I guess the essential question is do we want to have a range of positional effectiveness that looks like this:

PG-G-GF-F-FC-C

or this

G-GF-F-FC

Seble when do you think the new position effectiveness ratings will be done?

I'm hoping there will be something to show this week.

Posted by felonius on 8/28/2010 12:44:00 PM (view original):
I guess the essential question is do we want to have a range of positional effectiveness that looks like this:

PG-G-GF-F-FC-C

or this

G-GF-F-FC

This is how it used to be back in the day, but I think the lettering was more cosmetic than anything...meaning that G/F was actually SG, and so on.

Posted by felonius on 8/28/2010 12:44:00 PM (view original):
I guess the essential question is do we want to have a range of positional effectiveness that looks like this:

PG-G-GF-F-FC-C

or this

G-GF-F-FC

I think something like G-G-G/F-F/C-F/C would be ideal both in the flexibility standpoint and the balance standpoint.  Require at least two guards just to keep things balanced.  The PE could look like:  G  F  C

I really don't see the need for the specific positions (pg, sg, sf, pf, c) overly much - especially when in "real basketball" the positions play very different roles from standard ones.  Just let the composite numbers sort out the weak from the strong.  A team with less than 50% ast% will hit the penalty (I think... it may be 45%), so who really needs a PG?  By the same token, a team running 3 guards will have rebounding issues.  The only trouble I see is putting big guys in guard spots, as then you have balance issues.  Troy Murphy would give you everything you could want in a SG... plus he's an awesome rebounder.  So there has to be some limitations.

On the other hand, I'd like to try the current salary changes with just a flat-out more flexible PE before I put too much effort into thinking about changing too much.  Small changes more often is a finer way to tweak than big changes every once in a while.  Just my opinion.

I'm a pretty firm believer that offense and defense should have their own position effectiveness, but I guess that's a pipe dream.  Although, you'd think it wouldn't be that hard to implement in the engine (just introduce five new variables and change which variables are checked defensively).

As for the guy who said Lebron doesn't play PG - have you ever watched a Cavs game?  If you call what Mo Williams and/or Delonte West did offensively when Lebron was on the court the last few years "being a point guard" then you don't know much about basketball - they played the wing.  Sure, either of them usually defended the opposing PG (but not always, specifically I'm thinking of when Lebron would guard Rondo in the playoffs for long stretches), but is it fair to call Delonte West a PG because he played the position defensively (but rarely offensively) but not call Lebron a PG for playing it offensively (and sometimes defensively)?  Same situation applies to any PG who ever played with Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant.   The dominant perimeter players in league history tend to play more like a PG offensively than any other player on their team (sure Derek Fisher is the shortest guy on the court for the Lakers a lot of the time, but if we're defining PG as the guy who sets up and initiates the offense from the perimeter, then that's more often Kobe.  Fisher stands at the three point line waiting to catch and shoot half the time.