I think it's stupid that if a BB athlete plays more than an hour and 10 minutes in a whole week his game shape suffers.
In real life, if a player couldn't play 36-40 minutes 3 times a week, he'd be laughed off the court.
The enthusiasm factor is pretty silly too when comparing it to real life...I mean, who's going to show up and Take it Easy?
Honestly, I think the Game Shape and Enthusiasm systems are pretty accurate in terms of effect minutes have on players.
Really the only difference between this game and the NBA is the fact that the NBA has 4x the regular season games (and many more playoff games) so for BB to cause those shifts to be noticeable, they have to magnify them over the short term. NBA superstars pretty typically get more rest than they need within a game (i.e the team would be better with them on the floor even given their current stamina level) but coaches watch player's minutes with an eye towards keeping them fresh for the season. Almost no players get more than 36-37 minutes per game, a few stars are under 30 and some older guys (see: Spurs players) are clocking in at barely 25 mins/game in addition to having nights off). Players who are rested see their performance/Game Shape increase or stay at a high level over the course of a long season, whereas players who are overused run out of gas.
As for Enthusiasm, I think it's pretty clear that from time to time teams to CT or TIE. It's not as easy as the coach clicking a button before the game but there are definitely different motivating factors that cause a team to keep their foot on the gas pedal or let up a bit. Big rivalry games or special events, like a players having his number retired or a title winning team receiving their rings from the year before are good examples. To cross-reference to the NFL, look at Super Bowl winning team's records on that first Thursday of the following season. By that same token, how many times have you heard commentators say a team "just didn't look focused" on a given night? Last night's Warriors-Blazers game was a good example of a dominant team TIEing to recoup some energy, and I think you need to look no further than some of the Celtics teams of the Big 3 era to see an older, experienced team who essentially TIE'd all season long and then crushed teams in the playoffs despite raising a lot of questions with regular season games that made it look like they were slipping/underachieving. Additionally, I remember the Baron Davis-Stephen Jackson Warriors of maybe 2006 using the opposite approach and Super-PCTing every game against the dominant Mavs and winning that series by drawing energy to fuel their adrenaline rush from a crazed, raucous fan base before flaming out in 5 games vs. a mediocre Utah squad. (If you made it this far congratulations, I'm impressed).
BB doesn't do everything well, but I think they're spot on with GS/enthusiasm.
Now if they could just continue to transition from 80/90's LI basketball to the modern day Fun 'n Gun/Splash Bros style, my team would be a lot better.... err.... the game would be more fun for
everyone! :)