im really surprised lp and sb aren't mentioned. some people treat these on par with ath, reb, and def in their bigs, especially newer coaches, while they aren't even remotely close. you see new guys all the time get these bigs with terrible ath and they are like "but they have good lp!!"

i think sta is a good one, but its a tricky rating. great sta makes a decent player marginally better at best. great sta makes a great player truly elite. so its not surprising jsa is the guy who comes out in support of stamina :) for younger coaches, trying to make the NT, i feel its much less important, especially if you are not pressing. generally, almost everyone undervalues stamina in evaluating talent who is or will be their team leaders, however...

Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 1:10:00 AM (view original):
im really surprised lp and sb aren't mentioned. some people treat these on par with ath, reb, and def in their bigs, especially newer coaches, while they aren't even remotely close. you see new guys all the time get these bigs with terrible ath and they are like "but they have good lp!!"

i think sta is a good one, but its a tricky rating. great sta makes a decent player marginally better at best. great sta makes a great player truly elite. so its not surprising jsa is the guy who comes out in support of stamina :) for younger coaches, trying to make the NT, i feel its much less important, especially if you are not pressing. generally, almost everyone undervalues stamina in evaluating talent who is or will be their team leaders, however...

Yeah, I've never really understood how undervalued Ath is in some corners.

im also pretty torn about this team wide bh/pass stuff. until the new engine, bh/pass were crap at the 4-5, at least for most bigs. i have to concede now that they aren't totally **** useless (which i strongly believe was the case), with the improvement of big man offense (which makes bh slightly relevant, but for non scorers, not really), and with the team wide passing impacting team wide fg% making passing relevant. otherwise its a fraction of a turnover for 50 points in each. to me, a huge % of HD players still way overvalue bh/pass at the 4-5.

Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 1:10:00 AM (view original):
im really surprised lp and sb aren't mentioned. some people treat these on par with ath, reb, and def in their bigs, especially newer coaches, while they aren't even remotely close. you see new guys all the time get these bigs with terrible ath and they are like "but they have good lp!!"

i think sta is a good one, but its a tricky rating. great sta makes a decent player marginally better at best. great sta makes a great player truly elite. so its not surprising jsa is the guy who comes out in support of stamina :) for younger coaches, trying to make the NT, i feel its much less important, especially if you are not pressing. generally, almost everyone undervalues stamina in evaluating talent who is or will be their team leaders, however...

the important counter point is that ****** stamina will make an excellent player not so excellent, so I think the key is to value it. not under or over, just right down the middle. 

Posted by terps21234 on 4/28/2014 1:24:00 PM (view original):
Overvalued:  Per.  I had guys and still have a guy with 99 PER, but is shooting 3pt below 40%. You have to have BH and SP in order to have good per player.  I don't like this. In real life if a guy is SLOW, but can shoot he will do just fine.
 
Undervalued:  I agree with BH.  I would go with Passing.  I've seen guys with great BH and low passing and turn the ball over a lot.

at what level are we talking about for the real life guy who is slow but can shoot doing fine? At SU current Grad asst and former walk-on Nick Resavy is the best damn shooter I have ever seen. This Easter he made a blind shot over his mom's house about 80 feet and swished it. I repeat he is a former walk-on at an elite school. He probably could've been a DIII all star, so like I said, what level we talking?

Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 1:13:00 AM (view original):
im also pretty torn about this team wide bh/pass stuff. until the new engine, bh/pass were crap at the 4-5, at least for most bigs. i have to concede now that they aren't totally **** useless (which i strongly believe was the case), with the improvement of big man offense (which makes bh slightly relevant, but for non scorers, not really), and with the team wide passing impacting team wide fg% making passing relevant. otherwise its a fraction of a turnover for 50 points in each. to me, a huge % of HD players still way overvalue bh/pass at the 4-5.

My thinking is since assists and turnovers are determined after they occur (I think I'm correct in this thought) that even though it may show up as only a fractional difference in the bigs amount of turnovers, it's still being reflected in the team stats. So bumping up the bigs passing and ball handling will reduce the amount of team turnovers because of the better team average. They will still be distributed the same as a poor average team, just with fewer overall. If the stats are weighted, where something like 50 passing at PF is the equivalent of a much higher rating a PG, then I think it's even more beneficial as long as you don't have to sacrifice other stats.
I took over a team, SUNY Fredonia, and have tweaked the lineup, using a lot of players out of position but better spots for their ratings, and I've definitely felt like it shows in the stats, where marginal ratings are increased by a change in position to influence the engines decision making at least.

That's not how turnovers work. That's how assists and blocks work.

Actually, it might be how turnovers work in the press but definitely not in the "half court set".

Maybe definitely is the wrong word, but it is what I think.

Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 1:13:00 AM (view original):
im also pretty torn about this team wide bh/pass stuff. until the new engine, bh/pass were crap at the 4-5, at least for most bigs. i have to concede now that they aren't totally **** useless (which i strongly believe was the case), with the improvement of big man offense (which makes bh slightly relevant, but for non scorers, not really), and with the team wide passing impacting team wide fg% making passing relevant. otherwise its a fraction of a turnover for 50 points in each. to me, a huge % of HD players still way overvalue bh/pass at the 4-5.

I would much rather have a 30 pass center than a a 30 rebound pg. And I would take 1 rebound guard in a heart beat but would pause on the 1 bh/pass post player.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/29/2014 6:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 1:13:00 AM (view original):
im also pretty torn about this team wide bh/pass stuff. until the new engine, bh/pass were crap at the 4-5, at least for most bigs. i have to concede now that they aren't totally **** useless (which i strongly believe was the case), with the improvement of big man offense (which makes bh slightly relevant, but for non scorers, not really), and with the team wide passing impacting team wide fg% making passing relevant. otherwise its a fraction of a turnover for 50 points in each. to me, a huge % of HD players still way overvalue bh/pass at the 4-5.

I would much rather have a 30 pass center than a a 30 rebound pg. And I would take 1 rebound guard in a heart beat but would pause on the 1 bh/pass post player.

+1

Posted by duece_duece on 4/29/2014 6:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/29/2014 6:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 1:13:00 AM (view original):
im also pretty torn about this team wide bh/pass stuff. until the new engine, bh/pass were crap at the 4-5, at least for most bigs. i have to concede now that they aren't totally **** useless (which i strongly believe was the case), with the improvement of big man offense (which makes bh slightly relevant, but for non scorers, not really), and with the team wide passing impacting team wide fg% making passing relevant. otherwise its a fraction of a turnover for 50 points in each. to me, a huge % of HD players still way overvalue bh/pass at the 4-5.

I would much rather have a 30 pass center than a a 30 rebound pg. And I would take 1 rebound guard in a heart beat but would pause on the 1 bh/pass post player.

+1

I agree with parts A and B but not necessarily C (at least not at the 5. I do prefer my 4s to be able to dribble once or twice and occasionally throw it to a teammate instead of the mascot...I have taken centers with 1 bh and 1 pas (and 1 per and what grew to 11 spd) at D2. He was POTY. (With 95 ath, 99 def, 99 reb, 60 something blk, 95 lp, Bish FT). being able to completely ignore 3 categories has a lot to be said for it at the 5. I forget all the details (go figure) but this kid started in the 40s and 50s with a bunch of HH potential and a good WE. I redshirted him then started him 4 straight...(so he had A+ IQ as well...)

ETA: I'd take that guy at D1 too, but he probably wouldn't be POTY...

Posted by jdno on 4/29/2014 12:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sol_phenom3 on 4/28/2014 1:25:00 PM (view original):
TJ is 100% right. Passing is the most undervalued in general.

But I think when it comes to overvalued and undervalued skills it's really a position-by-position thing.

For example, passing is *NOT* undervalued in point guards, but I think it's heavily undervalued in all four other positions, especially in 3's and 4's. 

I think perimeter is undervalued at the 4 and even the 5.  But especially at the 4. In DIII, a power forward who can hit a mid-range jumper is a serious threat.

I'll add to this list when I have more time on my hands.***

What is an acceptable PE rating for the 4 and 5 to you?  And when you get such a rating, do you go -1 or 0 with them?  I've often wondered when I do have a big who has, say, a 30 PE value and I keep them at -2 if I'm still telling them to shoot in the paint exclusively or if the engine somehow knows that even with a -2 that they're able to hit a decent midrange shot and they "get rewarded" for this. 

I suppose I could track the pbp verbage for such cases, but those are details I just don't get bogged down with, though clearly it could add value if I did. As it stands, I just can't bring myself to loosen up and assign anything but a -2 even to a big with a 30 PE rating.  I prefer the tradeoff of having a more efficient and consistent offense and working to get to the FT line as much as possible if they have a good LP rating or simply giving them a low distribution if they don't have much scoring ability at all (beyond simply having high ATH).

So what would you do with a d2 PF with 77 ath, 47 speed, 47 bh, 75 per and 3 lp?

He's listed as PF but looks more like a SF except slower. So I'd likely play him at SF and probably go -1 but it depends on his FT grade. My question pertained more to D3 where it's rare to get such a high PE rating... and sol was originally referring to d3 as well

Posted by a_in_the_b on 4/28/2014 11:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dukenilnil on 4/28/2014 9:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tkimble on 4/28/2014 9:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by terps21234 on 4/28/2014 1:24:00 PM (view original):
Overvalued:  Per.  I had guys and still have a guy with 99 PER, but is shooting 3pt below 40%. You have to have BH and SP in order to have good per player.  I don't like this. In real life if a guy is SLOW, but can shoot he will do just fine.
 
Undervalued:  I agree with BH.  I would go with Passing.  I've seen guys with great BH and low passing and turn the ball over a lot.

There is still great value in a 3pt shooter shooting 38%!  Having 40% be the cut-off for 3pt shooters is like saying anyone shooting below 60% on 2s isn't shooting well.  

+1

I might even go a step further and say that at D3, Per is the most undervalued stat by the best players. In fact, I've been told in the past by some excellent, multiple D3 championship teams that PER is the least valuable stat.  I tend to find 3pt shooting (esp Per) under used by many top level coaches in D3.  If you can shoot 35%+ from 3pt, or even better, 40%+, then fire away.  All of my best teams have had a couple of excellent Per players.

That good but not elite per has another effect; you have enough of those guys available and it cuts down on heavy minus defenses a bit.

Good stuff, but what I'm saying is that PER by itself is overvalued. I used to think a guy with 90 per alone should shoot a high %, so do a lot of newbies.  Now you need BH and SP to go along with PER.  I have a guy who had 85 PER, 65 SP and he only shot 33% PER in DII. Also have a guy 99 PER, 76 SP and he is shooting 35%. So IMO, PER alone is overvalued.  I bet a guy with 90 PER and 88 SP will shoot better than 99 PER and 76 SP.

Posted by mikvitu on 4/29/2014 5:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 1:13:00 AM (view original):
im also pretty torn about this team wide bh/pass stuff. until the new engine, bh/pass were crap at the 4-5, at least for most bigs. i have to concede now that they aren't totally **** useless (which i strongly believe was the case), with the improvement of big man offense (which makes bh slightly relevant, but for non scorers, not really), and with the team wide passing impacting team wide fg% making passing relevant. otherwise its a fraction of a turnover for 50 points in each. to me, a huge % of HD players still way overvalue bh/pass at the 4-5.

My thinking is since assists and turnovers are determined after they occur (I think I'm correct in this thought) that even though it may show up as only a fractional difference in the bigs amount of turnovers, it's still being reflected in the team stats. So bumping up the bigs passing and ball handling will reduce the amount of team turnovers because of the better team average. They will still be distributed the same as a poor average team, just with fewer overall. If the stats are weighted, where something like 50 passing at PF is the equivalent of a much higher rating a PG, then I think it's even more beneficial as long as you don't have to sacrifice other stats.
I took over a team, SUNY Fredonia, and have tweaked the lineup, using a lot of players out of position but better spots for their ratings, and I've definitely felt like it shows in the stats, where marginal ratings are increased by a change in position to influence the engines decision making at least.

i totally understand what you are saying, and i think in general i would definitely caution people against taking my extreme view on bh/pass in bigs, im definitely on the far side of the spectrum, towards the useless side. that said, watching my team turnovers over the course of comparable seasons, with bh/pass bigs and terrible bh/pass bigs, i've seen very minimal impact on team stats. im not sure i ever checked this in the new engine though... so maybe im just totally wrong about it now?

you are definitely right on the assists happening after they occur thing... but the turnovers, that is totally different, those are genuine, i believe.

i generally agree... if you don't have to sacrifice anything, sure, take the bh/pass :) no reason not to! its when you have to start giving stuff up for it that i have a problem. i still would give up major stats for bh/pass but just not much of them. no way i'd give up 10 ath for 25 each in bh/pass, even 50 each would be pushing it. depends on the type of player maybe. 

Posted by dacj501 on 4/29/2014 5:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by terps21234 on 4/28/2014 1:24:00 PM (view original):
Overvalued:  Per.  I had guys and still have a guy with 99 PER, but is shooting 3pt below 40%. You have to have BH and SP in order to have good per player.  I don't like this. In real life if a guy is SLOW, but can shoot he will do just fine.
 
Undervalued:  I agree with BH.  I would go with Passing.  I've seen guys with great BH and low passing and turn the ball over a lot.

at what level are we talking about for the real life guy who is slow but can shoot doing fine? At SU current Grad asst and former walk-on Nick Resavy is the best damn shooter I have ever seen. This Easter he made a blind shot over his mom's house about 80 feet and swished it. I repeat he is a former walk-on at an elite school. He probably could've been a DIII all star, so like I said, what level we talking?

I'm talking about DI. Here are some examples:  Drew Barham, Gonzaga; Ben Brust, Wisconsin; Kyle Bosewell, UC Santa Barbara. These are just some examples