BuzzerBeater Forums

I think we are actually saying the same thing, not disagreeing.

thats wrong! Since many more people are 6' rather than 7' the competition for big men is a lot less Therefore skills of big men are usual much worse than the skills of Guards. Big men even got a chance if the start playing basketball when they are 16.

I'm not wrong because you are basically restating my point. Short folks don't play basketball because height is a huge advantage. As Red Auerbach once said, "You can't teach height." That's why the competition for tall players is so much greater in the real world.

thats not true either. it is correct that the GE does not care about height. however the trainings system does. So the system is a little awkward but the in the system everythin is kind of realistic.

Once again, what I said is completely true, and what you say completely agrees with me. The game engine only looks at ratings, not height.

Ich habe nur ein bisschen Deutsch, aber ich Deutsch mit ihnen sprechen.

You're right that people under 6 feet rarely play basketball (at a professional level) -- no disagreement with that.

But that doesn't mean that the world doesn't produce a lot more 6' 2" talent than 7' 2" talent -- that part of the distribution curve (even though its a small percent of the overall population) is still weighted toward shorter people.

And despite the fact that through the ranks, the big men are given every advantage -- even when you get to the highest level [the NBA :-) ], there is still far more talented guards then there are talent centers.

I'm just suggesting that the draft represent that fact. Then people can grab the best small men and turn them into guards and the best big men and turn them into post players. Its just that the competition among the smaller guys will be a lot tougher (as it is in real life) and thus the average guard trainee will be a more complete player and the average post player will be more of a project.


Steve
Go Bruins!

Once again, what I said is completely true, and what you say completely agrees with me. The game engine only looks at ratings, not height.

This is true that the game engine only looks at skill levels -- but it wouldn't ultimately change the fact that the 7 footers will end up being better rebounders and the 6 footers will be better ball handlers.

Steve
Go Bruins!

That was a typing mistake -- should have read skill levels and not height.


Edited by Solana_Steve (1/11/2008 7:46:24 PM CET)

Last edited by Solana_Steve at 1/11/2008 7:46:24 PM

since the game is all relative having big men with worse skills on average wouldn't really change anything except cosmetic. If all rebounding skills were cut in half then rebounding wouldn't really be "worse". So if you think about the fact that all ratings are relative ...

since the game is all relative having big men with worse skills on average wouldn't really change anything except cosmetic. If all rebounding skills were cut in half then rebounding wouldn't really be "worse". So if you think about the fact that all ratings are relative ...

That may be true about rebounding...but what if you cut all the Inside Shooting in half? Wouldn't you end up with a different balance between the effectiveness of inside versus outside offense?

Or are you suggesting that the only thing that matters is Inside Shooting relative to Inside Defense?

In that case I say then that there needs to be some re-balancing of the inside versus outside shooting effectiveness.


Steve
Go Bruins!

This is true that the game engine only looks at height

Just the opposite. The game engine never looks at height. It only uses the ratings to determine the outcome.

the fact that the 7 footers will end up being better rebounders and the 6 footers will be better ball handlers

That is only true if you train that way. If you play a 6'9" player at PG and train passing and handling fro PG only, he will have better handling and passing than shorter players who play SG/SF and don't get that training.

Edited by Your_Imaginary_Friend (1/11/2008 3:22:47 PM CET)

Last edited by Your_Imaginary_Friend at 1/11/2008 3:22:47 PM

In that case I say then that there needs to be some re-balancing of the inside versus outside shooting effectiveness.

Isn't inside shooting -- a layup -- always a higher percentage shot than an outside shot? And don't say some guards have higher shooting percentages from the outside than close up because that is irrelevant. The reason for that is that if they tried to drive for a layup they get the ball crammed down their throats.

Or are you suggesting that the only thing that matters is Inside Shooting relative to Inside Defense?

You are starting to catch on. :)

Player height is almost cosmetic in this game (only the training 'bonus' issue makes it relevant at all).

Perhaps this example might help you understand the issue better:

North Carolina -- far and away the best college team in the nation this year (and I root against them so that fact hurts) played UNC-Ashville this week. UNCA has a 7'9" center who is a poor athlete -- he can't run and takes forever to get up and down the court. He plays 2-3 minutes, then has to rest 2-3 minutes. His skills are not much better then yours or mine.

However, because he is a foot taller than anyone our on the court, he doesn't have to jump to grab rebounds, block shots or score. He can almost dunk standing up. He got a double-double in 20 minutes of action and leads the nation in total blocked shots.

How does a game designer replicate this player in a computer game so that a kid with lousy skills can lead the nation in shot blocking and get a double-double in half the game? All while playing against the best talent at his level of play?

In BB, this player would have ATROCIOUS stamina and 'side' skills combined with, say, PROMINENT rebounding, shot blocking and inside scoring.

Steve, you need to get over your conception that skill levels are about talent. They aren't. They measure the effectiveness of the players on the court as needed by the game engine. Nothing more, nothing less.

In that case I say then that there needs to be some re-balancing of the inside versus outside shooting effectiveness.

Isn't inside shooting -- a layup -- always a higher percentage shot than an outside shot? And don't say some guards have higher shooting percentages from the outside than close up because that is irrelevant. The reason for that is that if they tried to drive for a layup they get the ball crammed down their throats.

A lot depends on the player and perhaps the defense -- but in general, yes an inside shot is better (higher percentage) than an outside shot.

That being said, the shooting percentages needs to be scaled or modeled appropriately. If the shooting percentage for good outside shooters is 35% (2-ptrs) and 55% for good inside shooters -- then the numbers need adjusting [as the game will lack the appropriate balance]. If its 42% to 50% then maybe that's closer to real basketball.

Regarding UNCA big man (Kenny George?) I agree with you perspective on how his skill levels should be rated -- my point was that there are fewer 7'9" guys with those skill sets than 6" 2" that can his the jumper.

BTW, UNC will need to win a few more tournament games than last season to prove to me they're the best team. :-)


Steve
Go Bruins!

In real life, the great athletes who are under 6'0" will play football, baseball and even soccer rather than basketball where even Manute Bol can keep them off the roster.

Muggsy Bogues calling — he wants his career back… ;)

Muggsy, have you considered the lucrative career of being a thoroughbred jockey?

Seriously though, BB-Domenico, do you guys feel that there is the appropriate balance between inside and outside shooting in the game currently?

If not, what's the proposed solution?

Steve
Go Bruins!