|
Post by Coachslick on Jan 26, 2015 11:23:48 GMT -5
BIG NEWS!!! So, as many remember when I moved Dan Roundfield, there are players that are improperly listed at their positions. When I moved Roundfield pre draft, I asked you all to send me any information on players if they were supposed to be at a different position. No one messaged me. HOWEVER, now that players are on teams, people are looking them up and I'm getting requests now to change positions. HERE'S WHAT'S GOING DOWN: in this thread ONLY, if you post a player on your team with a link from basketball-reference.com and ONLY FROM THAT SITE (it's the only site I use when making draft classes, and indeed it was the only site I used this time for the dispersal), and it shows a player is at a different position, then you can move him there. EXAMPLE: On my own team, Otto Moore is listed on Basketball-reference.com as a C. And ONLY as a C. So, IF I CHOOSE TO (it is not mandatory) I can post here the following "Otto Moore is currently a PF and I would like to move him to C as per this link." Then, I would click the link and I would verify that your post is correct, I will change the position and that is the end of that! Furthermore, if a players height or weight ALSO is wrong, again based SOLELY on basketball-reference.com, then I will also change that! If a player shows on the link that he is listed at two positions, you may choose one of the two to place that player into the position. If it just says F or G then you may choose EITHER PF or SF or SG or PG. EXAMPLE: "Paul Westphal is lsited as a SG but on his basketball-reference.com page it shows him as SG or PG. I would like to move him to PG." BE AWARE, no numerical changes will be made to the players. If you move someone from SG to PG he will NOT move up to 80 because he was 70 at SG! This is strictly a positional change and cosmetic change, so that players can be accurately represented in the league. After the draft, and once all position changes have been made I will release a new updated sheet of numbers so everyone has all their rosters set by team, and all the positions, height weight etc will be done. It'll look exactly like the numbers released right before each season, and not this annoying draft format. It will also allow GMs to doubel check that every change was on the up and up! I hope you all know, the class was 440 players and I was alone in making this file. I can't stress enough that I truly did try to manipulate as many players as I could, but from Dawkins and B Free to the Dan Rounfield and others, I missed A LOT of things. And for me the most important thing is that we all have a level playing field and that a mistake of MINE doesn't inadvertently ruin things for YOU. My hope with this rule is to help all of you have the team you want to have. I personally drafted Moore and Hairston out of position to play them at C and SF, only to NOW find out they're actually listed at those spots on the website. I can only imagine others doing the same throughout the league (that's why I LOVE releasing number!!!!) and so I want to be accurate and fair with everyone! I want to thank PJ for pointing out the issue with Bill Willoughby and thanks to Costa for helping me come up with a fast solution! I look forward to fixing the draft file with all of you! THIS THREAD WILL BE OPEN THROUGH THE FIRST TWO PRESEASON SIMS. FINAL POSITION CHANGES MUST BE IN BEFORE SIM 1.You guys like the new rule?
|
|
|
Post by Coachslick on Jan 26, 2015 11:27:47 GMT -5
I want to hear back on everyone. If everyone is for this then we do it. If there's a large outcry we don't have to. Either way PLAYING a player at their position should still work out. With or without the changes, Moore will be my C and Hairston my SF, I just figured people might really want this flexibility.
I'm trying to make this team YOURS. From the contract years now to the position changes, I want you invested in the players you draft!!!
|
|
|
Post by Maple on Jan 26, 2015 11:46:44 GMT -5
I didnt read this but I trust you
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2015 11:48:34 GMT -5
Like this, but let's say you move Otto Moore to C. Is that his permanent position from now on or are you free to switch between PF & C
|
|
|
Post by Coachslick on Jan 26, 2015 11:56:28 GMT -5
Like this, but let's say you move Otto Moore to C. Is that his permanent position from now on or are you free to switch between PF & C Permanent position. This is a one time thing, pre season. Moving forward every draft will be hand made from scratch by me, the way I did 84-87-92 this time around. So the position, height, weight age school etc will always be correct. Or SHOULD be lol Otto Moore will forever be a C. It's mostly to fix the roughly 350 original players whom I definitely missed stuff on
|
|
|
Post by AuldDawg on Jan 26, 2015 12:19:04 GMT -5
I can foresee guys trying to list their players at SG/SF/PF to maximise the 1 position variance rule, i.e. a player listed at PF/C will be a PF so that he can play SF,PF and C. Might be especially true with SF's but then again I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Coachslick on Jan 26, 2015 12:35:47 GMT -5
I can foresee guys trying to list their players at SG/SF/PF to maximise the 1 position variance rule, i.e. a player listed at PF/C will be a PF so that he can play SF,PF and C. Might be especially true with SF's but then again I could be wrong. Well, if it's supported by the website, do you think I shouldn't let them move a player? The issue is that I feel that someone like Willoughby, for instance, is listed at SF on the website but drafted here at SG. Because of the positional rules I implemented, Willoughby would not be able to start at PF. he would be able to backup at PF, but not start there. I figure if someone wants to start Willoughby at PF, and my only excuse for not letting him is that I messed the file up by not checking his position, that's a negative to an owner. BUT, maybe that's just my personal view. The Willoughby owner is also at a detriment because he wont' ever be able to start Willoughby at PG if he wanted. So there is a negative effect of the move. If I move Moore to C, I'll never be able tos tart him at SF. Like I said, for me PERSONALLY, it isn't changing my starting lineup. And I'm NOT moving Westphal to PG anyway. But if someone drafted a C or PG and he's a PF or SG, shouldn't he be allowed to move him to SG or PF and get that extra variance? Thanks for the response! I want to get some dialogue going to see how people feel. I'm definitely just trying to answer and not antagonize, so please don't take what I say to any question as a challenge. Like I said, I want the league to want this, or not want this, either way.
|
|
|
Post by Coachslick on Jan 26, 2015 12:39:49 GMT -5
Here's something else: would you all like me to open wonders? That way, let's say you are contemplating the move of a player you drafted. And you're thinking "Yea, Michael Jordan is listed at SG but I drafted him at SF. Let me see his defense at SG and see if it's worth it to move him there or not."
I would be open to doing this as well. Flow of information from me to GMs is important in making team decisions. So I have no problem opening wonders if that makes positional changes better.
Also, it's the plan to open wonders right after the final pick of the draft, and position changes would go through the pre season sims. But in opening wonders perhaps it would help teams round out their rosters in those 9-12 rounds?
|
|
|
Post by pistolpetejr on Jan 26, 2015 12:44:52 GMT -5
My question is where's the trouble in having moves in season, since we've always had wonders as well?
|
|
|
Post by Coachslick on Jan 26, 2015 13:06:32 GMT -5
My question is where's the trouble in having moves in season, since we've always had wonders as well? The whole premise behind the positional shifts in lineup but not allowing position changes is so that you can't take a particularly good PF and make him a PG or SG, thus playing someone who's 6' 10" but happens to have high quickness and handles in a position where he's facing 6' 4" guys. I'm attempting to limit the Luol Deng's of last IBA, where some ratings at positions translate TOO well to other positions. The game itself has caps. No PF/C can have over 75 handles, for instance. That's not me that's the game. No PG can have over 50 in rebounding and no SG can have over 60 in rebounding. Again, the game not me. So clearly, the game makers were anticipating having to play players AT their positions, or they wouldn't have created the limits in the positions. I believe that the game's statistical outputs will more closely reflect real life NBA if we attempt to maintain these positional structures, while allowing for a bit of variance in DC's by letting you start players out of position etc, but also by limiting WHERE they can start. Also, wonders are going to be year round. You can wonder anyone in any position, that hasn't changed. It's only in the DC rules. And actually, I'm just making my own life a living hell trying to verify this stuff anyway. But I think it's worth it. We are in a simulation league and I'm trying to make this as real as possible. My goal, as I said when I announced IBA 2.0, is to have a league where year 1 and year 15 are close statistically. CLOSE NOT EXACT. I'm not crazy. But every dispersal league is always the same when using this 75-76 file. No good Free Agents. High handles for big men. etc etc Below, I'm going to post a PM between myself and SGuffee. I think this will highlight the issues within this dispersal: I noticed you have Jordan with a 36 handles but he only averaged 2.6 tos per 36 and other players like Dr J averaged 3.4 tos per 36 and his handles are a 70. Curious why the huge difference. Dr j is a product of the stupid draft file which has all those old ass players at 100 handles. As a blanket rule I reduced handles by position. Hopefully you've seen that post. When I make the other players form the non dispersal 75-76 base file from the game I input their rookie stats and hit "generate attributes" and the game creates number values for the players based upon the numerical information I put in. The truth is that Dr J should have 30 something handles as well but there's 440 players in this draft and while I was able to look through and make changes on some things others slipped through, like gervin's potential. But for me alone to check a players stats and then to compare and contrast that player like you just did with jordan and dr j it would take me probably months of solid time to do that. I created blanket rules based on positions just to counteract the ridiculous 100 handles issue and Dr J happened to benefit. Btw the reason they have 100 handles is because there were no turnovers when the 75-76 merger occurred. When they started counting TOs McGinnis averaged like 5 a year and set the all time record. And he had 75 handles which was the cap on PF. So you're going to find plenty of player like Dr J who have better handles than they should but again without specifically going through every player and then comparing them to a modern era guy there's no fix. And I had no help with this. Even you only noticed now because you have Jordan, I'm sure. And when checking what to camp his handles stand out, I know. The highlighted part should explain why I created the positional shifts as I did as well as the caps on handles per position.
|
|
|
Post by AuldDawg on Jan 26, 2015 13:09:37 GMT -5
I can foresee guys trying to list their players at SG/SF/PF to maximise the 1 position variance rule, i.e. a player listed at PF/C will be a PF so that he can play SF,PF and C. Might be especially true with SF's but then again I could be wrong. Well, if it's supported by the website, do you think I shouldn't let them move a player? The issue is that I feel that someone like Willoughby, for instance, is listed at SF on the website but drafted here at SG. Because of the positional rules I implemented, Willoughby would not be able to start at PF. he would be able to backup at PF, but not start there. I figure if someone wants to start Willoughby at PF, and my only excuse for not letting him is that I messed the file up by not checking his position, that's a negative to an owner. BUT, maybe that's just my personal view. The Willoughby owner is also at a detriment because he wont' ever be able to start Willoughby at PG if he wanted. So there is a negative effect of the move. If I move Moore to C, I'll never be able tos tart him at SF. Like I said, for me PERSONALLY, it isn't changing my starting lineup. And I'm NOT moving Westphal to PG anyway. But if someone drafted a C or PG and he's a PF or SG, shouldn't he be allowed to move him to SG or PF and get that extra variance? Thanks for the response! I want to get some dialogue going to see how people feel. I'm definitely just trying to answer and not antagonize, so please don't take what I say to any question as a challenge. Like I said, I want the league to want this, or not want this, either way. I was simply making an observation. For me, as an example, I have McG listed at PF and on basketball-refrence he's listed at SF and PF so depending on what kind of flexibility I wanted, I can either keep him at PF to play him at C or move him to SF to be eligible for SG. Now this isn't significant for starters but could come into play later in the draft as we start choosing which players are going to fill out the bench. I'm not opposed to it and in fact, like the flexibility. The reason I brought it up was to highlight that it can be done so you, and others, can determine if this is what we wanted in the league. As to Wonders, I would like them opened up since it could have a big effect on which players I target in later rounds to balance out my roster.
|
|
|
Post by costabear on Jan 26, 2015 13:43:16 GMT -5
To me, the entire reason to do this would be the positional flexibility for starting lineups/the bench.
|
|
|
Post by AuldDawg on Jan 26, 2015 13:55:00 GMT -5
Posted as a reminder in case anyone has forgotten or missed it: C- can only play C/PF starting, C/PF/SF on bench PF- can only play C/PF/SF starting, C/PF/SF or PF/SF/SG on bench SF- can only play PF/SF/SG starting, C/PF/SF, PF/SF/SG or SF/SG/PG on bench SG- can only play SF/SG/PG starting, PF/SF/SG or SF/SG/PG (on bench) PG- can only play PG/SG starting, PG/SG/SF on bench ibahoops.proboards.com/thread/7995/iba-2
|
|
|
Post by rr1582 on Jan 26, 2015 14:48:11 GMT -5
I am all for incorporating this, but I don't know whether for me personally it will make much of a difference. I just like the additional flexibility that is/could be available with the position changes.
|
|
|
Post by gritter13 on Jan 26, 2015 15:23:38 GMT -5
I think this makes a ton of sense, though I agree with Ryan. I'm not sure this will make a big change for most people. For the guys I drafted that are listed at multiple positions (Nate Williams and Cadillac Anderson), I will be able to have them play at the spots best suited to their skill sets right now. I might change Williams to SG, but that would be to see if his handle and perimeter defense improves during training camp next season.
I don't think we will have many players that are listed on basketball reference as being able to play 2 different positions, yet still have the skills to play a 3rd. For example, Nate Williams is listed as a SG/SF, yet if I move him to SG, he doesn't have the skill set I would want in a point guard.
I do have one question though, what if you acquire someone where the previous GM didn't review this, and you would like to make a change to that player? Could this possibly be something that could be opened up every year during the preseason? I don't want to make this a hassle for you, and I'm not saying I think we should do this, I'm just trying to throw out some ideas for situations that may not have been thought about.
|
|