BuzzerBeater Forums

Help - English > PF playing as SF

PF playing as SF

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
111222.34 in reply to 111222.33
Date: 9/18/2009 1:26:13 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
172172
The 6'6 PG was 19 and wasn't going to become any good, so I got rid of him. I sold the shortest PF and I'm turning the 6'5 guy into an SF. He has perennial all-star potential and has a salary over 4k, so hopefully I can get him to improve a lot and either make a big deal or center my team around him

As for the Pistons, they're probably my favourite team in the NBA. I'm sure Joe Dumars still can't sleep today after that blunder! But you gotta admit they had a fantastic run in those years, but in the end they were falling short at the same spot. But on the other hand Dumars picked out Prince with his 27th pick, and that turned out to be a great pick

From: SplitJ

This Post:
00
111222.36 in reply to 111222.19
Date: 9/22/2009 8:26:46 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
6161
thats life. i drafted 2 PF/C and both turns out to be average height although they are both hall of fame and MVP potential. but luckily their big man skill is not badd.

This Post:
00
111222.37 in reply to 111222.28
Date: 9/23/2009 7:59:07 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
154154
Either way, since no-one has bothered to check whether there is some relationship between height and the initial distribution of skills (quite easy to do, by the way), I don't see how we can talk about changing it already.


i don't say it everytime for fun, there is a clearly distribution and most of the player with "good" initial skills, have the "right" hight.

Yesterday i checked it or the Xth time, and there was 141 P<g below 1.85, with 18 years(no training) and at least 3000$ salary but just four centers.

i also see this everytime in the draft who i draft fr the the german NT, where you don't see promising players with the total wrong hight(ok some of them, but them usually with the 1.9X, which isn't totally wrong) and most of the 2.20+ players have lots of 1 in the top 6 skills.

Uhm, you shouldnť make a cenzus of only 3k or higher - i know you did this for nt reasons and this is only side effect - but to get reaosnable regard form height distribution perspective all players should be includid no matter how low their salary is. Cause those small centers are center because they are genrally quite bad, but have at least one quite high inside skill which makes them centers (although they are really good rebounding guards or something like that). With 3k salary cenus you miss player who are small but are SF (or other non guardish position) but since they donť have expensive skills (salary wise) high they are cheaper than 3k. So you get quite unproper results for height distribution analysis. Similar way yo uwould get inaccurate results for tall players (I guess it would show less guards with the 3k cenzus)

This Post:
00
111222.38 in reply to 111222.37
Date: 9/23/2009 8:09:34 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
i make this also for skill contributing, because i you have algorithms depending on size about the skill one single "high" skill could change a lot and isn't that improper(for a quite solid salary you need more skills for the position, and aren't just a center on the paper). Thats why the centers aren't really good(and normally you get 3k player for very small money and are the low end the teams are playing).

This Post:
00
111222.39 in reply to 111222.38
Date: 9/23/2009 8:42:48 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
154154
Well there are even quite solid players under 3k, sometimes surprisingly good, nothing but usable as another trainee. I did skill trading (several weeks period) with such players once when I didnť have any serious longterm for remaining training slots. it payed off.

Last edited by docend24 at 9/23/2009 8:43:01 AM