"On the issue of whether this guy is a stud in terms of ath/spd or how many d3 players are there (TJ's question) with 50/50/50 ath/spd/def, just go to any d3 world, look at FR pg/sg/sf ratings, sort via ath. You will find 50-70 D3 freshmen with ath/spd/def all in the 50ish range or higher."

OK, that's fine. 

I never said you thought he would be a primary scorer.  Never implied it.  You said you'd have him shoot.  I said I wouldn't.  "Primary scorer" was never in the discussion till you brought it up. 

I guess my point is the one I've always been trying to make: whether you're an elite coach or just aspiring to sniff that air, you should be looking to recruit the same players.  You can only become elite by recruiting the players elite coaches recruit.

As I said, I don't think the guy is terrible, nor do I think he shouldn't be recruited.  I just think there are plenty of guys who are better options to start.  I guess I don't think that implies anything about anybody, and I certainly didn't intend for it to, but I'm sorry if it caused problems.

I have found many more than you did TJ. I didn't look specifically at 50/50 ath/spd, but instead included any player with combined ath/spd over 100, with ath/spd/def over 150 (so 80/40/30 makes the list). I'm seeing 17 FR PG, 10 FR SG, 4 FR SF. 

Posted by Trentonjoe on 5/1/2012 1:45:00 PM (view original):
"On the issue of whether this guy is a stud in terms of ath/spd or how many d3 players are there (TJ's question) with 50/50/50 ath/spd/def, just go to any d3 world, look at FR pg/sg/sf ratings, sort via ath. You will find 50-70 D3 freshmen with ath/spd/def all in the 50ish range or higher."

I found three in coming freshman in TARK with 45-45-45 at SF.
I found four SGs (although the top 25 stopped at 49 ATH there may be more).
I found five PG's..

That's 12.  

For the 40/40/40 guys....

14 PGs (ATH down to 51)

10 PG's (ATH down to 49)

6 SF's (DEF down to 44)


I guess 50-50-50 ISN'T that special.

I know tianyi said search incoming frosh, but I don't think that was the OP's question.

There are a TON of those guys in D3 if you search juniors (like this guy is) and seniors.

Posted by isack24 on 5/1/2012 1:50:00 PM (view original):
OK, that's fine. 

I never said you thought he would be a primary scorer.  Never implied it.  You said you'd have him shoot.  I said I wouldn't.  "Primary scorer" was never in the discussion till you brought it up. 

I guess my point is the one I've always been trying to make: whether you're an elite coach or just aspiring to sniff that air, you should be looking to recruit the same players.  You can only become elite by recruiting the players elite coaches recruit.

As I said, I don't think the guy is terrible, nor do I think he shouldn't be recruited.  I just think there are plenty of guys who are better options to start.  I guess I don't think that implies anything about anybody, and I certainly didn't intend for it to, but I'm sorry if it caused problems.

Not to belabor this any more than we already have, but there is a difference between ideals and reality - one can look to recruit the same players.  Getting them is an entirely different matter.  My D2 team struggled for several seasons until I hit it rich with some high-potential guys close to campus - the class that got me to the Final Four last season.  But I haven't seen that level of talent/potential within pulldown range since then.

So, again: aspirations are great.  Reality, on the other hand, can be a *****.  Coaches like Tianyi are a statistical outlier, not something most D3 coaches can really relate to.

We had a misunderstanding based on interpretation of words, nothing more.  It happens online all the time as we don't have facial expression and vocal inflection to help us communicate.  We do agree that the OP's player isn't all that bad and could be a big help to some teams.  

In D3 the value of prestige is fairly small.  The only difference between tianyi and you is that he's better at the game than you, and if your approach to recruiting is going to continue to be to kowtow to the top coaches and try to live life as a 2nd class citizen it's going to stay that way.

Posted by dahsdebater on 5/1/2012 2:17:00 PM (view original):
In D3 the value of prestige is fairly small.  The only difference between tianyi and you is that he's better at the game than you, and if your approach to recruiting is going to continue to be to kowtow to the top coaches and try to live life as a 2nd class citizen it's going to stay that way.

Main difference I see between consistent deep NT run coaches and those that go hit or miss are talent evaluation. Aejone's guide about player evaluation is pretty accurate. 

Edit: Talking about d2/d3 ofc.

Copied from aejones post:


"A more specific guide to what I'm looking for my players to get to in terms of minimum speed/athleticism requirements. Note that there are exceptions to every rule, and these should only be used for a guide and not a steadfast rule. At d3, I am looking for my guards to be a combination of 120 in speed/athleticism; a PG to get to at least 70 speed/50 athleticism (or some combination very close to that), SG to get to 65/55, SF to get to 60/60. Again, if I find someone who is just under those marks but is spectacular in their skills, I can make exceptions. For bigs, I am looking for about 70 athleticism in my PF, 60 athleticism in my C. I value speed very little in bigs, but I value it slightly more in my PF than my C, where I don't value it at all (I might if I played the press anywhere). At D2, use all of the guides I just mentioned but add 10 to each number (so, a total of 140 speed/athleticism for my perimeter players). There are exceptions-- Edward Bradley is one of my better players on my SW Baptist team and he is only 65/64 in speed/athleticism, a total of 129 (11 under my recommended guide for D2 perimeter players). However, he is 76 defense, 89 perimeter, 83 ball handling, 76 passing, and 56 (and still growing) low post. Despite his marginal speed/athleticism ratings, he is able to get 15 PPG on 44%/40%/75% in 17 MPG off the bench. That is elite scoring efficiency against tough competition."

Interesting discussion, at least until the conversation got to be a bit argumentative.   Although even the arguments have shed some light too.

To clarify, I was asking if this player was "any good", not if he was great.  And unlike what zags may think -- love you still! -- I actually didn't know.  Like I said, I can't remember ever having a player like this that was cromulent at everything and didn't excel at anything.

The general consensus seems to be that this is an ok player but probably one that shouldn't be starting.  I'm a bit disappointed in that this is "my guy" -- although he was a backup option after this player ended up in a battle that I had one too few open spots to afford; I never expected stardom out of him.  I'm also a bit disappointed in that he's the definition of a glue guy.  How valuable those are in real life is debatable I suppose but I like the idea of having a guy that does a little bit of everything and helps the machine run smoothly.  Of course, I suspected that wasn't the case and therefore started this thread.  A bit disappointed he isn't all that good, but not surprised.

Essentially this is a player that is rated '50' across the board.  I think a follow up question I would have is what would it take -- across the board for him to be a good player.  Would 55 do the trick? 60?  (I'm pretty sure 60 would but I'm thinking 55 might not be enough based on what has been suggested thus far.

Posted by dahsdebater on 5/1/2012 2:17:00 PM (view original):
In D3 the value of prestige is fairly small.  The only difference between tianyi and you is that he's better at the game than you, and if your approach to recruiting is going to continue to be to kowtow to the top coaches and try to live life as a 2nd class citizen it's going to stay that way.

Kowtow?  2nd class citizen?  Man, there are some pretty harsh adjectives being thrown around in this thread.

I don't "kowtow" to anyone.  I've had great input from several of the top-level coaches here and have benefited greatly from their advice.  I respect their experience immensely, but that's different from "kowtowing" or thinking I can never get there myself.  I'm only acknowledging reality even if it's a temporary one.

But as anyone who's spent time in HD knows, hearing and doing are two different things.  Trying and doing are, as well.  In the end, all of us have to learn the hard lessons the hard way and engaging in that kind of insulting rhetoric doesn't help coaches who are trying to learn.  It only slams doors shut.

Maybe you've forgotten, but a coach with $3,000 per scholarship plus maybe another 1k for an NT bid is on a different playing field than one who has a championship bonus in their coffer.  Sometimes it's not a matter of will or lack of effort.  Sometimes it's nothing more than a matter of means.

Posted by tianyi7886 on 5/1/2012 1:34:00 PM (view original):
And after looking at kujay's team, I don't think Holt should be starting while these two are sitting on the bench playing marginal minutes:

http://whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=7834&pid=2061434
http://whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Stats.aspx?tid=7834&pid=2061433

I find this very interesting.  I wouldn't think about starting either because of the rebound rating.

Here they are side by side:

Name	Yr.	Pos.	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	FT	TOT
Bruce Sawyer	Jr.	PG	56	76	2	56	2	12	29	70	52	36	82	64	B-	537
Anthony Lockwood	So.	PG	65	60	5	69	1	2	48	58	56	32	59	54	C+	509
Robert Holt	Jr.	SF	51	50	50	49	46	48	57	45	44	61	72	5	C-	578

I guess the thing that might be interesting to think about in this comparison is:

1. How much does the rebounding difference matter for a small forward?

1b. Does the zone difference make a difference in the evaluation given that it gives up too many offensive boards?

2. Does the block shot rating matter whatsoever?  Again, does the 2-3 zone differ from a man or press defense?

3. How much more effective of a scorer is Holt and does it even matter?  If Holt isn't efficient with 48 LP and 57 PER, it is essentially a non-factor.

4. What benefits are gained with the superior ball handling and passing at the small forward spot?

5. How much does IQ matter?  Holt is a fourth year player and is A/A; the other two are third year players and Lockwood is B+/A- while Sawyer is B+/B+.



My gut -- and actions in setting the lineup -- tells me that rebounding is important enough that I need to start Holt.  Of course, the fact that tianyi suggests otherwise probably means my gut is wrong.

(And just so it doesn't need to be said by one of you, I realize all these options are pretty terrible.  My roster is pretty ugly and I'm well aware of the mistakes I've made in recruiting.)

Ethan - I think dahsdebater was over the top with that post but you also can't have it both ways.  If you're going to wait until the end of recruiting to pick over scraps you probably aren't going to keep pace with the A+ squads.  If you take the advice they offer, which I'm guessing doesn't include waiting until the end, you probably can do a decent enough job of matching their success.  Maybe not identical success, especially if you don't have the same amount of recruiting bonus money -- but close enough.

I can answer the question 1, 2 and 4 with this guy:

Scott Cadet

So.

SG

96

54

1

91

2

36

45

29

13

52

74

73

B

566

He was the starting SF on my undefeated NC team in Wooden 2 seasons ago.

1 rebound, 1 SB, 29 bh, 13 pass.  Although, ironically, he blocked a last-second shot to win the NC game.

Obviously the guy has extreme ath/def, and I didn't use him to score, but the point is this kind of guy can start on a NC team.  And his ath was enough for him to snag 2 rpg for his career. 

The year before, I won the NC with this guy at SF:

Lloyd Brown

Jr.

SG

78

65

10

87

5

43

86

64

55

76

82

34

B-

685

Again, minimal reb and sb, although his bh/pass was enough for him to actually start at PG on the second NC team.

I play man, so I can't answer your question about effectiveness in the zone with lower reb, but I would tend to think the high ath does a decent job of mitigating the lower reb. 

Posted by kujayhawk on 5/1/2012 3:11:00 PM (view original):
Ethan - I think dahsdebater was over the top with that post but you also can't have it both ways.  If you're going to wait until the end of recruiting to pick over scraps you probably aren't going to keep pace with the A+ squads.  If you take the advice they offer, which I'm guessing doesn't include waiting until the end, you probably can do a decent enough job of matching their success.  Maybe not identical success, especially if you don't have the same amount of recruiting bonus money -- but close enough.

On the contrary, I can quote Tianyi himself, in chat to me,  on several occasions that *sometimes* the best approach for D3 is to be patient and wait for drop downs.  I've gone against that advice a few times with mixed results.  I suck at being patient.

Personally, I don't value rebounding very much in the sf position, unless I'm weak in the reb department at the PF/C position. This isn't quite the case with Thomas. 

Holt's grabbing 2.6 boards/game; that's negligible. I would take Sawyer or Lockwoods ath/spd/def edge over the 50 rebounding. Sawyer/Lockwood also have better bh/passing, which improves the scoring efficiency of your other players. 

Another point is that Sawyer/Lockwoods are head and shoulders above Holt in defense. This affects opp fg% and stl's. Holt isn't generating stls while Sawyer and Lockwood are generating stls at a pretty ridiculous clip for a zone defense. Holt is at 0.6 stls/25mpg; Sawyer at 0.8/8min; Lockwood at 0.6/16min. Sawyer's steals are definitely inflated due to the 3 steal game against Whitman, but then, all of Holt's steals came in 1 game as well. On a per minute basis, Sawyer is 4x as efficient as Holt in steal while Lockwood is 1.5x as efficient. I would say the 1.5x number is more accurate. 

Offensive efficiency isn't very important. You have better scorers on your team than any of these 3 players, so the ultimate question comes down to, does Holt's rebounding edge outweigh Sawyer/Lockwood defensive edge in fg% and steals? My gut is telling me no. 

One final point is, do you need Holt's rebounding in the starting lineup, alongside Brogden and Kimble, with their 95 and 83 rebounding? If you really like Holt and think he's superior to Sawyer/Lockwood, it might even be better to have them play the same # of minutes while Holt runs with the 2nd squad, so his 50 rebounding is more present when playing with your backup PF/C. 

Isack, your links aren't working for me.  I assume this is your ike account.  Are you playing press?  If so, I'd argue it's apples and oranges.

That said, the questions I was asking were to the comparison of the three players above.  If you do get a track star with amazing defense, almost all those questions that I asked become moot.

But I don't have Scott Cadet or Lloyd Brown.  I have Bruce Sawyer and Anthony Lockwood.  And they both kind of suck.  But as tianyi points out, they very well might be worth starting for me.  So the questions I was asking pertains to guys of that quality, not the talent that an A+ coach like yourself is recruiting.