Triangle/Press

Need a 1 or a 2 guard - no preference - who would you prefer at D3 based on projected ratings?

	Player A	Player B
ATH	30	65
SPD	100	65
REB	20	50
DEF	50	70
BLK	20	25
LP	20	40
PER	65	85
BH	75	55
PASS	85	55
Starting WE	52	54
ST	84	87
DU	50	40
FT	B-	C+

to me it all boils down to what you could use more a PG or SG. If you have 2 legit PGs, I would probably go with B because he can be an emergency PG and he can also give minutes at SF too.

I’d take B, but in a motion I’d maybe take A. In triangle the bh and spd of A is less useful than other sets. And for press B has ath/def/st advantages so will foul less and then the versatility is even better to account for random foul trouble in PG or SF positions.

I really don't know. How are you projecting the ratings? If Player A's PER is green that might shift my opinion of him a little. But I've had too many low Ath guys get owned in the tournament. I also wonder how bad his starting Ath is? It can't project that low if it's green and hopefully not blue either. So 20ish black? That 100 Spd would own in the press though.

That said, I really don't like Player B. I think you could almost surely find a better perimeter shooter than him and IMO everything else about him sorta sucks since I only want that kind of SF if he can defend at an elite level (in which case I think he'd be spectacular).

Hate to say, but I doubt I'd recruit either.

Posted by marl_karx on 9/2/2020 10:30:00 AM (view original):
I really don't know. How are you projecting the ratings? If Player A's PER is green that might shift my opinion of him a little. But I've had too many low Ath guys get owned in the tournament. I also wonder how bad his starting Ath is? It can't project that low if it's green and hopefully not blue either. So 20ish black? That 100 Spd would own in the press though.

That said, I really don't like Player B. I think you could almost surely find a better perimeter shooter than him and IMO everything else about him sorta sucks since I only want that kind of SF if he can defend at an elite level (in which case I think he'd be spectacular).

Hate to say, but I doubt I'd recruit either.

ATH is high 20's orange for player A. Player A's PER is mid-50's black.

These are backup options pending how some early recruiting battles shake out.

i agree with the answer that said 'depends what you need them for'. if these were 2 guys in the same role, its a more straight forward analysis. most of the time, with 2 guys like this, what fits your team better is going to carry the day. when he's a soph, he'll prob be meaningful on a team where the important players are all known quantities (sr, jr, so) - generally speaking - and even his jr year you should roughly know half the team, and the important half at that.

anyway, i really see the 2nd guy as more of a SF than a SG. you said d3 right? i feel like that is a pretty good d3 sf. i feel like i definitely would take that dude for SF over the first guy for PG in a vacuum. player A seems kinda mediocre on offense and less on defense, doesn't really hit the 2 ability strength litmus test i apply to most guys. the SF i would probably consider the off, def, and reb all close enough for government work, with no weaknesses, i think hes actually a nice SF. but i also don't know d3 ratings very well. as a SG, he seems to kinda suck and i'd be back to, what do you need?

If this guy is going to be one of the worst players (for his class) you're taking you have to go B. You want your worst players not to hurt you.

i wish i could see your existing SFs better, i can't really project them out with them being young and sort of unclear growth plan (from this end not really looking too hard - i'm sure its way clearer from your end). on the whole, it feels like you have two SF-only players back to back classes already, which kinda rules out B at SF, but i'm sort of questioning if B is the best of the lot? i tend to avoid the SF-pegged guys, at least outside high d1, just because of how rare true SFs tend to be and because of how much flexibility you get if you are usually recruiting guys for SF who can play elsewhere. it feels like the right amount of wiggle room, in the right place. if you can, i would prefer to have flexible guys even if i have to give up a bit, in the place of perhaps at least one of your sfs, so that later if i found a good fit, my hands wouldn't feel so tied.

Re: player B at the 2 - is the concern with his SPD or his BH (or both)?

I've got this kid in Phelan who has been a stud at the 2 in a Triangle/Press despite <70 ATH & SPD:
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=4552062

The big difference with him vs player B above is he projects to 90+ BH though only ~65 PER. He also projects to 90-95 DEF.

Another interesting player to call out at DePauw is the #2 all-time assist man - Michael Lanier - who only had 50 BH as a true PG:
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/Ratings.aspx?&pid=4491605

Posted by sol_phenom3 on 9/2/2020 4:36:00 PM (view original):
Re: player B at the 2 - is the concern with his SPD or his BH (or both)?

I've got this kid in Phelan who has been a stud at the 2 in a Triangle/Press despite <70 ATH & SPD:
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=4552062

The big difference with him vs player B above is he projects to 90+ BH though only ~65 PER. He also projects to 90-95 DEF.

Another interesting player to call out at DePauw is the #2 all-time assist man - Michael Lanier - who only had 50 BH as a true PG:
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/Ratings.aspx?&pid=4491605

really good questions, and i think i have a good answer in me but i want to preface with, i mean this all the in best possible way. my perspective is perhaps kind of different and i don't mean any of this critically, but i do want to offer a genuinely different take here. it took me 10 minutes to arrive at a comfortable take, and i sometimes really enjoy questions that can offer a decent challenge like that, so i might be just slightly over excited. apologize in advance for the length.

on your first guy - has he really been a stud? i mean, his top line numbers, compared to regular... reality, i suppose, are definitely good. there's no doubt about it. but when i look at his ratings, my instinct says 'i very much doubt he has really been a stud'. the problem with bizzaro world d3 (what we have now) where the gap between offenses and defenses is so prolific, and where uncoached and poorly coached teams are a really high % of total teams, is that you end up with baselines for 'being a stud' that are pretty far removed from regular old reality, or even what i'd consider 'balanced competitive HD play'. which tends to deviate from reality a decent bit itself, but yet, still feels grounded... at least part of the way.

it took me a few minutes to convince myself that he was not in fact a stud, but this is only because my baseline is high d1 where offenses and defenses are far more in balance, and frankly more representative of what d2 and d3 used to be, than d2 and d3 are now.

couple things - first, when i look at that guy's passing - that definitely limits his stud-ness. there's just no way around it. ball skills are an important part of the guard arsenal and even though his turnovers are moderate, i feel like the conclusion was almost inescapable - he just can't really be getting put to the test very often. second, his scoring skills - this is not a premium triangle SG scorer. he's not even a premium triangle scorer in old d3, the studs of which are just like normal dudes now. stats be damned, i know this guy is not a stud - its just clear from looking at him. from a logical standpoint, with no further information than his ratings and stats, i'd basically need a mountain of evidence showing the opposite, or else i'd assume either/both of 1) he's just not getting tested enough; 2) stats in d3 are such that his listed stats are not as good as a gut reaction would suggest. after actually looking, and you know, actually getting some more information - its a healthy bit of both.

i'll dive into that a bit more, but shifting for a moment to your second guy. he almost proves the paradigm i'm suggesting - simply by existing. 50 ath/def with 95 speed is good for d3, but 2.5 steals per game on 25m is almost 50% better than perfect, in my baseline. 1.7 to 1.8 is basically the ceiling for the best player in existence with those minutes, playing on a title favorite caliber team playing a schedule worthy of such a team. the stats of the best d3 players are just stupidly high, from an outside perspective. i see folks refer to guys with 42% 3s as good but not great and its like - what is happening? super studs taking 20 ppg with a top 5 sos up there around 46% 3s, its just totally out of whack with competitive play. offenses have an edge in d3, but also, the best players do, too. the gap between the run of the mill d3 players and the strong ones - going ability by ability - is just massive. far beyond what was experienced for at least half a decade prior to 3.0 coming out. the advantage your pg here has in terms of his turnover generation ability, over the field, is beyond the realm of reasonable. here's why - bottom line - no matter how talented your team, you should expect to play at least an almost as talented team late in the tournament, and probably a few of them (and very frequently, some more talented than yours). having a baseline of what happens in extremely competitive games isn't my personal bias - the structure of the game, the nature of the big prize (national championships) being dependent fully on a short post season for which all good teams qualify and which, after the first couple games, is decided on a roughly even playing field.

looking at your second guy... we all know from the ratings, a 50 bh, 81 passing pg is not a stud. quality but not great. we all know 67 per, backed by 97 spd and 50 bh, is not great. that just isn't going to cut it on a consistent basis, in the kind of games you hope to be playing late in the NT. yet, dude has 43% 3pt shooting on substantial volume, and 59.3% from 2s, as a 13.4 ppg player. 2.5 steals per game. those are ridiculously amazing numbers. but his never making it past the s16 in a league without that many human coaches is really not very impressive at all - MUCH more in line with his ratings. the assists... assists are window dressing, and not really worth discussing.

anyway, i think what is shown by lanier - and really both - is the teams just couldn't be getting tested that hard. also, we know from d3 in general, the performance of the stronger set of players in the regular season, is stupidly good - which stat lines that would be totally out of place in competitive play in real life or HD.

just kinda to get into specifics a bit more - it may seem a bit strange to refer to a #8 sos team as having too weak a schedule. the bottom line though, is going into the NT, a full half of your games (well, technically 14 of 29, so half a game under half) were against sims. not even the bad but not atrocious sims folks schedule in non conf to pad their RPI - but the in conference sims of incredible badness. in short, promising coaches such as yourself should not coach in conferences like that. its too hard - its impossible not to let the 50% of your stat line that is meaningless nonsense muddy the waters. its impossible to avoid bias and its impossible to avoid the picture being less clear. this game is hard enough as it is - being in a conf like that just makes it SO much harder - you basically already have to know everything, to be able to go coach in a conference like that, without it really hurting.

the reason is we all judge everything on a relative basis - which is good. but you do have to really mind that relative basis. half your games being against teams of incredible awfulness is just not a good way to get a feel for which way is up. 52% 2s in d3 - for your 2nd guy - just doesn't sound that impressive to me when i know there are players out there cranking mid to high 50s and mid to high 40s on 3s, against schedules as hard as yours. against your non conf, he was still 50-51% when i did the math, which isn't bad - but it was on fewer than 40 shots - which is too small a sample to read too much into. 1 more missed shot and hes 48%, a poor result for a d3 starting SG on a team coached by a guy who should be fairly laser focused on championships. it just doesn't feel like stud numbers to me (i mean even at the 50-51% 2s - coming from a SG - which means your whole team now has to pick up MAJOR slack on 3pt scoring which is a MAJOR lift and one you almost certainly could not make). also, we know his lower passing has to be hurting team fg% a bit and also has to be leading to more turnovers. those don't show in a major way on his stat line, but you also played by my count, 6 games against competent press teams, out of almost 30, going into the NT - just over 20%. what do you expect on average in the e8 to title game - at least 50% high end pressing teams? his 1.8 turnovers and 1.8 steals are solid numbers, but what are they really against a slate of top tier teams - and what are the best players' numbers? i believe there would be a significant gap. the offense is pretty clear - the TOs too - neither of those are stud numbers for an elite guard, on a schedule that is half against high school JV teams. the other half of your schedule was quite competitive, but still, it makes it hard. the steals are harder because 1.8 is really good. also his defensive ratings are really good. hes a quality defender no doubt, i feel like his defense would not hold you back from winning a title - but everything else would (offense, ball skills / guard skills, whatever you want to call it). also note his dog **** offensive numbers from last year - those have to be averaged in a little bit. bottom line - the guy just isn't a championship caliber scorer, isn't a championship caliber SG, and i'm not actually convinced its even close.

i used to struggle a lot with scheduling - because even playing in a time with lower division worlds with twice the population, or a higher division world with 2.5-3x the population of today's d3 - in a full, competitive conference - with a ball buster of a non conf - even those felt on the weak side. the goal would be to get a realistic view of what late NT play would be like, if you are really trying to build amazing teams and figure out how to consistently beat other really good teams (note this is sort of incompatible with player development - starting youngins for development and starts - so some compromise is required). i roughly felt like the hardest schedule in the world each year was almost too weak to draw conclusions from - it was borderline, basically (which sort of makes sense, theres like 5-10 late stage NT caliber teams - you can't fill 30 games of pre-post season from those 5-10 teams). i can't even imagine trying to *really* make sense of player performance on a schedule like yours. that mind sound kinda weird but i honestly think it is a really big deal. and the proof is in the pudding so to speak. you are using the stats of those 2 players to justify their high quality - but i think you are reaching the wrong conclusion. neither of them is a championship caliber player. i think the ratings make that abundantly clear, but really its way harder to tell from the stats. yet if you played that non conf slate in one of the top d3 conferences in hd, i suspect it would also be abundantly clear from the stats - to all of us.

anyway, to your actual question - the B concern at the 2. my concern would take a couple forms. his bh/pass are low for a 2, in terms of ball skills part (non scoring). that is tolerable if hes a great scorer and defender, but i also find his scoring lacking for the 2. 85 per, 65 spd, 55 bh - its just not a high end 3pt scorer and you basically need that at the 2 in roughly every scheme at every level. i think he would be ok, but i don't think he'd be great. i'm not sure its a clear strength, and 90% or more of the players you recruit as a title seeking coach such as yourself, should have 2 clear ability strengths. he seems like a pretty solid defender. i could buy him as an off/def type B, as a 2 strength type player barely, so i don't really think hes a terrible player there - he's probably fine for s16 and stuff, i just don't see him as a title level guy. as a SF, i would buy him as being worthy of being on a title team, his offense is more competitive there, his defense is more competitive there at least in your press, his rebounding is more valuable and becomes a significant strength, and his bh/pass goes from a weakness to at least solid. hes still not a great 3pt scorer, but you expect slower, lesser defense on your 3 than your 2; also per scoring is really nice to have at the 3, but being good at it is fine, where as at the 2 its really like the reason for existence. the bar is just higher at the 2. i'd be comfortable taking B to war as a sf for that reason, hes really not a leader scorer type, hes a solid mid level scorer (10ppg or so) who is really well rounded at the 3, contributing on every front, but leading none of them. as a leader scorer type - which basically the 2 is on roughly every title favorite team ever - he really just comes up short. combine that with a lower end defensive strength (for the 2) and a clear bh/pass weakness, and i really think hes overall weak at the 2.

Posted by cubcub113 on 9/2/2020 3:24:00 PM (view original):
If this guy is going to be one of the worst players (for his class) you're taking you have to go B. You want your worst players not to hurt you.

8.2.4

Agree, although I still don't know if B is worth recruiting as your worst player. If A could get 10 more athleticism and was green in perimeter I would be slightly intrigued. I find those players difficult to rate because part of me KNOWS they're going to hurt you but another part also thinks that awesome spd/per/bh/pa can offset poor ath/def -- but its a sliding scale.

As an example, I'm pretty sure Myron Degeorge was my best or at worst second best player in version 2:

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/Ratings.aspx?pid=3464418

(granted, I never had any truly great version 2 teams)

Posted by gillispie1 on 9/2/2020 6:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sol_phenom3 on 9/2/2020 4:36:00 PM (view original):
Re: player B at the 2 - is the concern with his SPD or his BH (or both)?

I've got this kid in Phelan who has been a stud at the 2 in a Triangle/Press despite <70 ATH & SPD:
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=4552062

The big difference with him vs player B above is he projects to 90+ BH though only ~65 PER. He also projects to 90-95 DEF.

Another interesting player to call out at DePauw is the #2 all-time assist man - Michael Lanier - who only had 50 BH as a true PG:
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/Ratings.aspx?&pid=4491605

really good questions, and i think i have a good answer in me but i want to preface with, i mean this all the in best possible way. my perspective is perhaps kind of different and i don't mean any of this critically, but i do want to offer a genuinely different take here. it took me 10 minutes to arrive at a comfortable take, and i sometimes really enjoy questions that can offer a decent challenge like that, so i might be just slightly over excited. apologize in advance for the length.

on your first guy - has he really been a stud? i mean, his top line numbers, compared to regular... reality, i suppose, are definitely good. there's no doubt about it. but when i look at his ratings, my instinct says 'i very much doubt he has really been a stud'. the problem with bizzaro world d3 (what we have now) where the gap between offenses and defenses is so prolific, and where uncoached and poorly coached teams are a really high % of total teams, is that you end up with baselines for 'being a stud' that are pretty far removed from regular old reality, or even what i'd consider 'balanced competitive HD play'. which tends to deviate from reality a decent bit itself, but yet, still feels grounded... at least part of the way.

it took me a few minutes to convince myself that he was not in fact a stud, but this is only because my baseline is high d1 where offenses and defenses are far more in balance, and frankly more representative of what d2 and d3 used to be, than d2 and d3 are now.

couple things - first, when i look at that guy's passing - that definitely limits his stud-ness. there's just no way around it. ball skills are an important part of the guard arsenal and even though his turnovers are moderate, i feel like the conclusion was almost inescapable - he just can't really be getting put to the test very often. second, his scoring skills - this is not a premium triangle SG scorer. he's not even a premium triangle scorer in old d3, the studs of which are just like normal dudes now. stats be damned, i know this guy is not a stud - its just clear from looking at him. from a logical standpoint, with no further information than his ratings and stats, i'd basically need a mountain of evidence showing the opposite, or else i'd assume either/both of 1) he's just not getting tested enough; 2) stats in d3 are such that his listed stats are not as good as a gut reaction would suggest. after actually looking, and you know, actually getting some more information - its a healthy bit of both.

i'll dive into that a bit more, but shifting for a moment to your second guy. he almost proves the paradigm i'm suggesting - simply by existing. 50 ath/def with 95 speed is good for d3, but 2.5 steals per game on 25m is almost 50% better than perfect, in my baseline. 1.7 to 1.8 is basically the ceiling for the best player in existence with those minutes, playing on a title favorite caliber team playing a schedule worthy of such a team. the stats of the best d3 players are just stupidly high, from an outside perspective. i see folks refer to guys with 42% 3s as good but not great and its like - what is happening? super studs taking 20 ppg with a top 5 sos up there around 46% 3s, its just totally out of whack with competitive play. offenses have an edge in d3, but also, the best players do, too. the gap between the run of the mill d3 players and the strong ones - going ability by ability - is just massive. far beyond what was experienced for at least half a decade prior to 3.0 coming out. the advantage your pg here has in terms of his turnover generation ability, over the field, is beyond the realm of reasonable. here's why - bottom line - no matter how talented your team, you should expect to play at least an almost as talented team late in the tournament, and probably a few of them (and very frequently, some more talented than yours). having a baseline of what happens in extremely competitive games isn't my personal bias - the structure of the game, the nature of the big prize (national championships) being dependent fully on a short post season for which all good teams qualify and which, after the first couple games, is decided on a roughly even playing field.

looking at your second guy... we all know from the ratings, a 50 bh, 81 passing pg is not a stud. quality but not great. we all know 67 per, backed by 97 spd and 50 bh, is not great. that just isn't going to cut it on a consistent basis, in the kind of games you hope to be playing late in the NT. yet, dude has 43% 3pt shooting on substantial volume, and 59.3% from 2s, as a 13.4 ppg player. 2.5 steals per game. those are ridiculously amazing numbers. but his never making it past the s16 in a league without that many human coaches is really not very impressive at all - MUCH more in line with his ratings. the assists... assists are window dressing, and not really worth discussing.

anyway, i think what is shown by lanier - and really both - is the teams just couldn't be getting tested that hard. also, we know from d3 in general, the performance of the stronger set of players in the regular season, is stupidly good - which stat lines that would be totally out of place in competitive play in real life or HD.

just kinda to get into specifics a bit more - it may seem a bit strange to refer to a #8 sos team as having too weak a schedule. the bottom line though, is going into the NT, a full half of your games (well, technically 14 of 29, so half a game under half) were against sims. not even the bad but not atrocious sims folks schedule in non conf to pad their RPI - but the in conference sims of incredible badness. in short, promising coaches such as yourself should not coach in conferences like that. its too hard - its impossible not to let the 50% of your stat line that is meaningless nonsense muddy the waters. its impossible to avoid bias and its impossible to avoid the picture being less clear. this game is hard enough as it is - being in a conf like that just makes it SO much harder - you basically already have to know everything, to be able to go coach in a conference like that, without it really hurting.

the reason is we all judge everything on a relative basis - which is good. but you do have to really mind that relative basis. half your games being against teams of incredible awfulness is just not a good way to get a feel for which way is up. 52% 2s in d3 - for your 2nd guy - just doesn't sound that impressive to me when i know there are players out there cranking mid to high 50s and mid to high 40s on 3s, against schedules as hard as yours. against your non conf, he was still 50-51% when i did the math, which isn't bad - but it was on fewer than 40 shots - which is too small a sample to read too much into. 1 more missed shot and hes 48%, a poor result for a d3 starting SG on a team coached by a guy who should be fairly laser focused on championships. it just doesn't feel like stud numbers to me (i mean even at the 50-51% 2s - coming from a SG - which means your whole team now has to pick up MAJOR slack on 3pt scoring which is a MAJOR lift and one you almost certainly could not make). also, we know his lower passing has to be hurting team fg% a bit and also has to be leading to more turnovers. those don't show in a major way on his stat line, but you also played by my count, 6 games against competent press teams, out of almost 30, going into the NT - just over 20%. what do you expect on average in the e8 to title game - at least 50% high end pressing teams? his 1.8 turnovers and 1.8 steals are solid numbers, but what are they really against a slate of top tier teams - and what are the best players' numbers? i believe there would be a significant gap. the offense is pretty clear - the TOs too - neither of those are stud numbers for an elite guard, on a schedule that is half against high school JV teams. the other half of your schedule was quite competitive, but still, it makes it hard. the steals are harder because 1.8 is really good. also his defensive ratings are really good. hes a quality defender no doubt, i feel like his defense would not hold you back from winning a title - but everything else would (offense, ball skills / guard skills, whatever you want to call it). also note his dog **** offensive numbers from last year - those have to be averaged in a little bit. bottom line - the guy just isn't a championship caliber scorer, isn't a championship caliber SG, and i'm not actually convinced its even close.

i used to struggle a lot with scheduling - because even playing in a time with lower division worlds with twice the population, or a higher division world with 2.5-3x the population of today's d3 - in a full, competitive conference - with a ball buster of a non conf - even those felt on the weak side. the goal would be to get a realistic view of what late NT play would be like, if you are really trying to build amazing teams and figure out how to consistently beat other really good teams (note this is sort of incompatible with player development - starting youngins for development and starts - so some compromise is required). i roughly felt like the hardest schedule in the world each year was almost too weak to draw conclusions from - it was borderline, basically (which sort of makes sense, theres like 5-10 late stage NT caliber teams - you can't fill 30 games of pre-post season from those 5-10 teams). i can't even imagine trying to *really* make sense of player performance on a schedule like yours. that mind sound kinda weird but i honestly think it is a really big deal. and the proof is in the pudding so to speak. you are using the stats of those 2 players to justify their high quality - but i think you are reaching the wrong conclusion. neither of them is a championship caliber player. i think the ratings make that abundantly clear, but really its way harder to tell from the stats. yet if you played that non conf slate in one of the top d3 conferences in hd, i suspect it would also be abundantly clear from the stats - to all of us.

anyway, to your actual question - the B concern at the 2. my concern would take a couple forms. his bh/pass are low for a 2, in terms of ball skills part (non scoring). that is tolerable if hes a great scorer and defender, but i also find his scoring lacking for the 2. 85 per, 65 spd, 55 bh - its just not a high end 3pt scorer and you basically need that at the 2 in roughly every scheme at every level. i think he would be ok, but i don't think he'd be great. i'm not sure its a clear strength, and 90% or more of the players you recruit as a title seeking coach such as yourself, should have 2 clear ability strengths. he seems like a pretty solid defender. i could buy him as an off/def type B, as a 2 strength type player barely, so i don't really think hes a terrible player there - he's probably fine for s16 and stuff, i just don't see him as a title level guy. as a SF, i would buy him as being worthy of being on a title team, his offense is more competitive there, his defense is more competitive there at least in your press, his rebounding is more valuable and becomes a significant strength, and his bh/pass goes from a weakness to at least solid. hes still not a great 3pt scorer, but you expect slower, lesser defense on your 3 than your 2; also per scoring is really nice to have at the 3, but being good at it is fine, where as at the 2 its really like the reason for existence. the bar is just higher at the 2. i'd be comfortable taking B to war as a sf for that reason, hes really not a leader scorer type, hes a solid mid level scorer (10ppg or so) who is really well rounded at the 3, contributing on every front, but leading none of them. as a leader scorer type - which basically the 2 is on roughly every title favorite team ever - he really just comes up short. combine that with a lower end defensive strength (for the 2) and a clear bh/pass weakness, and i really think hes overall weak at the 2.

Quoting this for effect. I used to think myself into a corner with internal monologues just like that. But then my brother pointed out to me "score with your scorers". Almost all of the time (D3 experience) you know which guys are your scorers. Its not like reading the tea leaves of season statistics is going to change who can score and who can't. I barely look at statistics except for scoring average if I have a guy who can get All American honors.

Once you get to the tournament you kinda have what you have. Really, player performance is informative about which type of players succeed the most for the purposes of future recruiting.

I will typically prefer a player like A over B, all things being equal, assuming my team is balanced.

At D3, A projects to have an elite skill. Whether or not you think he passes the “do two things well” test (I think he’s a more-than-passable perimeter scorer as well), I give more credit to one elite skill than two good ones, primarily because especially at D3, elite skills are typically hard to come by. If I can score them in a backup option for cheap, I rarely pass that up in favor of a much more generic value 65-70 core guy, unless somehow my roster is completely depleted of the latter.

If you’re playing motion/man, I can’t help you. I’ll defer to the other accounts here. But in my flex+press/zone schemes, this guy is valuable bench contributor, and can be a very good starter as an upperclassman, as long as he’s got good perimeter defenders around him.

Posted by shoe3 on 9/2/2020 8:11:00 PM (view original):
I will typically prefer a player like A over B, all things being equal, assuming my team is balanced.

At D3, A projects to have an elite skill. Whether or not you think he passes the “do two things well” test (I think he’s a more-than-passable perimeter scorer as well), I give more credit to one elite skill than two good ones, primarily because especially at D3, elite skills are typically hard to come by. If I can score them in a backup option for cheap, I rarely pass that up in favor of a much more generic value 65-70 core guy, unless somehow my roster is completely depleted of the latter.

If you’re playing motion/man, I can’t help you. I’ll defer to the other accounts here. But in my flex+press/zone schemes, this guy is valuable bench contributor, and can be a very good starter as an upperclassman, as long as he’s got good perimeter defenders around him.

Philosophically that is 100% the correct approach IMO. Just not sure if Player A meets the standard. Possibly in some sets and not others.