I just lost my first round NT game in IBA.  Ws not unexpected, went up against a better team playing FCP, which is my weakness with turnovers.  However, this is my complaint.

I figured I would have an advantage inside with my 2 bigs, so I set my distro to focus on them.  I also went slowdown to try and offset his speed advantage.  When I look at the boxscore, my starting PF (who is  C) with a 93 LP rating, is 3-7 and in foul trouble, so only plays 16 minutes and scores 7 points with only 1 rebound.  He was guarded by a 6'0 tall SG with a 36 reb rating, who had 5 reb's.

Now I know it has been said height is factored into ratings and plays no part in matchups, but is that really fair.  If a C is guarding a C, or a PG guarding a PG, I can see height being factored into the ratings already.  But how in the hell can a SG that my guy is 9 inches taller than be the more effective PF?   Isn't there supposed to be some kind of penalty for playing out of position, or if not, shouldn't there be? 

I don't want this to come off as a complaint, he deserved to win the game, he has the better team, but to have the one matchup in my favor be so clearly lopsided in his makes no sense.  Yes I know his guy is faster and more athletic, but then wouldn't every team start all guards to just foul out every big? 

Am I justified to be ticked off by this, or should I just shut up and take it.  Thanks

height just isnt a variable in the game - but REB, ATH and LOW are - thats where bigs should make a difference

Hey Milk,

It's a valid question and I've had situations like this myself in the past that haven't made any sense, but I haven't looked at the play by play or looked at any game film (which none of us can do), so let me ask you a question. How many treys (3pt shots) did the other team take. The reason I ask this is is because with a trey miss,  or a mid range jumper miss, the rebound is gonna be longer and with your guy playing in tight, the ball could have bounced right over his head to the SF or SG on the floor. You also didn't mention the REB rating for your PF (who is a C). If its low (as in like only 50 or 60) that might also have something to do with it because a 36 REB rating for a SG is very good to excellent for D111 or D11.

I'm at work so I can't link the boxscore(don't know why system won't let me).  Mt PF has a 76reb and he took 17 3's. 

Your guy has an ATH of 37 and SPD of 43.  That matters a great deal more than physical height, especially when he was up against a player with ATH of 71.

It's not that uncommon for slow bigs to have problems guarding smaller players with better speed and athleticism.  In my mind, the results of that game aren't really out of order at all.

I'm not disputing that bigs should have trouble guarding smaller players, that's why I don't start him at SG.  The issue is why don't smaller players have any trouble guarding bigs.  Gary Payton may be the best defensive PG I've ever seen, but put him on a decent PF all night and he'll get murdered.  By that standard Ethan, starting 5 guards is the ideal lineup cause all the other's teams players will just foul out.  There needs to be some negative effect for putting a SG at PF when he is 9inches shorter than my guy.  

Posted by milkamania on 5/2/2011 11:13:00 AM (view original):
I'm not disputing that bigs should have trouble guarding smaller players, that's why I don't start him at SG.  The issue is why don't smaller players have any trouble guarding bigs.  Gary Payton may be the best defensive PG I've ever seen, but put him on a decent PF all night and he'll get murdered.  By that standard Ethan, starting 5 guards is the ideal lineup cause all the other's teams players will just foul out.  There needs to be some negative effect for putting a SG at PF when he is 9inches shorter than my guy.  

There is. If you big was 70 ath as well, then he wouldn't have been in foul trouble and you would have dominated him on the boards. 

they weren't really on the floor together that much, walters went 2/3 against parks


and shotblocking plays a fair part in post defense, which kind of regulates short people playing inside

Posted by milkamania on 5/2/2011 11:13:00 AM (view original):
I'm not disputing that bigs should have trouble guarding smaller players, that's why I don't start him at SG.  The issue is why don't smaller players have any trouble guarding bigs.  Gary Payton may be the best defensive PG I've ever seen, but put him on a decent PF all night and he'll get murdered.  By that standard Ethan, starting 5 guards is the ideal lineup cause all the other's teams players will just foul out.  There needs to be some negative effect for putting a SG at PF when he is 9inches shorter than my guy.  

That's not what I'm saying.  Gary Payton plays against fairly equal competition every night.  Put him in a game against a mid-tier Division I college big man and he'd burn the guy all night long.

Height can matter, but it's not the end-all in determining matchups.

I don't want it to be the end all, or even the most important factor.  It just seems that I am at a major disadvantage here as he played his SG out of position, and so my big is trying to guard a faster more athletic player.  That's fair, unless they update the man to man settings to allow me to have players play one position on offense and guard a different position on defense, but that's a different argument.

While I accept that I am disadvantaged when he is on offense, it seems he suffers NO penalty when he is on defense.  I can't imagine that is the way it was designed, but smarter coaches than me don't seem to think it's unreasonable, and so I defer to the more experienced judgement.   Just wondering how in the hell he stops me without a double team, it should be easy layups or fouls every possession. 

I don't mind having lost, as I said, his team was better overall.  Maybe the solution is to have greater penalties to stats for being out of position.  Not  sure what they are or if they exist.    A guard with a 90 def guarding a guard should have a lower def if guarding a PF or C. 

Go to NBA dot com and look up old highlights of MJ doing the Juke & Jive on Larry Bird back in MJ's first or second year in the NBA. That should explain everything. His ATH, SP, BH, & 63 LP for a Guard is what killed you.

milk - I agree with the point you're trying to make and it seems others are missing it.  MJ can juke & jive Bird and Payton can burn a mid-tier college player all night long.  Agreed.  But MJ couldn't guard Bird down low (not a good example because the height difference isn't that great, how about MJ vs David Robinson) and Gary Payton couldn't guard a mid-tier college big man either.  If there's an advantage for the small guy on offense becasue of his quickness, there should also be an advantage for the big guy on offense because of his height.  

Having said that, this is only one game and I'm not sure that it always plays out this way.  It might, I just don't have any evidence beyond this one game. 

a different way to design the game would have been to include height as a variable - and have it affect various other categories - much as ATH seems to have such effects

they didnt do it - height is as relevant to this game as is hair length in the pictures

Walters has an ATH of 37 and had 4 fouls which put him on the bench for most of the game. he only played 16 minutes. His backup, Weaver has an ATH of 22 (way worse) and also had 4 fouls because Parks has an ATH of 71. Parks went 6-10 down low and the 4 shots that were missed were blocks by both Walters & Weaver. Parks had ZERO blocks and the 2 guys he played against went 7-16 with CRAPPY ATH. So yeah everything lines up properly.