Rank 'em in order of most distribution to least. Assume flex, D2. (Edited: Also assume they're all 70% FT shooters.)

Player A:
70 ATH, 30 SPD, 90 LP, 10 PER, 30 BH, 60 PAS

Player B:
60 ATH, 50 SPD, 70 LP, 55 PER, 60 BH, 15 PAS

Player C:
40 ATH, 40 SPD, 80 LP, 80 PER, 40 BH, 40 PAS

I would say B, A, C, but I suck at this game.

Positions?

Posted by mbriese on 5/17/2018 12:12:00 PM (view original):
Positions?

Let's assume you could find playing time for them at the 3 or the 4.

Depends on the position, but usually if they are that close I will give even distribution. Last thing I want is for a player to be forcing shots that's not within the normal flow of the offense.

Posted by thewizard17 on 5/17/2018 12:18:00 PM (view original):
Depends on the position, but usually if they are that close I will give even distribution. Last thing I want is for a player to be forcing shots that's not within the normal flow of the offense.

I agree with this. None of them are so dominant that I would increase distro to mess with the normal flow of the offense.

Also, maybe it's just me, but I don't think distro can be evaluated in a vacuum like that. I would want to see their teammates' ratings too and see how everyone plays off each other.

I would give more to A than the other two. I think he's the best offensive threat.

Posted by bhansalid00 on 5/17/2018 12:20:00 PM (view original):
Rank 'em in order of most distribution to least. Assume flex, D2. (Edited: Also assume they're all 70% FT shooters.)

Player A:
70 ATH, 30 SPD, 90 LP, 10 PER, 30 BH, 60 PAS

Player B:
60 ATH, 50 SPD, 70 LP, 55 PER, 60 BH, 15 PAS

Player C:
40 ATH, 40 SPD, 80 LP, 80 PER, 40 BH, 40 PAS

Here is how I would do it, but I assume they are all seniors or juniors. Cause IQ changes my distro.

Player C : I hope he plays at SF off the bench.
Player B : Start at SF
Player A : Start at PF.

So simple :

A: 3
B : 2
C : 4 (off the bench)

Yeah, I'd go A, B, C.

To be more sure, I'd need rebonding and blocks to know where I start them. But A has the most shots for sure, C is off the bench for sure. his ath is too low.

I say A all day.

for a big, i don't consider making them a scoring option unless ATH is 60+ and LP is 70+. He has that

player B is one of those "above average at lots of things" guys. I'd put him at mid-level distro.

player C has low ATH. Against sims he'd probably score nice. But against humans with high ATH, he may not be as effective (I have a guy like him now, with 50 ATH 100 REB 100 BLK 100 LP basically. And i play him this way)

For flex in general, I want my LP/PER to be +80 with A- IQ before I make them a major scorer. Amongst other solid ratings as well

Posted by topdogggbm on 5/17/2018 4:18:00 PM (view original):
I say A all day.

for a big, i don't consider making them a scoring option unless ATH is 60+ and LP is 70+. He has that

player B is one of those "above average at lots of things" guys. I'd put him at mid-level distro.

player C has low ATH. Against sims he'd probably score nice. But against humans with high ATH, he may not be as effective (I have a guy like him now, with 50 ATH 100 REB 100 BLK 100 LP basically. And i play him this way)

For flex in general, I want my LP/PER to be +80 with A- IQ before I make them a major scorer. Amongst other solid ratings as well

If they can get .500 shooting... I do not mind ath at all.

Player C is kind of a liability with such low passing in a flex. Gotta have passing even at the big positions (>30-40) in a flex or motion scheme

Posted by pdxblazerfan on 5/18/2018 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Player C is kind of a liability with such low passing in a flex. Gotta have passing even at the big positions (>30-40) in a flex or motion scheme

Well what's your thoughts on player B?! I kinda view them as a similar position guys. But player B has passing of 15

Posted by mbriese on 5/17/2018 3:34:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, I'd go A, B, C.

Yeah, i agree. A B C.
Athleticism is huge to me, and the guy also has high LP.
The guy with ATH-SPD of 40-40 would drive me nuts. Eff him.