Positions

[WigNosy]

One of the things I've always been annoyed with by sim engines I've seen is that they have a hard time tracking how well a player can perform "out of position." Get a 6-11 guy and plug him in at SG? No problem, he'll produce pretty much the same stats he produces at C. Lame.

There are a few of ways to handle "playing out of position" and I'm not sure which I like better, so let's discuss.

1. No penalty at all (this is FBB's take on it).

2. Use a "spectrum" of C-PF-F-SF-GF-SG-G-PG - players have a "natural" position on this spectrum. A player at his "natural" position plays at full efficiency. For each spot he moves away from his "natural" position, his ratings are reduced by 10%. So a natural PF with the same ratings as a natural F will play better (100% of his ratings) at PF but only at 80% if he shifts down to SF. Meanwhile, the natural F plays the same at either position, making him worse at PF (90% of his ratings) but better at SF (also 90% of his ratings) and thus his production is steadier even if he's in a rotation where other guys he plays with make him shift back and forth between the two positions. This means teams might value "versatile players" (can fill two slots) more than "specialized" players (who fill exactly one spot better) and vice versa.

3. Restrict the positions a player is allowed to play (e.g., use C, PF, SF, SG, PG, but a player can't play more than one position off his natural position).

4. Have a player get different "effectiveness" ratings for each position (for instance, 100% at C but 75% at PF for a big tank like Zydrunas Ilgauskas, while 2008-2012 NBA Lakers Pau Gasol might have 100% at both C and PF when playing alongside Bynum but 40% at SF when Mike D'Antoni tries to stick him there).

5. Have varying offensive philosophies/gameplans utilize different position combinations and limit teams to a certain number of gameplans in their playbook.

Still need to think this out, though I like the idea of a combination of offensive gameplans (e.g., the "four guard" C-G-G-G-G or "twin towers" C-C-SF-SG-PG or "switching Golden State" F-F-G-G-G) plus the "9 basic positions instead of 5" to fill out your 5-on-the-floor gameplan.

While I'm thinking about it, the programming side to filling a lineup/substitution:

1. User picks the order he wants positions filled in. Default is top down, i.e,. C-PF-SF-SG-PG but you can do them in any order you want.

2. Engine looks at all players listed as eligible for the first position on the list in step 1. If they are disqualified (due to injury, fatigue being less than specified level, foul trouble, etc.), they are not considered. Engine then takes the first player on the Depth Chart it runs across that is both eligible and not disqualified. If no player is both eligible and qualified, takes "best available player." Repeat process for second position, third, etc. wiith "player already on the floor because he was selected for a previous position is disqualified."

3. Give a little more control to the user - allow user to set foul trouble on a per-player basis based on "time remaining" and fouls. If you want to let a guy with 4 fouls go in the 3rd quarter, that's your choice. Also allow user to set an "empty the bench" time and margin - if you're up or down by 20 points, for instance, the computer flips the substitution/lineup fill process and uses the LAST eligible player on a depth chart and refuses to put a starter on the floor unless it has to (e.g., due to having less than 10 eligible players due to injury, foul out, etc.)

[Inner_GI]

I like the natural position idea in #2. My only concern is the middle positions F, GF, G. The way you lined it out those players will always only be 90% effective because those positions are not true positions on a depth chart. But I like the idea of reducing effectiveness as you move away from natural position.

I think the effectiveness for each position goes a little to far. #2 seems simpler as it will be universal to every player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheSyndicate]

#4 is obviously the ideal in my opinion if the programming isn't too difficult.

[Inner_GI]

[quote="TheSyndicate"]#4 is obviously the ideal in my opinion if the programming isn't too difficult.[/quote
For me the programming wouldn't be the issue but it's the extra attributes we put on players now. Because now we have to give each player their own individual effectiveness at positions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ballsohard]

I think a player role would be better .. I'll try and expand upon it but I think we can sort of come up with a bunch of roles and then provide a penalty for people playing outside of that role.

[NOLa.]

#5 seems great in theory and would be my preferred option. Instead of just having positions, you can create unique teams using schemes and player fit over just raw talent.

Sent via Morse code

[Inner_GI]

I think a player role would be better .. I'll try and expand upon it but I think we can sort of come up with a bunch of roles and then provide a penalty for people playing outside of that role.

Do gms assign the roles to the players or is it something a player is assigned before the draft?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ballsohard]

I think a player role would be better .. I'll try and expand upon it but I think we can sort of come up with a bunch of roles and then provide a penalty for people playing outside of that role.

Do gms assign the roles to the players or is it something a player is assigned before the draft?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd assume that it'd be there before .. Like Lamar Odom point forward .. Etc

[WigNosy]

I'd assume that it'd be there before .. Like Lamar Odom point forward .. Etc

This looks interesting http://www.wired.com/2012/04/analytics-basketball/

[ballsohard]

I'd assume that it'd be there before .. Like Lamar Odom point forward .. Etc

This looks interesting http://www.wired.com/2012/04/analytics-basketball/

Really like this.

[IamQuailman]

Thats super cool

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[Inner_GI]

I'd assume that it'd be there before .. Like Lamar Odom point forward .. Etc

This looks interesting http://www.wired.com/2012/04/analytics-basketball/

That is very nice. I like it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk