I'm working on the new effectiveness values and wanted to throw out some scenarios and get some feedback.
First off, should guys like Bird, Lebron, Pippen be 100% at PG?  If so, there may be a side effect that guys like Luke Walton and Toni Kukoc are also 100% at PG.

in sequence: HELL NO! um borderline OK? and sure (as Pippen occasionally even defended the position) - does this mean you might use assists or asg% as a factor? does this mean 66-67 Wilt at PG? that would be hella awesome

09-10 Lebron should be 100% at PG because he started 15 games of the season there.
I think many Pippens should be simply because he often defended the team's PG.  He defended every position except for center, in fact, so that should be considered.
I don't reckon Bird ever played either guard spot offensively or defensively.


If you're working towards a more open PE (sounds like it), I think ast% is a bad way to say who could/couldn't play PG.  66-67 & 67-68 Wilt are prime examples.

I think it should be based more on listed position, height & weight. 
Charles Barkley, for example, is a 6'4" power forward.  100% pf, 100% sf and that's it. 
Paul Gasol is a 7'0" pf.  100% at pf & c. 
Reggie Miller is a 6'7" sg.  100% at sg & sf. 
O.J. Mayo is a 6'4" sg.  100% at sg & pg.
all pgs 100% at pg & sg.
all cs 100% at c & pf.
Then you do the exceptions (Magic, Oscar, Jordan (for 88-89), Lebron, Rasheed, Garnett, Michael Ray Richardson, Pippen to name a few (though there isn't going to be many more than this).

Agree w/ the above - ast% would be a bad way to calculate PG eligibility.

Height + Weight would be better but aren't they just for show and pretty much useless? (unless you can enter everyone's height + weight into the equation)

Other exceptions to ash's above suggestion: short PGs like Muggsy, Avery, Spud, Boykins - did they ever play (or defend) SG? And the super tall Cs like Manute, Nevitt, Bradley, Sampson, Yao.. did any of those guys ever cover a PF (I guess Yao does defend Duncan when they play even tho he's true C, and maybe Sampson did when he was w/ Olajuwon)? I dunno about those other guys but if someone can prove it or argue it to death, I'll accept it.

I do believe Pippen does deserve consideration for 100% at PG.  Becuase he did defend the opposing point guards a lot.  Lebron agree with Ash about 09-10.  Bird no he is a SF/PF never even got close to being a point guard.  I don't think there are many others to speak of Kukoc and Luke Walton should not be 100% PG. 

About Ash's height thing more suggestions John Stockton, Maurice Cheeks are PGs only.  And Kareem I don't remember ever defending anyone but a center.

 

I'll play around with it some more.  Instead of waiting on our outside source for something I'd rather take a crack at it myself.  One of the goals though is to make it more lenient and in turn not require a bunch of exceptions.  I think it's better to have guys 100% at something they shouldn't be than less than 100% at something they should be, within reason of course.

I'm going to respond based on the assumption that PE is for offense and defense.  It would be nice if it's not, since I would suggest Pippen should be 100% effective defending a PG, but maybe 75-80% running the piont.  So based on both offense and defense:  Bird 50-75%, LeBron 75-100%, Pippen 75-100% 

Posted by ashamael on 8/24/2010 9:50:00 PM (view original):
09-10 Lebron should be 100% at PG because he started 15 games of the season there.
I think many Pippens should be simply because he often defended the team's PG.  He defended every position except for center, in fact, so that should be considered.
I don't reckon Bird ever played either guard spot offensively or defensively.


If you're working towards a more open PE (sounds like it), I think ast% is a bad way to say who could/couldn't play PG.  66-67 & 67-68 Wilt are prime examples.

I think it should be based more on listed position, height & weight. 
Charles Barkley, for example, is a 6'4" power forward.  100% pf, 100% sf and that's it. 
Paul Gasol is a 7'0" pf.  100% at pf & c. 
Reggie Miller is a 6'7" sg.  100% at sg & sf. 
O.J. Mayo is a 6'4" sg.  100% at sg & pg.
all pgs 100% at pg & sg.
all cs 100% at c & pf.
Then you do the exceptions (Magic, Oscar, Jordan (for 88-89), Lebron, Rasheed, Garnett, Michael Ray Richardson, Pippen to name a few (though there isn't going to be many more than this).

I agree with ashamael's player examples here, not all PG and C can move over 1.  Shaq and Bogues come to mind.  And not sure if it's a factor, but assists should have nothing to do with PG effectiveness.

As I said, with the goal as making it more lenient, my example is a quick way to do it.  The exceptions are very limited, and those exceptions are the exceptional athletes that played 3 or more positions.

You either try to make it more lenient or more accurate - not both.  More accurate takes much more work, is more subjective (we're NEVER going to agree on everyone), and really doesn't help the sim at all.  More lenient doesn't hurt the sim.  Muggsy Bogues at SG doesn't make sense at all, but what does it do for a team that you can't get out of someone else?  Ast% only goes so far... Personally, I want a SG that can... well... shoot.

Manute Bol at PF isn't going to overpower anyone.  Yeah, maybe a Shaq-Wilt pf/c is slightly overpowered in some leagues (gym rat, anyone?), but for the most part, there is almost always a better combo.  But since this is "WHAT IF?" I'd like to actually try that Shaq-Wilt thing out sometime.

But we're playing the "what if" game with historical people who have quantifiable histories of performance.  Once we start pretending that a player can do something he actually couldn't, the game becomes much less interesting to me.  I'm fine with most players being 100% at 2 positions and a few exceptional players at more positions, but many players amassed their stats at only one position and arguably would be at a handicap elsewhere.  Anyone should feel free to play Shaq, Bol, Wilt or Eaton at PF, but it's reasonable to expect discounted performance when they're having to chase slightly smaller, quicker opponents.

That's fine.  But we're NEVER going to agree on everyone.  Making a roster that's historically accurate AND lenient (so & so COULD have played such & such position, even though they didn't... ex:  Hakeem as a PF) is impossible.  When you start introducing subjectivity, then you run into all sorts of issues.  So you either choose leniency and give everyone 100% at 2 (or more, if they did it) positions, or you work really hard to make one based SOLEY on what they did play.

I'm in favor of the lenient one.  If someone wants to put Manute Bol at PF... that's fine.  I'll crush them with Barkley.  If they want to use Kareem/Shaq, that's fine, I'll crush them with Moses/Rodman.  etc...

Something fun would be 50ppg Wilt + 66-67 Wilt... can you imagine filling the roster after dumping that much money on two guys, though?  It'd be badass to try!

"Something fun would be 50ppg Wilt + 66-67 Wilt... can you imagine filling the roster after dumping that much money on two guys, though?  It'd be badass to try!"

In my short time here I've come to feel very strongly that salary valuation and capping is the ultimate equalizer which is why getting the valuations calibrated to actual sim value of a given player is so important - I 'imagine' that throughout the history of previous sim engine releases the cutters have always been those players whose vslues were not properly calibrated in terms of their salary vs those of the other players in regards to the cap

I think that's exactly right, but I'd add the dimension of those facets of the game that are favored by a given edition of the sim.  Looking at the list of heavily used players, you can say that Rodman and Rice should be more expensive, and/or that the impact of rebounding and threes is overblown by the simulation engine.

"you can say that Rodman and Rice should be more expensive, and/or that the impact of rebounding and threes is overblown by the simulation engine.."

YES.  And to fix it is very simple:  You use either/or.  If you use "either", you fix that part.  If you use "or", you fix that part.  We know they aren't doing an engine overhaul... so salary adjustments make the most sense.  Boost these two facets and then let things play out for six months.  Then re-evaluate.  This would be the best way to keep fine-tuning the sim, rather than going for 2+ years and then needing an overhaul, salary-wise or structurally-wise.

Posted by ashamael on 8/24/2010 9:50:00 PM (view original):
09-10 Lebron should be 100% at PG because he started 15 games of the season there.
I think many Pippens should be simply because he often defended the team's PG.  He defended every position except for center, in fact, so that should be considered.
I don't reckon Bird ever played either guard spot offensively or defensively.


If you're working towards a more open PE (sounds like it), I think ast% is a bad way to say who could/couldn't play PG.  66-67 & 67-68 Wilt are prime examples.

I think it should be based more on listed position, height & weight. 
Charles Barkley, for example, is a 6'4" power forward.  100% pf, 100% sf and that's it. 
Paul Gasol is a 7'0" pf.  100% at pf & c. 
Reggie Miller is a 6'7" sg.  100% at sg & sf. 
O.J. Mayo is a 6'4" sg.  100% at sg & pg.
all pgs 100% at pg & sg.
all cs 100% at c & pf.
Then you do the exceptions (Magic, Oscar, Jordan (for 88-89), Lebron, Rasheed, Garnett, Michael Ray Richardson, Pippen to name a few (though there isn't going to be many more than this).

your first sentence is completely false

09-10 Lebron started 76 games, all 76 were at Forward (this is official and totally undisputable as it is Cleveland and the NBA's entry)
in those 76, 64 times Mo Williams started at Point Guard - so no way possible LeBron *started* at PG in any of those games
the remaining 12 - 10 times the starting backcourt was Daniel Gibson (PG) and Anthony Parker (SG)
the remaning 2 - 1 time it was Delonte West (PG) and Anthony Parker (SG)
the remaining 1 - the only possible game in which he could have started at PG, despite being listed as a starting Forward (NBA does not distinguish between PG and SG, and SF and PF - just G and F - the starting lineup at G was Anthony Parker and Jawad Williams, at F was LeBron and JJ

no way LeBron should be 100% at PG - NONE - he should be 97% PG, 100% SG, 100%SF, 97% PF and 80% C