Well, let's see. I'm averaging 1.8 more turnovers than my opponents. So everyone else must have also drafted a **** ton of turnovers minus 1.8.
I'm also averaging 10.6 more rebounds than my opponents. Now that's a **** ton more possessions.
And defense wins championships. I'm sure somebody said that once. (it also lowers opponent fg% and creates turnovers)
And efg% already takes 3s and FTAs into account. Do I care if a players efg% comes from shooting 6-10 from midrange, or 4-10 from the arc? I do not.
Efficient scoring is clean basketball.

There's a lot wrong with what you just said, but I'm not interested in picking a fight. I'm just venting.

Posted by pexetera on 6/19/2020 5:10:00 PM (view original):
Well, let's see. I'm averaging 1.8 more turnovers than my opponents. So everyone else must have also drafted a **** ton of turnovers minus 1.8.
I'm also averaging 10.6 more rebounds than my opponents. Now that's a **** ton more possessions.
And defense wins championships. I'm sure somebody said that once. (it also lowers opponent fg% and creates turnovers)
And efg% already takes 3s and FTAs into account. Do I care if a players efg% comes from shooting 6-10 from midrange, or 4-10 from the arc? I do not.
Efficient scoring is clean basketball.

i knew you would be a problem because of the defense and boards but i didnt think your offense was gonna be this good...you really drafted a sneaky amount of ast% for ignoring pg most of the draft...jimmy butler was a great pick...really helps give you that edge at the ft line

i do think the lack of perimeter scoring could end up being a problem tho *coughwhyisnteveryoneplayingpex-2?cough*

Posted by ashamael on 6/19/2020 5:18:00 PM (view original):
There's a lot wrong with what you just said, but I'm not interested in picking a fight. I'm just venting.

No worries, my friend. Very competitive and fun league. Best one in a long time. Probably any guy who finishes in the top 10 would have to give you at least partial credit.

Posted by dh555 on 6/19/2020 6:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pexetera on 6/19/2020 5:10:00 PM (view original):
Well, let's see. I'm averaging 1.8 more turnovers than my opponents. So everyone else must have also drafted a **** ton of turnovers minus 1.8.
I'm also averaging 10.6 more rebounds than my opponents. Now that's a **** ton more possessions.
And defense wins championships. I'm sure somebody said that once. (it also lowers opponent fg% and creates turnovers)
And efg% already takes 3s and FTAs into account. Do I care if a players efg% comes from shooting 6-10 from midrange, or 4-10 from the arc? I do not.
Efficient scoring is clean basketball.

i knew you would be a problem because of the defense and boards but i didnt think your offense was gonna be this good...you really drafted a sneaky amount of ast% for ignoring pg most of the draft...jimmy butler was a great pick...really helps give you that edge at the ft line

i do think the lack of perimeter scoring could end up being a problem tho *coughwhyisnteveryoneplayingpex-2?cough*

I wonder why everyone doesn't play me -2 also. 'trainer’s lap'

I'm sure I have an incomplete understanding of the SIM, but it's what works for me.

@ash I'm really sorry I shot 60.9% against the Cream & if it makes you feel any better, it probably won't happen again

question: given 99-100% positional availability do you think it makes any difference whether you slot someone at PF vs C

I think no

Posted by bds9992 on 6/19/2020 8:08:00 PM (view original):
@ash I'm really sorry I shot 60.9% against the Cream & if it makes you feel any better, it probably won't happen again

Yeah that is a prime example of a classic outlier. My defense is like 72-84-99-90-92 for 30+ mpg.

Posted by copernicus on 6/19/2020 9:07:00 PM (view original):
question: given 99-100% positional availability do you think it makes any difference whether you slot someone at PF vs C

I think no

I think it makes a tiny difference. Given how much min/maxing we do here, I do think that every little bit counts.

BUT ALSO

You have to think, "Is 99% of this guy better than 100% of what someone else could give me?" and then judge for yourself.

Posted by ashamael on 6/19/2020 9:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by copernicus on 6/19/2020 9:07:00 PM (view original):
question: given 99-100% positional availability do you think it makes any difference whether you slot someone at PF vs C

I think no

I think it makes a tiny difference. Given how much min/maxing we do here, I do think that every little bit counts.

BUT ALSO

You have to think, "Is 99% of this guy better than 100% of what someone else could give me?" and then judge for yourself.

That's been my thinking with McHale playing SF on some teams. I've never really went below 99% before but I figured 97-98% of near 60% eFG with above average rebounding and defense at the SF position has to be more beneficial than detrimental, right?

I dont so much mean the 99% angle as just the putting them at PF v C part though - I feel like as long as the defensive positioning part works as alleged it shouldnt matter (eg if you have Bill Russell and Bob McAdoo, both 100/100 - it shouldn't matter where you slot either?)

Posted by copernicus on 6/19/2020 9:07:00 PM (view original):
question: given 99-100% positional availability do you think it makes any difference whether you slot someone at PF vs C

I think no

My understanding is that the positional % multiplier works the same as the fatigue % multiplier. That is, a player who is at 90% fatigue but playing at 100% positional effectiveness is at the same performance disadvantage as a player who is at 100% fatigue but is 90% positional effectiveness. So no, I do not think there is a statistically significant difference to being 99% effective positionally any more than there is being at 99% fatigue. Kinoa proves that every time he drafts one of these sub 19,250 minute squads. He's got players with fatigue in the low to mid 90s and he's still going to be in the finals.

I've got Butler playing minutes at 99% PG in some leagues. I've got Barkley playing 99% at SF in some leagues. I've got Ed Davis at 98% SF in a league. I'll go down as low as 97% positional effectiveness while drafting, but I don't like to go down further than that because then if they also get fatigued the penalties stack and you can start to notice a difference. I don't really notice a difference until the player gets below 95% effectiveness. What is 99% of 59% efg to have Barkley at SF anyway? Still better than I could have done to have a less efficient, less rebounding player at 100% SF.

Posted by copernicus on 6/19/2020 9:26:00 PM (view original):
I dont so much mean the 99% angle as just the putting them at PF v C part though - I feel like as long as the defensive positioning part works as alleged it shouldnt matter (eg if you have Bill Russell and Bob McAdoo, both 100/100 - it shouldn't matter where you slot either?)

There are cases you can make for it, and I do switch things up sometimes for specific reasons, but I'd rather not quite get into all of that.

the only thing that you have to worry about with playing someone that's not 100% at a position is that defensively, they get double the penalty. For exampmle, a 100 defender who is 90% at PF doesn't defend PFs at a 90, he defends them at an 80.