BuzzerBeater Forums

Wow, just looked it up. Never thought it could be like this :D Of course the difference is not that big, but still. Well, you learn something new everyday :D

Sell and get someone else. I think that it is very important when looking for a trainee to get a big guy with 6-7 OD. OD trains the slowest on big men. After that I would want high levels of PA just too limit the amount of out of position training I would have to do. But low PA isn't really a deal breaker if he has high TSP because like others have said the training data shows that tall players train PA faster than short players. If you are training an outside big, it would also be a good idea to have a guy with alot of JR since it trains very slow on tall players as well. I'm not really worried about HA/DR levels either because 1v1F gives tall players the most TSP/per week and you can play them at SF or PF instead of at a guard spot.

Wow, just looked it up. Never thought it could be like this Of course the difference is not that big, but still. Well, you learn something new everyday

Actually I believe height doesn't influence passing training. The correlation with height might very well be a spurious correlation. Taller guys generally have lower passing skill compared to the other skills and therefor have a bigger elastic effect.

My theory is that the effect we see is actually from the elastic effect (which will really work here) instead of height.

-------------------

For this particular player I agree with Westri's advice. If however you really want to train him without playing him too much out of position you could do a bit of 1-on-1 training from the forward spots. And then maybe later 2 or 3 weeks of passing training during the offseason. But that is only if your really are attached to this guy because he is your original trainee or something.

My theory is that the effect we see is actually from the elastic effect (which will really work here) instead of height.

I guess this girl is right.. although I can't prove it.

if you look at the data, there is a difference between a 6'0 and 6'5 guy.

Yup. And on average guys with 6'5 length have lower passing compared to other skills and a bigger elastic effect. If you look at the transferlist at guys with 15+ passing there are way more players close to 6'1 than 6'5 (to show that shorter players on average have higher passing and a lower/negative elastic effect).

If you would only look at 18 yr old players this effect of course matters less (maybe not such big differences between 6'5 and 6'1 in starting skills + starting passing?). The data shows that 6'0-6'1 players on average increase .66 passing per training and 6'4-6'5 increase .62. So apparently there, there is not yet an advantage for the taller players. It is in favour of the smaller players actually but I suppose this is just error variance.

If we however look at 22-24 yr olds for example there is a small advantage for the 6'4-6'5 players (.46 vs .41).

It's still only theory but it is not falsified by the observation that there is a difference between 6'0 and 6'5 guys.







Last edited by Tesse at 12/28/2014 5:32:38 AM

Yup. And on average guys with 6'5 length have lower passing compared to other skills and a bigger elastic effect. If you look at the transferlist at guys with 15+ passing there are way more players close to 6'1 than 6'5 (to show that shorter players on average have higher passing and a lower/negative elastic effect).

i know what ur trying to say but i dont think thats quite right. This tells us that more people have trained passing for shorter guys, it does mean the offsite training data gets populated with player data that is more from the shorter players, (eg: 97% of the data on offsite for passing is from players shorter than 7'0) and it suggests that the elastic effect on shorter players is more.......MAYBE. here are some reasons why not.
some of these players might be trained in a very balanced manner. = no elastic.
some of these players might have passing trained last, therefore elastic is actually higher for passing.
some of these players might have had passing trained first and so elastic is lower as what you have suggested.
In other words, your transfer list example makes some big assumptions there, so i dont think this is really a valid data example.

as far as elastic is concerned, elastic in my experience does not affect secondaries as much as it affects primaries. therefore bigs will not experience elastic effect as much compared to smalls (for passing) because it is not a primary. taller players tend to be bigs more, therefore height and elastic don't come into play...This is just my personal experience though. Its hard to gauge these days, but this was definitely the case a few years ago before the cross-training came in.

with regards to off-site data, - i think it very much depends on how you split the data. I can take all age range data for 6'0 height and get 0.48 vs 0.52 splits for 6'0 vs 6'5 - so i think it very much depends on this split (and hence where my 6'0 6'5 comment came from). I split it several other ways and got different results again. Stats lie 101% of the time.

Im always VERY skeptical of the offsite data as well and when i first saw the passing speed analysis i was like nahhhhhhhh thats crapola, seems really stupid.
But I can only base off my own personal experiences in training 6'1 PG in passing for a few seasons, vs my now 7'2 and 7'5 guys in passing. and from experiencing it first hand, i do find it to be true with regards to height and passing.

Last edited by Coach Regan at 12/28/2014 9:50:20 AM

Yup. And on average guys with 6'5 length have lower passing compared to other skills and a bigger elastic effect. If you look at the transferlist at guys with 15+ passing there are way more players close to 6'1 than 6'5 (to show that shorter players on average have higher passing and a lower/negative elastic effect).

There's also the factor that players who are not the typical height for a PG are less likely to be trained to higher levels in passing and more likely to have more of their training in other skills, which would mean a higher likelihood of cross-training giving some sublevels in passing. Players who are trained for several consecutive pops in passing will of course be more likely to reveal a truer estimate of the time to gain a full level, while those who are trained intermittently may well have trained at a lower rate but appear to be faster thanks to the CT.

with regards to off-site data, - i think it very much depends on how you split the data. I can take all age range data for 6'0 height and get 0.48 vs 0.52 splits for 6'0 vs 6'5 - so i think it very much depends on this split (and hence where my 6'0 6'5 comment came from). I split it several other ways and got different results again. Stats lie 101% of the time.

Im always VERY skeptical of the offsite data as well and when i first saw the passing speed analysis i was like nahhhhhhhh thats crapola, seems really stupid.
But I can only base off my own personal experiences in training 6'1 PG in passing for a few seasons, vs my now 7'2 and 7'5 guys in passing. and from experiencing it first hand, i do find it to be true with regards to height and passing.

You both make some good points. And indeed Handling has more effect on Passing than other skills according to the off-site data blog. But I think I remember a news post where they said they would link the other skills more as well.

Anyway, as I said I might very well be wrong. So I was thinking of taking another look at the data. You are right that it can be split in many different ways so I hope you believe me that in my last post I only split it 1 way and am not fishing for good results. Als this time the data I gathered was only from 1 split and feel free to change the parameters and look up the data for those.

But I was still wondering. If height is actually the main effect we should see a pretty similar effect of it across the ages. In other words, tall 18 yr olds should have the same height advantage as 24 yr old. But if the height advantage is much much bigger for older players something else than height might be the factor (OR there might be a second factor besides height of course, like the one Hrudey proposes f.e.).

I checked data for every age from 18 to 25 for 2 groups, 5'9-6'3 and 6'7-7'6 (randomly picked...I swear).


18/19/20/21/22/23/24/25 yr old

5'9-6'3

.64/.58/.56/.51/.45/.4/.33/.27 (skill increase for respective ages)

6'7-7'6

.61/.6/.56/.52/.49/.51/.44/.38 (skill increase for respective ages)

Differences:

-3/+2/0/+1/+4/+11/+11/+11

(if we plot it this is definitely not horizontal)

It does not discount your personal experience, which is very valuable as well since you actually know all their variables. But this makes me wonder if the graph on the offsite wouldn't have shown an effect for height if only 18-22 yr olds would have been used. And I wonder why that is if height actually has a significant main effect.

Last edited by Tesse at 12/30/2014 6:53:22 PM