Post by KruPaxson on Mar 29, 2007 12:33:11 GMT -5
Do different coaching techniques help/hinder player’s development?
Jordan- I haven't paid that close of attention to numbers and TC changes from them. It seems the development is completely dependent on potential. I think production shapes where the development occurs but doesn't decide how good someone will be at something.
Bizzle- Nah, I don't believe in anything like this. Perhaps if the player performs better under a different strategy then you have a case, but I don't believe if a player is performing the same will get better or worse just for the sake of a certain strategy.
Duce- Nah I don't think it does either. They progress the same regardless. Coaching is just merely the act of getting the most out of your players and exposing the opposing team.
Greggor- By techniques I'm guessing you mean pace, pressure etc.
I don’t see how or why it would. It may but to me it really shouldn’t matter that much.
Bender- Oh definitely for example I am a big proponent of having your ppg as a non option. I feel like if the pg is an option it leads to more turn overs and causes handling ratings to go down. Happened to me with Daniel Gibson in BBS the original. That’s why I try not to have Francis as an option right now. Also I feel that the BBS is more about chemistry than star power. If you have the right players the right scheme you can take down anyone.
Jah- I do think different coaching techniques help/hinder player’s development. I don’t think it effects them in the ratings at all, however if they are not being used correctly there is a good chance they will not get that much playing time to show what they can do. In this case a lot of GM’s may look at them as not productive and be reluctant to try to acquire the player. If a player with say B- B- C B+ C+ ratings at SF were to come out and score 20 PPG while shooting 48% that player would get a much better chance to get minutes in the league. If the same player were put in the wrong focus and score 2.4 PPG in 13 minutes while shooting 37% would they ever get much of a chance?
Andy- Nope, at least if I remember right, it's not supposed to. Having said that, players with the same ratings could be totally different and depending on how you use them, they could have a much worse career then they really should have.
Pig- I believe so, some GM's are more comfortable with certain type of of coaching techniques and I believe that whatever style they run has a major effect on how they play. Not in BBS but in other leagues I find myself loving to play slow tempo, inside orientated offenses and I feel that my options always progressed better then my non-options because of this.
Does changing a player’s position over his career help develop, maintain, and take away from certain ratings from his game?
Jordan- If production does shape where development occurs, I would have to say that changing positions would affect ratings. This is because players will have better numbers at different areas depending on their position.
Bizzle- Yes, I think it does helps there career develop as well as take away certain ratings from his game, but also add certain ratings to his Wherever you move him, it should mold them into that type of player for the position.
Duce- It definitely does the way I see it. Players develop in different areas based on their position, but also based on their current ratings. I think people care about how good the player is on defense too much, and don't stop to think that he might not be a good fit for a certain position offensively.
Greggor- I think it probably hinders him if he puts up pitiful stats there. When I had Joe Smith I tried him at C and he was pretty pitiful.
I moved him back to PF because I think he probably would have lost some talent if I continued to do that. Whereas I experimented with Peja some at SG and the last 20 games or so I moved him back and he seems to do better there. So yea, I think it does matter.
Bender- I feel it depends on a few factors. Age is an important thing. Speed is also important. Size is important. For example a natural SF gets moved to SG and can't keep up with the natural SG's. His defense will suffer and over the long haul will change their game. On the opposite side an undersized pf could be a good option at SF and further his career or at least make him a main stay on a team.
Jah- It can to a minor extent. Changing a PF/SF to SG could take away from his rebounding rating even if he is moved back. And changing a player’s position before TC could change the focus of his training.
Andy- I believe so, though nothing extreme and I have no clue to what extent it does so. I think that if you have a 2 guard and move him to point, he tries to grow like a PG. Not saying he'll actually become a good PG but he would try to. I don't remember where I heard that from or if it was true but yeah, that's what I heard.
Pig- I would have to think so. I remember Spence saying this was the truth and that players who are by themselves at a certain position progress better (Why he moved Darius Miles to PF) Now im no buff with FBB but I would think that if a player was out of position that they would progress differently then they would in position.
Does playing multiple positions in the DC beneficial or detrimental to a player?
Jordan- I don't think it really matters in terms of development. It will give the guy better production and potentially more trade value from that though.
Bizzle- I think it is beneficial to the player at least, maybe not to the team in all cases. More minutes means increased production, and increased production, means better development.
Duce- Neither. I really don't think it has effect. The ratings produce at the position played and that's about it.
Greggor- As long as his stats are good at that position I think it helps.
Bender- I believe it's beneficial for the most part. Increases minutes and shots. However, I am not a big fan of a player being the backup at the 1 and 2 positions. I tried that with Hinrich in original BBS didn’t work too well.
Jah- I think it could be beneficial for a player that is just looking for the minutes on the court. Many players are capable of playing backup to three different positions very well. This gives them a chance to put up big numbers even if they are only in a backup role.
Andy- I believe it would hurt the team more then anything. If you have a player backing up both SF/SG and he gets hurts, you could get screwed big time by that. As for the player, aside from the obvious things like more risk for injury and such, I doubt it does any damage to him.
Pig- I always think of it as a benefit. When you have a tweener like Quentin Richardson or someone of the nature I always think it benefits that team to get more minutes off the bench at two positions they play very well. I think it also helps a good team out who has a strong bench player behind a real good starter.
Even if a player has high potential, if he is buried on the bench will this hinder his development?
Jordan- I don't think so. I think a guy will develop close to the way he was intended to through his potential. Not getting minutes may not allow a guy to maximize his potential, but he should be close to the intended player without the minutes.
Bizzle- I think it does, or at least I would like to think I've seen this happen. Getting minutes is crucial IMO.
Duce- I don't think so. But I do think if you have a ton of good players at a position that it could hinder development but playing time not so much.
Greggor- Yes, I think unequivocally it will hinder it.
Bender- I think so. I believe that if a player puts up solid numbers and solid minutes his ratings will ultimately increase.
Jah- I don’t think this effects anything at all. If he is buried on the bench he should develop just as much while learning from his teammates.
Andy- Don't believe so though I am not 100%. Only thing it'll do is make it hard to know what the player is good at or sucks at.
Pig- No, over in the first UOSL I had a guy named Alexandar Ugrionski who was buried in my bench the first three seasons. Started off as an 18 year old with C C+ B+ C+ ratings. He grew the most out of any player I had ever seen before in any sim by the time the league ended and he was 24 his ratings were C+ B+ A+ A and his scouted potential in 6 years never went below an A.
Do better stats help produce better TC's?
Jordan- It has never seemed that way to me.
Bizzle- Yes, definitely. Only makes sense, if the certain player is doing better in a certain category, I believe it goes up.
Duce- Nope. You can look at coincidences one way or the other but stats are the production of TC, not the other way around.
Greggor- I don’t think there's a correlation, I've had players who had good stats take hits and guys that didn’t do anything get better rating wise. I honestly think it's a random thing.
Bender- Does it mean definite no. Does it help? Yea I think it does but it's not always the case
Jah- I don’t think stats will play a role in TC except for the fact that if they are putting up better stats it’s a good chance that they are close to the next letter grade. They may have a high “B” in a category which will have a better chance to go to a B+ during TC
Andy- I don't believe so. I believe FBB's random and overall fucked up game system just does TC's randomly, sometimes actually using potential like it should be doing from the start.
Pig- It's interesting because I think the stats you see now will reflect on how that person's TC will be like the next year. I have had players who have had major booms in their late 20's early 30's and they didn't have the stats that year that someone of those ratings should have. The next year they dropped tremendously in TC.
What young player do you feel could benefit from your style of coaching that he isn't receiving right now on his own club?
Jordan- Since I'm tanking I don't know if anyone could benefit from my style of coaching. I'll say Wade, Amare, or Yao would all work out nicely though
Bizzle- Not sure if there is a player out there right for this question, if the guy has talent he's going to put up numbers no matter what team he is on. If anything there is a few guys not starting who could start and put up good numbers, but I can't see someone who isn't doing too good go to another squad and be a big contributor in the same minutes.
Duce- There really is none. I mean, a team could run outside or inside and inflate/deflate stats but that's not a magic trick, not anything special. What I do notice is a lot of GM's in many leagues don't use player abilities and stats to their own advantage very well, or are inconsistent with it. That's really the key, making your players work for you.
Greggor- Tough question, I think Devean George. He seems to put up solid shooting numbers given his PT and place in lineup. I'd give him a shot to sink or swim and see what happens though he may be a little too old now, but 2 yrs or so ago I would've given him a chance I think to see what he could do.
Bender- Tyson chandler I think I have perfect compliments for him in Allen and Francis
Jah- I might have to go with Redd. I think he would flourish in an outside offense. He has good percent but is only putting up 10 PPG which is far below his potential.
Andy- Steven Jackson is a player I'd love to have. He's been pretty mediocre so far but I do believe I can get him to put up some very solid stats.
Pig- Really any young big out there who likes to score inside. He would be my ideal person I would like since I love to run slow tempo inside oriented offenses.
Jordan- I haven't paid that close of attention to numbers and TC changes from them. It seems the development is completely dependent on potential. I think production shapes where the development occurs but doesn't decide how good someone will be at something.
Bizzle- Nah, I don't believe in anything like this. Perhaps if the player performs better under a different strategy then you have a case, but I don't believe if a player is performing the same will get better or worse just for the sake of a certain strategy.
Duce- Nah I don't think it does either. They progress the same regardless. Coaching is just merely the act of getting the most out of your players and exposing the opposing team.
Greggor- By techniques I'm guessing you mean pace, pressure etc.
I don’t see how or why it would. It may but to me it really shouldn’t matter that much.
Bender- Oh definitely for example I am a big proponent of having your ppg as a non option. I feel like if the pg is an option it leads to more turn overs and causes handling ratings to go down. Happened to me with Daniel Gibson in BBS the original. That’s why I try not to have Francis as an option right now. Also I feel that the BBS is more about chemistry than star power. If you have the right players the right scheme you can take down anyone.
Jah- I do think different coaching techniques help/hinder player’s development. I don’t think it effects them in the ratings at all, however if they are not being used correctly there is a good chance they will not get that much playing time to show what they can do. In this case a lot of GM’s may look at them as not productive and be reluctant to try to acquire the player. If a player with say B- B- C B+ C+ ratings at SF were to come out and score 20 PPG while shooting 48% that player would get a much better chance to get minutes in the league. If the same player were put in the wrong focus and score 2.4 PPG in 13 minutes while shooting 37% would they ever get much of a chance?
Andy- Nope, at least if I remember right, it's not supposed to. Having said that, players with the same ratings could be totally different and depending on how you use them, they could have a much worse career then they really should have.
Pig- I believe so, some GM's are more comfortable with certain type of of coaching techniques and I believe that whatever style they run has a major effect on how they play. Not in BBS but in other leagues I find myself loving to play slow tempo, inside orientated offenses and I feel that my options always progressed better then my non-options because of this.
Does changing a player’s position over his career help develop, maintain, and take away from certain ratings from his game?
Jordan- If production does shape where development occurs, I would have to say that changing positions would affect ratings. This is because players will have better numbers at different areas depending on their position.
Bizzle- Yes, I think it does helps there career develop as well as take away certain ratings from his game, but also add certain ratings to his Wherever you move him, it should mold them into that type of player for the position.
Duce- It definitely does the way I see it. Players develop in different areas based on their position, but also based on their current ratings. I think people care about how good the player is on defense too much, and don't stop to think that he might not be a good fit for a certain position offensively.
Greggor- I think it probably hinders him if he puts up pitiful stats there. When I had Joe Smith I tried him at C and he was pretty pitiful.
I moved him back to PF because I think he probably would have lost some talent if I continued to do that. Whereas I experimented with Peja some at SG and the last 20 games or so I moved him back and he seems to do better there. So yea, I think it does matter.
Bender- I feel it depends on a few factors. Age is an important thing. Speed is also important. Size is important. For example a natural SF gets moved to SG and can't keep up with the natural SG's. His defense will suffer and over the long haul will change their game. On the opposite side an undersized pf could be a good option at SF and further his career or at least make him a main stay on a team.
Jah- It can to a minor extent. Changing a PF/SF to SG could take away from his rebounding rating even if he is moved back. And changing a player’s position before TC could change the focus of his training.
Andy- I believe so, though nothing extreme and I have no clue to what extent it does so. I think that if you have a 2 guard and move him to point, he tries to grow like a PG. Not saying he'll actually become a good PG but he would try to. I don't remember where I heard that from or if it was true but yeah, that's what I heard.
Pig- I would have to think so. I remember Spence saying this was the truth and that players who are by themselves at a certain position progress better (Why he moved Darius Miles to PF) Now im no buff with FBB but I would think that if a player was out of position that they would progress differently then they would in position.
Does playing multiple positions in the DC beneficial or detrimental to a player?
Jordan- I don't think it really matters in terms of development. It will give the guy better production and potentially more trade value from that though.
Bizzle- I think it is beneficial to the player at least, maybe not to the team in all cases. More minutes means increased production, and increased production, means better development.
Duce- Neither. I really don't think it has effect. The ratings produce at the position played and that's about it.
Greggor- As long as his stats are good at that position I think it helps.
Bender- I believe it's beneficial for the most part. Increases minutes and shots. However, I am not a big fan of a player being the backup at the 1 and 2 positions. I tried that with Hinrich in original BBS didn’t work too well.
Jah- I think it could be beneficial for a player that is just looking for the minutes on the court. Many players are capable of playing backup to three different positions very well. This gives them a chance to put up big numbers even if they are only in a backup role.
Andy- I believe it would hurt the team more then anything. If you have a player backing up both SF/SG and he gets hurts, you could get screwed big time by that. As for the player, aside from the obvious things like more risk for injury and such, I doubt it does any damage to him.
Pig- I always think of it as a benefit. When you have a tweener like Quentin Richardson or someone of the nature I always think it benefits that team to get more minutes off the bench at two positions they play very well. I think it also helps a good team out who has a strong bench player behind a real good starter.
Even if a player has high potential, if he is buried on the bench will this hinder his development?
Jordan- I don't think so. I think a guy will develop close to the way he was intended to through his potential. Not getting minutes may not allow a guy to maximize his potential, but he should be close to the intended player without the minutes.
Bizzle- I think it does, or at least I would like to think I've seen this happen. Getting minutes is crucial IMO.
Duce- I don't think so. But I do think if you have a ton of good players at a position that it could hinder development but playing time not so much.
Greggor- Yes, I think unequivocally it will hinder it.
Bender- I think so. I believe that if a player puts up solid numbers and solid minutes his ratings will ultimately increase.
Jah- I don’t think this effects anything at all. If he is buried on the bench he should develop just as much while learning from his teammates.
Andy- Don't believe so though I am not 100%. Only thing it'll do is make it hard to know what the player is good at or sucks at.
Pig- No, over in the first UOSL I had a guy named Alexandar Ugrionski who was buried in my bench the first three seasons. Started off as an 18 year old with C C+ B+ C+ ratings. He grew the most out of any player I had ever seen before in any sim by the time the league ended and he was 24 his ratings were C+ B+ A+ A and his scouted potential in 6 years never went below an A.
Do better stats help produce better TC's?
Jordan- It has never seemed that way to me.
Bizzle- Yes, definitely. Only makes sense, if the certain player is doing better in a certain category, I believe it goes up.
Duce- Nope. You can look at coincidences one way or the other but stats are the production of TC, not the other way around.
Greggor- I don’t think there's a correlation, I've had players who had good stats take hits and guys that didn’t do anything get better rating wise. I honestly think it's a random thing.
Bender- Does it mean definite no. Does it help? Yea I think it does but it's not always the case
Jah- I don’t think stats will play a role in TC except for the fact that if they are putting up better stats it’s a good chance that they are close to the next letter grade. They may have a high “B” in a category which will have a better chance to go to a B+ during TC
Andy- I don't believe so. I believe FBB's random and overall fucked up game system just does TC's randomly, sometimes actually using potential like it should be doing from the start.
Pig- It's interesting because I think the stats you see now will reflect on how that person's TC will be like the next year. I have had players who have had major booms in their late 20's early 30's and they didn't have the stats that year that someone of those ratings should have. The next year they dropped tremendously in TC.
What young player do you feel could benefit from your style of coaching that he isn't receiving right now on his own club?
Jordan- Since I'm tanking I don't know if anyone could benefit from my style of coaching. I'll say Wade, Amare, or Yao would all work out nicely though
Bizzle- Not sure if there is a player out there right for this question, if the guy has talent he's going to put up numbers no matter what team he is on. If anything there is a few guys not starting who could start and put up good numbers, but I can't see someone who isn't doing too good go to another squad and be a big contributor in the same minutes.
Duce- There really is none. I mean, a team could run outside or inside and inflate/deflate stats but that's not a magic trick, not anything special. What I do notice is a lot of GM's in many leagues don't use player abilities and stats to their own advantage very well, or are inconsistent with it. That's really the key, making your players work for you.
Greggor- Tough question, I think Devean George. He seems to put up solid shooting numbers given his PT and place in lineup. I'd give him a shot to sink or swim and see what happens though he may be a little too old now, but 2 yrs or so ago I would've given him a chance I think to see what he could do.
Bender- Tyson chandler I think I have perfect compliments for him in Allen and Francis
Jah- I might have to go with Redd. I think he would flourish in an outside offense. He has good percent but is only putting up 10 PPG which is far below his potential.
Andy- Steven Jackson is a player I'd love to have. He's been pretty mediocre so far but I do believe I can get him to put up some very solid stats.
Pig- Really any young big out there who likes to score inside. He would be my ideal person I would like since I love to run slow tempo inside oriented offenses.