Asunto: General Talk

Regarding the tec:agr ratio, my C (who will ultimately be my PF), Mendez, played 25.4 minutes per game and averaged 4.1 personal fouls per game. Mendez has about a .5 tec:agr ratio at the moment. My PF (the 15 year old phenom who will become my C), Kabelsky, averaged 4 personal fouls per game and 30.1 minutes per game. Kabelsky has had about a 2/3 tec:agr ratio. It seems that Kabelsky is at least fouling out later than Mendez on average since he plays almost 5 more minutes per game, though it's not a gigantic difference.

My team always played on cautious this season. Substitutes are guaranteed at least 4 minutes per game, more if my team gets blown out (which has happened often this season).

Among my primary starters, Kabelsky plays only up to .5 minutes per game less than my other starters except for my SG who play 31.4 minutes per game.

The guide says that a center without agr is useless. And that it forces turnovers. But when my guys play it just says turn over by so and so. And only some of them are actually steals or blocks. So how do they turn the ball over.

a bad pass out of bounds would also be a turnover

Its hard to know who is responsible for what in the games - even a steal may not just be down to the one player mentioned in the report.

Interesting you guys think 2/3 ratio . Ive been playing with around 60% so not far off

I have been running higher. But it means the primaries are not as high as they could be. so i started experimenting with lower ratios. 2/3 seems to better than lower numbers, but i am also playing with 3/4 trying to see which is "better".

Nice win for team USA! USA 85 Ukraine 83 Especially since we were playing on very low and Ukraine was playing on very high. Go USA!!!

Watching your players grow is harder than watching grass grow, I think ...

Does any one know how big height is in this game and how fast they grow. The guide says height is important but I cant really see much besides centers. Thinking about some long term investments in some 15 year olds but there only at 5-3 and if they are going to grow to like 5-7 wont they get swatted like they are kids playing men?

a formula was generated in the Draft Sports Academy thread. I am trying it out with my most recent academy graduates that were worth keeping.

Final height=(h0+1)+(210/a)
h0= intitial height
+1 is for the first growth point
a=number of days between first growth and second growth
guide says that growth occurs over approximately 210 days.

We believe that growth is linear. But, we don't know how accurate the formula is, yet. Some others may be trying it out, too. We'll update the other thread as we find out.

I have said a 2/3 tec-agr might be reasonable, but i have typically trained my tec with my agr. May not be the proper training method, and i have lost OR due to doing so. The primary reason for experimenting in this manner had less to do with fouls, but rather the impact on scoring from the inside.

To this point the only significant advantage i have seen is a lot less fouls. I am of the opinion that jumping MIGHT have more of an impact on scoring from the inside than tec. And this could be 100% wrong. IF PPM didnt limit the number of players allowed i'd be willing to experiment more often. Still a long ways to go b4 we start to get a handle on this. Look at hockey for example...its been around for years and some topics are still debatable. Although there is proven data to support much of what we utilize to get any advantage.

the 210 days could explain growth at age 18. guess they grow up to the point they were pulled.

dont recall reading the 210 day of growth there before

They are young... No lost OR in about 2 seasons if you adjust.

I came to this conclusion too. The only thing that would make this wrong is if players randomly stop during their 18th birthday season. But even then this would give you the right height to within a couple of centimetres.
If it is random then the formula can be easily adjusted to take you to middle of 18 th birthday with a +- 35 day growth range.

PPM involves MATH!! Thanks though.