Can I start a SF at C? I know I'm able to but I'm wondering if others have and what kind of results they have gotten. I remember reading somewhere that it's not good to move a player more then one position away.
The reason I want to do this is because I'm playing against a team that has a PF with 75 LP but a C with 42 LP so I'm thinking of switching my SF to C and my C to PF.
Here are my SF, who I start at PF, and my C.
Curtis Castle Sr. SF 54 66 40 66 31 77 64 38 50 52 87 83 C- 708
William Warfield So. C 39 24 56 83 48 60 26 1 38 74 57 59 B- 565

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

It can be done, but who is playing PF? I would move that guy to C and put a SF at PF then.

the SF is his normal PF, zee ,



EDIT; actually, no, the SF was playing SF and Harry Stanley, who is listed as a PF, played PF in the first game. I'm confused

Quote: Originally Posted By oldave on 1/19/2010the SF is his normal PF, ze

Yeah you win there... Not to sharp this morning and I did fail to read the entire post ...

I don't think the LP matters too much in your decision, I would be more likely to make a move like you stated based on the difference in a kids ATH/SPD (and possibly DE) but not just because he has good LP.

okay, lemme see if i can understand what you are trying to do, baskets...

you want to try to slow down Limestone's 75LP PF Andy Lee... right?

First of all, I think Castle is probly a better defender than Warfield anyway, so just based on that initial Question I would say put Castle at PF and Warfield at C.

BUT... surely you have noticed that Limestones SF is a pretty doggone good scorer, too? who gaurds him?

Unless I am missing somehting, I would say just leave Castle at SF, and swap your two bigmen so that your better defender is set to gaurd Limestone's best offensive bigman.

As to the original question of how big of a penalty it is to play a player more than one spot away from his natural spot.... admin has said there is a penalty, and there's really no way to know how big of a penalty it is, but i think most of us feel it is not a huge penalty, if the SF clearly your best option at C for some reason (I dont really see that here) then I would play him there.

Quote: Originally Posted By oldave on 1/19/2010

the SF is his normal PF, zee ,



EDIT; actually, no, the SF was playing SF and Harry Stanley, who is listed as a PF, played PF in the first game. I'm confused

Sorry to confuse.

To be clear: My prefered startning lineup would be to have Castle at PF and bring Stanley off the bench. However in the previeous game I was playing against a 3-2 zone so I wanted to go with a bigger lineup.

I like to play Garrick at SG, Vidal at SF, and Castle at PF. They are my 3 best offensive players so I'd like to have them on the court together often.

Also it seems to me that they don't have any other post player besides Lee who can really hurt me so I figure if I put my best post defender on him then I can play +3 or +4 defense and take away the outside game as well.

this is one area where HD has alwasy fallen a little short in my eyes..

it does not recognize that perimeter defense and post defense are very different skills.

this was the main reason for the "position penalty" , imo.

also, i suppose, ath is prolly a bit more importantfor interior D and sp may be a bit more important for perimeter D... but that is just a guess. and, of course, shotblocking much of a factor in perimeter D while it is prolly a pretty big factor in post D

So, when we try to evaluate who are the best defensive players in the post...

we have to look at DE, ath, blk, and to a lesser extent (i think) speed.

when i look at castle and warfield in a vacuum... and if i re-think the question of which player is specifically better at defending the lowpost .. i might agree that warfield seems slightly better (not quite as athletic, but great pure DE, plus his Blk is better, and, though he is not as fast that shouldnt be as important in the lowpost).

But, i tend to look at this thing a little different.

the firs tthing i do is look at my matchups and see whether the ath/sp is favoring me or my opponent at each spot. If possible, i really like to gain the advantage in these areas as much as possible while maintaining an RE advantage if that is possible. The importance of RE, imo, is the biggest factor that keeps folks from playing smallball.

I figure if I can maintain an ath/sp/RE advantage at most spots... Im going to have a good chance to win

now, once I have done that, then i look at the individual matchups to see if I can match my best defenders with his best offensive players.

in this case, if I end up with castle (a 66DE) on thier best player... and given that castle will have about a +15ath/+15sp advantage on lee.... i am liking that just fine.

if you go the other way, and you put warfiled on Lee, they are basicelly even in ath, but big edge to Lee in speed. is that important? I know i said speed was prolly less important in postD, but I , for one, dont know for sure if that is true, and if it is true, how much is it worth? half as important? not important at all? Im just not sure and so i feel better when i have these things in my favor or at least even. anyways, thats my thinking.

I dont mean to say that warfield on Lee is bad... in fact, thats probably what i would do. but if you ask warfield or castle... i gotta go with castle.

and one more thing, you are talking about playing a plus defense... id be careful with that when you are at a disadvantage on the boards.

Well I won but I don't think my strategy worked. I held Lee to 11 on 4-11 shooting but the other big guy went for 25. I also got killed on the glass as you said I might.
The + defense however was, I think, the main reason why I did win. I forced 21 turnovers and they shot only 1-13 from 3pt range. I'm sure that the + D did contribute to the rebound discrepancy but we're not a very good rebounding team as it is so we probably wouldn't have won without the turnovers or if they had hit some 3s.

Thanks everyone for the advice I really appreciate it.

not SF at C, but in DIII you think playing this guy at SF for at least backup minutes would work?

ATH: 54
Speed 38
Rebounding 56
Defense 22
Shot Blocking 55
Low-post 39
Perimeter 29
Ball Handling 43
Passing 28
Stamina 68
At a glance: Athleticism, CHeck.  Rebounding, Check.  Low post and perimeter are a bit low, but BH and passing seem adequate for SF. 

bh is excellemt for a d3 sf

pa is not good, but that prolly wont kill you



the only thing that bothers me is lack of speed. and since he is plus in several other areas... i see no reason why he couldnt be a decent backup sf on a good d3 team.

oldave hit it on the head. Again.