|
|
Post by Druce on Feb 17, 2022 14:20:23 GMT -5
I am looking for an explanation as to why we consistently have profile players appearing at the bottom of grade categories, namely defense. It doesn't make any sense to me that in our current class, and the last 3 classes profile players have been at the bottom with sometimes -2 on the next worse players when it comes to defense.
Also, I feel as though profile players are unjustly punished and given harsher grades in some categories, see Glenn Robinson's rebounding, Pau Gasol's rebounding as the two most recent examples.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2022 18:33:35 GMT -5
If anyone else feels similarly this could be the time to post your issues in this thread and eric could respond to all of them at once
|
|
|
|
Post by TinyTimPig on Feb 17, 2022 18:35:23 GMT -5
If anyone else feels similarly this could be the time to post your issues in this thread and eric could respond to all of them at once It might be helpful to get more insight into your PM conversations regarding profile writing to know what’s already being addressed. |
|
|
|
Post by 20s on Feb 17, 2022 18:42:32 GMT -5
It does seem odd that profile players can seemingly have much lower floors in many categories than the non-profile guys.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2022 18:45:44 GMT -5
If anyone else feels similarly this could be the time to post your issues in this thread and eric could respond to all of them at once It might be helpful to get more insight into your PM conversations regarding profile writing to know what’s already being addressed.
Okay.
Before this draft was created, I brought up some of the concerns that Druce et al. have brought up in shout here is what I said:
Hey eric, I was wondering. When you are adjusting profiles do you take the strength of the class into account? Like, it seems people are miffed mostly at nonprofile guys being better than 1/3-1/2 of the profile players in any given year. I tried to compensate for this a little by giving less career-killing weaknesses to profile players, but you seemed to immediately adjust against that. Perhaps there is another solution. As I see it, we have a couple possibilities (non all-encompassing): 1) I could possibly adjust for it by giving less "good strengths" (i.e. potential, jumpshot, whatever) to nonprofile guys. 2) perhaps you could start nerfing the nonprofile guys a little bit. Would either of these be reasonable? Aside from any future standards, have you had any standards you would want from me for nonprofile players? I've been trying to have a fairly even amount of "strengths" across positions that make sense, but not sure if thats something we need/want to continue.
Here is what eric said:
I hope you don't get mad eric for me quoting this, I don't think you will so that's why I did it.
I guess posting this was pretty enlightening, since you (timpig et al.) might have just echoed what I said in the PM thread.
Perhaps if GMs want this thread to be 'successful', then you're going to have to explain exactly why you think eric should change the profile/nonprofile balance, because he doesn't think its an issue currently.
|
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Feb 18, 2022 14:44:18 GMT -5
I will state on the record that I agree with Druce and other concerns on the profile players. It seems we routinely get at least a couple profile players that are DOA simply because a non-strength is listed.
I would much prefer there to be a basic floor to what a profile player can be and that there are rarely circumstances where a profile player has a weakness so bad it makes them unplayable.
Profile players are chosen because of name recognition, college success or pro success and I would prefer we keep those names around longer.
It just feels like half of the profile players, or more, every year are junked and out of the league quickly. I understand there will be busts or TC will do something wild but I would still prefer to have more usable profile players from the start.
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Feb 18, 2022 20:00:23 GMT -5
the top 10 current players in ws/48 has one non-profile, #8 harry hough whose strength was potential. if non profiles can't ever match whatever arbitrary % of profile players, we must do away with the tc system entirely. this is not interesting to me
the purpose of profile players having lower values in certain areas is to make up for having higher values in certain other areas. since glenn robinson was brought up, he has the best scoring grades in the class, of course he's going to have lower grades elsewhere because he's glenn robinson and not an all time all around great. if we only care about profile grades when they're low, this is not interesting to me either
since pau gasol was also brought up, he was an above average player in preseason this year (i.e. before upgrades) and came into the league with A potential. if that's "DOA", this is not interesting to me either
|
|
|
|
Post by TinyTimPig on Feb 18, 2022 20:23:09 GMT -5
Glenn went 1.3 after someone traded a recent 1.2 to get him, so I don’t think his build was out of line.
|
|
|
|
Post by TinyTimPig on Feb 18, 2022 20:27:30 GMT -5
The ones I think are more disappointing are the Eddie Griffins who drop to the mid 2nd or Anthony Bennett who goes undrafted. One guy every year or two doesn’t really bother me enough to make wholesale changes though.
|
|
|
|
Post by 20s on Feb 18, 2022 20:36:34 GMT -5
the top 10 current players in ws/48 has one non-profile, #8 harry hough whose strength was potential. if non profiles can't ever match whatever arbitrary % of profile players, we must do away with the tc system entirely. this is not interesting to me the purpose of profile players having lower values in certain areas is to make up for having higher values in certain other areas. since glenn robinson was brought up, he has the best scoring grades in the class, of course he's going to have lower grades elsewhere because he's glenn robinson and not an all time all around great. if we only care about profile grades when they're low, this is not interesting to me either since pau gasol was also brought up, he was an above average player in preseason this year (i.e. before upgrades) and came into the league with A potential. if that's "DOA", this is not interesting to me either Thank you for responding with your thoughts and justifications. |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Feb 21, 2022 13:49:27 GMT -5
I appreciate the response and explanation eric, I think that helps. However, I do have an issue with the below quote. the purpose of profile players having lower values in certain areas is to make up for having higher values in certain other areas. For me personally, I dont like the idea that a profile player will be made better in some categories at the expense of other attributes. To me that defeats the purpose of having profile players When its done too much, or to an important attribute, it creates players that have a massive wart or are unplayable all together. This is also important when factoring in the growth potential of the individual attributes. Lets take the examples you brought up, Robinson and Pau. Robinson was given high ratings in the scoring categories, inside especially, which are high/higher growing attributes naturally. To counter-act this he was given some of the worst rebounding ratings I have seen from a SF. The rebounding is never likely to get up to an even average level, based on his profile that makes no sense. Paus is similar except for the fact that his weakness was in strength, another low growing attribute. I would prefer to see more situations where an attribute baseline is setup for the profile players that puts their ratings at a serviceable spot to start, especially in low growth ones. There will always be players that have known warts (PG with high TO's, SF with bad FT%, big with bad FT% etc. etc.) but when its not explicitly stated it can be expected that they are at, or near, league average. That could also help with the defensive grades which Druce also pointed out. It just seems to me that profile players are made "better" but at the expense of other areas which I dont personally like. Others may feel differently. |
|
