| 0 |
Subject: OT: Why 2 TSN points for an assist?
Posted by: ole
- [1510351411] Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 12:52
I always found that 2 TSNP for an assist is a bit too much. Sure, a great point guard makes or breaks a team but after all scoring an actual basket (2 TSNP) is, imo, a touch more of a skill. Or let's put it into other words: If someone passes you the ball and you score, the passer gets 2 TSNP. If you don't score, the passer gets nothing but the player who took the shot gets -0.5 TSNP.
I think the game would be more interesting and also more balanced if an assist would be worth 1.5 TSNP. That way, the forwards and centers would play a more important role and fantasy hoops wouldn't be decided by "who has the top 4 guards".
Just some food for thought. I know this has been discussed before - just wondering if TSN has ever considered changing the point system? |
| 1 | Blooki
ID: 3698271
Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 13:02
|
I think it's fine. Historically, it's been the league leaders in scoring or rebounding who still tend to be the highest TSNP producers per game (Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Marion, Stoudemire, Kobe, Lebron, Dwight, Camby), not the assists leaders (Andre Miller (yes he did lead the league in assists one season), Nash, Kidd). Chris Paul serves as the one exception, but Chris Paul in and of himself is exceptional.
|
| 2 | weykool
ID: 2842717
Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 13:12
|
The PG also has the possibility of having his pass becoming a turnover wich is a loss of a full point.
However the scoring system is tweaked us players still need to find the right players at the right time.
|
| 3 | deejay
Sustainer
ID: 501182710
Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 13:16
|
I dont have any problem with that.
I think the scoring is just fine.
|
| 4 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 13:32
|
I don't think there is any evidence to support the assertion that fantasy hoops is decided by "who has the top 4 guards". Granted, 6 of the top 10 TSNP totals last year were for guards - but that doesn't lead to your assertion.
If you want to pick on the value of relative stats, there is probably a better case to be made for reducing the impact of steals or blocks.
By the way, there are a number of times when a PG effectively makes an assist but gets no points. This is when the player receiving the pass is fouled in the act of shooting (and misses the shot). The player still has the opportunity to make the free throws, but no assist is recorded.
|
| 5 | ole
ID: 1510351411
Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 13:35
|
point taken.
however, within the current top 5 players in terms of tsnp/game, you find 4 guards (wasn't james a g/f once?).
i also think it's much less likely to have a turnover than having a missed FG attemp. at least the total number of TOs per game is a lot less than the missed FGs per game. also, if you take a shot (without a direct assist pass before) you, as the potential scorer, which are normally F or C positions, take the risk of the -0.5 TSNP while. and of course, in every game, the number of "baskets attempted without a direct assist" is higher than the "assist-basket-attemp". at least that's what i read from the boxscore stats. i am not sure if i get my point across 100%...
so apart from the -0.5 per missed FT the scoring system has pretty much been the same since smallworld hoops was acquired by TSN, correct?
|
| 6 | ole
ID: 1510351411
Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 13:38
|
PS - i read guru's reply after i posted my second message... so disregard some of what i said, lol.
|
| 7 | Logan47474
Sustainer
ID: 421021139
Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 16:24
|
FWIW, I started an ESPN points league this year with a scoring system identical to TSN's format, and a couple of people raised the same points. I can certainly see the case from both sides, but tried to make the point to them that in the end the scoring is almost academic; that, as Weykool says, we still have to find the best players at the best time.
I always liked TSN's (and Smallworld's) format because it seemed to level the playing field a little for the guards. If assists were valued lower, then the game would be more likely to boil down to "who has the best 4 forwards/centers in the game."
|
| 8 | Charlie
ID: 09242417
Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 18:35
|
So you wanna drop the points awarded for an assist to 1.5 so they are valued equally to a rebound? Take a look at some box scores for a minute. There usually twice as many, if not more rebounds per game than assists. This being the case, why give the same amount of TSNP for an assist and a rebound. So far this year only one player is averaging over 9 assists per game (Paul), but 21 players are averaging over 9 rebounds a game. Still think assists are overvalued?
|
| 9 | ole
ID: 410181415
Fri, Nov 14, 2008, 18:46
|
@charlie - no, i didn't mean it that way. i meant that the relative value of baskets (let it be a 2 or 3 point basket) is, imo, a bit low. i don't have a perfect solution. rebounds are, in my eyes, a bit of a charity currency in terms of TSNP anyway, especially defensive rebounds.
|
| 10 | Pacers Rule
Sustainer
ID: 910311210
Sun, Nov 16, 2008, 19:33
|
ole,
though I no longer play TSN, I have to say that I like the fact that they really value stats across the boxscore, not just scoring. In your perfect scoring system, it seems you would bump everything down except scoring in order to make scoring more important. Players who play little defense and don't hustle to get loose balls or boards or deflections and sometimes steals - but instead sit on the perimeter and hoist up shots would start to become relatively more valuable. I like that a player like AK-47 in his prime was much more valuable in the TSN system than a player like Adam Morrison who will often outscore him but comes nowhere near the same level of contribution for his team. I agree that Blocks are overvalued since they often don't result in a change of possession, but it's still a way to value different contributions to the game different players make - and since they are so rare a stat - if they don't get a nice point reward, they start to become irrelevant to the game.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|