BuzzerBeater Forums

He was overgrown PG with a skillset of both PG and C - great handler, passer, decent rebounder with a shot range of a guard. He had a skillset but later on was unable to use it because of his body. So in the skills aspect he was a PG with low OD and a C..

And well he had a lot of injuries..

Last edited by Phantum at 7/21/2011 8:06:56 AM

I just don't get what adding complexity to the position label for players adds. Once you know what the skills are, does the position label really matter? I mean, if a SG can also play SF, even though his skill set says he's most effective as a SG, who cares what his label is? I play players out of their "natural position" all the time and I don't need a label to tell I can. The skills are more important than the label, a label that's too complicated could add more confusion than clarity. My two cents.

So when you scout, do you search by position or by skill? Personally, I find searching by position very inefficient without including skill requirement criteria since I know I'm either going to be rejecting players without certain minimum skills or, relevant to the issue at hand, I am looking for a player with versatility to play more than one position. Therefore, having players with more than one stated position is totally unnecessary. In fact, I rarely even search for players by position at all.

I think there are enough debates on how well the system derives the labels that we already have. Adding complexity probably won't help matters.

For sure I think every good manager is looking for multi skilled players because they are really good salary wise. I think the most important thing in this game is to build the greatest team with lowest salary possible. So yeah multi skilled players who can play a few positions are the way to go.

I can see your point here, but... when scouting, you can already look for two sorts that will give you an idea about their skill set and whether or not your scouting a swing player or not. First, you can maybe get a little bit of an idea of their skill by looking at their stats (FG%, rebounds, TO, blocks, etc.). Yeah, sure, this is pretty weak, but could give you some indication, particular when you look at the stats in light of the second indicator, which is position the player is actually being played at. For example, if you are scouting a team that plays a SG at SF often, it's a good guess that this SG has some decent skill balance, perhaps at RB or IS or along those lines, otherwise why would he be played there often? (You should check to see what other options that team has at SF, too.) Or maybe there's a SG who plays a lot at PG, which could indicate that the player has solid PG skills (PA, HA, etc.) to go along with the traditional SG skills. Or maybe this player has been getting PG training and is on the way to becoming a player with solid PG skills. The point is, I still don't see the need to potentially confuse us with swing player categories when the benefits seem marginal and unnecessary.

Hedo Turkoglu anyone? He sucks now, but he was running the point for the magic the majority of the time during that playoff run. He can't defend pg's one on one, but nobody can defend anybody one-on-one. He's what you call a point-forward, because unlike diaw, he can bring the ball up the court every single possession without turning it over. Diaw can, but not all the time, or he would be tired. Turkoglu is actually an excellent passer into the post, and he could protect the ball and bring it up the court pretty much without effort.

Oh yeah he's a legit 6'10.

Last edited by Thelonious at 7/27/2011 9:34:44 PM

I remember D.Nowitzki playing PG in Germanys NT. The PG could not effectivly bring the ball over so Dirk had to step in and start delivering the ball over the half court line:)