Confused

Re: Confused

Postby Gary Gorski » Tue Feb 11, 2020 1:36 pm

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.
User avatar
Gary Gorski
WS Development
 
Posts: 8914
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:56 pm

Re: Confused

Postby Gary Gorski » Tue Feb 11, 2020 1:44 pm

vols410 wrote:Dang Gary...

This kind of support and depth is exactly the kind of stuff that makes this game the best sports sim of any kind on the market. Thanks for all you do.


Thank you - I have never and will never come out here and post that everything I do is perfect and that the game is beyond reproach...in fact the reason the games have improved year over year is because of good feedback. People who have taken the time to learn how it works, analyze real data and then provide feedback based in fact that says over multiple experiences X continues to happen and it is not correct. I can use that data as well as the other numerous great suggestions that come along to make each version better and that's exactly what I do. I don't consider myself any great genius that can't possibly have made a mistake or that something can't be improved on - all I ask is that people talk about things that actually happen and not just straight bash the games as unrealistic or unplayable or other things that simply are not true or disparage the many people who do understand the game really well and offer explanations for things to help the community here.
User avatar
Gary Gorski
WS Development
 
Posts: 8914
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:56 pm

Re: Confused

Postby CoachC » Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:07 pm

Everything very well said, Gary, and spot on! It takes a lot of time and effort to learn the nuances of the game, and how to make them work in your favor. I'm still learning and have been around since the beginning. I continue to play because the game is phenomenally realistic in most aspects and continues to improve in others. I know for a fact that you do listen to feedback and constructive criticism, and never stop striving to make the game as solid as possible! Kudos!
User avatar
CoachC
DDS:CB Support Squad
 
Posts: 4192
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 6:07 pm

Re: Confused

Postby Wayne23 » Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:35 pm

Well said, Gary! For my money DDS:CB is the single best sports sim out there. It may not be perfect but it gets better every year, and I've been here since the beginning.
Wayne23
DDS:CB Support Squad
 
Posts: 14311
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:23 pm

Re: Confused

Postby C-Bailey24 » Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:19 pm

Gary Gorski wrote: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%


Just for fun? Let's ...

Class of 2018

Nasirr Little - 48%
R.J. Barrett - 45%
Romeo Langford - 44%
Quentin Grimes - 38%
Hagans - 46%,
Tre Jones - 41%
Keldon Johnson - 46%
Kevin Porter Jr. - 47%
Darius Garland - 53%
Devon Dotson - 48%

Class of 2017

Tre Duval - 42%
Colin Sexton - 44%
Kevin Knox - 44%
Troy Brown - 44%
Tre Young - 42%
Gary Trent Jr. - 41%
Kris Wilkes - 44%

See it's easy to cherry-pick the one class that fits your side of the debate lol To use YOUR logic and steadfast argument that '19 class is a "small sample size". Have you compiled data from the last, say, 10-15 recruiting classes? I NEVER said anything about studly shooters or expectations of 48-50% shooters everywhere. That's your defensiveness talking. More 42-45% types and less of the sub 40% types since these will be the guys taking a **** ton of shots has always been my argument. I even pm'ed you about this when '17 or '18 released so let's stop acting like i do nothing but exaggerate and bash the game. But a list like the one you posted is more the norm in this game than the two classes i posted. And let's have some more fun with Guards/Wings from the 2019 PPG Leaders shall we? Out of the Top 20 in the nation only one is a true Center (Garza) and 2 Forwards who i'm not familiar with but for the sake of discussion i'll eliminate them and say they're PF's. That leaves 17 out 20 are Guards, only 1 of the 17 shoots below 40%, 8 shoot above 45%, and 4 shoot above 50%. 12 of 17 above 45% ... never seen in this game. And this is one of the first things i do upon new release is sim a bunch of seasons while checking the nation's leading scorers filtering out C's and PF's, looking at different teams (not just mine), etc

Also, the Game Tapes issue. Never once did i say anything about 1 tape should tell all info. I said it takes way too many and i stand by that. Especially since everything else is subjected to scouting error it would help to have some sliver of reliable information. If i'm at a big prestige school fighting all these other schools for the blue chip recruits i need that information during the early period to help with decisions. If you wanna run the Shuffle how are you suppose to get those Guards that can play in the post if the information is so hard to get and mostly unreliable? Luck? The calling them about play style thing doesn't quite apply in this scenario UNLESS they stay 3+ years. Your argument about thousands of schools and thousands of kids holds no weight here since IN THE GAME you can only watch 10 at a time. My comment comes from experiencing having my 96 Scouting rated recruiting coach watch said Game Tape TEN times to only glean TWO comments about what zone or press defense he knows. IN GAME i've always thought Watch Game or Film was sending him to scout THAT player. But it's funny when it supports your argument THEN you want to interject the real life scenario of having to watch X number of players and teams but when real life examples don't support then it's " well it's not gonna emulate real life". C'mon lol And this notion of " compile and show me some data first and only then will i take a look at this"... I'm sorry last time i checked i'm the consumer not a beta tester. Isn't stuff like this what they're there for? But all that matters is that the MEDIAN numbers come out right it doesn't matter how we get there. What about immersion? The guy clearly stated he was about to stop playing the game mainly because of this. The're probably more that just don't post. But again median numbers rule the day. So you guys win. I'm done with this discussion since the prevailing stance is "theres nothing to see here".
C-Bailey24
Member
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:07 am

Re: Confused

Postby JHopkins19 » Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:00 pm

This is a good conversation that hopefully will only lead to a great game getting even better. I’ve bought every version of this game going back to the grey world days.

Gary, you mentioned in your reply above about not scouting someone correctly off of one game tape or live scouting opportunity. While I agree there should be a “fog of war” there also should be a middle ground with gaining more insight with multiple scouting opportunities. There isn’t a college nowadays who offers a kid off of one game tape. It’s multiple scouting opportunities. The reason why I say is there should be a middle ground is we should all want a GAME with a downside opportunity similar to what happened to UNC this season. And for what it’s worth, I am a Carolina fan.

Regardless, looking forward to the next version!
JHopkins19
Member
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:12 am

Previous

Return to DDS: College Basketball 2019 General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron