Attribute distribution and other Qs

[Ljuba82]

Hi, first I want to congratulate the team for making this game. I'm hooked to it since summer and I can easily say that this is the best basketball manager game I have played (and I helped with database for one European commercial title when I was younger)! If you have time, please give some answers/comments on following...

1. The thing i like so much is that the game is definitely the hardest to manipulate to gain advantage. The only thing I can think as cheating is when I'm able to offload very bad players (quality vs salary) at the end of the season when other teams gain some cap space. For example like getting cheaply good veterans with high salaries and long term contracts for a year, but at the end of the season when their attributes drop, I just offload them to other teams for free. Yes, in real life they all want 80 overall player for 3m, but nobody wants 36 years old 56 overall for 20m. I think that this can be easily solved by banning to give players for free when they are so bad that even a 2nd pick for him is to much. If other team can actually use that played, then it's ok.

2. As a statistician myself and ex amateur player who still has some income from basketball, I like macro picture. I can't tell that I coach games, I simulate them, but like to micromanage depth and some other things. The only thing I disable is player interaction, because I want to focus on stats and simulation, not to babysit players. I learned that I can do better depth schedule than AI who is rigidly stick to position and has a tendency to force worse players. For example if I have 3 players with similar overall attributes for 2 positions, I would micromanage depth, so I can divide those 96 minutes relatively equally. So, let's say 30 minutes for all + some garbage time minutes for players at the end of the bench. AI would give 38 mins (even more in PO) for 2 players, then 10 mins to equally good 3rd player and then will go down to the best player for that position to give him 10-12 min, even if he is 40 overall player (but the only one on that position on bench). Btw, is there some position penalty and if there is, can you explain how? I don't look for positions, just for attributes and tend not to move player to far away from position (for example a SF with good shooting and rebounding I play on both SG and PF positions when I need him there). Is there some penalty for playing PG on C position for example (of course attributes are not suited well, but I mean just because one is labeled as PG, other as C)? I mean is position just cosmetic label? Also, what about height? Does it mean something or it's just cosmetic also?

3. One of the things i like to manage is shaping players from strategy page. I look at floor range, attributes and then try to match it with ball actions. I thought that attributes have uniform distribution, obviously with 80, 90+ ratings being very good. Then i noticed that my superstar center (Wemby) starts to get like 6 asst on average (even 15 one time like elite point guards) with what I thought very average passing ability (64). Then I went to player search screen and noticed that while there are more than 100 players who have inside scoring rating of 90+, there are only 3 with passing of 90+. Actually my center is top 40 passer in the league. The reason why I'm asking is because I noticed that my team has fewest 3pt attempts in average. That's because I was reshaping my players to take less drive and pass actions and outside shoots and to concentrate on strength (I thought that 70 of passing or 3pt is average or little above average, just like inside scoring). I have good results anyway, fewest 3pt attempts, while almost all good players are in green on most areas on shot chat.

4. Is there some guide about attributes and how they work? Like deep explanation of every attribute. Especially I'm having doubts about scoring attribute in conjunction with 3 shooting abilities (inside, midrange, outside). Is it ok to assume that higher scoring players will take more shots, so if one player has like 95 in scoring ability, while other has like 60 with other attributes the same, they will have same percentages on average, just that 1st player will have many more shots? That's how I understand it right now. Scoring like distribution of shots inside one team? If I'm right, that means that in theory 2 same teams with same players with only exception that all players from team 1 have scoring ability of 100 and 2nd team all with 30 in scoring ability, will be equal on average? I'm also interested in explanation of passing and endurance ability.

Once again, thanks for this great game.

[Ljuba82]

Anybody? @Gary?

[jlemmen43]

Interesting read. On #4, I would say that your theory would make sense in a vacuum, but think about Scoring ability as more than just how often they shoot. Think about it as how often they are able to take advantage of the situation and get their shot off. A player with 30 scoring but great outside rating will shoot a good percentage at open 3s, but if he doesn't get open because nobody on the team commands doubles or extra defensive attention, then he might not shoot much or he'll be forced to take contested 3s as the shot clock winds down, or be passing out of a tight cover more often (leading to more turnover potential). So there's a lot of factors involved. Style of play matters too. I always look at someone with low scoring but high shooting as a guy you need to play with others with good Scoring and Handling and Athleticism, as those players create their own shot and shots for others. Someone like Steve Kerr excelled cuz Jordan and Pippen were hard to slow down. But put Kerr on a team without stars and he's not very effective. Hope that helps.

[Ljuba82]

Thanks for reply.

Yes, that's exactly how I perceive "scoring", or like I said, scoring like distribution of shots inside one team! As a basketball freak, I'm perfectly fine with that and Steve Kerr story and I'm aware that somehow you have to translate real stats in game and that somebody is taking more shots, while other have less, but can have better %. But as analyst, I just wonder if it's the same if you have 2 teams with same attributes, just with big difference in scoring attribute. If all have like 100 for scoring, they will compete for shots the same way other team will "compete" not to having shots, but at the end, if what I'm assuming is true, since their other attributes are same, they will take identical number of shots in average in long time. Obviously if they have different rebounding skill only, by big margin (like scoring) we would see that on results for sure, cause one team will have many more possessions, shots etc. So I'm only wondering if I'm right cause I don't even look for scoring stat. Just for 3 other attributes (inside, mid-range, outside), If they have big enough overall skill, they will have enough "scoring" for me.

Can somebody from developers confirm this? Also about questions from #1, #2 and #3. Gary? Pleaaaaseeeee

[Gary Gorski]

Hi, first I want to congratulate the team for making this game. I'm hooked to it since summer and I can easily say that this is the best basketball manager game I have played (and I helped with database for one European commercial title when I was younger)! If you have time, please give some answers/comments on following...

1. The thing i like so much is that the game is definitely the hardest to manipulate to gain advantage. The only thing I can think as cheating is when I'm able to offload very bad players (quality vs salary) at the end of the season when other teams gain some cap space. For example like getting cheaply good veterans with high salaries and long term contracts for a year, but at the end of the season when their attributes drop, I just offload them to other teams for free. Yes, in real life they all want 80 overall player for 3m, but nobody wants 36 years old 56 overall for 20m. I think that this can be easily solved by banning to give players for free when they are so bad that even a 2nd pick for him is to much. If other team can actually use that played, then it's ok.

I'm not following along here - how is a team gaining cap space at the end of a season? There's no way they can just drop cap space. Unless by end of season you mean like end of the game year and you're talking about trading players to teams prior to free agency?

2. As a statistician myself and ex amateur player who still has some income from basketball, I like macro picture. I can't tell that I coach games, I simulate them, but like to micromanage depth and some other things. The only thing I disable is player interaction, because I want to focus on stats and simulation, not to babysit players. I learned that I can do better depth schedule than AI who is rigidly stick to position and has a tendency to force worse players. For example if I have 3 players with similar overall attributes for 2 positions, I would micromanage depth, so I can divide those 96 minutes relatively equally. So, let's say 30 minutes for all + some garbage time minutes for players at the end of the bench. AI would give 38 mins (even more in PO) for 2 players, then 10 mins to equally good 3rd player and then will go down to the best player for that position to give him 10-12 min, even if he is 40 overall player (but the only one on that position on bench). Btw, is there some position penalty and if there is, can you explain how? I don't look for positions, just for attributes and tend not to move player to far away from position (for example a SF with good shooting and rebounding I play on both SG and PF positions when I need him there). Is there some penalty for playing PG on C position for example (of course attributes are not suited well, but I mean just because one is labeled as PG, other as C)? I mean is position just cosmetic label? Also, what about height? Does it mean something or it's just cosmetic also?

Yes there are penalties for players being grossly out of position and severely under/over matched in terms of height and weight. Playing a SF as a SG is not an issue - playing your 6'1 PG as a C will give that opposing C a boost knowing a guy a foot shorter than him isn't going to be blocking a shot or putting up much defense in the post. As for the AI setting the depth charts it tends to favor real life trends - for the most part team's give their starters "starters minutes" and play more of a 9-10 man rotation and the starters are going to get 30+ minutes and the bench is going to be 18-24 or so. Also the AI does over prioritize the starters sometimes in setting the depth chart because usually it works out they play a little less than what they are set to just because you never know when the stoppages are going to be. If you're dividing two positions worth of minutes between 3 guys that means you're running an 8 man rotation and short of Thibs in NYK I don't know that any coach would do that in the NBA and everyone says he runs his players into the ground.

3. One of the things i like to manage is shaping players from strategy page. I look at floor range, attributes and then try to match it with ball actions. I thought that attributes have uniform distribution, obviously with 80, 90+ ratings being very good. Then i noticed that my superstar center (Wemby) starts to get like 6 asst on average (even 15 one time like elite point guards) with what I thought very average passing ability (64). Then I went to player search screen and noticed that while there are more than 100 players who have inside scoring rating of 90+, there are only 3 with passing of 90+. Actually my center is top 40 passer in the league. The reason why I'm asking is because I noticed that my team has fewest 3pt attempts in average. That's because I was reshaping my players to take less drive and pass actions and outside shoots and to concentrate on strength (I thought that 70 of passing or 3pt is average or little above average, just like inside scoring). I have good results anyway, fewest 3pt attempts, while almost all good players are in green on most areas on shot chat.

Floor range is going to give you an idea of where the player likes to operate from and his ball actions will tell you the story of what he does when he has the ball. Wemby is going to touch the ball a ton - its certainly possible for him to have a big assist game if his teammates are making shots. Look how often Jokic does it or even a guy like Sengun. The ratings are not going to have a uniform distribution as that doesn't really reflect reality. The inside scoring is going to rate how they are at scoring inside, not how they compare to the rest of the players at doing it. Most players should be capable of scoring well inside as its at or very close to the basket. A player with a 90+ passing rating is an elite passer but part of being able to generate assists in the game is obviously having the ball to make a pass so on average those players will get high assist totals but if you were to put them with a player like Jokic they might not get as many assists because the ball is going to be in Jokic's hands more than theirs probably. That's what makes the game realistic is that its all these factors coming together to determine an outcome and not strictly one rating = X output.

4. Is there some guide about attributes and how they work? Like deep explanation of every attribute. Especially I'm having doubts about scoring attribute in conjunction with 3 shooting abilities (inside, midrange, outside). Is it ok to assume that higher scoring players will take more shots, so if one player has like 95 in scoring ability, while other has like 60 with other attributes the same, they will have same percentages on average, just that 1st player will have many more shots? That's how I understand it right now. Scoring like distribution of shots inside one team? If I'm right, that means that in theory 2 same teams with same players with only exception that all players from team 1 have scoring ability of 100 and 2nd team all with 30 in scoring ability, will be equal on average? I'm also interested in explanation of passing and endurance ability.

The scoring rating you should think of as ability to put the ball in the basket - period. The shooting abilities are measures of their efficiency in doing so. They might have zero correlation with each other resulting in a frustrating player. You might have a 100 scoring rating and he could be an all time shot chucker - scores a lot of points but needs a ton of often ill advised shots to do it. You might have a guy who is a great shooter but has a low scoring rating - that means if he's given the opportunity to shoot he will probably make it but a low scoring rating means he does not have the ability to really get many shots off or create shots for himself off the dribble etc. If you have a lineup full of 90s and 100s scorers you're basically going to have the "there's only one ball" problem. If you have a lineup of all terrible scorers somebody eventually has to shoot but the overall number of shots could be lower and the percentages as well could be lower than expected because nobody has that pieces they need (ie someone who can command the attention of the defense to get them open). If you have like a 70 scorer on a team of 50s he's going to take more shots than expected. If he's on a team of 90s he's going to take less. In both cases the number of times he gets the ball is going to be heavily influenced by the extreme disparity on either end of the spectrum there. Again this is an example of how all the pieces in the game interact and make a difference - one player might be a poor fit with one group of guys but could be much better in a different situation.

[Ljuba82]

Wow, tnx for reply.

1. Yep, after last day of the season, after they renounce contracts. During the season I can easily manipulate via trades to get some very old player on high contract for several years, but who is important rotation player or even starter. Than at the end his attributes drops even more and I just offload him to team that has cap space after end of season. That would be ok if other team need that player, but who wants 30M salary player with like 65 overall ability?

2. Niiice, that's great to hear about height. I'll give you example of my depth chart in regular season from current team in 5th season. I have Wemby (98 overall ability) and draft player (96), and they are playing the most, 38 mins both. Then I have other draft player and Ja Morant (both 93) who are playing 36 minutes. Then I have 3 players (79, 80, 82) , 24 mins for all (one is starter with only 24 mins). At the end of rotation I have Kyrie Irving (70) and another draft player, reserve center for Wemby (68 with great potential) and they both get 10 mins. Others are not so good, but useful (58 and below), but I used them for garbage time, so they additionally relieved main players. So, it's not like I overuse main players, I use them even less than AI is using players in regular season. Maybe those in the middle play more than average, but star players are preserved. Since I was dominant this season, somewhere after all-star game, I even cut 2 mins from all starters, just for fun and to preserve them even more. On stats screen, mostly used players have 35.6, 35, 34.6, 31 minutes. So yes, basically this season I'm playing with 9 players, but in other seasons it was different. I had one season with like 5 players with around 65 overall ratings from 8-12 spot and they all get their minutes, like 6 for all + garbage time.

Is there some penalty for bigger playing time btw? Like bigger chance for injury or something?

3. Perfectly fine, but what determines who is going to have ball more? Position (obviously guards) or some high stats?

4. Again perfect, exactly as I thought. Even greater that it would affect tempo.


Yep, like I said, great, great game with visuals, but also depth! In my last game I won 3 championships in 4 seasons (Wemby cheat), but in my previous save I was 7 years without a tittle, despite having like 12 players with 80-92 overall ratings. It was fun save, cause all players I had were on rookie contracts (traded Wemby on 2nd contract for cheaper talent and picks, what a mistake ).