CSL x NBA (please read and comment)

[Marcos_Beck]

Yeah that's what id push for if we did go with a global change. We can continue to fine tune the formula until its perfect before implementing. The admins dont typically like sharing their formula so we have to just trust them.

However even if we put hours into a formula some players will still come out ahead and some behind, thats why i dont like global changes.

Changes in creation is fair. Is our FG_MID low and our DEF is high? start giving players better FG_MID and lower DEF on average. 3 pt volume low? create a few more medium efficiency high volume 3 pt shooters, and fewer low volume/high eff 3 pt shooters.

3pt shooting is not low because we have low volume shooters. It's low because nobody wants players that shoot around 35-36% to shoot from deep.
37% is the absolute worst players shoot in this league overall.
Honestly everyone prefers players to shoot at like 46% overall inside (with a TS% of 50% including FTs) than shooting 36% on high volume from deep (which equals 54% TS%, above league average right now).

[Silogical]

3pt shooting is not low because we have low volume shooters. It's low because nobody wants players that shoot around 35-36% to shoot from deep.
37% is the absolute worst players shoot in this league overall.
Honestly everyone prefers players to shoot at like 46% overall inside (with a TS% of 50% including FTs) than shooting 36% on high volume from deep (which equals 54% TS%, above league average right now).

i dont think anyone prefers 50TS% inside over 54TS% outside. We can ask though. Lets say we have a SG and we can make him a 54TS outside shooter or 50TS inside shooter which do you choose? I choose the 54 every time.

3 pt volume is down because we just dont have many viable high volume players to choose from. A strong defender who shoots 50TS is a lot better than a high volume 3 pt shooter who plays trash D.

[Marcos_Beck]

I guarantee you we have enough 3pt shooters right now.
More than 40% of our players are capable of shooting 36% from deep. 40%! We have 180 players who could be sinking 3s on above average TS%.

Of those, I guess at least 100 could be sinking at least 2 3s a game, some even more, on high volume shooting, and help space the floor better. That’s at least 20 3s attempted a game in 3 players combined per team, not counting players who can sink them in 35% range which is already league average TS%.

People just refuses to see their players shooting below 40% from the field overall even if 80% of the shots are from deep and the TS% is above current league average.

I know you have no problem with that, nor Kyrus, or me. But many do.

DeAaron Fox = 38% 3pt shooter for his career, took 3.1 attempts per game last season.
Luka Doncic = 35% career 3pt shooter, took under 2 attempts per game
NAW = 37% career 3pt shooter. Everyone sees him as a bad player, but if he was taking only threes at his career efficiency he could be sinking 4 triples a game at 55.5% TS

You tried to make DSJ a spot up shooter basically and he flourished but he can’t have high volume bc it’s capped at 20 I think catch & shoot while post up cap is 30, 50% higher. Plus DSJ has 78 pass% which only gives you 22 points to distribute in pull up and c&s, that if you want zero points on inside scoring

[Silogical]

if you think our 3 pt volume is half of the NBA because we are dumb GMs i disagree.

A lot of these high % are because they are low volume there is diminishing returns with shots.

i never said the draft teams dont make 3 pt shooters i said they dont make enough viable high volume 3 pt shooters or shooters in general. If they did we wouldnt take half as many 3's as the NBA.

its also just my opinion that we should have balance.

[AlexS]

Great research, thanks for completing and sharing Marcos!

In my opinion, this engine and how we have our players created forces GMs to choose between having a player shoot 3's and no post shots or vice versa. I think it's mostly an issue with the DD22 engine which has forced GMs to min/max all of our guys to doing one or the other. One of the areas this really hurts is with stretch bigs, which we don't really have in our league, Melli and Bender who could be a SF, Porzingis, and not much else.

Great example is Koumadje. Previous engine he had about .25 3pr and was efficient and playing to his ratings from 3 and at the rim, and most importantly ITP where he has 55-56 rating which is top ~5% in the league. Transition to DD22 and you can see the huge drop in efficiency including poor shooting ITP with no other changes these past 2 seasons. There's alot of other bigs who have had similar issues and I think is related to players MID shooting ratings, without good ratings there those stretch bigs will never be good at the rim and from 3.

I'm all for any changes that is recommended/tested that can address the issues that we're currently seeing.

[bt]

I wasn't going to take part in the discussion as I think we've got enough guys who know their stuff but after I read all the three point stuff above, I just wanted to mention floor ranges... again. Like Manu mentioned above about his concerns, I've mentioned this multiple times before. Got shot down multiple times to but I wanted to double down on it haha.

If you know me from way back, I've been critical of Wolverine games and Gary Gorski all the way back to when they were TPB games so I'm not a big fan but there is a reason why floor range changes aren't allowed within the game and from what I've read, it's the same in the new games.

Not going to go into explaining it too much beyond simple examples but take a guy like Terry Rozier who is a career 36.7% shooter. He's not going to stop launching threes (averaging 5.7 this season but was up to 8 a couple of seasons ago) yet if he was in the CSL with a 36/37 three point rating, most of us would zero out his three point range and make him a slasher. There goes 3 point volume. Doncic another one, career 34.7% shooter taking over 8 a game but here we zero him out a lot to stop that. DeRozan even shoots threes even though he's midrange only, Westbrook I zeroed out when you can never stop that guy taking threes and there are countless other examples too.

It affects three point volume massively obviously.

This could also be a factor that I'm not sure is part of the new games but in the earlier games, changing player instructions weren't a guarantee. I assume maybe it had something to do with attitude or motivation or whatever but you would request a change within the game and it wouldn't work. Maybe only hard workers can change, no idea but now we just edit it in regardless. Just trying to come at it from a dev point of view as you can break games going outside their views.

Can affect spacing too. So many not hanging out on the perimeter, etc, when if you had a poor shooter and they still had floor range there, you change ball actions to lower catch and shoot and pull up. That also ties into ball action limits of course. I'm just saying that change floor ranges may be a decent contributor, in addition to everything else everyone mentioned above as to why the league has gone off skew a little.

In saying all that, I do like being able to change the floor ranges a little or adjust players somehow but that's what ball actions are for also. If we wanted to continue with floor range changes, maybe either slightly or at a much lower rate than we have so there'll still be a lot of players shooting more from where they shouldn't... if that makes sense.

[bt]

I always refer back to a post rizzo made at the wolverine forums ages ago and that Gary replied to. A tiny explanation of how a player can be affected by a change and how the amount of changes we make/amount of players we affect then wonder why this guy isn't doing this or that.

https://www.draftdaysports.com/board/vi ... ilit=floor

Not giving Gary any credit, just an explanation into the thinking of how players can be affected within the game.

[Marcos_Beck]

I wasn't going to take part in the discussion as I think we've got enough guys who know their stuff but after I read all the three point stuff above, I just wanted to mention floor ranges... again. Like Manu mentioned above about his concerns, I've mentioned this multiple times before. Got shot down multiple times to but I wanted to double down on it haha.

If you know me from way back, I've been critical of Wolverine games and Gary Gorski all the way back to when they were TPB games so I'm not a big fan but there is a reason why floor range changes aren't allowed within the game and from what I've read, it's the same in the new games.

Not going to go into explaining it too much beyond simple examples but take a guy like Terry Rozier who is a career 36.7% shooter. He's not going to stop launching threes (averaging 5.7 this season but was up to 8 a couple of seasons ago) yet if he was in the CSL with a 36/37 three point rating, most of us would zero out his three point range and make him a slasher. There goes 3 point volume. Doncic another one, career 34.7% shooter taking over 8 a game but here we zero him out a lot to stop that. DeRozan even shoots threes even though he's midrange only, Westbrook I zeroed out when you can never stop that guy taking threes and there are countless other examples too.

It affects three point volume massively obviously.

This could also be a factor that I'm not sure is part of the new games but in the earlier games, changing player instructions weren't a guarantee. I assume maybe it had something to do with attitude or motivation or whatever but you would request a change within the game and it wouldn't work. Maybe only hard workers can change, no idea but now we just edit it in regardless. Just trying to come at it from a dev point of view as you can break games going outside their views.

Can affect spacing too. So many not hanging out on the perimeter, etc, when if you had a poor shooter and they still had floor range there, you change ball actions to lower catch and shoot and pull up. That also ties into ball action limits of course. I'm just saying that change floor ranges may be a decent contributor, in addition to everything else everyone mentioned above as to why the league has gone off skew a little.

In saying all that, I do like being able to change the floor ranges a little or adjust players somehow but that's what ball actions are for also. If we wanted to continue with floor range changes, maybe either slightly or at a much lower rate than we have so there'll still be a lot of players shooting more from where they shouldn't... if that makes sense.

Spot on
It’s not like CSL GMs are bad
We are just used to packing everyone in the paint (to the point that we had to nerf ratings in DDS19 transition) and it isn’t the way to go anymore.
No clue why Miami is so strong every regular season. They have amazing floor spacing and are one of the teams with best 0-3 to 3-10 ratios in the league. Could be better? Yes
But they are good at spacing the floor and this is key for a good offense.
Plus 3 pointers are worthy 3 points lol
I can’t stress it anymore but if you have a player taking and making only threes at 35% right now he’s around league average in TS%. This is efficient and opens up the floor at the same time.

Players who can shoot 35% or so should be taking threes 100%.

[GreenBear]

While I understand what you're both saying, I think you're oversimplifying it a bit and underestimating the other GMs. Imho, it's more likely that a GM drops a player's 3s to zero because he just has a more efficient shot somewhere else. Or he draws more fouls inside. Or he grabs more rebounds in the paint.

I get that the NBA is a little different in that regard, but there are a lot of differences between the NBA and CSL. I like how customizable things are in the CSL.

[bt]

See I thought I was more so complementing the GM's, not underestimating them as what you said is exactly what we all do. Limit the lesser efficiency shots for higher efficiency shots. Not unlike what an NBA coach would love his players to do yet some don't haha.

All I was pointing out was what we do could likely be impacting the game. Now it would be up to the powers that be, and us to a degree, to determine what type of game we want. Full customisation at the expense of realism, no customisation, all realism, a combination, etc.

I'm with you, I like how we can customise. I do like however not being able to change a player completely also. I don't know, adds to the strategy (trading, trading for, strategy played) for mine I guess.

[WillyJakkz]

In these discussions about the engine as an outsider looking in throughout the many many yrs of being a part of the League, I sit on the bench, play my role and listen to mgtr bt and silo as I feel they're the most knowledgeable about the game engine itself.

Marcos always does a great job of discovering issues with the engine of each iteration of the game and is the most likely to put it out in the open.

So as an impartial observer I'd certainly take heed to what those 4 guys suggest as a starting point for a resolution if there's anything you guys feel needs to be solved.

And whatever the consensus is count me in cause I'm just here to have fun.

Thanks for delving into the concerns guys!

[rh0xxy]

In these discussions about the engine as an outsider looking in throughout the many many yrs of being a part of the League, I sit on the bench, play my role and listen to mgtr bt and silo as I feel they're the most knowledgeable about the game engine itself.

Marcos always does a great job of discovering issues with the engine of each iteration of the game and is the most likely to put it out in the open.

So as an impartial observer I'd certainly take heed to what those 4 guys suggest as a starting point for a resolution if there's anything you guys feel needs to be solved.

And whatever the consensus is count me in cause I'm just here to have fun.

Thanks for delving into the concerns guys!

This.

[Rizzo]

I fully understand what BT is saying. Here in CSL we are able to completely change a player’s game where as in the NBA there is no way of ever getting Westbrook to stop shooting threes. That’s where we, as a league, need to decide so we want full customization or do we want the offensive systems to be more important and dictate where players move on the floor in combination with their personal floor areas.

[GreenBear]

See I thought I was more so complementing the GM's, not underestimating them as what you said is exactly what we all do. Limit the lesser efficiency shots for higher efficiency shots. Not unlike what an NBA coach would love his players to do yet some don't haha.

All I was pointing out was what we do could likely be impacting the game. Now it would be up to the powers that be, and us to a degree, to determine what type of game we want. Full customisation at the expense of realism, no customisation, all realism, a combination, etc.

I'm with you, I like how we can customise. I do like however not being able to change a player completely also. I don't know, adds to the strategy (trading, trading for, strategy played) for mine I guess.

Fair enough, I might have been combining posts in my head and probably mixed up who said what. Someone said something about GMs dropping players' 3s to zero because they don't want their FG% to be under 40%, which is what I thought was underestimating GMs. While that might be true for a couple GMs, I don't think that's the case for most.

I get the point about maybe limiting customization, but my main concern about that is that it's difficult to go to that now. GMs drafted or traded for specific players because of what they envisioned they could turn the player into due to the customization.

Personally, I think a case could easily be made either way about which adds more to the strategy aspect (more or less customization). All depends on a person's POV

[Silogical]

While I understand what you're both saying, I think you're oversimplifying it a bit and underestimating the other GMs. Imho, it's more likely that a GM drops a player's 3s to zero because he just has a more efficient shot somewhere else. Or he draws more fouls inside. Or he grabs more rebounds in the paint.

I get that the NBA is a little different in that regard, but there are a lot of differences between the NBA and CSL. I like how customizable things are in the CSL.

I agree with this

if we make our players go from shooting 3's to inside only yes that will hurt 3 point volume, but there is a reason we do it, its smarter. The player was created to be better from inside, so we move his shots to inside. Also because FG_MID is always so bad we dont want to do both.

Flip it for example and pretend 3 pt shootong is being created over powered we would now take all our inside shooters and make them outside.

Players can be created so you dont just move them all inside.
75 SCR
70 PAS
65 PASS Pref
36 COR
37 ATB
37 RA
30 ITP
45 MID
70 DEF
75 STL
4 DRFL

you would not move this guy inside even though he wont be a great 3 pt shooter. He will be a valuable volume 3 pt shooter though. So who is this guy? he has never existed in CSL history.

[hardenwithnod]

I don’t know much about this engine, as I’m still trying to figure it out lol. I’m going to let the knowledgeable guys work with this and I’m cool with whatever you guys come up with, as I’m sure you guys know what you’re doing and I am sure it will be a good resolution.

[Marcos_Beck]

While I understand what you're both saying, I think you're oversimplifying it a bit and underestimating the other GMs. Imho, it's more likely that a GM drops a player's 3s to zero because he just has a more efficient shot somewhere else. Or he draws more fouls inside. Or he grabs more rebounds in the paint.

I get that the NBA is a little different in that regard, but there are a lot of differences between the NBA and CSL. I like how customizable things are in the CSL.

I agree with this

if we make our players go from shooting 3's to inside only yes that will hurt 3 point volume, but there is a reason we do it, its smarter. The player was created to be better from inside, so we move his shots to inside. Also because FG_MID is always so bad we dont want to do both.

Flip it for example and pretend 3 pt shootong is being created over powered we would now take all our inside shooters and make them outside.

Players can be created so you dont just move them all inside.
75 SCR
70 PAS
65 PASS Pref
36 COR
37 ATB
37 RA
30 ITP
45 MID
70 DEF
75 STL
4 DRFL

you would not move this guy inside even though he wont be a great 3 pt shooter. He will be a valuable volume 3 pt shooter though. So who is this guy? he has never existed in CSL history.

Doom is something like that if my scoutings are right about shooting ratings, except he's a bit better inside and sucks in mid range (but who doesn't)
I think he would strongly benefit from high volume 3pt shooting overall and plan to do so.
Coulibaly is also pretty similar to that, that's the exact kind of player I've been looking for to build my team with good spacing and two-way play.

[bt]

Fair enough, I might have been combining posts in my head and probably mixed up who said what. Someone said something about GMs dropping players' 3s to zero because they don't want their FG% to be under 40%, which is what I thought was underestimating GMs. While that might be true for a couple GMs, I don't think that's the case for most.

I get the point about maybe limiting customization, but my main concern about that is that it's difficult to go to that now. GMs drafted or traded for specific players because of what they envisioned they could turn the player into due to the customization.

Personally, I think a case could easily be made either way about which adds more to the strategy aspect (more or less customization). All depends on a person's POV

Yeah agree.

Marcos has brought up some good points about different areas but how and if anything is implemented? Yeah, that's the question.

[bt]

Doom is something like that if my scoutings are right about shooting ratings, except he's a bit better inside and sucks in mid range (but who doesn't)
I think he would strongly benefit from high volume 3pt shooting overall and plan to do so.
Coulibaly is also pretty similar to that, that's the exact kind of player I've been looking for to build my team with good spacing and two-way play.

Maybe this is the way. Lead by example and promote it.. marketing? Haha

But if others see and read that it's still beneficial, especially if there was someway to show analytics that volume threes for a guy like Doom is actually better than limiting them and restricting him, others probably follow.

No idea if that's the truth but yeah.

[bt]

Guess it just depends what the purpose of this post was. Like Doug said, might be hard to make any type of change.