Posted by topdogggbm on 9/30/2021 7:08:00 PM (view original):
I don't feel like either of the above players would be big board material. Maybe I'm not very good at judging it yet. But as you mentioned shoe, 54 ATH? Are there ever players with that low of athleticism on the board? I don't pay as much attention to it as some of you do. That just seems really low

It is really low. It would be atypical, for sure. But he’s already atypical, with elite guard skills, soon-to-be 100 per and 90+ def. High defense and low athleticism is not a common combo. So maybe we’ll see how skewed perimeter is for the PG spot.

My guess is that he *might* crack the Big Board as a senior, but will not be drafted, probably stays down in the 130-150 range.

Posted by shoe3 on 9/30/2021 7:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 9/30/2021 7:08:00 PM (view original):
I don't feel like either of the above players would be big board material. Maybe I'm not very good at judging it yet. But as you mentioned shoe, 54 ATH? Are there ever players with that low of athleticism on the board? I don't pay as much attention to it as some of you do. That just seems really low

It is really low. It would be atypical, for sure. But he’s already atypical, with elite guard skills, soon-to-be 100 per and 90+ def. High defense and low athleticism is not a common combo. So maybe we’ll see how skewed perimeter is for the PG spot.

My guess is that he *might* crack the Big Board as a senior, but will not be drafted, probably stays down in the 130-150 range.

If he made the big board, I'd speculate it would be the first day of the season and then he'd quickly fall off the board as the other classes improved. I just can't imagine someone with that low of athleticism (or any 1 core rating) being on the board except if it was a SF since that position seems to have the most core ratings that they can afford to take the hit in 1-2. However, I'll also admit I don't look enough.

I always kinda assumed the big board was very roughly similar to the default listings on the 'Player Roles' screen (maybe not exactly since things like durability matter so little in the game that I'd be surprised they comprise 2% of a player's draft rating). So if I'm using that as a rough estimate, ~10% of the guards ratings are athleticism and your guard is only getting 5 of 10% there. Yes, you're getting nearly the full percentage in other categories but I'd doubt it's enough to claim a spot passed slightly more well-rounded guys.

I was going to link a couple players for comparison sakes but I don't recall any off the top of my head. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out!

Would a PG with

100 ATH
100 SPD
100 DEF
1 LP
1 PER
100 BH
100 PASS

Get drafted?

Posted by sol_phenom3 on 10/6/2021 11:13:00 AM (view original):
Would a PG with

100 ATH
100 SPD
100 DEF
1 LP
1 PER
100 BH
100 PASS

Get drafted?

I’ve never even seen a guy close to something like that extreme, really. Theoretically, I’d say no. The system values scoring too much to let that kind of player get high enough up the board to get drafted, if one was ever to exist.

Posted by shoe3 on 10/6/2021 9:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sol_phenom3 on 10/6/2021 11:13:00 AM (view original):
Would a PG with

100 ATH
100 SPD
100 DEF
1 LP
1 PER
100 BH
100 PASS

Get drafted?

I’ve never even seen a guy close to something like that extreme, really. Theoretically, I’d say no. The system values scoring too much to let that kind of player get high enough up the board to get drafted, if one was ever to exist.

I'd love to sign him if he was out there!

Posted by topdogggbm on 10/6/2021 10:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 10/6/2021 9:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sol_phenom3 on 10/6/2021 11:13:00 AM (view original):
Would a PG with

100 ATH
100 SPD
100 DEF
1 LP
1 PER
100 BH
100 PASS

Get drafted?

I’ve never even seen a guy close to something like that extreme, really. Theoretically, I’d say no. The system values scoring too much to let that kind of player get high enough up the board to get drafted, if one was ever to exist.

I'd love to sign him if he was out there!

This is as close as I have right now. Donald Johnson begins his senior season #116 on the Big Board, completely red everywhere. He’s a very valuable guy, but he won’t get drafted. I wouldn’t be surprised if he falls all the way off the board by the end of the season.

Posted by shoe3 on 10/6/2021 9:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sol_phenom3 on 10/6/2021 11:13:00 AM (view original):
Would a PG with

100 ATH
100 SPD
100 DEF
1 LP
1 PER
100 BH
100 PASS

Get drafted?

I’ve never even seen a guy close to something like that extreme, really. Theoretically, I’d say no. The system values scoring too much to let that kind of player get high enough up the board to get drafted, if one was ever to exist.

agreed - but i would go as far as to say there is no way in hell that guy would get drafted

i posted this guy like 10 days ago but he is the very edge of what gets drafted on an average year. i think hes an interesting example because he's not an extreme 1 lp/per but rather an 80lp / 50per which is relatively dangerous. he does only have like 80 speed but i think a pretty good example of an underrated guy because he's clearly a 3 strength player by any measure, 'pgness' wise (bh/pass), defensively, and offensively, but with 2pt offense instead of 3. high quality 3 strength guards should generally speaking not be questionable draft picks as seniors... most are up there in the first round or else leaving early.

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/Ratings.aspx?&pid=4837449

So we've gone full circle here. And what I've gathered is.....

Big board is whack

Yeah, he's down to #101 now with 3 games left in the regular season. He might not get drafted at this point.

Posted by upsetcity on 10/4/2021 5:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 9/30/2021 7:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 9/30/2021 7:08:00 PM (view original):
I don't feel like either of the above players would be big board material. Maybe I'm not very good at judging it yet. But as you mentioned shoe, 54 ATH? Are there ever players with that low of athleticism on the board? I don't pay as much attention to it as some of you do. That just seems really low

It is really low. It would be atypical, for sure. But he’s already atypical, with elite guard skills, soon-to-be 100 per and 90+ def. High defense and low athleticism is not a common combo. So maybe we’ll see how skewed perimeter is for the PG spot.

My guess is that he *might* crack the Big Board as a senior, but will not be drafted, probably stays down in the 130-150 range.

If he made the big board, I'd speculate it would be the first day of the season and then he'd quickly fall off the board as the other classes improved. I just can't imagine someone with that low of athleticism (or any 1 core rating) being on the board except if it was a SF since that position seems to have the most core ratings that they can afford to take the hit in 1-2. However, I'll also admit I don't look enough.

I always kinda assumed the big board was very roughly similar to the default listings on the 'Player Roles' screen (maybe not exactly since things like durability matter so little in the game that I'd be surprised they comprise 2% of a player's draft rating). So if I'm using that as a rough estimate, ~10% of the guards ratings are athleticism and your guard is only getting 5 of 10% there. Yes, you're getting nearly the full percentage in other categories but I'd doubt it's enough to claim a spot passed slightly more well-rounded guys.

I was going to link a couple players for comparison sakes but I don't recall any off the top of my head. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out!

Gary Howton starts at #118. He doesn’t have much growth, but his ball handling will go up close to 88 (starting at 81, which should be the max black) so he may not fall off the big board, though he remains unlikely to be drafted.

ACC PoY, DPoY, 1st team. Down to 109 on BB as the NT is underway. Just seems silly.

I know stats can be manipulated but so can ratings. Should the system take stats and accolades into account, even if it's just a small percentage of the formula? Or does the formula just need to be adjusted a bit (specifically for PG as gill mentioned)?