|
Post by Spencer on Jun 19, 2011 14:24:35 GMT -5
Corky Devlin SG 6'5'' 195 23 C B+ C C D B
-Good jumpshot. -3 point range. -Decent ball handler. -Poor defender. -Worse rebounder.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jun 19, 2011 14:26:32 GMT -5
spence why not just adjust some of these guys to the existence of the three point shot? they didnt play when it was around, but its sort of dumb when it exists to just pretend they wouldnt be able to shoot 3s. thatd be fine if this were a league where all players were made in that vein, but if 90% of the guards can shoot threes, you make these retro guys a lot less valuable and the league a lot more uneven. i mean youre making otherwise very good players come in with c- and d+ outside. they wouldve learned to shoot the three, and the older players all shoot the three. I dont see how the value of retro players is less then pre retro players.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jun 19, 2011 14:28:14 GMT -5
3 of the A potential players have B outside. 12 B+ or better outside shooting draftees.
|
|
|
Post by Haberino on Jun 19, 2011 14:28:40 GMT -5
spence why not just adjust some of these guys to the existence of the three point shot? they didnt play when it was around, but its sort of dumb when it exists to just pretend they wouldnt be able to shoot 3s. thatd be fine if this were a league where all players were made in that vein, but if 90% of the guards can shoot threes, you make these retro guys a lot less valuable and the league a lot more uneven. i mean youre making otherwise very good players come in with c- and d+ outside. they wouldve learned to shoot the three, and the older players all shoot the three. I dont see how the value of retro players is less then pre retro players. because 3s are much more effective shots than 2s, and SGs who can shoot threes are a lot better than SGs who have all the other talent but have d+ or c- outside. and because you're just making these guys come in worse, whether it's that they're older or flawed in ways that non-retro guys haven't been (also this class is crap outside of SFs)
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jun 19, 2011 14:30:35 GMT -5
So youre arguing that these SGs should have better outside ratings?
Or that this class is bad because you are rebuilding?
I dont get it. Last year and this year weve had some of the best young prospects in years. Petit/Baylor/Schayes/COusy.
|
|
|
Post by Haberino on Jun 19, 2011 14:30:50 GMT -5
3 of the A potential players have B outside. 12 B+ or better outside shooting draftees. look at the SG class. are there any good prospects who can shoot threes? i mean you made a bunch of clear lotto players but stuck them with d+ and c- outside ratings. it's weird. i mean if the three point shot existed, what 6'2-6'4 player with all other skills would remain miserable from three?
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jun 19, 2011 14:31:20 GMT -5
1 SG has a C- outside. Where are all these D+ C- guys?
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jun 19, 2011 14:32:35 GMT -5
So I should make all the SG prospects C+ A-? k. Ill start that next year.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jun 19, 2011 14:33:27 GMT -5
Its a bad SG class. So what. Every class should have a set amount of good prospects at every position? I guess I dont understand your argument.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jun 19, 2011 14:35:32 GMT -5
Glen Selbo SG 6'3'' 200 29 C+ B+ B- C C- C
-Very good midrange game. -Solid 3 point shooter. -Good passer. -Pretty strong. -Might have some TO issues. -Pretty poor defender. -Doesn't score well inside.
|
|
|
Post by Haberino on Jun 19, 2011 14:35:59 GMT -5
So youre arguing that these SGs should have better outside ratings? Or that this class is bad because you are rebuilding? I dont get it. Last year and this year weve had some of the best young prospects in years. Petit/Baylor/Schayes/COusy. lol, you made it a much broader point (retro vs non-retro) and then tried to get me on making two arguments at once. first off, cousy and schayes are great, but how are they any better prospects than we've had in recent years? they're 26. the top of previous classes won't be doing what they're doing at 26? idk, when i look at guys like hollis, quincy, barker, robinson, mcgee, i don't see how retro's topping that. (my argument relating to that is that these guys either came in flawed or older) my original point was that youre making 2s inherently less valuable/talented just because threes didnt exist when they played. youre putting them in a league full of outside shooters and making them d+ or c- outside. you cant look at this SG class and tell me thats not the case. the best SGs have woeful 3 pt shooting, which makes no sense
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jun 19, 2011 14:37:02 GMT -5
Paul Huston SG 6'3'' 175 30 C+ B+ D+ B D+ C
-Great midrange game. -Very quick. -Great ball handler. -Solid man to man defender. -Decent 3 point shot. -Poor rebounder. -Poor passer.
|
|
|
Post by Haberino on Jun 19, 2011 14:38:01 GMT -5
donham, stephens and carney, spence. theyre the only sgs worth a damn and none can shoot threes. if it's just a bad sg class, fine, but i find it hard to believe that youre not just docking the ability to shoot threes from otherwise good players b/c they played when threes didnt exist
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jun 19, 2011 14:38:08 GMT -5
So youre arguing that these SGs should have better outside ratings? Or that this class is bad because you are rebuilding? I dont get it. Last year and this year weve had some of the best young prospects in years. Petit/Baylor/Schayes/COusy. lol, you made it a much broader point (retro vs non-retro) and then tried to get me on making two arguments at once. first off, cousy and schayes are great, but how are they any better prospects than we've had in recent years? they're 26. the top of previous classes won't be doing what they're doing at 26? idk, when i look at guys like hollis, quincy, barker, robinson, mcgee, i don't see how retro's topping that. (my argument relating to that is that these guys either came in flawed or older) my original point was that youre making 2s inherently less valuable/talented just because threes didnt exist when they played. youre putting them in a league full of outside shooters and making them d+ or c- outside. you cant look at this SG class and tell me thats not the case. the best SGs have woeful 3 pt shooting, which makes no sense Paul Arizin.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jun 19, 2011 14:38:48 GMT -5
donham, stephens and carney, spence. theyre the only sgs worth a damn and none can shoot threes. if it's just a bad sg class, fine, but i find it hard to believe that youre not just docking the ability to shoot threes from otherwise good players b/c they played when threes didnt exist I am giving people 3 point range even when they didnt have 3 point stats. SO IDk.
|
|