Posted by dalter on 6/25/2010 12:03:00 AM (view original):
I don't think it's clearly off. Again, this is coming down to your expectation of what sp for big men should be.

Guards and wing players should be faster than big men.

Have you asked seble directly, "Hey, seble, how come you decided to cut sp in big men?"

I don't think it's clearly off. Again, this is coming down to your expectation of what sp for big men should be.

Guards and wing players should be faster than big men.


This.

I guess my question for Grant and the others who have taken up his side is this:  you say that there are not enough viable big men with speed or guards with good recbounding, but if we're all using recruits from the same recruiting pool and all the ratings have been lowered, wouldn't that make all of the ratings relative?  And if so, where exactly does the problem lie?  I'm not being a smartass, just a little confused at this point as to what the real issue is?

Also one other thing, I've seen Hughes post a couple of times that the 1-100 ratings are how players relate to other players and are not their (how would you say it) "raw" skill numbers (such as to say that a Center with a rating of 100 has reached the maximum possible ability for being able to rebound a basketball).  Are we sure this is correct because I don't think it is.  And if this is is how it's intended to be, then there is a very basic fundamental flaw to the rating system.  The reason that I don't think that the ratings are how players compare relative to other players and are their actual "ability" ratings is this.  If the numbers are a comparison relative wise to all the players in a given division/world then no one should ever be able to reach 100 in a skill set.  Why you ask?  Because a player who reaches 100 would have to be considered better than every other player in the group that he is being compared to, only he is ALSO in that group so he would be considered to be better than himself, which obviously is not possible.  If you don't buy that line of reasoning, then how about this one?  If the ratings are relative to other players ratings, then there should never be more than one player rated at 100 in any given category.  Why?  Because only one player can be the best.  He would be the 100 and no one else.  The next best player would be at 99, the next 98, etc...problem is, there are obviously more than 100 players being compared, so the whole relative to other players theory (if that's how HD is using the ratings) has some pretty basic flaws in it's premise.  My take on that issue anyway.

Then again, it's 4 in the morning, I'm half asleep, and I may just be a moron..................

Posted by angmar on 6/25/2010 3:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dalter on 6/25/2010 12:03:00 AM (view original):
I don't think it's clearly off. Again, this is coming down to your expectation of what sp for big men should be.

Guards and wing players should be faster than big men.

Have you asked seble directly, "Hey, seble, how come you decided to cut sp in big men?"

I don't think it's clearly off. Again, this is coming down to your expectation of what sp for big men should be.

Guards and wing players should be faster than big men.


This.

I have never said guards and wings should not be faster than big men, so you can throw that out the window.

If you don't think there should be any big men that are 1/3 or 1/2 as fast/quick as some of the faster guards, then I really don't know what to tell you other than you must not think this is a basketball simulation.

Posted by angmar on 6/25/2010 4:09:00 AM (view original):
I guess my question for Grant and the others who have taken up his side is this:  you say that there are not enough viable big men with speed or guards with good recbounding, but if we're all using recruits from the same recruiting pool and all the ratings have been lowered, wouldn't that make all of the ratings relative?  And if so, where exactly does the problem lie?  I'm not being a smartass, just a little confused at this point as to what the real issue is?

Also one other thing, I've seen Hughes post a couple of times that the 1-100 ratings are how players relate to other players and are not their (how would you say it) "raw" skill numbers (such as to say that a Center with a rating of 100 has reached the maximum possible ability for being able to rebound a basketball).  Are we sure this is correct because I don't think it is.  And if this is is how it's intended to be, then there is a very basic fundamental flaw to the rating system.  The reason that I don't think that the ratings are how players compare relative to other players and are their actual "ability" ratings is this.  If the numbers are a comparison relative wise to all the players in a given division/world then no one should ever be able to reach 100 in a skill set.  Why you ask?  Because a player who reaches 100 would have to be considered better than every other player in the group that he is being compared to, only he is ALSO in that group so he would be considered to be better than himself, which obviously is not possible.  If you don't buy that line of reasoning, then how about this one?  If the ratings are relative to other players ratings, then there should never be more than one player rated at 100 in any given category.  Why?  Because only one player can be the best.  He would be the 100 and no one else.  The next best player would be at 99, the next 98, etc...problem is, there are obviously more than 100 players being compared, so the whole relative to other players theory (if that's how HD is using the ratings) has some pretty basic flaws in it's premise.  My take on that issue anyway.

Then again, it's 4 in the morning, I'm half asleep, and I may just be a moron..................

The issue(particularly with spd)  is that it limits certain playing styles and makes the game considerably more vanilla, when what was told to us was that the new engine would be more diverse. 

Lower ratings are fine.  Your point that there shouldn't be 100 rated players makes a lot of sense in fact. However,  if you lower big men spd, you should be lowering guard spd as well, and that has not been done. 

Relative SPD values that turn all big men into clods are not.   That's not diverse nor is it fun.(and I've had a lot of fun playing HD).

Posted by isack24 on 6/23/2010 6:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by grantduck on 6/23/2010 6:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 6/23/2010 6:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by grantduck on 6/23/2010 5:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 6/23/2010 4:31:00 PM (view original):
I disgaree completely that there are plenty of guards outrebounding bigs in college.  There are guards who track down rebounds, guards who come off the weak side rebounds, etc.  But there aren't a lot of guards who could match up in the post, turn, and get a rebound over a 6'7" PF.

Yes there are, ESPECIALLY in college.  Apparently you didn't watch the NCAA tournament this year, you could have watched either of these teams have guards go straight up against bigs and get rebounds over them.   Durrell Summer, 6ft 4 in guard, with 10 rebounds, Veasley and Nored, smaller guards, combine for 11 rebounds.   Need more examples?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/ncaa/men/gameflash/2010/04/03/63133_boxscore.html


It's totally reasonable to expect that there should be a decent # of guards with say 40-65 ath and 30-45 RBD.   

I wached plenty.  Nored was never matched up on bigs.  He would sneak in and grab boards in a crowd, I'll give you that, but he wasn't boxing out bigger players.

Summers was a top-twenty player in his class.  That's fine if you want to argue there should be a few guys with high ath/30+ reb, but he doesn't fit with your "decent # of guards" theory, he was an elite player.

For what it's worth, there are 24 D1 PG/SG newly-created in Wooden that have 60 ath/30 reb.     

What about D-II players and D-III players? 

There are still the high number of good rebounders/ath among bigs, but not at all among guards.

One of the major problems in this thread in replies seems to be all the answers seem to pertain to D-I.


And I can give you a number of other guys that were not highly rated and were outstanding rebounding guards.  Vasquez from Maryland averaged 5 boards a game at the PG spot,  Aubrey Coleman  from Houston average 7.4 rebounds per game at the SG spot, etc.  I could go on.  I'm not saying it's a HUGE problem with the engine(like I think the SPD thing IS), but it's pretty clear there aren't enough guards with decent rebounding stats.

I thought that's what we were talking about.

How many really athletic, good rebounding guards do you think there are in D3?  Compared to other D3 players, sure, there are plenty, but not compared to D1 guys, which is who you're comparing them to just by the nature of the ratings.  Maybe there should be a couple, but not a "decent number."

  You are correct.  Howevver, there aren't nearly as many high lvl rebounding bigs in D-II or D-III in real life either though.  At D-III you're going to see 5ft 11 guards who are good rebounders go in amongst the 6ft 5in "Trees" and get rebounds, just the same.

IDK if this has anything to do with anything, but *most* of the big men who were available to me in Tark D2 were high/high in the speed category. Lots of them started at 1 but were high/high, and I signed a PF with 30 speed who was high/high.

Posted by aejones on 6/25/2010 5:58:00 AM (view original):
IDK if this has anything to do with anything, but *most* of the big men who were available to me in Tark D2 were high/high in the speed category. Lots of them started at 1 but were high/high, and I signed a PF with 30 speed who was high/high.

It has a lot to do with it.  I think, as a couple of others have pointed out before you, that if there are more high spd potential bigs than before, it will balance out a bit(though still will be well behind on base spd if they also increased high spd potential guards).  Just depends how many there are and how they develop. 

If someone from HD told me that was the case, I'd be happy to concede the point and say great, move on.

Posted by grantduck on 6/25/2010 5:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by angmar on 6/25/2010 3:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dalter on 6/25/2010 12:03:00 AM (view original):
I don't think it's clearly off. Again, this is coming down to your expectation of what sp for big men should be.

Guards and wing players should be faster than big men.

Have you asked seble directly, "Hey, seble, how come you decided to cut sp in big men?"

I don't think it's clearly off. Again, this is coming down to your expectation of what sp for big men should be.

Guards and wing players should be faster than big men.


This.

I have never said guards and wings should not be faster than big men, so you can throw that out the window.

If you don't think there should be any big men that are 1/3 or 1/2 as fast/quick as some of the faster guards, then I really don't know what to tell you other than you must not think this is a basketball simulation.

But there are.  HAve already posted the ranges showing overlap.  And I'm sorry, even if speed is lowered, the variability IS higher and there ARE more types of players out ther,  YOu seem to have acquired a monolithic focus on a specific type of player as the be all and end all of diversity.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 6/25/2010 6:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by grantduck on 6/25/2010 5:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by angmar on 6/25/2010 3:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dalter on 6/25/2010 12:03:00 AM (view original):
I don't think it's clearly off. Again, this is coming down to your expectation of what sp for big men should be.

Guards and wing players should be faster than big men.

Have you asked seble directly, "Hey, seble, how come you decided to cut sp in big men?"

I don't think it's clearly off. Again, this is coming down to your expectation of what sp for big men should be.

Guards and wing players should be faster than big men.


This.

I have never said guards and wings should not be faster than big men, so you can throw that out the window.

If you don't think there should be any big men that are 1/3 or 1/2 as fast/quick as some of the faster guards, then I really don't know what to tell you other than you must not think this is a basketball simulation.

But there are.  HAve already posted the ranges showing overlap.  And I'm sorry, even if speed is lowered, the variability IS higher and there ARE more types of players out ther,  YOu seem to have acquired a monolithic focus on a specific type of player as the be all and end all of diversity.

I refuted what you posted by showing that your ranges were not from any d-II or D-III players and very few viable players on the whole.

I'm simply asking why it was cut and made less diverse.

I'm not focusing on one type, there are many areas where recruits are now less diverse or the same(not diverse).  SPD is the area I'm focusing on most because on inspection it is the most broken.

Um, no you didn't.  I gave ranges from deivision one two and three showing the same thing.

Posted by arssanguinus on 6/21/2010 5:33:00 PM (view original):
Or for Phelan. . .

THe bottom thirty guards and the top 30 posts at:

D1:
35 - 49
62 - 42

d2:
11 - 36
50 - 36

d3:

17 - 46

41 - 22

 

 

For Knight:

25 - 46
60 - 43


11 - 36
50 - 37


25 - 40
43 - 22

THat doesn't show a "MAssive gap" - other than if you pick a guard at random, most of the time the guard WILL be quicker than the big.
 

ANd SOrry, saying there are less types of players out there than before is just flat out not factually true.  YOu might personally not like the types out there, but that doesn't mean there are less of them.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 6/26/2010 6:35:00 AM (view original):
ANd SOrry, saying there are less types of players out there than before is just flat out not factually true.  YOu might personally not like the types out there, but that doesn't mean there are less of them.

True fact.

Posted by vandydave on 6/23/2010 6:51:00 PM (view original):
didnt read the whole thread, but recruiting with W Carolina I can tell you that it seems like there are a handful of elite players still, a few above average players, then a whole bunch who dont even look worthy of being on a d1 roster.

my fear is that the major conference schools will still get the elite players, and that lower conference schools will simply get this new diversified riff-raff. Offers very little motivation to stay at a mid to lower level d1 school. And yes, I understand that these new recruits will require some adapting (but will everyone be willing to make the mental leap of recruiting guys who are now rated 525 instead of 625), but simply put when we still see such elite players knowing how bad the players average schools will be signing gives little hope of competing with major conference schools long-term. and this is from me, a guy who favors big-conference schools normally.

This is how I feel.

Posted by gators55 on 6/26/2010 9:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 6/23/2010 6:51:00 PM (view original):
didnt read the whole thread, but recruiting with W Carolina I can tell you that it seems like there are a handful of elite players still, a few above average players, then a whole bunch who dont even look worthy of being on a d1 roster.

my fear is that the major conference schools will still get the elite players, and that lower conference schools will simply get this new diversified riff-raff. Offers very little motivation to stay at a mid to lower level d1 school. And yes, I understand that these new recruits will require some adapting (but will everyone be willing to make the mental leap of recruiting guys who are now rated 525 instead of 625), but simply put when we still see such elite players knowing how bad the players average schools will be signing gives little hope of competing with major conference schools long-term. and this is from me, a guy who favors big-conference schools normally.

This is how I feel.

THign is, those 'elite from the beginnig' players A: won't have much additional upside and B: Are going to be a singificant risk for EE. (At least based on what I looked at when scouting for recruiting)