"Athleticism" Attribute

[VAWereWolf65]

Quote: Originally Posted by SonicMage

What I mean is that "athleticism" is a blanket term. All those categories you mentioned like speed, acceleration, vertical, etc.; those all fall under the general term "Athleticism". And they're all great specifics, when summed together, that help paint a clear picture about the athleticism of an individual player. So why do you think there should also be an Athleticism attribute alongside these other more specific ones? Are you trying to say there are other facets of athleticism not covered under the ratings that already exist? You already mentioned vertical leap, but doesn't there already exist an attribute called Vertical that is responsible for that differentiation? If you are saying that there are elements missing, then why not just create more individual ratings to cover those topics, like 2K did this year by adding Speed With Ball, rather than try to make one single catch-all rating? It's the same issue I take with Intangibles. Usually when a sports reporter or other "expert" mentions a player's intangibility, a.k.a he/she does "the little things", it's a buzz word they throw out there because they don't have the time and/or the knowledge to properly articulate the specifics about what makes that player important to the team or to their teammates. When you read the opinions around these forums about what Intangibles actually means, usually it's to highlight abilities covered by other ratings, like diving for loose balls/offensive rebounds (Hustle) or trade value (the overall rating). Pardon me, but it's all bull___. An invention of an athleticism rating would achieve the same mass confusion and same cyclical discussions about its purpose because the term itself is too vague. The other problem I have with it, in agreement with another comment here, is that athleticism by itself is *unquantifiable*. This becomes a problem for someone like me, who has spent the better part of two decades coming up with methods and software for translating real-life statistics into data models to accurately explain exactly how NBA players operate and the extent of their abilities. This all touches into the continuing analytics movement that has been taking place in the NBA. Say you're an NBA GM, and a scout approaches you with the information that one college player is more "athletic" than another. Wouldn't you want more specific data, like perhaps results from the combine, or maybe quotes from previous coaches that speak to their various athletic abilities individually? I hope that better explains my position.

I think i kinda confused everyone by saying an "Athletiscim" rating. What i meant was a rating for a players explosiveness or style of play. Like westbrook, he has an 89 Vertical attribute but his vertical is only around 36 inches. Why is this? Because it would be weird to give russell westbrook a vertical attribute in the 60s or low 70s when you watch the way he plays. Same with Blake Griffin. His vertical is only around 35 inches (which has probably gotten even lower after all these knee problems he's been having), but his vertical attribute is a 90. Why is this? Because of how explosive he is and because of his explosive style of play. You look at guys like Kristaps Porzingis who are 7'3" and have nearly a 40 inch vertical, but their vertical attribute is only a 78 because they just aren't nearly as explosive as guys like westbrook or griffin. I hope this helps you guys understand what i'm trying to say.

[SonicMage]

Quote: Originally Posted by VAWereWolf65

I think i kinda confused everyone by saying an "Athletiscim" rating. What i meant was a rating for a players explosiveness or style of play. Like westbrook, he has an 89 Vertical attribute but his vertical is only around 36 inches. Why is this? Because it would be weird to give russell westbrook a vertical attribute in the 60s or low 70s when you watch the way he plays. Same with Blake Griffin. His vertical is only around 35 inches (which has probably gotten even lower after all these knee problems he's been having), but his vertical attribute is a 90. Why is this? Because of how explosive he is and because of his explosive style of play. You look at guys like Kristaps Porzingis who are 7'3" and have nearly a 40 inch vertical, but their vertical attribute is only a 78 because they just aren't nearly as explosive as guys like westbrook or griffin. I hope this helps you guys understand what i'm trying to say.

Okay, this makes more sense. Explosiveness is a decent term, but I think what you're looking for is vertical speed, right? How quickly can they get to the peak of their jump. This is what Andre Drummond excels at more than most big players, maybe in recent history. ESPN wrote a piece about it last year: http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/1...ve-athleticism

I'd have no objections, this seems like a welcome addition. It could be used to help determine winning jump balls, or second chance putback dunks.

[VAWereWolf65]

Quote: Originally Posted by SonicMage

Okay, this makes more sense. Explosiveness is a decent term, but I think what you're looking for is vertical speed, right? How quickly can they get to the peak of their jump. This is what Andre Drummond excels at more than most big players, maybe in recent history. ESPN wrote a piece about it last year: http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/1...ve-athleticism I'd have no objections, this seems like a welcome addition. It could be used to help determine winning jump balls, or second chance putback dunks.

Yessss this is exactly what i meant. Sorry for the confusion. Basically what i'm saying is for there to be a rating where 2k can give russell westbrook only a 73 vertical instead of an 89 or only give Blake Griffin a 68 vertical instead of a 90, and it would still make sense because there is a attribute to reflect the explosive style of play of these players, without depending solely on the vertical attribute to reflect that.