Uploaded a new spreadsheet (www.whatifsports.com/db/nba_poss_eff.zip)...changes below.

- Reduced versatility (i.e. ability to effectively play multiple positions) somewhat across the board to address concerns about big guys playing guard

- Manually made Magic 100% at PG

This version is a good bit more restrictive than the previous versions, but it seems like that's what you guys want. 

Why is Magic 100% at PG, SG, SF sometimes and only 100% at PG in others?  IMO, there should be more consistency from season to season.  Also, I think anytime the formula calculates a 99% effectiveness it should be changed to 100%.

A lot of it is based on listed position, so when Magic is listed at SG, he's more likely to be 100% at SG and SF.

I thought it was pretty well established that Doug Collins moved Jordan to PG for the rest of the 1988-89 season, including the playoffs, when he benched Sam Vincent in March. Why is Jordan only 94% at PG for that season? There ought to be more position flexibility on the perimeter with the Bulls triangle offense. Someone who started on the perimeter (Harper, Jordan, Pippen) should be 100% at PG during the 2nd 3peat but nobody is. Given LeBron's real life skill set, why is he is 100% at PF but in the low 90s at SG. There also shouldn't be any season where Shawn Marion has a higher position effectiveness at SG than LeBron.  

Ben Wallace still very high at SF.  I don't believe that to be correct, but maybe someone else can verify. 

Posted by greenenancy on 9/24/2010 12:22:00 PM (view original):
I thought it was pretty well established that Doug Collins moved Jordan to PG for the rest of the 1988-89 season, including the playoffs, when he benched Sam Vincent in March. Why is Jordan only 94% at PG for that season? There ought to be more position flexibility on the perimeter with the Bulls triangle offense. Someone who started on the perimeter (Harper, Jordan, Pippen) should be 100% at PG during the 2nd 3peat but nobody is. Given LeBron's real life skill set, why is he is 100% at PF but in the low 90s at SG. There also shouldn't be any season where Shawn Marion has a higher position effectiveness at SG than LeBron.  

Yes please move 88-89 Jordan back to 100%, and I would agree that Lebron should be 100% from SG to PF.  I'm undecided about Shawn Marion for his 02-03 season to be 100% at SG

Posted by seble on 9/24/2010 9:30:00 AM (view original):
Uploaded a new spreadsheet (www.whatifsports.com/db/nba_poss_eff.zip)...changes below.

- Reduced versatility (i.e. ability to effectively play multiple positions) somewhat across the board to address concerns about big guys playing guard

- Manually made Magic 100% at PG

This version is a good bit more restrictive than the previous versions, but it seems like that's what you guys want. 

"This version is a good bit more restrictive than the previous versions, but it seems like that's what you guys want. "

UGH.  No!!  You said that this would make things less restrictive.  A couple of people have said they don't want to see Bill Russell types at SF... That doesn't mean we don't want to be able to team up a Wilt with a Kareem at C/PF.  That whole "What If" has been blown out of the water at this point.  And it's not like it would be unrealistic... What is the difference between a center and a power forward these days?  Example:  Tim Duncan.  The guy starts at PF for most of his career, but tell me he's not really a center.

Anyway, huge step backwards... go back to version 2 and start over (starting with Magic).  Try to keep the number of guys 100% at the 3, 4 AND 5 down, but don't decrease the number of 100% at the 4 and the 5!!

The truth is there isn't consensus among the regular users on the more vs. less restrictive question.  My preferred solution isn't across the board loosening or tightening, but manual tweaks wherever most needed to ensure that the game mirrors reality - whether that's defined as what where players actually played or where they could have played.  Marion at SG is silly, and of course Magic as anything less than 100% at PG is ridiculous.

Posted by seble on 9/24/2010 11:51:00 AM (view original):
A lot of it is based on listed position, so when Magic is listed at SG, he's more likely to be 100% at SG and SF.

With a few exceptions (like Michael Jordan at PG for the one season), the players should be the same effectiveness throughout their careers.  Magic should be 100% at PG, SG and SF for every season.  There are a few seasons where George Gervin isn't 100% at SG.  Carmelo Anthony has some seasons where he's 100% at PF and some where he isn't.  It doesn't look right and it should be easy to fix.

I agree with ashamael. Version 2 was more lenient with the exception of quite a few centers being 100% at SF. That seemed to be the only thing that stood out other than a few cases such as Magic Johnson.

After taking a quick glance, this 3rd spreadsheet seems to be more strict than the current formula in the system. My suggestion would be to use the version 2 spreadsheet and if possible, only change the centers from being able to play SF as well as the few tweaks with Magic, Jordan, etc.. With this 3rd version, a good handful of players are 100% at only 1 position. Wasn't the whole point of this re-do to be more lenient?

Basically, when it came to the PG's, SG's, and SF's, version 2 was pretty spot on while the PF's and C's were too high at SF. This third version completely switched and now is too strict with quite a few PG's, SG's and SF's.

Final thing I have to say on the matter:  More restrictive does not enhance the idea of "What If?"  Go back to version 2, make minor changes suggested in the post above mine and roll with it.  The salary increases will take care of the rebounding scares a single user brought up about the small forward position.

I am in agreement with the version 2- less restrictive side of this.  it would be a lot of fun and increase the what if factor.

Not sure if I am the single user or not Ash, as I didn't really mention anything about "rebounding scares".   I just asked if Wallace played significant SF mins, which no one answered.  Why would Ben be 100%SF-C, while Gerald Wallace is only 100% at one position?

Go back to version2, make some tweaks and let's get it done by tuesday!

It's not possible to affect one position without affecting all positions.  For example, changing the odds of a center being able to play SF also affects the odds of a PG/SG/PF of playing SF.  I can find a middle ground between the last two versions that may work better, but there will have to be trade-offs.  Either we sacrifice a few guys being able to play something they maybe shouldn't, or vice versa.  I don't mind making a few manual changes where it's clearly necessary, but I'm not going to do that for 50-100 guys. 

Obviously there is a split over whether it's better to be more restrictive or less.  At this point I will play with it a little more to find a sweet spot, but it appears impossible to please everyone.

Keep in mind too that size and listed position are the major factors involved here.  So it should be fairly obvious why a certain player is listed a certain way.  For example, Ben Wallace is undersized for a PF/C, which makes it more likely he'll be highly effective at SF.  A guy like Shaq is big even for a center, so it's less likely he'll be able to play other positions.  So the anomalies that you see are the guys who don't fit the normal size profile for their position.

Seble, you're right: you can't please everyone.  You have said on these forums that you would rather have a couple of guys that can play extra positions that they didn't IRL than to have several not playing positions they DID play IRL.  I don't know many regular posters who have stated anything contrary to this.  The closest thing I saw was this:

"Bigs like K. Malone, Brand and McHale being 100% at SF has been one of my pet peeves for a couple of years.  If it becomes easier to load up unrealistically on rebounds at the SF spot, then I worry that we'd see even less of many of history's best SFs (Barry, Havlicek, Wilkins, King, etc.).  That would make the game - to me - less interesting."

Thus my point about the increased price of rebounds, which in turn answers badja's question about who I was referring to with my "single user" comment.

Try and find a sweet spot, but honestly, version 2 was much more pleasing to more users.  Just check out the amount of feedback from it and from this one - and how many positives/negatives were in each.  I personally think Bill Russell/Ben Wallace/Wes Unseld have no business playing SF... but it isn't going to give any more advantage than Troy Murphy playing SF - especially with the new salaries.  Murphy is still going to be one of the best SFs in the game due to what he brings to the floor.  Bill Russell will still be passed up a lot because of his efg%.


As for the sweet spot... One thing I could suggest... in your formula... somewhere... make it so that playing the SF position is more akin to the traits that backcourt players share... make it more likely to see someone 100% at the 1/2/3 than the 3/4/5.  Make it so that there are few guys that are 100% at the 3 & the 4.  Maybe take weight into account more?  Guys listed at 6'9" who are listed at the SF position might be likely to be able to play the 4 as well, but the reverse is probably not true very often.  Lebron James?  Yeah, he could (and does) play both.  Ben Wallace?  I don't think so.  Larry Bird?  Hell yeah.  Shawn Marion?  Yup.  Amare Stoudemire?  No way.  Karl Malone?  Probably not.

But in the end, 100% SF Ben Wallace bothers me much less than 90% PF Wilt Chamberlain.  Much, much less.  The former makes me think "what if?"  The latter makes me think "spend money elsewhere."