Mid-Season MVP Rankings

I mean I'm sure Myles uses the real life counterparts as a baseline but then tweaks each and every player here and there to give them their own CSL feel. So yes you are right in the sense that by using the names we are getting players similar to real life but they aren't based solely on it.

WillyJakkz (HOU) wrote:
Love the politically correct reply but that would be pretty nonsensical, why use the "names" as a reference point if they are not who they are subject to be? Might as well use fictional names and bring back the super euros from r2g if that's the case.

It's clearly evident with Anthony Bennett, subpar rookie yr in real life mirrored by his performance etc here, 2015 rooks designed by projections of what they were thought to be, no two ways about it.

If there was no variation it would defeat the purpose of scouting. Think about it Willy, if the projections matched the reality you can throw away busts, steals and what happens 2-3 years down the line when we have to start making fictional names, as you said. We will get past the point where there are NCCA prospects that haven't all been used yet (see -> NLL).

The reference points also act as a "body type" guide, it would be tedious (more-so) to have to start physically creating heights, weights, names and all that stuff too, which will start happening in a few years as well.

Yeah, I've said all along that the 2013 draft class surprised even me. Perhaps the high IQ was the issue and I've worked on that in the last two classes, but I was not expecting Smart to develop this fast at all, or for Antetokounmpo to be as good as he's been either. It's still a learning process for me, even though we are coming up on my 6th draft class, I was relatively new to PB3 when I started so I'm trying to make each class more and more realistic.

blackice (ATL) wrote:

WillyJakkz (HOU) wrote:
Love the politically correct reply but that would be pretty nonsensical, why use the "names" as a reference point if they are not who they are subject to be? Might as well use fictional names and bring back the super euros from r2g if that's the case.

It's clearly evident with Anthony Bennett, subpar rookie yr in real life mirrored by his performance etc here, 2015 rooks designed by projections of what they were thought to be, no two ways about it.

If there was no variation it would defeat the purpose of scouting. Think about it Willy, if the projections matched the reality you can throw away busts, steals and what happens 2-3 years down the line when we have to start making fictional names, as you said. We will get past the point where there are NCCA prospects that haven't all been used yet (see -> NLL).

The reference points also act as a "body type" guide, it would be tedious (more-so) to have to start physically creating heights, weights, names and all that stuff too, which will start happening in a few years as well.

Well I was personally looking at it like the rooks are made based on projections and as they progress/ regress irl if the college and or nba season then the adjustments will be made to the rooks hence the scouting and team circumstance, ie the players around him, player instructions, TC, etc are the main factors in determining how said player progresses thru their CSL career.

So basically a what if player X goes to team A with these players, how would he and the team perform?

WillyJakkz (HOU) wrote:

blackice (ATL) wrote:

WillyJakkz (HOU) wrote:
Love the politically correct reply but that would be pretty nonsensical, why use the "names" as a reference point if they are not who they are subject to be? Might as well use fictional names and bring back the super euros from r2g if that's the case.

It's clearly evident with Anthony Bennett, subpar rookie yr in real life mirrored by his performance etc here, 2015 rooks designed by projections of what they were thought to be, no two ways about it.

If there was no variation it would defeat the purpose of scouting. Think about it Willy, if the projections matched the reality you can throw away busts, steals and what happens 2-3 years down the line when we have to start making fictional names, as you said. We will get past the point where there are NCCA prospects that haven't all been used yet (see -> NLL).

The reference points also act as a "body type" guide, it would be tedious (more-so) to have to start physically creating heights, weights, names and all that stuff too, which will start happening in a few years as well.

Well I was personally looking at it like the rooks are made based on projections and as they progress/ regress irl if the college and or nba season then the adjustments will be made to the rooks hence the scouting and team circumstance, ie the players around him, player instructions,  TC,  etc are the main factors in determining how said player progresses thru their CSL career.

So basically a what if player X goes to team A with these players, how would he and the team perform?

Hmm, that's a very reasonable assumption but what happens when we have players that are known quantities vs. unknown? For instance in this class (RL) Embiid is a franchise center so if you juxtapose that with Zeke Marshall there isn't nearly the same info on him. Steven Adams is in the NBA right now, he's a more well known quantity to Embiid in many ways. 

The biggest issue I'd think would be holding Myles accountable, if I draft player x based on the assumption he will mirror his RL counterpart and he busts do I have the right to go to Myles and say "you screwed me?" What happens if I draft a player who blows up in RL unexpectedly but doesn't have that potential in-game.

That's my view point on it but I see where you're coming from.

blackice (ATL) wrote:

WillyJakkz (HOU) wrote:

blackice (ATL) wrote:

WillyJakkz (HOU) wrote:
Love the politically correct reply but that would be pretty nonsensical, why use the "names" as a reference point if they are not who they are subject to be? Might as well use fictional names and bring back the super euros from r2g if that's the case.

It's clearly evident with Anthony Bennett, subpar rookie yr in real life mirrored by his performance etc here, 2015 rooks designed by projections of what they were thought to be, no two ways about it.

If there was no variation it would defeat the purpose of scouting. Think about it Willy, if the projections matched the reality you can throw away busts, steals and what happens 2-3 years down the line when we have to start making fictional names, as you said. We will get past the point where there are NCCA prospects that haven't all been used yet (see -> NLL).

The reference points also act as a "body type" guide, it would be tedious (more-so) to have to start physically creating heights, weights, names and all that stuff too, which will start happening in a few years as well.

Well I was personally looking at it like the rooks are made based on projections and as they progress/ regress irl if the college and or nba season then the adjustments will be made to the rooks hence the scouting and team circumstance, ie the players around him, player instructions,  TC,  etc are the main factors in determining how said player progresses thru their CSL career.

So basically a what if player X goes to team A with these players, how would he and the team perform?

Hmm, that's a very reasonable assumption but what happens when we have players that are known quantities vs. unknown? For instance in this class (RL) Embiid is a franchise center so if you juxtapose that with Zeke Marshall there isn't nearly the same info on him. Steven Adams is in the NBA right now, he's a more well known quantity to Embiid in many ways. 

The biggest issue I'd think would be holding Myles accountable, if I draft player x based on the assumption he will mirror his RL counterpart and he busts do I have the right to go to Myles and say "you screwed me?" What happens if I draft a player who blows up in RL unexpectedly but doesn't have that potential in-game.

That's my view point on it but I see where you're coming from.

Personally I'd blame myself if I weren't able to get the player to perform up to standards I have set for them or for not building the proper team or certain players around them for the player to succeed that's just me.

As far as Embiid goes, if he isn't a franchise saving C prospect then there is something really wrong and as far as Adams goes you see irl he is a defensive presence and could likely form an offensive post game if given the chance in OKC but that probably won't happen therefore It stunts his offensive developmemt whereas here if he is actually given a chance to grow and develop offensively he may have a chance to become better here on that end than irl while still having his defensive tools though they wouod need to be developed as well.

That's just my eyes and how I observe things.

Yeah, just to clarify, I make the rookie class usually during the playoffs and off-season, and once I've created them they are locked in. As soon as scouting starts, nothing changes. If after the creation of my rookie class, someone booms or busts, it doesn't change anything here.

OTOH, the first development cycle for this year's rookies has been absolutely nothing, so having all these raw rookies isn't going to suddenly create a bunch of stud player in Y1 or Y2.

Where are yall getting the idea that the rookies or any other player in the CSL has anything to do with who they are in real life ?

There is 0% correlation in that, they have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Higrade (GSW) wrote:Where are yall getting the idea that the rookies or any other player in the CSL has anything to do with who they are in real life ?

There is 0% correlation in that, they have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

I mean, that's just not true.

How so ?

Yall don't edit ratings to effect NBA play or anything of the sort....

They do based on projections. They're making the players with more hype surrounding them the best players in the draft. They got wrong with Smart, and some other guys too, but heck, even NBA scouts, that are paid to do so, they come up wrong with a guy on REGULAR basis, it's not a one or two times thing, look at how many steals are there every draft, how many busts, all those things..

For some reason I thought someone was saying players ratings get changed with NBA performance or NBA scouting changes...I was just trying to clarify that no they do not. Ratings you see now don't change unless the game changes them with ratings boosts and such. Then just like Myles said with draft entrants, he makes the class before the season even begins and then its set in stone.

Marcos_Beck (OKC) wrote:They do based on projections. They're making the players with more hype surrounding them the best players in the draft. They got wrong with Smart, and some other guys too, but heck, even NBA scouts, that are paid to do so, they come up wrong with a guy on REGULAR basis, it's not a one or two times thing, look at how many steals are there every draft, how many busts, all those things..

You know I do that on purpose right? That I make average prospects great and great prospects average to randomize the draft class a bit?