Posted by zbrent716 on 3/13/2013 12:49:00 AM (view original):
Posted by dacj501 on 3/13/2013 12:43:00 AM (view original):
so this is basically is 20 pts of ath worth 20 reb, 25 def, 35 lp and 15 sta? I am heavily in favor of #2. I'd like to find someone better than both of them for top level D2 if I could though.
ETA: If either of them is someone on my list already, then my answer is go recruit somewhere else!
Close, although #1 also has +5 in BH and 5% in FT.
That 35 LP though, I don't view as of great importance at all, since it's not like the 35 turns him into a scorer (IMO). The 15 STA is a nice bonus, but in zone it is far less important than in other sets.
Really then, to me, the focus/question is whether 20 ATH trumps 20 REB and 25 DEF for a SG. The others (the BH/LP/STA/FT) are of secondary importance I would think.
im with dac. the raw 20 ath vs 20 reb and 25 def, thats a bit tough - it could definitely depend on the player. for these guys, on defense, the +25 def trumps the +20 ath, so player 2 is the better defender, slightly. its easier for me to think in terms of qualities, not ratings, when comparing players. on offense, with that +35 lp, player 2 is pretty close to on par with player 1, and his +20 ath, +5 bh, 5%ft. player 1 is a better per shooter, would have (slightly) better 3pt % and ft%, where as player 2 should have a better 2pt%. the nod probably goes to player 1, if you play them both at 0, and its basically a draw at -1, so it somewhat depends how you play them.
between offense and defense, its pretty much a draw. intangibles, player 1 is very slightly better in terms of "ball control", with his +5 bh and +20 ath. player 2 has 20 reb to 1, and has 15 more stamina, which is significant in any set. its not as critical because neither of these guys are great (stamina is more valuable the better a player is, great stamina does almost nothing for a mediocre player, but it can make a great player elite), and because of zone, as you mentioned - but still, in zone, its a few minutes per game, thats a few minutes instead of a backup playing - even if player 2 can play 90% as much as player 1 (he cant, not as same fatigue level), if you average in 10% of your backup quality player when these guys are upperclassmen starters, thats not negligible.
because of the intangibles, i go with player 2. actually, that 10 work ethic (which i didnt see when i wrote this, before the edit), that does bring it closer, although 40 vs 50 is not huge. you dont list their starting ratings, which is a factor, if player 1 starts significantly better, and has better work ethic, hes probably going to be the better player most of his career, so i could see that tilting the scales. if they are both reasonably similar right now, without a ton of room to grow, then it will probably be close enough that player 2 ultimately being better should give him the nod. a significant GPA difference could play in with it being so close, as well...
3/13/2013 1:21 AM (edited)