BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > power forwards and wages

power forwards and wages

Set priority
Show messages by
From: jimrtex

This Post:
00
26341.18 in reply to 26341.15
Date: 4/29/2008 2:24:10 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
44
What I cannot figure out is why the first guy below is listed a C and the second guy is listed as a PF. I guess the better JS on the second guy pushes him into the PF category?

Center

Jump Shot: awful Jump Range: pitiful
Outside Def.: pitiful Handling: pitiful
Driving: average Passing: average
Inside Shot: respectable Inside Def.: average
Rebounding: pitiful Shot Blocking: mediocre
Stamina: awful Free Throw: respectable

Experience: pitiful

Power Forward

Jump Shot: inept Jump Range: awful
Outside Def.: atrocious Handling: awful
Driving: pitiful Passing: awful
Inside Shot: average ↑ Inside Def.: mediocre
Rebounding: inept Shot Blocking: respectable
Stamina: mediocre Free Throw: atrocious

Experience: atrocious

I think the classification is based on comparing skills.

Sometime go to the TL, and search based on position and search for a single level of skill, and see how many players the search turns up. You might have to also include an age range so that you don't find too many players (I think it is 1000 max).

For a PG, you might find that SB is totally extraneous, you'll might have as many PG with atrocious SB as you have with average SB. But something like passing, there will be no PG with atrocious passing.

And then do something like holding passing constant while changing the JS for a PG. It appears that the classification is based on comparing skills. If you find a PG with awful passing he will have a JS skill of "can't hit barn door" which is below atrocious.

It's also possible that the classification is based on calculating a PG, SG, SF, PF, and C rating. But that is tricky since you have to get the weighting right. If you put a NT SF on your team, he might be your best PG, SG, SF, PF, and C. That is, he might be able to play any position better than your starter. So you have to figure out a way for his SF to show up as his best position, when he is pretty good at all positions compared to ordinary players.

It appears that JS is an important classifying skills for both PF and SF. They've got to have a pretty good JS, relative to their other skills. And a SF has to have a relatively poor IS, or he is classified as a PF.

I suspect that the change was to change it from pretty good JS, to a decent JS.

In the case of your PF, it is his relatively decent JS, given his complete lack of outside skills, and pretty limited inside skills. Beef up his ID, and he might become a C, since his JS would then become markedly worse than his inside skills.

From: eddyslj
This Post:
00
26341.19 in reply to 26341.18
Date: 4/30/2008 12:26:58 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
i think height is also one factor in classifying players, although not that big of a factor i think. sure there are 6'6" center, but no way you can find a 5'9" center or a 7'2" pg

From: jimrtex

This Post:
00
26341.20 in reply to 26341.19
Date: 4/30/2008 3:13:43 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
44
I've seen 6'0 players classified as centers. It is possible that skills of generated players are linked together and also linked to height. So perhaps they choose a random height, say a normal distribution with a height around 6'8. And then instead of setting skill values at complete random, they could be linked to the height. So the Jump Range might have a normal distribution, but for a 6'0 player, the mean might be mediocre, and for a 7'4 player it might be awful.

This Post:
00
26341.21 in reply to 26341.19
Date: 4/30/2008 2:10:20 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
303303
i think height is also one factor in classifying players, although not that big of a factor i think. sure there are 6'6" center, but no way you can find a 5'9" center or a 7'2" pg



It's not a factor at all.

NO ONE at this table ordered a rum & Coke
Charles: Penn has some good people
A CT? Really?
Any two will do
Any three for me
Any four will score
Any five are live
This Post:
00
26341.22 in reply to 26341.21
Date: 5/1/2008 10:21:15 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
i think height is also one factor in classifying players, although not that big of a factor i think. sure there are 6'6" center, but no way you can find a 5'9" center or a 7'2" pg



It's not a factor at all.

I sometimes think it could be at creation (i.e. taller players are generated with inside skills more often). But I agree that it's not a factor for classification.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
26341.23 in reply to 26341.19
Date: 5/2/2008 4:15:10 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
i think height is also one factor in classifying players, although not that big of a factor i think. sure there are 6'6" center, but no way you can find a 5'9" center or a 7'2" pg


http://statistik.basketball-bundesliga.de/bbl/stats/player/index.php?team=418&saison=2007&spieler_id=2752

He plays sometimes as Center, and is a Pofer Forward who plays mostly in pain ... His height is more 1.84 = 6 feet, then the 1.88cm who stand on the stats. It is pretty cool to look at him, because he is a great player and how he get all his board is impressive - so he earned his nickname Mr incrdible.