Posted by jrnyfan01 on 4/25/2012 10:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by trobone on 4/25/2012 5:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by aejones on 4/25/2012 5:41:00 AM (view original):
No, if you want to overthink your distro, you can. You could continue to tweak it based on their TS% and TO% (or just eye test their overall efficiency). You can use higher numbers. It doesn't really matter, honestly, do whatever makes you feel perfectly about the team, I've just never found it to be that important outside of making sure non-scorers are set at zero. I think right now one of my teams has 5-1-1-0-0-0-0-0-0-0 or something, another one has like 1-1-1-1-1-0-0-0-0-0 or something, so I just use whatever I think is best. Use big numbers if you please, but no need to make them add up to anywhere near 100.

i thought it was just the ratio that matters...

for example - if i have one guy at 6 and another at 3... guy 1 will have twice as many plays run for him  as guy 2

Do you consider a guard with 80 perimeter an equal scoring option to a PF/C with an 80 low post rating (all other ratings roughly equal)? Also, when evaluating SF, do you combine PER/LP ratings when deciding if they can be a scoring option, or purely PER? If your SF is the only low post option (you are not recruiting based on position from what I read earlier), would you increase their allocation regardless of PER?

Thanks for considering,
JRNY

I would consider the guard a better option because 3 pointers are good. They are, in fact, 50% better than 2 pointers. That is a bit simplistic, but the math is there, as anyone who is relatively familiar with advanced stats will tell you. 

True enough, but LP makes up for some of that difference with higher shooting percentages and more fouls drawn(and trips to the line).

Posted by aejones on 4/26/2012 12:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by nauds3000 on 4/25/2012 11:37:00 PM (view original):
If a player doesnt accept a phone call that means he cant be pulled down right?

Right, but as the above poster said, this is why I outlined that I prefer the coach's call.

This is a truly ridiculous justification for using a coach call.  If they don't accept the phone call you get your info for free.  That's not a disadvantage, it's an advantage.  And as I said, you get the recruiting credit.  I think that may have been misinterpreted.  It's not enough to be particularly helpful in a battle, but if the guy drops down late and you have very little money left sometimes you have to try to get a guy with 1 HV, a scholly, and a couple of calls and/or info packets.  I've had a few of those guys that were very close one way or the other and the one extra call could make all the difference.

If you want to argue for making the coach call because you've got a solid shot at getting info on what systems he knows, fine.  I don't think it makes a ton of difference most of the time, but it's something.  But arguing that the assurance of a response is somehow a bonus rather than a disadvantage just seems nonsensical to me.

Posted by aejones on 4/26/2012 12:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrnyfan01 on 4/25/2012 10:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by trobone on 4/25/2012 5:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by aejones on 4/25/2012 5:41:00 AM (view original):
No, if you want to overthink your distro, you can. You could continue to tweak it based on their TS% and TO% (or just eye test their overall efficiency). You can use higher numbers. It doesn't really matter, honestly, do whatever makes you feel perfectly about the team, I've just never found it to be that important outside of making sure non-scorers are set at zero. I think right now one of my teams has 5-1-1-0-0-0-0-0-0-0 or something, another one has like 1-1-1-1-1-0-0-0-0-0 or something, so I just use whatever I think is best. Use big numbers if you please, but no need to make them add up to anywhere near 100.

i thought it was just the ratio that matters...

for example - if i have one guy at 6 and another at 3... guy 1 will have twice as many plays run for him  as guy 2

Do you consider a guard with 80 perimeter an equal scoring option to a PF/C with an 80 low post rating (all other ratings roughly equal)? Also, when evaluating SF, do you combine PER/LP ratings when deciding if they can be a scoring option, or purely PER? If your SF is the only low post option (you are not recruiting based on position from what I read earlier), would you increase their allocation regardless of PER?

Thanks for considering,
JRNY

I would consider the guard a better option because 3 pointers are good. They are, in fact, 50% better than 2 pointers. That is a bit simplistic, but the math is there, as anyone who is relatively familiar with advanced stats will tell you. 

Not quite that simple - the post player will be shooting more free throws - thus increasing his points per shot, and as a bonus, drawing fouls, getting players in the game in foul trouble.

Posted by narcotico on 4/26/2012 1:28:00 AM (view original):
True enough, but LP makes up for some of that difference with higher shooting percentages and more fouls drawn(and trips to the line).

I didn't mean to imply that it was, across the board, such a superior shot that I would rather a 60 PER guard be getting looks than a 80 LP big man, assuming other stats are comparable. I simply think that the value of shooting 3s and having guys play a + defense to help your rebounding or something is very valuable. In my experience a very good guard who can shoot is also a bit more rare than a big man who can score. 

And, well, especially if your big doesn't have great Athleticism-- it's not good for you to have guards or bigs taking jumpers that are not 3s, essentially. Not really worth typing up a paragraph or 3 on what is and isn't a good shot in basketball, but that is my preference. 

Posted by dahsdebater on 4/26/2012 2:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by aejones on 4/26/2012 12:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by nauds3000 on 4/25/2012 11:37:00 PM (view original):
If a player doesnt accept a phone call that means he cant be pulled down right?

Right, but as the above poster said, this is why I outlined that I prefer the coach's call.

This is a truly ridiculous justification for using a coach call.  If they don't accept the phone call you get your info for free.  That's not a disadvantage, it's an advantage.  And as I said, you get the recruiting credit.  I think that may have been misinterpreted.  It's not enough to be particularly helpful in a battle, but if the guy drops down late and you have very little money left sometimes you have to try to get a guy with 1 HV, a scholly, and a couple of calls and/or info packets.  I've had a few of those guys that were very close one way or the other and the one extra call could make all the difference.

If you want to argue for making the coach call because you've got a solid shot at getting info on what systems he knows, fine.  I don't think it makes a ton of difference most of the time, but it's something.  But arguing that the assurance of a response is somehow a bonus rather than a disadvantage just seems nonsensical to me.

I've already said multiple times why I like it, I'm not sure why you're nitpicking that I forgot to write all the reasons down here, but I like having that person accounted for so I can keep a very close eye on all recruits that I call. I also like the information I may get, which may sway me to recruit a kid or not. I've never not gotten a recruit or lost a battle over a $10 phone call though, so as far as "effort" goes, that is just as worthless of an argument. Saving the $10 might be nice, but is not worth the 0 chance that I get any info on what O/D he plays.

Posted by aejones on 4/26/2012 4:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 4/26/2012 2:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by aejones on 4/26/2012 12:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by nauds3000 on 4/25/2012 11:37:00 PM (view original):
If a player doesnt accept a phone call that means he cant be pulled down right?

Right, but as the above poster said, this is why I outlined that I prefer the coach's call.

This is a truly ridiculous justification for using a coach call.  If they don't accept the phone call you get your info for free.  That's not a disadvantage, it's an advantage.  And as I said, you get the recruiting credit.  I think that may have been misinterpreted.  It's not enough to be particularly helpful in a battle, but if the guy drops down late and you have very little money left sometimes you have to try to get a guy with 1 HV, a scholly, and a couple of calls and/or info packets.  I've had a few of those guys that were very close one way or the other and the one extra call could make all the difference.

If you want to argue for making the coach call because you've got a solid shot at getting info on what systems he knows, fine.  I don't think it makes a ton of difference most of the time, but it's something.  But arguing that the assurance of a response is somehow a bonus rather than a disadvantage just seems nonsensical to me.

I've already said multiple times why I like it, I'm not sure why you're nitpicking that I forgot to write all the reasons down here, but I like having that person accounted for so I can keep a very close eye on all recruits that I call. I also like the information I may get, which may sway me to recruit a kid or not. I've never not gotten a recruit or lost a battle over a $10 phone call though, so as far as "effort" goes, that is just as worthless of an argument. Saving the $10 might be nice, but is not worth the 0 chance that I get any info on what O/D he plays.

I have to agree fully with aejones. I switched over to exclusively using coach's calls as my first recruiting effort a while ago simply because many times I would send the recruit a call, lose the $10, and never get a response. I don't know if anyone else has also experienced this, but I would send out a bunch of phone calls the first round, and not get a 100% response in my email inbox. Now what I am talking about is different from a 'rejected' phone call, where I get my $10 back; I am talking about a call I make but get no message in my inbox from either my assistant coach or the player. The coach's call has always worked, 100% of the time, given me everything I want to know about how available the player is (never going to happen, back-up, or available now), plus sometimes a bonus on what offense/defense they run, sometimes how proficient the player is in it, and maybe if they want to stay close to home or not.

Does anyone know if the coach's call is also useful in a battle to see who may be ahead? I've never tried it.

When you don't get an e-mail it's a no.  I've tried at least 5 or 6 times and know some other people who've tried calling again as well, and either they reject it the second time or give you a "no" response.

gonna bump this up. 

Posted by tianyi7886 on 5/1/2012 2:36:00 PM (view original):
gonna bump this up. 

This should definitely be pinned seeing that it could easily disappear from the first page of topics, and it is the most thorough guide for D3, which is where all the new coaches begin. If WIS wants more users, they should have this thread pinned and direct all new coaches to the forums... I didn't discover the forums and their usefulness until a few seasons in, and there are plenty of coaches out there who never even venture into the forums.

Good idea, sticky this mofo, who's in charge around here?

I am late coming to this thread... I am not as experienced as aejones but have had some success.  I agree with almost everything he has said, with just one major disagreement and one minor disagreement.

The most important thing I agree with him on is the importance of SPD and ATH.  I can have the best defensive fundamentals in the world and it won't matter if the guy I am guarding is twice as fast, twice as strong, and twice as coordinated as me.  I envision these D3 big men with 12 ATH getting tossed around like ragdolls when they try to guard a guy with a 50+ ATH.  Even if the high-ATH guy has limited LP skills, he should get to the basket enough to do some damage.

The big disagreement is about tempo.  He advised against running uptempo in almost all cases.  I don't remember a bunch from my prob/stats course in college, but we were beaten over the head with the law of large numbers.  So when I gameplan, if I think either my starters have an edge over his starters or my bench is better than his bench, or both, then I turn up the tempo to get as many possessions as possible.  If my team is truly stronger than this should help me win, right?  I also run uptempo most of the time against the press to try to get my opponent into foul trouble, esp. if I have a good LP threat on my team.  You should never run uptempo if you think you are the weaker team, but if you are obviously the stronger team then you should definitely do it.

My minor disagreement is about WE.  I agree that WE is important but will frequently take players with WE in the 30's or 40's, where aejones recommended a minimum of 50.  So I agree that it is important and would never take a really low WE player (it amazes me when human coaches sign single-digit WE players), but I have had a lot of successful players who started with WE in the low 40's.  Keep in mind that their WE rises as they play, so that by the end of their soph years they should have a good enough WE to have a decent rate of improvement.

Posted by carl3298 on 5/2/2012 3:24:00 PM (view original):
I am late coming to this thread... I am not as experienced as aejones but have had some success.  I agree with almost everything he has said, with just one major disagreement and one minor disagreement.

The most important thing I agree with him on is the importance of SPD and ATH.  I can have the best defensive fundamentals in the world and it won't matter if the guy I am guarding is twice as fast, twice as strong, and twice as coordinated as me.  I envision these D3 big men with 12 ATH getting tossed around like ragdolls when they try to guard a guy with a 50+ ATH.  Even if the high-ATH guy has limited LP skills, he should get to the basket enough to do some damage.

The big disagreement is about tempo.  He advised against running uptempo in almost all cases.  I don't remember a bunch from my prob/stats course in college, but we were beaten over the head with the law of large numbers.  So when I gameplan, if I think either my starters have an edge over his starters or my bench is better than his bench, or both, then I turn up the tempo to get as many possessions as possible.  If my team is truly stronger than this should help me win, right?  I also run uptempo most of the time against the press to try to get my opponent into foul trouble, esp. if I have a good LP threat on my team.  You should never run uptempo if you think you are the weaker team, but if you are obviously the stronger team then you should definitely do it.

My minor disagreement is about WE.  I agree that WE is important but will frequently take players with WE in the 30's or 40's, where aejones recommended a minimum of 50.  So I agree that it is important and would never take a really low WE player (it amazes me when human coaches sign single-digit WE players), but I have had a lot of successful players who started with WE in the low 40's.  Keep in mind that their WE rises as they play, so that by the end of their soph years they should have a good enough WE to have a decent rate of improvement.

FWIW I agree with carl on both of these points, although with the tempo issue stamina(and whether or not the teams have redshirts/walkons) is also a factor.

That said this is great thread and should definitely get a sticky.

I've recently started using a slightly different strategy on tempo. I know I read about it on the forums, but I'm drawing a blank on where. Basically it comes into play when your starters are significantly better than the opponent and the benches are relatively even or you have a disadvantage. In this case the standard thinking might be to go uptempo to try to get more possessions, but I actually like to go slowdown so that my starters are playing more minutes, thus I am theoretically maximizing the time where I have an advantage. The opposite is also true. If my starters are at a disadvantage, but I have a clear advantage off the bench, I like to go uptempo to increase the bench minutes.

I have only started using this strategy in the past few seasons, but I have liked what I've seen so far.

In the case where your team is clearly better or clearly worse all around I would still have to agree with the traditional thinking of going uptempo or slowdown respectively.