I’ve read on the forums that perimeter maxing at 50-60 is a disadvantage because that player will attempt more deep shots and he’s not yet efficient at them. I’ve also read that some PE can be helpful in improving 2pt scoring (especially for bigs).

Do we know where the peak of the perimeter parabola is?

Like should I improve 10 to 30 but not 30 to 50 but yes 50 to 70. Where’s the line for y’all?

for a high d1 big with 95 ath/def, i see significant value in improving per pretty far, i'll usually hold it between 50 and 65-70, depending on the EE risk. meaning i ascribe pretty high value up to 50 and then smaller bits up to about 65-70. i think you can use those same ballparks for a guy with say 70 ath/lp, but those higher pers, past 50-60 or so, will start pushing the longer 2s up. a -2 will avoid 3s on all big but that pushes 3s to long 2s which are the most inefficient offense in HD.

it depends on your team, too. i would improve 10 to 30 to 50 basically always, but going past 50 is where it starts to become situational. lp in guards is a similar story. if you have a team with several strong 90 per scorers, getting a little 3pt scoring from your bigs is more or less useless IMO. however that same big man scoring can be quite useful on a team with 0-1 strong per scorers. it depends on the ratings that go with that per, too. if you had a 4 who was going to hit 70 spd/bh and 90 per, he could be really productive on his 3s against top competition, as there's nothing inherently wrong with scoring 3s from the 4. but if you are looking at a 30 spd/bh big, that 50->90 per growth is definitely less valuable, because the resulting 3pt scoring is going to be more sub-par.

Is there a direct connection between the number 70 or 71 and three point attempts based on range? I have read that once you hit 70 (or 71 in places) your player stops taking as many long 2s and takes more threes based on range?

I don't see the issue here. Put a guy on -2 and the higher PER shouldn't hurt. Just the temptation to put a low SPD/BH guy more like -1 or 0?

Posted by bpielcmc on 4/14/2022 9:20:00 AM (view original):
I’ve read on the forums that perimeter maxing at 50-60 is a disadvantage because that player will attempt more deep shots and he’s not yet efficient at them. I’ve also read that some PE can be helpful in improving 2pt scoring (especially for bigs).

Do we know where the peak of the perimeter parabola is?

Like should I improve 10 to 30 but not 30 to 50 but yes 50 to 70. Where’s the line for y’all?

improve as high as possible and keep him on -2 if the spd/bh is bad

Posted by cubcub113 on 4/14/2022 7:24:00 PM (view original):
I don't see the issue here. Put a guy on -2 and the higher PER shouldn't hurt. Just the temptation to put a low SPD/BH guy more like -1 or 0?

running a higher per guy on -2 takes away the 3s but you end up with a lot of long 2s.

Posted by gillispie on 4/15/2022 11:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 4/14/2022 7:24:00 PM (view original):
I don't see the issue here. Put a guy on -2 and the higher PER shouldn't hurt. Just the temptation to put a low SPD/BH guy more like -1 or 0?

running a higher per guy on -2 takes away the 3s but you end up with a lot of long 2s.

Interesting. But something like 100 LP / 50 PER is still pretty optimal right?

I agree with cub, I don’t really see any problems increasing perimeter on bigs, as long as their 3pt stays at -2. Once they get past 70 or so in flex, I’ll even consider bumping them to -1 if I need the shooting, and they tend to be plenty efficient.

The corresponding issue with LP is more of an issue, in my experience. For good perimeter shooters, creeping LP can make their scoring less efficient, and force you to bump up the 3-pt tendency to get the # of 3 point shots you want out of them.

Posted by cubcub113 on 4/15/2022 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 4/15/2022 11:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 4/14/2022 7:24:00 PM (view original):
I don't see the issue here. Put a guy on -2 and the higher PER shouldn't hurt. Just the temptation to put a low SPD/BH guy more like -1 or 0?

running a higher per guy on -2 takes away the 3s but you end up with a lot of long 2s.

Interesting. But something like 100 LP / 50 PER is still pretty optimal right?

yeah absolutely. i put a lot of value on those first 50 per and basically never turn them down. i put less value in getting up to 65 or so but still some, and then from there i tend to steer clear unless i am looking to actually get 3s out of the guy. would i take more for free, meaning 0 EE impact? perhaps - i am on the fence. i think its situational. but there's almost never no EE risk at that point.

to shoe's point, i look at this as basically the same as the lp on guards thing. the lp and per ratios of the players have significant bearing on the type of shots the guy is taking. i don't personally value 95 lp/per combo players, because i personally don't get higher value out of them than i do a 50/95 or 95/50 guy, generally speaking, and then there are huge EE costs associated. there are DEFINITELY cases on the guard side where i would turn down free lp, meaning no EE risk. with bigs, its less clear. but it is the same principle in both. i don't want to hurt their shot selection to make them better at the shots i don't want them taking in the first place.

there's definitely room for debate on this one, about whether to take those points for free, and even how much EE to pay for them. but i think there's still a lot of folks out there who just blindly take those points, and then have all those early sophs and stuff as a result. to me, those are clear and major mistakes, and that is the setting where i usually bring this up. i'm not sure exactly what the OP is referring to, but in general i think what he is talking about mostly comes from me, or folks i've had this conversation with... i know cub knows that, and probably shoe, that this conversation here is really just taking a part of a bigger discussion, off on its own. but maybe not everyone. anyway, that's where this ties in - well 2 places - EE planning, and how you value recruits. i tend to steer clear of 90 lp/per recruits because the community at large overvalues them, and always has.

me saying i would turn these ratings down 'for free' has always been true, but really, just me kinda planting a flag to make a point. in reality, its like, almost never free. the lp cost for guards is actually pretty darn low, but for bigs, the EE cost of per is substantial. although i guess, senior year, it does become free? i tend to swoop back and take those extra big per points as a senior, if you were to look at my 80 per cap senior bigs over the years, i am guessing i do keep growing it, when it actually becomes free. not for guard lp though, past 50 or 60, i refuse it (for 3pta guys). and frankly, its not free senior year either - you WANT to be a higher draft pick. so it kinda spurs me forward by the end... on the big per.

Here's a case study maybe related but not exactly akin to the OP question.
I ran Allen Meighan (SF) at -1 all year. Speed grew from 66-72, PE constant 73, BH, constant 68, LP grew 59-64. 3rd leading scorer on a PIT 50 RPI team. He was more efficient from 3 than 2, even factoring in FT according to the model I use (~.13 more pts per attempt from 3).

It is my conjecture that a few points less than that in PE lowers his 3pt efficiency below 2pt and probably merits a -2. Then, hypothetically, would a 65-68 PE be valuable in that case? Or does that pull him away from the basket too much, especially with the 64 LP?

Posted by wesmike on 4/19/2022 2:33:00 PM (view original):
Here's a case study maybe related but not exactly akin to the OP question.
I ran Allen Meighan (SF) at -1 all year. Speed grew from 66-72, PE constant 73, BH, constant 68, LP grew 59-64. 3rd leading scorer on a PIT 50 RPI team. He was more efficient from 3 than 2, even factoring in FT according to the model I use (~.13 more pts per attempt from 3).

It is my conjecture that a few points less than that in PE lowers his 3pt efficiency below 2pt and probably merits a -2. Then, hypothetically, would a 65-68 PE be valuable in that case? Or does that pull him away from the basket too much, especially with the 64 LP?

This is very akin to what triggered my question. I have an SF/PG (79 SP/86 BH) with 41 LP and 39 PE but the PE is blue. Not a top 3 scoring option but I was still wondering if it was worth it to growth that PE at all (and if so, how much)
For reference: https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Default.aspx?pid=4979336

Posted by wesmike on 4/19/2022 2:33:00 PM (view original):
Here's a case study maybe related but not exactly akin to the OP question.
I ran Allen Meighan (SF) at -1 all year. Speed grew from 66-72, PE constant 73, BH, constant 68, LP grew 59-64. 3rd leading scorer on a PIT 50 RPI team. He was more efficient from 3 than 2, even factoring in FT according to the model I use (~.13 more pts per attempt from 3).

It is my conjecture that a few points less than that in PE lowers his 3pt efficiency below 2pt and probably merits a -2. Then, hypothetically, would a 65-68 PE be valuable in that case? Or does that pull him away from the basket too much, especially with the 64 LP?

When his LP is down in the low 60s? No, I don’t think you make him a more efficient scorer by reducing his perimeter. You just make him worse at scoring from mid-long 2s. Or say he started with a blue 50. perimeter and you’re asking if he would have been better a better scorer had you never developed perimeter? Again, my answer is no.

With a 70s perimeter, he has a modest perimeter game and can hit enough 3s to make it worth it to set him to -1 or even 0 in some cases - as you’re seeing. With decent cores, that kind of player can be aan adequate secondary scorer on good teams. Not likely championship caliber, but competitive. Without that part of the game in his offensive toolkit, he’s not even a good 3rd option on a good D1 team, not with LP that far down, unless he also has elite athleticism.