This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally Posted By arssanguinus on 6/02/2010I would sort of like it, if - for consistency's sake, they made there be the same plus minus three point settings for individual players that there are for the team: -5 to + 5. Minus five coudl really be "Absolutely no, never, don't even think about it bud" and Plus five "Bombs away! Fire at will, commander!" And zero "Do what thou wilt"|


.

I totally agree, I think that would fix any problem I have.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally Posted By ll316 on 6/02/2010

Quote: Originally posted by dalter on 6/02/2010
ll, it's not going against your orders at all. We're not talking about guys taking more shots or less shots than you want them to, we're simply talking about where on the court their shots will come from. And the only thing that makes sense is that top perimeter shooters take more of their shots from 3p, while crappy perimeter shooters would take less.

That makes sense, and it'd make sense for a coach to not put them at -2. But if a coach does put them at -2 for whatever reason, they should listen to their coach shouldn't they? Larry Brown put every 3pt shooter at -1 on the Pistons title team and actually sat Billups for taking 1 too many. He's the coach, so the players had to follow his orders. Shouldn't it be that way in this sim as well?

Again, the players are following the coach's orders. Set to -2, they're not shooting threes. Set to 0 they are taking reasonable 3pters w. in the flow of the offense. How are they not following the coach's orders?

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Yes there is such a rating. Its called "Perimeter" And they are included in it.

So what would the per be of a guy who can make 100/100 3s alone in a gym but needs to be fairly open to make one in a game?

Per can't possibly encapsulate everything that goes into making a 3-pointer in real life.

What the guy can do in a gym is utterly irrelevant to ratings compared to what he can do ON THE COURT.

Thhat guy probably has a high perimeter potential, and needs to learn how to get in position for them to realize it, but as far as ratings are concerned, why should what he does in the gym rather than on the court even be relevant in any way?

Besides: Perimeter, ball handling, speed, AThleticism. . all go into three point shooting. SO its "Encapsulated' in four different ratings.

I understand that, my point is that he is deadly when fairly open. So how does per take that into account? If he's open, he's the best shooter in basketball. If not, then he's not. I'm not sure how per encompasses that like you claim.

In real life, there are guys like that, and it has nothing to do with "high per potential" (nice try on that one, by the way). So here's a guy who if I set to -1, should be lights out, but if I set to +2, gets significantly worse than someone who who hits a lower percentage at -1 but higher at +2.

The point of all this is simply to disprove that per encompasses all that you say it does. There's simply no way it can. Which means that when you start making real-life comparisons, there are going to be holes, which there were above.

Quote: Originally Posted By arssanguinus on 6/02/2010Besides: Perimeter, ball handling, speed, AThleticism. . all go into three point shooting. SO its "Encapsulated' in four different ratings.

No, it's not. Those things all determine how easily a player can get open, but not what distance determines whether he is "open."

. . .I am coming to the conclusion that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing here.

Quote: Originally posted by isack24 on 6/02/2010I understand that, my point is that he is deadly when fairly open.  So how does per take that into account?  If he's open, he's the best shooter in basketball.  If not, then he's not.  I'm not sure how per encompasses that like you claim.  In real life, there are guys like that, and it has nothing to do with "high per potential" (nice try on that one, by the way).  So here's a guy who if I set to -1, should be lights out, but if I set to +2, gets significantly worse than someone who who hits a lower percentage at -1 but higher at +2.The point of all this is simply to disprove that per encompasses all that you say it does.  There's simply no way it can.  Which means that when you start making real-life comparisons, there are going to be holes, which there were above.

Easy. He has a high perimeter and is low on the other things that go into getting open perimeter shots.

Well this is so far off-topic that I assumed we both were. My point during this whole string has been what I said above:

"The point of all this is simply to disprove that per encompasses all that you say it does. There's simply no way it can. Which means that when you start making real-life comparisons, there are going to be holes, which there were above."

I already admitted that dalter's point makes sense, and I agree with you that a larger scale would alleviate most of my WIS-perimeter-shooting-control problems.

Quote: Originally Posted By arssanguinus on 6/02/2010

Quote: Originally posted by isack24 on 6/02/2010
I understand that, my point is that he is deadly when fairly open. So how does per take that into account? If he's open, he's the best shooter in basketball. If not, then he's not. I'm not sure how per encompasses that like you claim.

In real life, there are guys like that, and it has nothing to do with "high per potential" (nice try on that one, by the way). So here's a guy who if I set to -1, should be lights out, but if I set to +2, gets significantly worse than someone who who hits a lower percentage at -1 but higher at +2.

The point of all this is simply to disprove that per encompasses all that you say it does. There's simply no way it can. Which means that when you start making real-life comparisons, there are going to be holes, which there were above.

Easy. He has a high perimeter and is low on the other things that go into getting open perimeter shots.

OK, this will actually be my last post on this particular off-topic discussion.

That doesn't affect what you said originally, and what started this whole thing: "[e]xcept what constitutes a good wide open shot to reggie is MUCH different than what constitutes on to PArker."

Those other things affect how open he can get, not what constitutes a good wide-open shot to each player.