lukeyrid13 wrote:^ what about if magic is played as super sub and plays SF? You think it’s still better if he’s listed as SF?
the position doesn't impact how they sim, it impacts their maximum ratings which means during TC they won't be able to go past a certain number.
If I recall properly
PF/C - Quickness, Handling is capped at 75
SF - No caps
SG - Offensive/defensive rebounding is capped at 60 each (B- rating)
PG - Offensive/defensive rebounding is capped at 50 each (C+ rating)
Even if you played Magic at PG, just listing him as SF in the game will help if TC ever decides to give him a 60 in defensive rebounding persay.
If you move an SF with 70 offensive rebounding to SG and then move him back to SF, he will lose his rebounding and have 60.
lukeyrid13 wrote:^ what about if magic is played as super sub and plays SF? You think it’s still better if he’s listed as SF?
the position doesn't impact how they sim, it impacts their maximum ratings which means during TC they won't be able to go past a certain number.
If I recall properly
PF/C - Quickness, Handling is capped at 75
SF - No caps
SG - Offensive/defensive rebounding is capped at 60 each (B- rating)
PG - Offensive/defensive rebounding is capped at 50 each (C+ rating)
Even if you played Magic at PG, just listing him as SF in the game will help if TC ever decides to give him a 60 in defensive rebounding persay.
If you move an SF with 70 offensive rebounding to SG and then move him back to SF, he will lose his rebounding and have 60.
This is also why when I traded Drazen to the Nets I told them never to move Drazen to SG because Drazen at one point had B- rebounding and you'd risk losing some of his ratings by just moving him there.
bellsduck wrote:So I should move every PG/SG/SF to SF and play them at another position?
I've done it for a few players (Kellogg, Sura, etc). Its one of the reasons so many of my young SG and PFs are moved to SF (See Kellogg's exceedingly productive SF career). It really isn't the biggest deal as quickness and handling are rarely a PF or C's forte and the rebounding cap for guards doesn't apply for most players. I see the biggest difference is for rebounding PGs (Magic, Kidd, Westbrook). Like IMO Kidd should have been a SG (too late now damage done) with near maxed defensive rebounding and PG eligible. When Westbrook comes in he should be a SG or even a SF that is PG eligible as to not affect his rebounding ratings under the hood.
DASL1 Rings: '93, '94
K's HOF:
Mark "Wholly Mammoth" Eaton | Retired 2002, age 44: 24 min/8pts/8reb/1stl/2.5 blks/1 TO
Michael "Sweet Home" Ansley | Retired 2007, age 42: 33 min/16pts/8 reb/1.5stl/.5 blks/.5 TO Lifetime .550 shooting %
Gheorghe "Ghiţă (Ghitza, Little George)" Mureșan | Retired 2008, age 36: 35Min/16.2pt/12.2reb/2.1ast/1.6stl/2.9blk/1.3TO (.461/.715/.000)
Zyme wrote:The critical phase is during development years. Once hes full grown 4-5 yrs in it really doesn't matter so long as you don't move a SF down to SG or a PG elli SF/SG to PG.
So is it worth for me moving Tariq, who's coming off a great TC, to SF or is it too late?
Zyme wrote:The critical phase is during development years. Once hes full grown 4-5 yrs in it really doesn't matter so long as you don't move a SF down to SG or a PG elli SF/SG to PG.
So is it worth for me moving Tariq, who's coming off a great TC, to SF or is it too late?
Would it do any harm, no, also your most critical progressions tend to be the first three as their potential is at its highest. But with his D+ rebounding, the need really isnt there. C+ is max for PGs, like B- for SGs
DASL1 Rings: '93, '94
K's HOF:
Mark "Wholly Mammoth" Eaton | Retired 2002, age 44: 24 min/8pts/8reb/1stl/2.5 blks/1 TO
Michael "Sweet Home" Ansley | Retired 2007, age 42: 33 min/16pts/8 reb/1.5stl/.5 blks/.5 TO Lifetime .550 shooting %
Gheorghe "Ghiţă (Ghitza, Little George)" Mureșan | Retired 2008, age 36: 35Min/16.2pt/12.2reb/2.1ast/1.6stl/2.9blk/1.3TO (.461/.715/.000)
I think a point to be made about how the potential in FBB works. Every season the system makes a check on the potential and rolls a random progression of the stats based on that #. Then it drops by around 10 each year. Start at 95 year 1 (top grade potential), you are at around 55 pot after year 4. So Your better progression happens with the potential >60 so by the end of a rookie contract most players with top potential will be around 45-55 so much less likely to get improvement when the check for progression gets made.
A note here about teenagers and why they are so boom/bust. If a player is 18 (I think 19 as well) there is a random roll ± I think as much as like 30. In theory you can get can get the development from the first year has the normal drop by 10, then if you get lucky the potential shoots back up to 100, again at age 19 and you get two years of best case progression (and pretty good progressions in years after as you can still be at 90 potential which is very good for any player in their 3rd year). Etienne Pereira was a legend in an old sim league as he was an 18 YRO that went in the 2nd round that hit the jackpot on potential roll and had it shoot up to 100 in the 1st and I believe 2nd year and ended up as like a B+ A B+ A- C- PG, needless to say he broke the game. All this said for every Etiennes of the world there are players to get a -20 on that first random progression roll and never develop. Teenagers can be amazing, but you run the risk of them imploding hard and fast.
DASL1 Rings: '93, '94
K's HOF:
Mark "Wholly Mammoth" Eaton | Retired 2002, age 44: 24 min/8pts/8reb/1stl/2.5 blks/1 TO
Michael "Sweet Home" Ansley | Retired 2007, age 42: 33 min/16pts/8 reb/1.5stl/.5 blks/.5 TO Lifetime .550 shooting %
Gheorghe "Ghiţă (Ghitza, Little George)" Mureșan | Retired 2008, age 36: 35Min/16.2pt/12.2reb/2.1ast/1.6stl/2.9blk/1.3TO (.461/.715/.000)
