C-Bailey24 wrote: In reality, Top recruits are Top recruits for a reason ... they can put the ball in the damn hoop (as well as other things). I'm not saying every Top 100 player should shoot like Steph Curry but this game takes it waaaaayyyyy to far to the other end of the spectrum.
Just for fun let's see the guards/wings from the 2019 recruiting class according to Rivals and lets see their studly college stats (https://n.rivals.com/prospect_rankings/rivals150/2019)
#3 Anthony Edwards - Georgia - currently shooting 41.1% from the floor with 31.8% from 3
#4 Cole Anthony - UNC - a robust 35.6% from the floor with 33.3% from 3
#6 RJ Hampton - went to play pro in Australia - 40% FG%
#8 Scottie Lewis - Florida - 40.7% FG, 30.2% 3P
#10 Tyrese Maxey - Kentucky - 42.8% from the floor, 29.3% from 3
#12 Nico Mannion - Arizona - 40.2% FG, 33.9% from 3
#13 Josh Green - Arizona - 41.2%/30.8%
#14 Kahlil Whitney - Kentucky - 37.1 FG% / 25.0% 3P%
#15 Bryan Antoine - Villanova - 30.4 % FG% / 13.3% 3P%
Where is this beacon of lights out shooting? So far the best combined percentage from last year's recruit class is less than 43% from the field and less than 34% from 3. Steph Curry averaged 46.7% from the floor and 41.2% from 3 in college (when he wasn't a surefire NBA prospect) and now 47.6 FG% and 43.5% 3P% as a pro. Seems like the game is much closer to real life stats than you are giving it credit for.
Let's take last year's Duke team as a quick example. Most of the time they didn't run an offensive set per se because they didn't need to...why? Because Barrett, Zion and Cam were SCORERS and Freshmen who were destined to be one and done so you let the talent play out rather than try to structure it too much.
Nobody mentions post players as the ones allegedly being star players shooting 24% so Zion doesn't apply but while Barrett shot a respectable 45% from the field he shot 31% for 3 and Reddish shot only 39% from the floor with 33% from 3. In fact Cam..a SCORER...only averaged 13.5 PPG so how much of a SCORER was he really?
.They ALL will rate 70% of the Guards and Wings in the game as an A or B shooter while recruiting then when they get on your roster it's like " oops my bad he can't hit the side of a barn". Happens consistently. Also, you'll hear this a lot on this board " you gotta recruit players that fit the offense". Well guess what? That's easier said then done when it takes waaaay too many game films and scouting live games to even get information on their actual style of play. Sometimes you won't get any information at all. How does this even remotely make sense? A coach is gonna sit down watch a game tape and/or go to a live game and the only thing he walks away from it with is that the kid " is familiar with the Princeton offense" or " familiar with the 2-3 zone"? It doesn't take long to recognize who likes to shoot threes, likes to drive, can score around the rim, etc. It just doesn't. And the cherry on this cake is ....even THIS part of the scouting is included in the "fog of war"
This is done because its a game - there has to be some elements of a game to it. What am I going to do - have you watch game tape once and you come away with knowing everything about a player? What's the point of even doing it then? Why don't I just give you all the info right out of the gate? It's your choice whether or not you like how the game accomplishes this but there is a reason for it and it's to balance out other aspects of the game. For example there are probably 18,000 high school varsity basketball teams and each of them have 12-15 kids. So as a college scout you have over 200,000 kids to choose from. The game gives you 1800 in a recruiting class. So yes while a coach would learn more from watching game tape than one thing a coach also spends many hours 100% wasted watching games and tapes of kids who are not college basketball players. So to account for all the time you would spend learning stuff about kids who will never appear on the radar you learn smaller amounts about the kids who do belong in college basketball. I've thought about tweaking this where you get more info on better players and less on worse but then it would be really hard playing on the small schools because you would hardly get any useful info ever.
My "rarely looks to put up a jumper" SG turned out to have 58% mid-range in his pie chart. Makes no sense for play style to be subjected to scouting error to that extent otherwise you're almost recruiting and putting teams together blind if you can't trust rankings
I will look at making this info more reliable - while there should be some scouting error (maybe the kid didn't shoot many jumpers the one time he was watched) if you get multiple feedbacks on that area the majority of them should lead to the truth while there are still times where there are outliers where you just happened to see the one game he didn't shoot much.
I say all this to say please stop chalking everything up to "user error" so to speak
I will only speak for myself in that I do not chalk everything or anything up to user error. I also do not make decisions on changing things based on exaggeration, sarcasm and hyperbole. Comments like "three times worse version of Allen Iverson and this game is littered with them" mean absolutely nothing to me because its just nonsense. Allen Iverson averaged 23PPG in college on 44% shooting. What is 3 times worse than that? Show me multiple game files where these players exist. If the game is "littered with them" it shouldn't be hard to provide that and then if the numbers are outside of the realm of being possible then I will change them. But players like this do exist you know. Antoine Davis from Detroit is averaging 23.0 PPG on 35% FG%. 5 others in the top 50 for scoring hover around 40% or so. I haven't seen this alleged 24% 5 star player yet alone the game being littered with them but here are real life examples of kids who score at an alarmingly inefficient rate. Those are real stats and facts to make decisions based on. I'm always willing to adjust when I can see the game is producing anything that is not in a realistic realm but I need to see it actually do that in a statistically significant amount rather than just relying on what someone "feels" is the case.