OP are not super elite athletes compared to the players you pointed out. I didn't look at all of them. Only the two you mentioned separately. And they are extreme cases. I have players like that as well, that I have as high scorers as well. But where I guess I should've been more clear, is that I don't even view Jones and Lovell as the same type of players as the ones the OP is discussing. I view Jones and Lovell as far superior, and players that shouldn't even fall to D2 or D3.

So sure, there are exceptions. And I have some I could share as well. But I'm talking more about the standard type of players signed at D2 and D3. Not the absolute best of players signed at D2 and D3. Using your examples, Huff is the best example I can use for my point. As a Soph, you had him averaging 21ppg. Amazing. But as a Jr and especially as a Sr, he dipped. All the way down below 10ppg. And the reason for that (I'm going to assume) is by the time he was a Sr, you had better options on your team for scoring. But you needed him to be a scorer earlier in his career. Is that fair to say? Because THAT is more along the lines of what I'm trying to say

Sure, but your original point was saying they would be low scorers for you. I think a player like OP can and should easily get double digits efficiently on a competing roster. For D3 he has good Ath/SP, paired with good LP and BH. He can be a 3rd scorer.

I agree with that 100%. He could be a good 3rd scorer. But I usually have a better 3rd scorer. And I think you would too. If not, sure he could fill that role. But I'm sorry he's just not a guy I look at and say, "I wanna use him for scoring". He's a guy I'd look at and say "well if I have to use him for scoring because I don't have better options, he'll be the guy"

Just personal preference I guess

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/28/2020 12:45:00 PM (view original):
Top, I find your statement you don't consider anyone with under 80 LP to be a good scorer ridiculous. I understand you're exaggerating for effect, but its also extremely wrong to say the difference between 50 and 15 LP isn't massive. It's wrong to say that Player A isn't a *much* better scorer. Based on my formula calculations he should be about 25% better, and I have a player comp below that supports 25% as a pretty decent estimate. B has the Sp/Ath adv but A has a decent BH advantage and then 45 (!) points of LP.

Let me illustrate the difference between 15 and 45 LP to newer players:

Douglas Clark vs. Scott Haas

Clark is 0 Ath, -2 Spd, -3 BH, +4 Sta +2 Per B vs B+ FT and of course, 46 vs 15 LP. These players both had 2 years against Top 3 SOS and a year each against 13 and 15 SOS. Both players ran primarily normal for 2 years and primarily slowdown 2 years. Both players were on 2 truly elite teams and 2 solidly Top10 to Top 15 teams. Literally a perfect experiment. Couldn't have designed it better. Everything is the same except that LP difference.

Clark:
Points per Minute: .377
EFG%: 59.6%

Haas:
Points per Minute: .284
EFG%: 60.7%

Obviously this is a massive difference. Clark scored 32.7% more points at roughly the same efficiency despite having a slight disadvantage in non LP ratings. Haas is a truly great player but with 30 more points of LP he turns into the best player ever AKA Douglas Clark.

7.0.3

I just stated earlier I have plenty of guys that have sub 80 LP/PER put up big numbers. Its just that in most cases I don't need players with sub 80 LP/PER to score. And we're discussing triangle offense too. Which relies more on LP/PER. If it's FB or something, sure I'm cool with that guy being a heavier scorer

Your examples are also D1. I'm not saying that makes them irrelevant. But each level is different in ways. Also there is roughly a 200 FGA difference, which could change the numbers a lot. I'm not saying your experiment is wrong in any way. I always say "I hoop". I don't do numbers and spreadsheets and data and such. But a lot "could" change if Haas has 200 more attempts.

Posted by topdogggbm on 6/28/2020 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/28/2020 12:45:00 PM (view original):
Top, I find your statement you don't consider anyone with under 80 LP to be a good scorer ridiculous. I understand you're exaggerating for effect, but its also extremely wrong to say the difference between 50 and 15 LP isn't massive. It's wrong to say that Player A isn't a *much* better scorer. Based on my formula calculations he should be about 25% better, and I have a player comp below that supports 25% as a pretty decent estimate. B has the Sp/Ath adv but A has a decent BH advantage and then 45 (!) points of LP.

Let me illustrate the difference between 15 and 45 LP to newer players:

Douglas Clark vs. Scott Haas

Clark is 0 Ath, -2 Spd, -3 BH, +4 Sta +2 Per B vs B+ FT and of course, 46 vs 15 LP. These players both had 2 years against Top 3 SOS and a year each against 13 and 15 SOS. Both players ran primarily normal for 2 years and primarily slowdown 2 years. Both players were on 2 truly elite teams and 2 solidly Top10 to Top 15 teams. Literally a perfect experiment. Couldn't have designed it better. Everything is the same except that LP difference.

Clark:
Points per Minute: .377
EFG%: 59.6%

Haas:
Points per Minute: .284
EFG%: 60.7%

Obviously this is a massive difference. Clark scored 32.7% more points at roughly the same efficiency despite having a slight disadvantage in non LP ratings. Haas is a truly great player but with 30 more points of LP he turns into the best player ever AKA Douglas Clark.

7.0.3

I just stated earlier I have plenty of guys that have sub 80 LP/PER put up big numbers. Its just that in most cases I don't need players with sub 80 LP/PER to score. And we're discussing triangle offense too. Which relies more on LP/PER. If it's FB or something, sure I'm cool with that guy being a heavier scorer

Your examples are also D1. I'm not saying that makes them irrelevant. But each level is different in ways. Also there is roughly a 200 FGA difference, which could change the numbers a lot. I'm not saying your experiment is wrong in any way. I always say "I hoop". I don't do numbers and spreadsheets and data and such. But a lot "could" change if Haas has 200 more attempts.

I know you stated earlier you have seen sub 80 LP/PER guys put up big numbers, what I'm saying here is that 15 vs 50 LP is a massive difference.

Also, if Haas took 200 more FGA he would not look better. That just isn't how it works. This game is built off of a negative curve between FGA/Minute and EFG%. Or usage and efficiency. Whatever you want to call it.

If Haas took 200 more FGA attempts, he probably would have a similar PPM to Clark and a 2-3% worse EFG%. It would just be the same story; Clark is a far better scorer.

Whether someone scores more points with the same efficiency or the same points with better efficiency they're a better scorer, period.

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/28/2020 3:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 6/28/2020 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/28/2020 12:45:00 PM (view original):
Top, I find your statement you don't consider anyone with under 80 LP to be a good scorer ridiculous. I understand you're exaggerating for effect, but its also extremely wrong to say the difference between 50 and 15 LP isn't massive. It's wrong to say that Player A isn't a *much* better scorer. Based on my formula calculations he should be about 25% better, and I have a player comp below that supports 25% as a pretty decent estimate. B has the Sp/Ath adv but A has a decent BH advantage and then 45 (!) points of LP.

Let me illustrate the difference between 15 and 45 LP to newer players:

Douglas Clark vs. Scott Haas

Clark is 0 Ath, -2 Spd, -3 BH, +4 Sta +2 Per B vs B+ FT and of course, 46 vs 15 LP. These players both had 2 years against Top 3 SOS and a year each against 13 and 15 SOS. Both players ran primarily normal for 2 years and primarily slowdown 2 years. Both players were on 2 truly elite teams and 2 solidly Top10 to Top 15 teams. Literally a perfect experiment. Couldn't have designed it better. Everything is the same except that LP difference.

Clark:
Points per Minute: .377
EFG%: 59.6%

Haas:
Points per Minute: .284
EFG%: 60.7%

Obviously this is a massive difference. Clark scored 32.7% more points at roughly the same efficiency despite having a slight disadvantage in non LP ratings. Haas is a truly great player but with 30 more points of LP he turns into the best player ever AKA Douglas Clark.

7.0.3

I just stated earlier I have plenty of guys that have sub 80 LP/PER put up big numbers. Its just that in most cases I don't need players with sub 80 LP/PER to score. And we're discussing triangle offense too. Which relies more on LP/PER. If it's FB or something, sure I'm cool with that guy being a heavier scorer

Your examples are also D1. I'm not saying that makes them irrelevant. But each level is different in ways. Also there is roughly a 200 FGA difference, which could change the numbers a lot. I'm not saying your experiment is wrong in any way. I always say "I hoop". I don't do numbers and spreadsheets and data and such. But a lot "could" change if Haas has 200 more attempts.

I know you stated earlier you have seen sub 80 LP/PER guys put up big numbers, what I'm saying here is that 15 vs 50 LP is a massive difference.

Also, if Haas took 200 more FGA he would not look better. That just isn't how it works. This game is built off of a negative curve between FGA/Minute and EFG%. Or usage and efficiency. Whatever you want to call it.

If Haas took 200 more FGA attempts, he probably would have a similar PPM to Clark and a 2-3% worse EFG%. It would just be the same story; Clark is a far better scorer.

Whether someone scores more points with the same efficiency or the same points with better efficiency they're a better scorer, period.

7.0.3

"Whether someone scores more points with the same efficiency or the same points with better efficiency they're a better scorer, period."

Agreed

"If Haas took 200 more FGA attempts, he probably would have a similar PPM to Clark and a 2-3% worse EFG%. It would just be the same story; Clark is a far better scorer."

How is this accurate? You've never had players perform better or worse than their ratings show? If you Jack his distro up to 99 or drop it down to 1, he's not going to perform the same. If you played against M2M teams the whole way and the player defending him had 100 DEF every game, you're gonna get different results than if his opponent had 1 DEF every game.

with a per minute caveat, i agree. i don't think a guy who plays 25% more, and scores 25% more at the same efficiency, is any better.

i think you guys are both making a fair point - dogg is right that sample size is crap at the low end and its hard to draw much from those players. but i also agree with cub that the more a guy scores, the worse his efficiency is, but i don't think that is a very helpful generalization. its perfectly fine here in this conversation but i don't think people should just assume a guy with more distro will do worse. that is misleading. what is really happening is 2 general things:

1) at the low end of distro, put backs, tip ins, and fouls assigned to a player merely by being on the court, as a result of a 'team foul' on the other team, will dominate the player's efficiency. players on 0 distro still score a couple ppg (with decent minutes)

2) at the higher end of distro, you start running into an assortment of effects that can hurt efficiency. this includes hitting the 40% of shots while on the floor penalty, facing double teams or targeted m2m matchups, or any other defensive adjustments.

i think there is a broad middle in between those two where the efficiency per marginal point of distro is approximately flat (even though absolute efficiency is decreasing, as cub says, as a direct consequence of #1). there is some weird, in game adjusting that happens behind the veil if you will, where the defense and offense are adjusting to each other - but i actually don't have much / any confidence that offensive distro is part of those adjustments. if not, then the marginal value of distro on a player (the efficiency of the extra shots) should be flat for a good long while, which is roughly how i see this game. although if i push that theory too hard - my teams suffer - and im not really that sure why (i cant say that has happened on teams i actually knew well, so im guessing its bc im just making stuff up and missing the mark). but i will say, my evolution in understanding the value of slanted distro over a flatter distro is the absolute #1 thing i am sure i did better in my 2nd set of runs of dominance, over my first. this was roughly all with motion btw (at least at d1, in d2 my early days were triangle, and i played that more slanted - but i thought motion should be significantly flatter - but i was wrong).

I never said anything about a guy with more distro doing worse (or better). It's not really measurable until it happens. Due to the various things that factor in. Opponents, opponents ability, opponents sets.... your own team, the players surrounding this specific player, all that.

i kinda agree with everyone i guess, back to the real point. i tend to agree with dogg that a good scorer and a good mid scorer are two different things and thus his overall statement is fine. your top end guys on top end teams almost always have high lp or per and while there are exceptions, they are rare. especially in d2/d3 where the higher efficiency of 3pt shooting is relatively beyond dispute (mfnmeyers approach aside).

but i also agree the mid level scorers are pretty darn important. offense is all about replacement value, and improving a mid level scorer might take away offense from your worst scorer, which tends to be a pretty valuable trade.

that said, i think dogg's point is 'this dude isn't a lead scorer type and thus there is no way that lp/per increase offsets all the other advantages of B', which i agree with

Posted by topdogggbm on 6/28/2020 5:36:00 PM (view original):
I never said anything about a guy with more distro doing worse (or better). It's not really measurable until it happens. Due to the various things that factor in. Opponents, opponents ability, opponents sets.... your own team, the players surrounding this specific player, all that.

that part was a response to cub's overall statement of the inverse relationship between distro and efficiency.

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/28/2020 5:57:00 PM (view original):
i kinda agree with everyone i guess, back to the real point. i tend to agree with dogg that a good scorer and a good mid scorer are two different things and thus his overall statement is fine. your top end guys on top end teams almost always have high lp or per and while there are exceptions, they are rare. especially in d2/d3 where the higher efficiency of 3pt shooting is relatively beyond dispute (mfnmeyers approach aside).

but i also agree the mid level scorers are pretty darn important. offense is all about replacement value, and improving a mid level scorer might take away offense from your worst scorer, which tends to be a pretty valuable trade.

that said, i think dogg's point is 'this dude isn't a lead scorer type and thus there is no way that lp/per increase offsets all the other advantages of B', which i agree with

This is correct. Thank you.

Sometimes dogg has trouble getting dogg's point across here in the forums. Because dogg doesn't speak formulas language. The people that understand me can relate. The mathematicians and programmers here don't speak dogg. Haha

Posted by topdogggbm on 6/28/2020 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Sportsbulls on 6/28/2020 6:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 6/27/2020 11:18:00 PM (view original):
Neither player has a scoring category (LP and PER) over 60. so I wouldn't use either of them for scoring. With that said, player B has better ATH/SPD/DEF/ST. So I prefer him easily.

More of you will argue with me, than stand with me on this, but if PER/LP isn't up to 80, I don't consider them to be a high scorer on my teams anyways. (Unless I have a team without any 80s. But that never happens).

Both players could be low scorers for me. Roughly 6 to 9ppg. But even then, I still look at the grouping of ATH/SPD/BH/ST for that role. And by that, player B is still better.

One last thing to mention..... I don't value REB in a SF. If you're looking at that as well. I run guards with 1 REB at SF all the time. Player A's best benefit are his ball skills. But player B isn't lacking in that area either

I highly disagree here with this reason: guard LP of 50 and above is stellar. Players can be great scorers with 60 LP.

Here are some really nice scorers on championship caliber (or championship) teams with lower than 80 in both PER/LP: Timothy Labadie (second leading scorer on 35-0 #1 RPI Championship Team), Robert Horner (leading scorer on different 35-0 #1 RPI Championship Team), James Huff, Austin Barker, Mark Sell, Kevin Lal, William Lavalley, Stuart Tasker (80 PER but still worth noting because that's right on your border), James Bolling (pure BH and speed scorer), Quon Chu, Robert Wilson, Clyde Yuan.

Even some D2 guys: Micheal Heffron, Joe Buhl (second leading scorer on #7 RPI E8 team), Derek Lovell (leading scorer on #1 RPI F4 Team), Hal Jones (second leading scorer on #1 RPI F4 Team), Michael Wulff (second leading scorer on #1 RPI NT Runner Up), Robert Lewis, Eugene Gray.

Hell, Jones and Lovell were the two leading scorers by a large margin on a team that was the #1 PR, #1 RPI, and likely best or second best in the nation by my evaluation (basically tied with the eventual champion), and lost to the eventual champion in the F4 (who we beat in the CT).

These are a lot of examples of super nice players with lower LP/PER. I would for sure avoid the generalization you made.

Jones and Lovell are EXTREME cases that don't really fit what I'm saying. Lovell is a big, with 99 ST and 87 ATH. Jones is 77 ATH and 95 SPD, capable of being solid on a D1 team! Those players could score well if they had 0 LP/PER because of their athletic ability.

The players in the OP are not super elite athletes compared to the players you pointed out. I didn't look at all of them. Only the two you mentioned separately. And they are extreme cases. I have players like that as well, that I have as high scorers as well. But where I guess I should've been more clear, is that I don't even view Jones and Lovell as the same type of players as the ones the OP is discussing. I view Jones and Lovell as far superior, and players that shouldn't even fall to D2 or D3.

So sure, there are exceptions. And I have some I could share as well. But I'm talking more about the standard type of players signed at D2 and D3. Not the absolute best of players signed at D2 and D3. Using your examples, Huff is the best example I can use for my point. As a Soph, you had him averaging 21ppg. Amazing. But as a Jr and especially as a Sr, he dipped. All the way down below 10ppg. And the reason for that (I'm going to assume) is by the time he was a Sr, you had better options on your team for scoring. But you needed him to be a scorer earlier in his career. Is that fair to say? Because THAT is more along the lines of what I'm trying to say

Jones and Lovell would for sure not score anywhere close to how they did with 0 LP/PER.

By the way, I totally agree B is better.