There have been a few threads lately that have noted the importance/dominance of having a team with superior athleticism.

I don't really doubt that, but at the same time I'm not sure how that is necessarily a known fact.  Superior athleticism = superior defense and vice versa.  The two ratings are almost always tied together so that a good ATH leads to a good DEF and a poor ATH leads to a poor DEF.  Is there any reason for this?  Are there two other ratings that are correlated like this for all five positions?

If you were to run a super athletic team that had defensive ratings that averaged 30-40-50 points less than the athleticism, would that team of "track stars" still dominate?  Maybe, but right now you couldn't even build that team if you wanted.

I can't think of a reason why it would be this way in real life.  If anything, it seems like real life is filled with players who don't play good defense because they can get away with sloppy play due to their superior athleticism.  I also think that it would add an element of strategy to the game if you had to pick and choose more often (and also made it a real premium to get those that had both).

I inadvertently had the best ATH team in my world a few seasons back simply because I was trying to build a team that had outstanding defense.  I had to laugh when I was the top rated team in the category without ever trying for that to happen.  That seems a bit silly.

Maybe it's just me but I'm no longer seeing the same correlation between ath/def. Knight just rolled over and alot of players with either great ath or great def is not on my recruiting list, simply because the other category isn't there. 

Posted by tianyi7886 on 8/13/2012 12:14:00 PM (view original):
Maybe it's just me but I'm no longer seeing the same correlation between ath/def. Knight just rolled over and alot of players with either great ath or great def is not on my recruiting list, simply because the other category isn't there. 

Ignoring the sample size for a second ... there still is a correlation, correct?  There are no 80+ ATH recruits that are 20- DEF or vice versa, right?

Perhaps it is my ignorance, but I really don't understand why there is any relation between the two.  In my mind it should be just as likely that the 85 ATH recruit has a DEF rating of 15, 50, or 85.  (With the caveat that floor and ceilings apply across the board for a D1 vs. D3 recruit.)

Not as extreme as 85 ath and 15 def, but I am seeing 20-40 point gaps between ath/def on quite a few players. 

Posted by kujayhawk on 8/13/2012 1:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tianyi7886 on 8/13/2012 12:14:00 PM (view original):
Maybe it's just me but I'm no longer seeing the same correlation between ath/def. Knight just rolled over and alot of players with either great ath or great def is not on my recruiting list, simply because the other category isn't there. 

Ignoring the sample size for a second ... there still is a correlation, correct?  There are no 80+ ATH recruits that are 20- DEF or vice versa, right?

Perhaps it is my ignorance, but I really don't understand why there is any relation between the two.  In my mind it should be just as likely that the 85 ATH recruit has a DEF rating of 15, 50, or 85.  (With the caveat that floor and ceilings apply across the board for a D1 vs. D3 recruit.)

there is absolutely a correlation. i believe its the game's second strongest, after sb/reb. 

i agree it should be broken, at least to some extent. there are plenty of athletic players in college bball who are fantastic defenders, but there are also plenty who just aren't that good. let them have 15 def and 80 ath, and they will still be a heck of a lot better than a 15 ath 15 def guy.

going back to your original question - i think we can be sure that ath and def are both very important in man defense. the existence of potential was not applied with the same striking correlation, which is great, it allows you *some* significant variations in sb/reb and ath/def, which is vital to the determination of their respective values.