Triangle/Press

Projected ratings by senior year:

	Player A	Player B
ATH	75	83
SPD	57	66
REB	31	20
DEF	84	97
BLK	43	13
LP	58	13
PER	50	57
BH	65	50
PASS	58	50
ST	79	92
DU	79	76
FT	C+	B-

B

B unless you're very short on scoring, which A could provide slightly better.

But in a vacuum, B.

B and it's not very close for me

easily B for me too

B by far

It was a toss up until I saw the ST difference. B for me.

Curious follow-up, do any of your decisions change if player A projected to a matching DEF rating?

	Player A	Player B
ATH	75	83
SPD	57	66
REB	31	20
DEF	97	97
BLK	43	13
LP	58	13
PER	50	57
BH	65	50
PASS	58	50
ST	79	92
DU	79	76
FT	C+	B-

I don’t know, maybe because I use a weird defensive scheme, I don’t see this as a slam dunk at all. B is an elite defender, and an ok offensive player; A is a very good defender, and has a bit more offensive value. It’s really going to depend on stuff like how long it will take for them to make these projections, whether I have to invest a lot of early starts and pt, and how much each is likely to cost, ie who else is going after them.

I think I probably agree that B is a little more valuable in a vacuum. If they did end up at the same place defensively, A might be a tad more valuable as a senior; he will help more offensively both in giving you a legit D3 scoring option, and good possession skills. But since you’re asking, I assume A defense starts quite a bit lower, so then you have to take into account how good they will be for the first 3 seasons as well. And also, if it’s a gamble to project he *might* grow enough to get to 97, if he is, say, a green 57 or a blue 66, best to assume he’ll be closer to mid 80s than upper 90s. If you have a sure thing at mid 80s ath and upper 90s defense, at D3, that’s really hard to pass up.

ETA, if you’re pressing or playing FB, or especially if both, that 92 stamina is a much bigger factor.

Neither player has a scoring category (LP and PER) over 60. so I wouldn't use either of them for scoring. With that said, player B has better ATH/SPD/DEF/ST. So I prefer him easily.

More of you will argue with me, than stand with me on this, but if PER/LP isn't up to 80, I don't consider them to be a high scorer on my teams anyways. (Unless I have a team without any 80s. But that never happens).

Both players could be low scorers for me. Roughly 6 to 9ppg. But even then, I still look at the grouping of ATH/SPD/BH/ST for that role. And by that, player B is still better.

One last thing to mention..... I don't value REB in a SF. If you're looking at that as well. I run guards with 1 REB at SF all the time. Player A's best benefit are his ball skills. But player B isn't lacking in that area either

Player A is a very decent D3 scorer. At projection, he could be one of the top three scoring options on a championship caliber D3 team. Not dominant, and not an ideal first option, but a very effective 2nd or 3rd option, absolutely.

Player B is not like a 0 distribution guy, but he will not be as efficient, and I wouldn’t give more than half player A’s distribution unless there was a really favorable matchup.

Posted by topdogggbm on 6/27/2020 11:18:00 PM (view original):
Neither player has a scoring category (LP and PER) over 60. so I wouldn't use either of them for scoring. With that said, player B has better ATH/SPD/DEF/ST. So I prefer him easily.

More of you will argue with me, than stand with me on this, but if PER/LP isn't up to 80, I don't consider them to be a high scorer on my teams anyways. (Unless I have a team without any 80s. But that never happens).

Both players could be low scorers for me. Roughly 6 to 9ppg. But even then, I still look at the grouping of ATH/SPD/BH/ST for that role. And by that, player B is still better.

One last thing to mention..... I don't value REB in a SF. If you're looking at that as well. I run guards with 1 REB at SF all the time. Player A's best benefit are his ball skills. But player B isn't lacking in that area either

I highly disagree here with this reason: guard LP of 50 and above is stellar. Players can be great scorers with 60 LP.

Here are some really nice scorers on championship caliber (or championship) teams with lower than 80 in both PER/LP: Timothy Labadie (second leading scorer on 35-0 #1 RPI Championship Team), Robert Horner (leading scorer on different 35-0 #1 RPI Championship Team), James Huff, Austin Barker, Mark Sell, Kevin Lal, William Lavalley, Stuart Tasker (80 PER but still worth noting because that's right on your border), James Bolling (pure BH and speed scorer), Quon Chu, Robert Wilson, Clyde Yuan.

Even some D2 guys: Micheal Heffron, Joe Buhl (second leading scorer on #7 RPI E8 team), Derek Lovell (leading scorer on #1 RPI F4 Team), Hal Jones (second leading scorer on #1 RPI F4 Team), Michael Wulff (second leading scorer on #1 RPI NT Runner Up), Robert Lewis, Eugene Gray.

Hell, Jones and Lovell were the two leading scorers by a large margin on a team that was the #1 PR, #1 RPI, and likely best or second best in the nation by my evaluation (basically tied with the eventual champion), and lost to the eventual champion in the F4 (who we beat in the CT).

These are a lot of examples of super nice players with lower LP/PER. I would for sure avoid the generalization you made.

Posted by Sportsbulls on 6/28/2020 6:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 6/27/2020 11:18:00 PM (view original):
Neither player has a scoring category (LP and PER) over 60. so I wouldn't use either of them for scoring. With that said, player B has better ATH/SPD/DEF/ST. So I prefer him easily.

More of you will argue with me, than stand with me on this, but if PER/LP isn't up to 80, I don't consider them to be a high scorer on my teams anyways. (Unless I have a team without any 80s. But that never happens).

Both players could be low scorers for me. Roughly 6 to 9ppg. But even then, I still look at the grouping of ATH/SPD/BH/ST for that role. And by that, player B is still better.

One last thing to mention..... I don't value REB in a SF. If you're looking at that as well. I run guards with 1 REB at SF all the time. Player A's best benefit are his ball skills. But player B isn't lacking in that area either

I highly disagree here with this reason: guard LP of 50 and above is stellar. Players can be great scorers with 60 LP.

Here are some really nice scorers on championship caliber (or championship) teams with lower than 80 in both PER/LP: Timothy Labadie (second leading scorer on 35-0 #1 RPI Championship Team), Robert Horner (leading scorer on different 35-0 #1 RPI Championship Team), James Huff, Austin Barker, Mark Sell, Kevin Lal, William Lavalley, Stuart Tasker (80 PER but still worth noting because that's right on your border), James Bolling (pure BH and speed scorer), Quon Chu, Robert Wilson, Clyde Yuan.

Even some D2 guys: Micheal Heffron, Joe Buhl (second leading scorer on #7 RPI E8 team), Derek Lovell (leading scorer on #1 RPI F4 Team), Hal Jones (second leading scorer on #1 RPI F4 Team), Michael Wulff (second leading scorer on #1 RPI NT Runner Up), Robert Lewis, Eugene Gray.

Hell, Jones and Lovell were the two leading scorers by a large margin on a team that was the #1 PR, #1 RPI, and likely best or second best in the nation by my evaluation (basically tied with the eventual champion), and lost to the eventual champion in the F4 (who we beat in the CT).

These are a lot of examples of super nice players with lower LP/PER. I would for sure avoid the generalization you made.

i don't really disagree with you - i mostly agree with dogg too (outside fb) but the lp scoring guards can be good.

but, i want to make an important port, to you, specifically. with a schedule as you had this year, almost no meaningful conclusions can be drawn about what your team is like. in today's d3 wasteland - 17 sos is awful. don't be mislead by the figure seeming reasonable, its not. really, 17 sim games on your schedule is unthinkable, 17 of 30 is... 57%? ballpark. that is atrocious. you can't calibrate for late NT play when the majority of your stats are pure, 100% garbage. a coach as promising as yourself - you should pretty much have the toughest schedule in the country every year, and often by a wide margin - especially if you talk true strength of schedule not the truly awful sos measure used by this game (and real life). i realize this means you would need to shuffle your teams. you mentioned once most of your bad NT upsets have come from millsaps - not sure if your other teams play in wasteland conferences - but if not, perhaps that is why. every stat, for every player, every team stat... its worse than garbage, its misleading.

edit: i say this because as i clicked through some of your guys, their stats were outside the range i consider reasonable for teams of that caliber. as in, too high. also those couple 35-0s at millsaps in such a short period are a major red flag. only one conclusion - you aren't challenging yourself enough in the regular season.

I agree that LP in guards can be excellent for scoring as well. And as I stated, a lot will disagree with me. I'm not trying to discredit the strength of LP in guards. What I'm getting at is this......

If iI had player A on my team, sure he COULD score at a pretty high level. But chances are, I have a guard or two with 80+ PER and a big or two with 80+ LP. So unless it's "needed", that 58 LP guard isn't going to do much for me. Sure if he's my best option, I'll tilt up the distro. But chances are, he's never going to be my best scoring option.

Also those are projected numbers. So maybe it's 38 Blue LP right now. (Maybe not, I don't know). But when I look at that player A, I don't think "man, he's the face of the franchise". I would most likely have better scorers

https://imgur.com/a/x6NeWMy

Above is an example of a fantastic scorer that went to 3 straight finals, only winning 1 :( He has high LP and shot 57% for a career. I underutilized him, due to other talent on the team, but I'm only sharing him to show that I too believe in the value of LP in guards. I just tend to have other options, that can score more than Player A in the OP. And bulls.... you do too!

Posted by Sportsbulls on 6/28/2020 6:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 6/27/2020 11:18:00 PM (view original):
Neither player has a scoring category (LP and PER) over 60. so I wouldn't use either of them for scoring. With that said, player B has better ATH/SPD/DEF/ST. So I prefer him easily.

More of you will argue with me, than stand with me on this, but if PER/LP isn't up to 80, I don't consider them to be a high scorer on my teams anyways. (Unless I have a team without any 80s. But that never happens).

Both players could be low scorers for me. Roughly 6 to 9ppg. But even then, I still look at the grouping of ATH/SPD/BH/ST for that role. And by that, player B is still better.

One last thing to mention..... I don't value REB in a SF. If you're looking at that as well. I run guards with 1 REB at SF all the time. Player A's best benefit are his ball skills. But player B isn't lacking in that area either

I highly disagree here with this reason: guard LP of 50 and above is stellar. Players can be great scorers with 60 LP.

Here are some really nice scorers on championship caliber (or championship) teams with lower than 80 in both PER/LP: Timothy Labadie (second leading scorer on 35-0 #1 RPI Championship Team), Robert Horner (leading scorer on different 35-0 #1 RPI Championship Team), James Huff, Austin Barker, Mark Sell, Kevin Lal, William Lavalley, Stuart Tasker (80 PER but still worth noting because that's right on your border), James Bolling (pure BH and speed scorer), Quon Chu, Robert Wilson, Clyde Yuan.

Even some D2 guys: Micheal Heffron, Joe Buhl (second leading scorer on #7 RPI E8 team), Derek Lovell (leading scorer on #1 RPI F4 Team), Hal Jones (second leading scorer on #1 RPI F4 Team), Michael Wulff (second leading scorer on #1 RPI NT Runner Up), Robert Lewis, Eugene Gray.

Hell, Jones and Lovell were the two leading scorers by a large margin on a team that was the #1 PR, #1 RPI, and likely best or second best in the nation by my evaluation (basically tied with the eventual champion), and lost to the eventual champion in the F4 (who we beat in the CT).

These are a lot of examples of super nice players with lower LP/PER. I would for sure avoid the generalization you made.

Jones and Lovell are EXTREME cases that don't really fit what I'm saying. Lovell is a big, with 99 ST and 87 ATH. Jones is 77 ATH and 95 SPD, capable of being solid on a D1 team! Those players could score well if they had 0 LP/PER because of their athletic ability.

The players in the OP are not super elite athletes compared to the players you pointed out. I didn't look at all of them. Only the two you mentioned separately. And they are extreme cases. I have players like that as well, that I have as high scorers as well. But where I guess I should've been more clear, is that I don't even view Jones and Lovell as the same type of players as the ones the OP is discussing. I view Jones and Lovell as far superior, and players that shouldn't even fall to D2 or D3.

So sure, there are exceptions. And I have some I could share as well. But I'm talking more about the standard type of players signed at D2 and D3. Not the absolute best of players signed at D2 and D3. Using your examples, Huff is the best example I can use for my point. As a Soph, you had him averaging 21ppg. Amazing. But as a Jr and especially as a Sr, he dipped. All the way down below 10ppg. And the reason for that (I'm going to assume) is by the time he was a Sr, you had better options on your team for scoring. But you needed him to be a scorer earlier in his career. Is that fair to say? Because THAT is more along the lines of what I'm trying to say