Has this question been answered? Topic

dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
No position penalty, but a lack of reb and shotblocking would make this maneuver detrimental to your team. Again, just a very minor issue that you almost never see come up.
6/6/2010 6:07 PM
bigbucks69
Posts: 19 (0)
Hall of Famer
196 3 4
Prospect
But still what was wrong with the penalty before?
6/6/2010 6:39 PM
hughesjr
Posts: 3175 (0)
Hall of Famer
492 154 8 2
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by bigbucks69 on 6/06/2010But still what was wrong with the penalty before?
What is wrong with the position penalty is that some teams want to run a 4 Guard and one SF at Center type "quick" team. There are teams that play that way. In HD with a position penalty that is not possible.

They have said that the guy with good PE and low LP will spend less offensive time in the post and more outside the paint (for example). This gives you the ability not to have a plain jane cookie cutter type team.
6/6/2010 7:50 PM
hughesjr
Posts: 3175 (0)
Hall of Famer
492 154 8 2
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by isack24 on 6/06/2010OK, let's say someone puts a SG a the C spot.  The same theory applies.  They would probably give up a lot in some areas, but he would be able to guard the opposing C, right?I think we can all agree that's absurd.I agree, it's not a huge issue (mostly because people don't put SGs at C), but for the people who want realism, this is pretty unrealistic.
But if the SG has no Rebounding and no Shot Blocking and less ATH than a C then the C is going to get 3 shots to put it in ... If you do have an SG with good Reb and BLK, well then he CAN guard a Center. (ie, if he has LeBron skills or Magic Johnson skills, he can guard anybody.)

If a 6'3" guy has a 95 in Rebounding then he got that based on something other than size. His technique and desire and block out ability are awesome. But a 7' guy can get a 95 rating and not have to be as good technically because size is also a factor in the initial ratings. I do not see this as a problem at all. There are not going to be many 6'3" guys you can stick in the low post and get away with it.
6/6/2010 7:56 PM
hughesjr
Posts: 3175 (0)
Hall of Famer
492 154 8 2
Prospect
Just for fun, I did a recruit search for Div-1 ... (in Allen)

There are a total of 7 PG/SG that have > 30 for BLK (Max is 41).

There are 7 guys with > 40 in Reb (max is 50)

I don't think you are going to guard a decent Center with any of those guys.
6/6/2010 8:12 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
What does rebounding have to do with it?

Look, you're missing the point. Whether he would be an effective overall player at the position is irrelevant. He would be an effective defender, and that's not realistic.
6/6/2010 9:17 PM
wilhitec
Posts: 123 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 8 48
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 6/06/2010
OK, let's say someone puts a SG a the C spot. The same theory applies. They would probably give up a lot in some areas, but he would be able to guard the opposing C, right?

I think we can all agree that's absurd.

I agree, it's not a huge issue (mostly because people don't put SGs at C), but for the people who want realism, this is pretty unrealistic.



SB rating just doesn't account for blocked shots...it alters shots in the post (sent in a ticket on that once just to confirm)...so this SG (assuming a low SB rating) should get eaten alive in the post by a good C, even if he has superior ATH/SP/DEF.
6/6/2010 9:48 PM
hughesjr
Posts: 3175 (0)
Hall of Famer
492 154 8 2
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by isack24 on 6/06/2010What does rebounding have to do with it?Look, you're missing the point.  Whether he would be an effective overall player at the position is irrelevant.  He would be an effective defender, and that's not realistic.
It has to do with getting to miss and get you own rebound.

Why don't you play a SG at C and see what happens, it seems to be the only way to have you see the big picture.
6/6/2010 10:36 PM
bdixon
Posts: 127 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 1 1 32 6 23
Prospect
A players height is already factored into his ratings. Playing a 6'3" G at the center position isn't a very good idea in RL or HD either one. I guarantee you he'll get dominated by a decent center 99% of the time...
6/6/2010 11:14 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By wilhitec on 6/06/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 6/06/2010

OK, let's say someone puts a SG a the C spot. The same theory applies. They would probably give up a lot in some areas, but he would be able to guard the opposing C, right?

I think we can all agree that's absurd.

I agree, it's not a huge issue (mostly because people don't put SGs at C), but for the people who want realism, this is pretty unrealistic.




SB rating just doesn't account for blocked shots...it alters shots in the post (sent in a ticket on that once just to confirm)...so this SG (assuming a low SB rating) should get eaten alive in the post by a good C, even if he has superior ATH/SP/DEF.
That makes sense, although I still think he would defend him more effectively in this game than in real life.

But yeah, that's a good point.
6/7/2010 1:30 AM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By hughesjr on 6/06/2010
Quote: Originally posted by isack24 on 6/06/2010
What does rebounding have to do with it?

Look, you're missing the point. Whether he would be an effective overall player at the position is irrelevant. He would be an effective defender, and that's not realistic.
It has to do with getting to miss and get you own rebound.

Why don't you play a SG at C and see what happens, it seems to be the only way to have you see the big picture
Or, you know, an on-point, convincing response would work. The post above was one, you should try it.

Yeah, he might get some extra putbacks, but that doesn't really change the fact that Shaq would dunk on Rajon Rondo every time he touched the ball inside five feet in real life, but in this game, Rondo's defense would allow him to force Shaq into missed shots. Although the above poster is probably right, the lack of SB would hurt.

The point is, and I think plenty people would agree, it makes as much sense to have interior defense/perimeter defense as it does lp/per.

Dalter might be right, that there are more important things to deal with first, but that doesn't change the idea's validity.
6/7/2010 1:35 AM
◂ Prev 12
Has this question been answered? 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.