Asunto: General Talk

++

"They do and it says that technique has small influece for centers."

I'll give you that, IF players are solely basing their training on that alone, then it is wrong on the part of PPM when they claim it has a small influence. BUT, if players are only going off of the influence chart rather than reading everything that applies, then the fault is majorly on the players.

Typhoon Coconuts center is up for grabs, good OR, bid is over 40 mil right now. IMHO, that about 20 mil too much solely based on his lopsided training. It will take atleast one entire season just to train his Tec up to keep him in every game. Point is, if you wish to have an inside game with a center like that, then he's not worth it. If you wish to run a 4 out 1 in, he might do well enough to not foul out early every game.

i have Dwayne Reagan who i believe is better than him: he is a double-double player so i wont be bidding. but nice to know how much those players are going for.

I think it's like technique for defenders in ice hockey. Some do train it more and some less. I'd recommend to have two good centers. It's likely that one of them fouls out anyway. Personally I prefer getting my centers fouled out frequently rather than losing most of rebounds and missing more 2-pointers which would happen if technique was higher and other stats lower.

Hard to say what's the best way to cope with that with less than a year of experience.

why would more technique make players miss more? more likely would make. less aggression (assuming one trained more technique and less aggression) could cause shots to be blocked or others to steal from, but once the shot is in (short distance) more technique would mean better chances to score.

I think technique is like shooting.
it's small influence for C because it has a small influence on player rating at the C position. In other words a C with 100 in technique will rate about the same as a player with 50, while other attributes are the same.

At the same time, think about how shooting plays a role. Shooting is not important at all for any position. Yet it is an important attribute for all positions, especially SG and SF.
In this respect technique is the same as shooting. It plays a significant role, even though it doesn't have much effect on the C position rating.

I think the bottom line is it's up to us how to go about technique. If you have a backup center that is almost as good as your starter, then you may want to forgo the technique training. On the other hand if you need your center to be there for 35+ minutes, training technique is a good idea.

That's right. Technique improves dunks but if you train technique, you can't train jumping and aggressiveness as much as others. Those stats give you better chances for shooting and thus easier points.

ok so one train aggression and jumping and pretty much igonre technique (since its less important)
player will commit 5 fouls and the 2nd one likely have another 4 fouls. out of those 9 fouls 7 will be free throws. out of those 14 possible points, the opponent have 10 points.

now ... with a great 50% shooting percentage a player would have to try 10 times to get 10 points. that means, 10 free throws equals to 10 turnovers or shot blocked.

now .. lets take a cocunut player and see how many steals and blocks he has ... 1.3 steals and 0.4 blocks. total 1.7. that is: he prevented only 4 points and if the player missed half of the attempts, only 2 points.


in short, id rather avoid placing the opponent at the free throw line than trying to steal/block shots.

I wouldn't count only fouls vs. steals+blocks and even if you do so, bear in mind that also players with better tech draw fouls and make steals & blocks. There's also rebounds & turnovers and if opponent goes for throw in, he can't make a normal 2-point shot so it's not "free" 10 points for them.

The more you have aggressiveness, the more you'll have shots and the less your opponent's center will have. Jumping improves the chances to score short range shots. I wouldn't say forget technique because it's still more important than passing for centers but personally I'm trusting quite blindly on the guide listing because I haven't yet seen them being wrong during my 7-year-long PPM career.

if you blindly trust in the guide then .. the guide also says that they are not necessarily the same ratio
so even though aggression and jumping are the highest for center, it could mean that aggression is less needed than jumping

and the same for technique, may be more neeeded than other position small influence

so it could be
100 jumping, 70 aggression 50 technique 30 passing 20 speed
instead of plain
100 jumping 100 aggression 40 technique 40 passing 20 speed

just put some number to give an example of how numbers/ratio could be

"I think technique is like shooting.
it's small influence for C because it has a small influence on player rating at the C position. In other words a C with 100 in technique will rate about the same as a player with 50, while other attributes are the same."

BINGO! Well said.

I'll stick to what we DO KNOW, from all sports combined. A HIGH AGR demands a HIGH TEC.

Antsa makes interesting points but i cannot endorse his thinking, only because based on everything i have tried via training in B-Ball, any center with low Tec scores less, they may have a higher number of attempted shots due to a higher AGR, but the percentage of made shots is lower than a center with higher TEC. Sure a good AGR rating is required to stand in there and not be bullied, but a low TEC ensures nonstop fouls. And trust me, if you have seen any of my numerous rants about my fouling team this season, then you'd know that this topic applies directly to me, my team is proof of what a lousy TEC does.

As the guide states, the more people you put in the box, the more you increase your odds of fouling, thereby a high tec is needed to counter. Tec is also the dribbling ability.

BULLS4EVER makes a good point as well....a player that fouls a lot puts more people at the line. Compare the points scored vs the benefit of a player that takes a lot of shots but misses a lot. It's like putting a bull in a china shop. Something is gonna get wrecked and that someone is going to pay full price sooner rather than later. I've got one particular player that fouls more than he shoots. I've had him foul out numerous times in the 1st quarter....and again,if you have ever seen one of my rants about my center that believes hes a point guard and fouls more 3 point attempts than anybody else, you'd understand that i have been closely monitoring how and what makes centers thrive. I sold a really good center, he owned the center position and scored with ease, fouls were minimal due to a high TEC,high AGR, and high JUMP. I dont have that now and the difference is night and day.

just give an example of my today's match ... 23/30 FT. and wasn't more cause it couldn't.

23 of 78 points of the opponent came from FT. that is 30%!!!!

my team dint have a FT til 4th quarter!

only won cause my team was much stronger

when i was on D1 i was constantly losing cause of opponent's FT attempts.

my center often has 3 fouls before the 1st quarter is over! and gone before the 2nd is done.

I have often speculated--mostly to myself--that tech has a lot to do with how well players shoot. At least it appears that way to me based my own experiments in soccer and in hockey. I got the idea from another sim I play where tech is very important for shooting. So, I trained higher tech for defense in my first time around a PPM hockey. My scoring was better among defensmen, in particular. Penalties were lower, too.I have not worked the numbers or ratios to validate it, but I have reached the conclusion that you get better shooting with higher tech. And, from what little I have seen I believe this applies in basketball, too. And, I think Bulls point about fouls/penalties is true as well. Higher tech means fewer fouls/penalties.

There are just too many benefits to higher tech to avoid training it. I will be very happy to finally figure out the ratio needed for each position, though.