Posted by cburton23 on 5/20/2016 4:07:00 PM (view original):
theonly, what you are saying we are making a huge fuss about, should have a huge fuss made about it. I don't care how fast or athletic you are, with these ratings the guy should never make a shot outside of the paint, and only make a few in the paint, but he is shooting 50%. The way the engine works, PER and LP mean nothing if you have ATH. So your point is exactly why we are making a fuss, it is because of the way the engine works.

sorry I thought you were ranting about the actual player in the engine, not the engine itself. In that case yes the engine favors ath/def way too much. There is no realistic comparison for that player besides an unimaginable worse shooting MKG. But it is D3 and idk if you watched D3 basketball before, but a 98 ath is Elite D1 level athleticism. If he can dunk the ball then yes thats not completely unrealistic.

I play pick up ball and we have a few guys that make good comparisons, great athleticism but 0 basketball skills besides playing good defense. Generally picked last because there defense while great sucks when they can't hit the backboard when shooting a layup.

I'm trying to imagine this guy shoot and it would probably look like he's having a seizure, stroke, and heart attack at the same time.

Posted by cburton23 on 5/20/2016 4:07:00 PM (view original):
theonly, what you are saying we are making a huge fuss about, should have a huge fuss made about it. I don't care how fast or athletic you are, with these ratings the guy should never make a shot outside of the paint, and only make a few in the paint, but he is shooting 50%. The way the engine works, PER and LP mean nothing if you have ATH. So your point is exactly why we are making a fuss, it is because of the way the engine works.

That's a fair point. So how would we expect a Myers' team to perform offensively, if the engine were more balanced? They should still get to the line a ton, based on their ATH, right? But not shoot nearly as well from the field?

Posted by bhansalid00 on 5/20/2016 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 5/20/2016 4:07:00 PM (view original):
theonly, what you are saying we are making a huge fuss about, should have a huge fuss made about it. I don't care how fast or athletic you are, with these ratings the guy should never make a shot outside of the paint, and only make a few in the paint, but he is shooting 50%. The way the engine works, PER and LP mean nothing if you have ATH. So your point is exactly why we are making a fuss, it is because of the way the engine works.

That's a fair point. So how would we expect a Myers' team to perform offensively, if the engine were more balanced? They should still get to the line a ton, based on their ATH, right? But not shoot nearly as well from the field?

Trying to imagine them playing basketball I would expect them to be hitting 30+ turnovers against strong speed teams(assume speed was linked to steals still)

They should get a lot of Ft's but have much much worse shooting percentages especially against -5 defenses. I'd love to see them play a 2-3 zone -5 in this current engine and see how the game goes.

Also I'd expect their opponents to have even worse shooting stats, I thikn the engine limits how bad you can beat a team and your telling me teams managed 35% shooting against his Allen team where the starting ath/spd/def was

98/59/100
81/61/90
84/40/99
70/19/67 and 72 sb
76/14/70 and 74 sb

Honestly I think the engine overplays the offensive ability of myers teams, but actually under plays the defense.

Personally it would take a superb team to be able to come close to 40% while the rest would be lucky to hit 30%, I'd honestly expect them to be holding teams to sub 30%

The last 3 seasons UVA's pack line defense had opponent shooting percetanges of:

2013 38.8 FG%
2014 36.7%
2015 42%

With thr '15 team being more capable offensively and worse defensively.

I guess a real world comparison would be UNC they are known as a poor shooting 3 team recently(obviously still 100x better than myers), but they are the most ath/def team possible I can think of.(I guess myers has a team of james michael macadoo's as well as MKG's)

And Myers usually has teams with a few players that have big 6 athleticism and defense playing D3. I would be expecting him to hold teams to sub 30% for the season

Posted by Trentonjoe on 5/20/2016 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 5/20/2016 11:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by scaturo on 5/20/2016 11:26:00 AM (view original):
And I can unargue almost any point with ruthless inefficiency.

please tell me that you just made that up...and it's not a cliché.

I'm not a very morbid person, nor has this thought ever crossed my mind, but I think I've got a leading candidate for my epitaph.

All me baby, all me.

tight, don't worry you'll still be credited in the byline...besides my fam wouldn't believe something so apt came from me anyways.

Never been so proud of you...unlike the rest of these *******.

Posted by bhansalid00 on 5/20/2016 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 5/20/2016 4:07:00 PM (view original):
theonly, what you are saying we are making a huge fuss about, should have a huge fuss made about it. I don't care how fast or athletic you are, with these ratings the guy should never make a shot outside of the paint, and only make a few in the paint, but he is shooting 50%. The way the engine works, PER and LP mean nothing if you have ATH. So your point is exactly why we are making a fuss, it is because of the way the engine works.

That's a fair point. So how would we expect a Myers' team to perform offensively, if the engine were more balanced? They should still get to the line a ton, based on their ATH, right? But not shoot nearly as well from the field?

I think the balance is fine, given the different emphases placed on each set. FB and motion emphasize ATH, SPD, and BH for scoring, more than LP, PER, and PAS; so especially at D3, he doesn't need as much LP, PER, and PAS to be successful. I think the key problem people run into is when they try to beat those extreme teams without passing, which is underrated, especially for triangle and flex. Slowdown, play way negative, and focus on ball-handling and passing against those teams. IMO, perfect balance for gameplay is like rock-paper-scissors with these sets. Each has advantages and disadvantages.

my take on this is pretty straight forward. i agree that there is an engine imbalance where the range of possible turnovers for a team is not wide enough, that low bh/pass is not that much worse than incredibly low bh/pass, and that is a mistake. however, its frequent for all games to struggle with balance at the edge case. i do think in general, the range of turnovers is too low - this isn't just an edge case problem - so i don't want to only characterize it as such - but thats most of it.

that said, the general level of whining about how unfair the strategy is, any of the posts saying what meyers does is easy and it greatly diminishes what he's done, its just way too much. some folks are just criticizing the engine and that is fine, but that isn't everyone. if you think its so easy to do what myers is doing - do it - you'll find that is not the case. he has a strange, far-from-optimal approach to this game, which he executes exceptionally well. kudos to him.

i'll throw a comparison out here. the offense balance of this game has been a point of contention for as long as i can remember. guard play is mostly way more reliable as a source of offense than big man play. its a real, serious flaw in the engine. look at my teams - who is scoring? does it mean whatever i do is invalidated because i rely heavily on guards? no, nobody would say that... well, i'll back off that, less than 5 people would say that. why? because so many folks realize the same thing, and take a similar approach. well, this ath/def thing is the same. ath/def is overpowered in this engine and it has been known since very early on, aejones' teams were all about ath/def, him and whoever else was on top early in this latest engine era (4-5 years) all did the same thing, sold out for ath/def. myers is just taking that to the extreme - and he does an excellent job in recruiting, that most people here saying its too easy to do, could not pull off themselves (emy exempted).

the ft shooting thing - that is different - but its clever and personally, i am a fan. not a lot of guys do it, even though its been discussed on these forums for ages. generally, the upper crust of coaching has turned up their nose at such a strategy - because guard play is so OP, most folks don't think it can work. myers has made it work. props to him.

end of the day, he's combining some of what everyone does, with some of his own style, and doing it very well - i don't think there's much more to the story than that. still, his strategy is FAR from optimal, its not like he is breaking the game. he is doing well... especially if you only focus on the championship total. but if you look at his programs as a whole, the continued success at each school, its not like he is doing anything fifty other coaches haven't done, running traditional programs. so, i really don't get the fuss. and absolutely, the stuff about his accomplishments being BS or too easy, that is all crap.

edit: top 20yr d3 list, all time, 100 entries, he has made exactly once. it is a good entry, #13, but still, that definitely does not scream "breaking the game" to me, not when the guy coaches davidson in every world for some time. i do agree there are some imbalances, but i don't actually think there are any "revelations" - there are some issues, but they are all known issues, and in some cases are being greatly exaggerated.

If it's unfair just do the same. I command Mfnmyers for what he has done. He has a strat, stricks to it, more power to him. In D3, he probably does not shoot at lot but he has slashers that lay the ball in the basket.

Posted by zorzii on 5/20/2016 7:34:00 PM (view original):
If it's unfair just do the same. I command Mfnmyers for what he has done. He has a strat, stricks to it, more power to him. In D3, he probably does not shoot at lot but he has slashers that lay the ball in the basket.

How do the slashers get the ball in their hands with those passer ratings? And if they do actually get the ball wouldn't the pass be behind them or at their feet? And on the off chance they get a decent pass what is the probability they throw the ball off the backboard, or hit the bottom of the rim. God forbid they have to shoot a left handed lay-up.

Again, this is not a criticism of myers, I agree that he has done well, and it is not easy. The argument I am making is that it should not be possible. The NPOY has 14 total attributes for shooting the ball and shot 50%.

Posted by cburton23 on 5/21/2016 9:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 5/20/2016 7:34:00 PM (view original):
If it's unfair just do the same. I command Mfnmyers for what he has done. He has a strat, stricks to it, more power to him. In D3, he probably does not shoot at lot but he has slashers that lay the ball in the basket.

How do the slashers get the ball in their hands with those passer ratings? And if they do actually get the ball wouldn't the pass be behind them or at their feet? And on the off chance they get a decent pass what is the probability they throw the ball off the backboard, or hit the bottom of the rim. God forbid they have to shoot a left handed lay-up.

Again, this is not a criticism of myers, I agree that he has done well, and it is not easy. The argument I am making is that it should not be possible. The NPOY has 14 total attributes for shooting the ball and shot 50%.

i agree on that. in the old engine, passing to get your team mate an open look... that wasn't even a thing. seble added it, but i think he added it in a fairly moderate way, not wanting to overshoot - which i totally approve of, its a good general approach. but i do think a tick up would be in order. also, bh should be added in with pass and iq in terms of what ratings contribute to "getting team mates better looks"

Posted by bhansalid00 on 5/20/2016 3:33:00 PM (view original):
I think there's one valid criticism of myers' teams (or rather the gameplay), which is that his relatively average speed should hurt him more than it does. I see some games where he's forcing [edited] 25+ TO while having less guard speed than his opponent. That's a stretch.

But I think the rest of the criticisms are off-base. A couple of points:
- The superclass argument. He's top-10 in worlds where he has 3 seniors and 5+ sophs. He's top-25 with a team that has 4 upperclassmen.
- "All he does is get ATH and DEF." First, as others have pointed out, his strategy only works so well because he also gets elite STA. It's insanely hard to get players who'll have all three of those attributes - not at a very good level, but at an elite level - since everybody wants those attributes. In Rupp, his team DEF avg is 74. That's with 5 sophs. The next highest DEF in D3 Rupp is 67. The highest in *D2* is 71. 90% of human players are looking for and fighting for those same attributes, and myers consistently gets them better than nearly everyone else.
- He recruits nationally, which most coaches don't even try to do at D3, and even fewer do really well. And he's able to pull it off both in worlds with nearly full Centennial confs, and worlds where it's nearly empty and he won't get the benefit of postseason cash from his conf mates.

As jsajsa pointed out, he's certainly beatable if you've got the right players and right gameplan. (Side note: opponents playing him -1 in the NT, when Dickinson hasn't made a single 3PT all season and he has a +15 reb adv / game = not the right gameplan.) His teams walk a real tightrope with their lack of BH / PAS, and it often backfires. But I think he's aware of those tradeoffs and navigates them perfectly, in both recruiting and depth chart, and to me that makes what he does much more interesting than most people seem to give him credit for.

Okay maybe you, Mr Know how to play him could give me some great insight. I, along with many other good coaches, played him at -1 for the most obvious reasons. He may have not have had a 3 point shooting team, but if you ask any of the great coaches (ask jsajsa) over 90% of his scoring came from his guards. If you play -5 you are playing into his strategy. He probably saw Stevenson play a -5 and thought it was a free victory for him. I could have seen you argue that we needed to play a -2, but that is about the farthest you could argue. My team had 0 (0) seniors and held their NPOY to 3-9 shooting. I completely understand the rebounding difference, but in my perspective, you have to give yourself the best opportunity to win. If I was to play vs him tonight I would still play him at a -1. My team was no where near able to compete with his, but at -1 it is the best chance for us to pull off the upset. I am just defensive of my teams, and if you do truly have a better opinion I am more than open to hear about it, but I feel unless you have a better team, -1 is the best way to play his team.

Posted by bhansalid00 on 5/20/2016 3:33:00 PM (view original):
I think there's one valid criticism of myers' teams (or rather the gameplay), which is that his relatively average speed should hurt him more than it does. I see some games where he's forcing [edited] 25+ TO while having less guard speed than his opponent. That's a stretch.

But I think the rest of the criticisms are off-base. A couple of points:
- The superclass argument. He's top-10 in worlds where he has 3 seniors and 5+ sophs. He's top-25 with a team that has 4 upperclassmen.
- "All he does is get ATH and DEF." First, as others have pointed out, his strategy only works so well because he also gets elite STA. It's insanely hard to get players who'll have all three of those attributes - not at a very good level, but at an elite level - since everybody wants those attributes. In Rupp, his team DEF avg is 74. That's with 5 sophs. The next highest DEF in D3 Rupp is 67. The highest in *D2* is 71. 90% of human players are looking for and fighting for those same attributes, and myers consistently gets them better than nearly everyone else.
- He recruits nationally, which most coaches don't even try to do at D3, and even fewer do really well. And he's able to pull it off both in worlds with nearly full Centennial confs, and worlds where it's nearly empty and he won't get the benefit of postseason cash from his conf mates.

As jsajsa pointed out, he's certainly beatable if you've got the right players and right gameplan. (Side note: opponents playing him -1 in the NT, when Dickinson hasn't made a single 3PT all season and he has a +15 reb adv / game = not the right gameplan.) His teams walk a real tightrope with their lack of BH / PAS, and it often backfires. But I think he's aware of those tradeoffs and navigates them perfectly, in both recruiting and depth chart, and to me that makes what he does much more interesting than most people seem to give him credit for.

As far as this relates to my comments, I want to say that his team DOES NOT use the superclass system, sorry if that was the way it came across.

For the comments about how hard it is to recruit those players, I think is a little speculative, not saying that you're wrong but I could also come up with an argument off the top of my head for why they are somewhat easier to recruit - even across distance.

Posted by qb4usf on 5/21/2016 4:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bhansalid00 on 5/20/2016 3:33:00 PM (view original):
I think there's one valid criticism of myers' teams (or rather the gameplay), which is that his relatively average speed should hurt him more than it does. I see some games where he's forcing [edited] 25+ TO while having less guard speed than his opponent. That's a stretch.

But I think the rest of the criticisms are off-base. A couple of points:
- The superclass argument. He's top-10 in worlds where he has 3 seniors and 5+ sophs. He's top-25 with a team that has 4 upperclassmen.
- "All he does is get ATH and DEF." First, as others have pointed out, his strategy only works so well because he also gets elite STA. It's insanely hard to get players who'll have all three of those attributes - not at a very good level, but at an elite level - since everybody wants those attributes. In Rupp, his team DEF avg is 74. That's with 5 sophs. The next highest DEF in D3 Rupp is 67. The highest in *D2* is 71. 90% of human players are looking for and fighting for those same attributes, and myers consistently gets them better than nearly everyone else.
- He recruits nationally, which most coaches don't even try to do at D3, and even fewer do really well. And he's able to pull it off both in worlds with nearly full Centennial confs, and worlds where it's nearly empty and he won't get the benefit of postseason cash from his conf mates.

As jsajsa pointed out, he's certainly beatable if you've got the right players and right gameplan. (Side note: opponents playing him -1 in the NT, when Dickinson hasn't made a single 3PT all season and he has a +15 reb adv / game = not the right gameplan.) His teams walk a real tightrope with their lack of BH / PAS, and it often backfires. But I think he's aware of those tradeoffs and navigates them perfectly, in both recruiting and depth chart, and to me that makes what he does much more interesting than most people seem to give him credit for.

Okay maybe you, Mr Know how to play him could give me some great insight. I, along with many other good coaches, played him at -1 for the most obvious reasons. He may have not have had a 3 point shooting team, but if you ask any of the great coaches (ask jsajsa) over 90% of his scoring came from his guards. If you play -5 you are playing into his strategy. He probably saw Stevenson play a -5 and thought it was a free victory for him. I could have seen you argue that we needed to play a -2, but that is about the farthest you could argue. My team had 0 (0) seniors and held their NPOY to 3-9 shooting. I completely understand the rebounding difference, but in my perspective, you have to give yourself the best opportunity to win. If I was to play vs him tonight I would still play him at a -1. My team was no where near able to compete with his, but at -1 it is the best chance for us to pull off the upset. I am just defensive of my teams, and if you do truly have a better opinion I am more than open to hear about it, but I feel unless you have a better team, -1 is the best way to play his team.

great analysis qb4...besides the upside of playing -5 for rebounding purposes, it plays directly into his hand for all other reasons...your team is now more likely to foul (which is a huge part of that teams offensive strategy), so they will shoot more FTs and you back-ups will have to play even more minutes than they already would of had to anyways - plus, look were all his offense comes from, sure he might not shoot any 3s but all his scoring comes from guards. I know there has been a ton of debate about this subject, and I don't claim to have the absolutely correct opinion on this, but I'm of the opinion that in those instances playing a heavy minus team defensive strategy will only help their offensive efficiency from the floor even more. In those scenarios, the most I ever go is -1 or -2 at the most.

It's not as easy as some people want to make it sound in the least.

Posted by qb4usf on 5/21/2016 4:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bhansalid00 on 5/20/2016 3:33:00 PM (view original):
I think there's one valid criticism of myers' teams (or rather the gameplay), which is that his relatively average speed should hurt him more than it does. I see some games where he's forcing [edited] 25+ TO while having less guard speed than his opponent. That's a stretch.

But I think the rest of the criticisms are off-base. A couple of points:
- The superclass argument. He's top-10 in worlds where he has 3 seniors and 5+ sophs. He's top-25 with a team that has 4 upperclassmen.
- "All he does is get ATH and DEF." First, as others have pointed out, his strategy only works so well because he also gets elite STA. It's insanely hard to get players who'll have all three of those attributes - not at a very good level, but at an elite level - since everybody wants those attributes. In Rupp, his team DEF avg is 74. That's with 5 sophs. The next highest DEF in D3 Rupp is 67. The highest in *D2* is 71. 90% of human players are looking for and fighting for those same attributes, and myers consistently gets them better than nearly everyone else.
- He recruits nationally, which most coaches don't even try to do at D3, and even fewer do really well. And he's able to pull it off both in worlds with nearly full Centennial confs, and worlds where it's nearly empty and he won't get the benefit of postseason cash from his conf mates.

As jsajsa pointed out, he's certainly beatable if you've got the right players and right gameplan. (Side note: opponents playing him -1 in the NT, when Dickinson hasn't made a single 3PT all season and he has a +15 reb adv / game = not the right gameplan.) His teams walk a real tightrope with their lack of BH / PAS, and it often backfires. But I think he's aware of those tradeoffs and navigates them perfectly, in both recruiting and depth chart, and to me that makes what he does much more interesting than most people seem to give him credit for.

Okay maybe you, Mr Know how to play him could give me some great insight. I, along with many other good coaches, played him at -1 for the most obvious reasons. He may have not have had a 3 point shooting team, but if you ask any of the great coaches (ask jsajsa) over 90% of his scoring came from his guards. If you play -5 you are playing into his strategy. He probably saw Stevenson play a -5 and thought it was a free victory for him. I could have seen you argue that we needed to play a -2, but that is about the farthest you could argue. My team had 0 (0) seniors and held their NPOY to 3-9 shooting. I completely understand the rebounding difference, but in my perspective, you have to give yourself the best opportunity to win. If I was to play vs him tonight I would still play him at a -1. My team was no where near able to compete with his, but at -1 it is the best chance for us to pull off the upset. I am just defensive of my teams, and if you do truly have a better opinion I am more than open to hear about it, but I feel unless you have a better team, -1 is the best way to play his team.

When I ran Carleton in Smith, we played Dickinson often, and I think we were pretty competitive. We always played -4 and -5. In my view, when you play an extreme team, it's ok to use an extreme game plan. I'm not saying it's the only way or the "right" way, but that was always part of my game plan with him. If he's not taking 3s, I'm giving him the perimeter, letting him try to get to the basket, and going for the rebound. I know there are lots of great coaches who swear by basing the +/- off of who scores, not from where. I've just never had success with that approach, especially not with man or press. With zone it makes a difference in whether I go 2-3 or 3-2, but I'm still basing my +/- off of how many 3s they take (generally), not who is doing the scoring.

Posted by shoe3 on 5/21/2016 5:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by qb4usf on 5/21/2016 4:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bhansalid00 on 5/20/2016 3:33:00 PM (view original):
I think there's one valid criticism of myers' teams (or rather the gameplay), which is that his relatively average speed should hurt him more than it does. I see some games where he's forcing [edited] 25+ TO while having less guard speed than his opponent. That's a stretch.

But I think the rest of the criticisms are off-base. A couple of points:
- The superclass argument. He's top-10 in worlds where he has 3 seniors and 5+ sophs. He's top-25 with a team that has 4 upperclassmen.
- "All he does is get ATH and DEF." First, as others have pointed out, his strategy only works so well because he also gets elite STA. It's insanely hard to get players who'll have all three of those attributes - not at a very good level, but at an elite level - since everybody wants those attributes. In Rupp, his team DEF avg is 74. That's with 5 sophs. The next highest DEF in D3 Rupp is 67. The highest in *D2* is 71. 90% of human players are looking for and fighting for those same attributes, and myers consistently gets them better than nearly everyone else.
- He recruits nationally, which most coaches don't even try to do at D3, and even fewer do really well. And he's able to pull it off both in worlds with nearly full Centennial confs, and worlds where it's nearly empty and he won't get the benefit of postseason cash from his conf mates.

As jsajsa pointed out, he's certainly beatable if you've got the right players and right gameplan. (Side note: opponents playing him -1 in the NT, when Dickinson hasn't made a single 3PT all season and he has a +15 reb adv / game = not the right gameplan.) His teams walk a real tightrope with their lack of BH / PAS, and it often backfires. But I think he's aware of those tradeoffs and navigates them perfectly, in both recruiting and depth chart, and to me that makes what he does much more interesting than most people seem to give him credit for.

Okay maybe you, Mr Know how to play him could give me some great insight. I, along with many other good coaches, played him at -1 for the most obvious reasons. He may have not have had a 3 point shooting team, but if you ask any of the great coaches (ask jsajsa) over 90% of his scoring came from his guards. If you play -5 you are playing into his strategy. He probably saw Stevenson play a -5 and thought it was a free victory for him. I could have seen you argue that we needed to play a -2, but that is about the farthest you could argue. My team had 0 (0) seniors and held their NPOY to 3-9 shooting. I completely understand the rebounding difference, but in my perspective, you have to give yourself the best opportunity to win. If I was to play vs him tonight I would still play him at a -1. My team was no where near able to compete with his, but at -1 it is the best chance for us to pull off the upset. I am just defensive of my teams, and if you do truly have a better opinion I am more than open to hear about it, but I feel unless you have a better team, -1 is the best way to play his team.

When I ran Carleton in Smith, we played Dickinson often, and I think we were pretty competitive. We always played -4 and -5. In my view, when you play an extreme team, it's ok to use an extreme game plan. I'm not saying it's the only way or the "right" way, but that was always part of my game plan with him. If he's not taking 3s, I'm giving him the perimeter, letting him try to get to the basket, and going for the rebound. I know there are lots of great coaches who swear by basing the +/- off of who scores, not from where. I've just never had success with that approach, especially not with man or press. With zone it makes a difference in whether I go 2-3 or 3-2, but I'm still basing my +/- off of how many 3s they take (generally), not who is doing the scoring.

Thanks for a better reply than I could’ve put together, shoe.
The effect of way negative making it more likely to foul is, in my experience, a relatively modest one, and I think it’s less than the significant advantage you’re getting both in terms of preventing extra rebounds and blocking the paint for a team that never shoots threes. If he wants to try to win by having his guards shoot mid-range shots, I’ll live with that.

qb4, you’ve been really successful and I wasn’t attacking you personally. Nor did I ever say that playing -5 makes it “easy” to beat him. If you feel that -1 gave you the best chance to win, that’s cool. I respectfully disagree, and so did the team that finally beat Dickinson.

the fatigue/foul spiral is the only argument against the heavy minus, in my opinion. the guards who shoot 2s, are not a reason - for a non 3pt scoring guard, going - is at worst breaking even, and highly likely is a victory, on fg%. so, if you are going to get creamed on fatigue, maybe its too scary to take those fouls, but for a good, deep team (which is probably the only one that is particularly relevant, teams that aren't deep or are deep and mediocre are pretty much screwed), the heavy minus is a no-brainer, from where i'm standing.