FBCB question related to defense

[Icy]

How do you guys judgue by stats how good is a player doing defensively?

Of course if he steals or blocks a ton, he is doiing ok, but what about that silent C who doesn't score a lot, get's just average rebounds and doesn't block a lot but has 90 (over 100) post defense rating, 90 strengh? is he helping my team defense or not? Should i put there another guy (a PF) with less post defense (30) and less strengt (60) but that gets more rebounds and points at the end of the game?

I'm choosing the scorer/rebounder there as rebounds and points are more visible in the game box score, but i wonder if i'm damaging my team defensively a lot doing that as i dont' know how to judgue the perfomance from an only defensive C. the same could be applied to other positions, but probably the C is the key position for defense.

[Peregrine]

Personally I check my overall team defense rating (points per game) frequently, as it gives me the best overall idea of how I'm doing. I usually keep my best defensive rating players in regardless, because I don't have a lot of them.

[WSUCougar]

The +/- stat also gives you some hints.

[sovereignstar]

You know what always bothered me about the game. When recruiting, I found that the steal and block ratings (and HS stats) were totally independent from a player's post and perimeter defense ratings. Thus making it harder to find defensive "whizzes".

I mean if a guy is excellent at blocking or excellent at stealing, wouldn't you think that he'd be pretty good defensively in a general sense?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

You know what always bothered me about the game. When recruiting, I found that the steal and block ratings (and HS stats) were totally independent from a player's post and perimeter defense ratings. Thus making it harder to find defensive "whizzes".

I mean if a guy is excellent at blocking or excellent at stealing, wouldn't you think that he'd be pretty good defensively in a general sense?

I think that the ratings measure different things. A player can be good at shutting his man down without getting steals or blocks. That's just speculation, though. I am not sure how the game engine works.

As to the main question, I look at how my team is doing defensively overall--opponent points per game and FG%. I don't really care about block numbers. I pay more attention to steals, but that is because I like to run a pressing, trapping system.

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I think that the ratings measure different things. A player can be good at shutting his man down without getting steals or blocks. That's just speculation, though. I am not sure how the game engine works.

Yeah, I understand that. I do think that they should have at least a little bit of correlation though. My biggest frustration was trying to find the elite defensive players from the get-go. But since you can't go by the stats at all, you have to evaluate a bunch of players to find out who has the good post and perimeter defensive ratings.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

Yeah, I understand that. I do think that they should have at least a little bit of correlation though. My biggest frustration was trying to find the elite defensive players from the get-go. But since you can't go by the stats at all, you have to evaluate a bunch of players to find out who has the good post and perimeter defensive ratings.

I had this problem too, but I've found a way to kinda suss it out. Normally I use schools where the idea of a top-100 recruit isn't realistic, so I stick to recruits in the 101-250 or so range. Then I look at the stats, and if I'm after a defensive stopper I look for a highly ranked player who doesn't average many PPG, because you know that if there is a guy ranked #187 in the nation, yet he scores 18ppg, that his ratings are going to be weighted on the shooting side of things. A #142 SF who averages 9.4ppg on the other hand, even if he doesn't get many steals, is generally going to have high defensive ratings. It's not always the case of course, and is pretty worthless for the top-ranked recruits, but generally it works out for me.

[Buccaneer]

It's funny, I don't even bother with the rankings. I have a weighted criteria in judging recruits and just find the ones that fit the kind of players I want at each position group. In my perception, there are way too many poor ball handlers in the top 100 or 250. As far as defensive criteria for recruits and roster players, I just simply weigh PsD heavily for C/PF, both PsD and PrD slightly less for PF, and PrD heavily for SG/PG. As far as results, I look at PA and indirectly, look at TO and Fouls in keeping the ball in my hands. Even with my top ranked teams emphasising FG%, good PA, superb TO and good Fouls rankings, steals and blocks become irrelevant.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

It's funny, I don't even bother with the rankings. I have a weighted criteria in judging recruits and just find the ones that fit the kind of players I want at each position group. In my perception, there are way too many poor ball handlers in the top 100 or 250. As far as defensive criteria for recruits and roster players, I just simply weigh PsD heavily for C/PF, both PsD and PrD slightly less for PF, and PrD heavily for SG/PG. As far as results, I look at PA and indirectly, look at TO and Fouls in keeping the ball in my hands. Even with my top ranked teams emphasising FG%, good PA, superb TO and good Fouls rankings, steals and blocks become irrelevant.

Aye, but in the first week you don't have access to the ratings at all, only stats, which is where the problem begins. I rate post or perimeter defence and hands for PGs-SFs or rebounding for PFs-Cs as the two most important ratings in my recruiting, but in the first week I've had it happen where I've scouted the max amount of players possible and NONE of them ranked as high as I would have liked in these catagories, which is a major blow to recruiting, as you're trailing on the guys you need from day 1.