All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Just thinking out loud.....
7/16/2013 11:10 AM
My D2 team has to many parts and not enough slots.  I am just really thinking out loud and looking for other peoples thoughts.

Name Yr. Pos. A SPD REB DE BLK LP PE BH P WE ST DU FT TOT
Anthony Garrett Sr. SG 74 83 56 87 32 16 35 64 61 68 90 64 C 730
David Roldan Jr. PG 69 75 12 86 16 42 41 62 38 74 74 30 C 619
Marc Guillory Sr. PG 87 68 3 84 23 49 40 51 42 91 93 32 C 663
Dennis Branch Jr. PG 65 68 16 55 3 62 44 79 41 68 88 58 C 647
Charles Bevan So. PG 59 74 9 66 10 13 80 64 34 35 67 59 B- 570
                                 
                                 
Mikey Maynes Jr. PG 57 83 3 55 2 23 37 83 87 27 74 28 C- 559
                                 
Robert Marcial So. PG 55 73 1 50 2 1 43 67 66 55 70 55 B 538

7/16/2013 11:18 AM
Maynes/Branch  = PG
Beven/Roldan = SG
Garrett/Guilory = SF


7/16/2013 11:25 AM
What I am pretty sure of:

Garret will be my starting SF.
Maynes will be starting PG.
Bevan is my only 3 point threat.
Branch can score (he shot 49% last season).

What I am thinking:

Since Maynes is below average on defense and Marcial isn't anything special, I am thinking about making Garrett my backup PG (SF1, PG2).   He isn't a true PG but I don't have one after Maynes and if people try to put a scorer in the PG slot, at least Garrett will slow them down.

Unfortuneatly, Garrett probably will need to be my 5th big as well.  He'll be something like  (SF1, PG2, PF4, C4).

I want Bevan to play and plan on playing him at SF2.  With Garrett being all over the place, I hope he can eek out 15+ minutes.    I like him at SF more than SG because I don't think he'll see opponents who can cover him.   He should be able to beat up on typically slower SF's.

I think Branch becomes the PG3.  His passing sucks but I'll jack his DISTRO up so that's less of an issue.  I don't think he'll get many minutes at PG3 though.

Marcial is a PG4 and I just hope he develops quickly, if he doesn't play much sobeit.

What I don't know what to do:

I guess Branch, Roldan, and Guillory all need to get some minutes.  Branch is a below average on DEF but can score.  The other two can play defense and score a little.   Guillory has the best IQ.  My gut tells me to start Roldan (he has the most developing left) at SG and make Guillory the  SG2 and Branch the SG3 (along with SF3 and PG3) but I am not sure this is the best route.



 
7/16/2013 7:54 PM
Here's an odd idea: You could push Garrett to PF & play Guillory/Branch at SF.  That leaves Roldan/Bevan at SG, Maynes & Marcial as PG, & Canterbury/Johnson at C.  

Sure, you would want to recruit a couple PF, in case that idea bombs, but you might find that just going with your speed advantages could work.
7/16/2013 8:03 PM
You don't think that 56 rebound is a death sentence at pf?
7/16/2013 8:11 PM
Death sentence?....no. But, I'd admit you'll probably run into teams against which you'll hate that lineup.  On the other hand, Garrett might just get slow PFs to just foul themselves right out of their rebounding advantage.   More specifically, my theory is - in a zone, then, sure, his mediocre rebounding would become a major problem, but maybe not when you are playing m2m defense.
7/17/2013 12:39 AM (edited)
Posted by rogelio on 7/16/2013 8:11:00 PM (view original):
Death sentence?....no. But, I'd admit you'll probably run into teams against which you'll hate that lineup.  On the other hand, Garrett might just get slow PFs to just foul themselves right out of their rebounding advantage.   More specifically, my theory is - in a zone, then, sure, his mediocre rebounding would become a major problem, but maybe not when you are playing m2m defense.
+1, I think it's a good idea, and maybe your best bet. Although, I'm not sure about the "it'll foul out the opposing PF" thing (with that low of LP, and the fact that the higher you go into the positions, SF, PF, and C, the less it helps offensively, especially when the objective is fouling out the other guy). Offensively, Garrett would be best utilized at SF (a good one at that), but it may be best for your team to have him at PF. Trenton- have you ever thought of running FB/FCP? Garrett would be the perfect PF for those sets, and it seems like all of your other guards are very well suited for it (high LP in guards, as well as great SPD/DEF/ and ATH).
7/16/2013 10:20 PM
Hmmm, I don't really see garret as an offensive threat from the 4. Thanks for the thoughts guys, I like these types of discussions.

Vince, I cut my teeth in HD on the fb/fcp but I got away from it because I feel you really need 11 or 12 guys to run it right. THe guys I recruit are certainly influenced by my fb beginnings but those type of guys do well in all o/d sets
7/17/2013 2:36 AM
Posted by Trentonjoe on 7/16/2013 8:03:00 PM (view original):
You don't think that 56 rebound is a death sentence at pf?
Nope, not at all, provided you've got a big with good enough rebounding to offset that just a bit.  I actually like the idea.
7/30/2013 10:11 AM
I had to play Garrett at the 4 one game because of an injury and I got slaughtered on the boards by a not so good rebounding team.

http://whatifsports.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=9713488


I was a little surprised how poorly he did.

8/1/2013 12:45 AM
Slaughtered?  You got outrebounded by 6 and won the game anyway.  Plus, I know you're intelligent enough to know how much to read into a one game sample size....
8/1/2013 10:40 AM
Posted by emy1013 on 8/1/2013 12:45:00 AM (view original):
Slaughtered?  You got outrebounded by 6 and won the game anyway.  Plus, I know you're intelligent enough to know how much to read into a one game sample size....
Team outrebounded by 6, yes. But his opposite pulled down 10 rebounds (4 offensive) despite only ok-but-not-great rebounding skills (56 ATH - 83 REB). Whether H2H matchups matter like that is a subject of contention, perhaps, but it would be enough to give me pause as well.

Especially since his opposite held his own defensively as well (2 blocks, only 2 fouls, Garrett only 1-4 FG, 2-3 FT) despite a huge speed disadvantage (84-18) and even an ATH disadvantage (74-56). Not saying I'd never play Garrett at the 4, but I'd try to do it against weaker teams at first until I had a better understanding of the impact.
8/1/2013 4:01 PM (edited)
Both your centers are turnover machines (assist/turnover ratio). I'd play Garrett at PF. He's averaging over over 6 rebounds a game at SF ... he'll get even more at PF. Who cares if he scores. Garrett's defense in the paint will definitely drive down the shooting % of your opponents. Not to mention the steals he'll be getting at PF will be off the charts. No brainer for me. And I wouldn't base anything on one game.

Caveat- I never play man-2-man, but to me he only looks like more of an advantage in man-2-man. Will admit the 1 game didn't pencil out, but I can't believe Garrett at PF isn't a big plus. 
8/1/2013 4:05 PM
My front court averages 4 TO per game.  Is that a lot?  Also , I don't see why the ***/to ratio is important..
8/1/2013 6:08 PM
Without commenting on the original question (I've never run a 4 guard offense), A/TO is an important ratio because, other than scoring, Assists are the main positive thing an offensive player can do, while TOs are the main negative thing than offensive player can do. Looking at these as a ratio gives a good starting "sketch" of how efficient a given player is on offense. The other ratio I like to look at is Points/FGA. I think it's much more useful than PPG in telling me how good of an offensive player a guy is.
of 3
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Just thinking out loud.....

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.