BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Athleticism

Athleticism

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
178282.15 in reply to 178282.14
Date: 3/25/2011 3:25:03 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
and also the good bigs in BB are less then 7" i would even say, that a lot of them are closer to 2m because secondaries matter, and the speed advanatge for main skills isn't that big.
In a not so bad german teams we had a lot of big even during our succesful U21 time, who was 2.03.

Ming didn't play, during the days he was healthy he was strong. Nowe was MVP, and without the time he is injured the Mavs had the ebst win/loss percentage - but maybe i am just biased because i am german.

if it just about athletik, there are a lot athletic small guys around, like Nate, Rondo, Westbrook, Paul and a lot without those big names.

Edit: and i would count this what you mean athletik advvantage, more for the 1.90 area with OD, but not a general athletik advantage for this size. In most athletik area small dudes would be in advantage, and for strength the bigger player are in advantage. Leaping would be difficult, i would say small dude generell could jump a big higher, but bigger guys don't need to jump that high - for total hight out of the movement i think the 2m guys are in advantage.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 3/25/2011 3:28:58 PM

This Post:
00
178282.16 in reply to 178282.15
Date: 3/25/2011 3:47:48 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
9191
Leaping would be difficult, i would say small dude generell could jump a big higher, but bigger guys don't need to jump that high - for total hight out of the movement i think the 2m guys are in advantage.
Eureka!


Last edited by thylacine at 3/25/2011 3:51:58 PM

This Post:
00
178282.17 in reply to 178282.16
Date: 3/25/2011 3:51:56 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
Leaping would be difficult, i would say small dude generell could jump a big higher, but bigger guys don't need to jump that high - for total hight out of the movement i think the 2m guys are in advantage.
and there you have it!


yeah, but it is just a small part of athletik ;)

This Post:
00
178282.18 in reply to 178282.17
Date: 3/25/2011 3:57:34 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
9191
The new skill I'm proposing is just that. BB can call it something else. We can even call it "athletik" :)

This Post:
00
178282.19 in reply to 178282.18
Date: 3/25/2011 4:09:52 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
The new skill I'm proposing is just that. BB can call it something else. We can even call it "athletik" :)


but it is still to powerful i think, and bringt nothing new ;) Even that it makes the BB Bigs smaller then now, and with your realism argument the good ones are also to small compared to reality, because they are usually more 2.03- 2.06 then 2.10+. because of the sme reason, why the 2.20 guys in the NBA are rare, because the modern Big plays much more outside, and not so much because they can jump higher when they run.


This Post:
00
178282.20 in reply to 178282.19
Date: 3/25/2011 4:56:24 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
9191
The new skill I'm proposing is just that. BB can call it something else. We can even call it "athletik" :)


but it is still to powerful i think, and bringt nothing new ;) Even that it makes the BB Bigs smaller then now, and with your realism argument the good ones are also to small compared to reality, because they are usually more 2.03- 2.06 then 2.10+. because of the sme reason, why the 2.20 guys in the NBA are rare, because the modern Big plays much more outside, and not so much because they can jump higher when they run.


Sorry, I didn't understand that. Are you saying that there are more 2.03-2.06 guys than the rest in NBA?

This Post:
00
178282.21 in reply to 178282.10
Date: 3/25/2011 6:46:06 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
5555
Just to stop the absurd argument and help people to come out of denial.

BBs player heights divide evenly in three groups:
a) 5'9-6'3
b) 6'4-6'10
c) 6'11-7'5

Question 1: Which group contains most superstars and the best players in real life?

Question 2: Which group contains most superstars and the best players in BB?


I'll have to answer your 2 questions with another question

My Question: Do we really need to answer these questions when they are fairly obvious?

My Answer: If people can't see that its obvious SFs are scarce and 5'9 or 7'5 have advantage over 6'7, then we have to be questioning what is obvious, which you provided those 2 questions and albeit obviousness it needs to be answered.

Answer 1: They're about equally divided but argument can be made as well that some position are bit stronger than others.
Answer 2: Centers most of all with PG/SG not far behind. Good question to ask in this is which position has least superstars in BB and the obvious answer is SF.

Last edited by Coach_Gil at 3/25/2011 6:47:58 PM

This Post:
00
178282.22 in reply to 178282.20
Date: 3/25/2011 6:50:41 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
The new skill I'm proposing is just that. BB can call it something else. We can even call it "athletik" :)


but it is still to powerful i think, and bringt nothing new ;) Even that it makes the BB Bigs smaller then now, and with your realism argument the good ones are also to small compared to reality, because they are usually more 2.03- 2.06 then 2.10+. because of the sme reason, why the 2.20 guys in the NBA are rare, because the modern Big plays much more outside, and not so much because they can jump higher when they run.


Sorry, I didn't understand that. Are you saying that there are more 2.03-2.06 guys than the rest in NBA?


i mean the pf and center are often in this size, at least the good ones.

This Post:
00
178282.23 in reply to 178282.21
Date: 3/25/2011 6:57:01 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
5555
I think the important thing to consider from this forum is not to be too hung up by the name "Athleticism" for all it matters it can be named "Austin Powers Mojo". The real focus should be on the idea that a training method that better appeals to 6'7 guys should be implemented and if what he proposed would pretty much more or less balance so 6'7 could be trained like 5'9 or 7'5 at the SF then its realistic. It's better to do what would most of all balance training for 6'7 with the 5'9 or 7'5. So for sake of balancing, if certain tweaking to his suggested ideas would be better to make it more balance or realistic as a SF then that's what it should be. I think he would also support that whatever is done, that it would be as realistic as possible to allow 6'7 to train well at SF.

Message deleted
This Post:
00
178282.25 in reply to 178282.22
Date: 3/25/2011 7:11:37 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
9191
i mean the pf and center are often in this size, at least the good ones.
In BB or RL?

Advertisement