10/14/2013 3:14 PM
Since I've seen some good info on other similar threads recently I'm hoping that some of the same vets may drop in here and take a look at my Columbia team in Phelan. I really expected a NT season this year and that seems unlikely at best now. Were my expectations just way over the moon? Did I **** it up somehow? Is it just one of those things? 
10/14/2013 4:39 PM
IQ can only carry you so far. I don't see that team being much better than any of my d2 programs. 
10/14/2013 5:52 PM
you have really good D2 programs though - but I guess that's not really so good for a fairly competitive Ivy League...
10/14/2013 7:29 PM
The biggest thing that stands out to me is a total lack of ath at guard. I wouldn't want those aths on a D2 squad.

You have a decent team in a full human conference -- I wouldn't have scheduled any of those tough games.

And I would've utilized slowdown more. You weren't using it even when playing teams like Duke and OR's Bama squad, let alone some tough conference games. I don't understand that. I think your bench was weak at #8-10 and you start a bunch of seniors, so to me that kind of screams for a slowdown.

10/14/2013 8:34 PM
Posted by girt25 on 10/14/2013 7:29:00 PM (view original):
The biggest thing that stands out to me is a total lack of ath at guard. I wouldn't want those aths on a D2 squad.

You have a decent team in a full human conference -- I wouldn't have scheduled any of those tough games.

And I would've utilized slowdown more. You weren't using it even when playing teams like Duke and OR's Bama squad, let alone some tough conference games. I don't understand that. I think your bench was weak at #8-10 and you start a bunch of seniors, so to me that kind of screams for a slowdown.

ATH ranging from 50-59 is not "a total lack of ath at guard." Agree with the tempo note.
10/14/2013 9:09 PM
I'm surprised that solid vets are asking these questions.
10/14/2013 9:33 PM
Posted by colonels19 on 10/14/2013 9:09:00 PM (view original):
I'm surprised that solid vets are asking these questions.
Maybe that's how "solid vets" become solid: by not believing the illusion that they have all the answers.
10/14/2013 9:58 PM
Yeah, in general you'd like to see more pointed questions from veteran owners, but if you're really flummoxed by the team's performance, you might not even know where to start.  Sometimes it's hard to take a step back and evaluate your own teams after you bring in the guys you wanted; maybe their highs weren't as high as you hoped, but you still think of them as elite at things that they might not be elite at.  Or something along those lines.

In this case, I would have also expected at least a slightly better RPI from a team like that.  It looks like at least a PIT team to me.  Schedule was probably a big part of it.  I also would have found a way to start Garner somewhere every game I think.  Armstrong I like a little less, but still - if better utilized on the depth chart, they should have been able to play 28-30 MPG apiece even at normal tempo with 87 stamina in triangle/man, maybe even a few more if you set them to "getting tired," which I definitely would have done.  So right there, between those 2 guys, you left 12+ minutes of quality play sitting on the bench.  Your 2 freshmen could have combined for almost no minutes with 87, 87, and 84 stamina guards in front of them; alternatively, those minutes could have come from your guys backing up the 3.  But they should have come from somewhere.
10/14/2013 11:17 PM
Posted by MyGeneration on 10/14/2013 8:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by girt25 on 10/14/2013 7:29:00 PM (view original):
The biggest thing that stands out to me is a total lack of ath at guard. I wouldn't want those aths on a D2 squad.

You have a decent team in a full human conference -- I wouldn't have scheduled any of those tough games.

And I would've utilized slowdown more. You weren't using it even when playing teams like Duke and OR's Bama squad, let alone some tough conference games. I don't understand that. I think your bench was weak at #8-10 and you start a bunch of seniors, so to me that kind of screams for a slowdown.

ATH ranging from 50-59 is not "a total lack of ath at guard." Agree with the tempo note.
At d1 it is. It's probably why teams shot 38% from behind the arc.

I also find that teams without a pure pg, probably something like 90+ pass at that level, underperform offensively. I won't say your team did poorly on offense at first glance but it didn't excel.
10/16/2013 2:15 AM
Posted by Trentonjoe on 10/14/2013 11:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MyGeneration on 10/14/2013 8:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by girt25 on 10/14/2013 7:29:00 PM (view original):
The biggest thing that stands out to me is a total lack of ath at guard. I wouldn't want those aths on a D2 squad.

You have a decent team in a full human conference -- I wouldn't have scheduled any of those tough games.

And I would've utilized slowdown more. You weren't using it even when playing teams like Duke and OR's Bama squad, let alone some tough conference games. I don't understand that. I think your bench was weak at #8-10 and you start a bunch of seniors, so to me that kind of screams for a slowdown.

ATH ranging from 50-59 is not "a total lack of ath at guard." Agree with the tempo note.
At d1 it is. It's probably why teams shot 38% from behind the arc.

I also find that teams without a pure pg, probably something like 90+ pass at that level, underperform offensively. I won't say your team did poorly on offense at first glance but it didn't excel.
I was told in that other thread that being really fast can make up for even an ATH in the 30s for a PG, even at D1.
10/16/2013 8:25 AM
dac's guys here aren't "really fast"
10/16/2013 10:33 AM (edited)
Posted by MyGeneration on 10/14/2013 9:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by colonels19 on 10/14/2013 9:09:00 PM (view original):
I'm surprised that solid vets are asking these questions.
Maybe that's how "solid vets" become solid: by not believing the illusion that they have all the answers.
well said. i recently appealed to a bunch of coaches to explain the most basic elements of zone defense to me, as i wasn't sure i had even mastered zone to that level. no coach is "above" seeking help from others, or good enough where there isn't still much to learn. learning from other coaches is a great way to learn in this game - easily the most productive way. you can also study the teams of the top coaches in the game - but frankly, that can only get you so far, and in many situations (such as being at a d1 mid major), its too apples to oranges to apply a lot of what you see. of course, you can always rely on your own experiments and experiences, but you are going to be SEVERELY handicapped if thats the ONLY way you pick stuff up.

the difference between the great coaches in this game and everyone else, for the most part, is how much they have learned from other coaches. theres a million things to learn in HD and you can only pick up a little bit at a time, from your own teams and experiences. 
10/16/2013 10:41 AM
Posted by girt25 on 10/14/2013 7:29:00 PM (view original):
The biggest thing that stands out to me is a total lack of ath at guard. I wouldn't want those aths on a D2 squad.

You have a decent team in a full human conference -- I wouldn't have scheduled any of those tough games.

And I would've utilized slowdown more. You weren't using it even when playing teams like Duke and OR's Bama squad, let alone some tough conference games. I don't understand that. I think your bench was weak at #8-10 and you start a bunch of seniors, so to me that kind of screams for a slowdown.

i think this is the answer that really hits the core of the problem. as a whole, this team is not that talented, as is true for most mid majors. could this team make the NT in the right setting, with the right decisions by the coach? probably. but not in that conference with that non conference, you were effectively doomed from the start.

on the whole i prefer my NT mid majors to be more talented, all around really, than columbia. so when you have these kind of not that talented mid major teams, its all about playing the easiest teams you can where you still come out looking OK. in that conference its going to be tough for a team like this to make the NT at all, it seems to me. to do so you would have really had to get the most out of your non conference, come out 10-0 against some poor teams with decent records, something like that. you get the top 100 rpi games you need in conference, so you really wanted to focus on boosting your record and RPI in non conference.

even with the perfect schedule, it really just comes down to talent. i haven't checked the game planning closely, although if you didnt run slowdown against the tough teams, that was clearly a mistake. it seems to me your offense was pretty efficient for the players you had, so im going out on a limb and assuming you played the offense well (even though some better scorers would have went a long way). but that defense, thats brutal. running man you'd hope for a lot better ath/def across your whole team - except for a couple players, most of the players really are poor defenders. its going to be damn near impossible to make up for that big of a deficiency in the most important area of the game, especially when your regular season isn't composed of a good 23 sims or so :)
10/16/2013 11:44 AM
Posted by MyGeneration on 10/14/2013 8:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by girt25 on 10/14/2013 7:29:00 PM (view original):
The biggest thing that stands out to me is a total lack of ath at guard. I wouldn't want those aths on a D2 squad.

You have a decent team in a full human conference -- I wouldn't have scheduled any of those tough games.

And I would've utilized slowdown more. You weren't using it even when playing teams like Duke and OR's Bama squad, let alone some tough conference games. I don't understand that. I think your bench was weak at #8-10 and you start a bunch of seniors, so to me that kind of screams for a slowdown.

ATH ranging from 50-59 is not "a total lack of ath at guard." Agree with the tempo note.
Dac has been mentoring me this season as I took my first jump to D1 (and he's been a great help), so I'm going to take this as another learning opportunity:

I have traditionally valued ATH above SPD in recruiting, though I love guys with both.  But in D1, wouldn't an "athletic guard" have ATH in the 70s at least?   A guard with 59 ATH and 64 SPD would probably neither out-athlete nor outrun an opposing guard, in my estimation.  Why wouldn't you want guards with either/or being high instead of guards with mediocre D1 ratings in both?

I'm asking to get a consensus, here. 

10/16/2013 4:58 PM
ethan, are you just talking guards? for bigs its not even close, so im assuming you just mean for guards here. as to which attribute is better, i used to be a guard speed man, but that was also a different day, with a different sim engine. back in the uber press days speed was the king and it wasnt close. now its a much more complicated answer.

in press today, even outside of the relative decrease in the dominance of the press, the relative value of ath, spd, and def has shifted, where spd is no longer by a wide margin the most important stat. i believe its def, spd, ath, without huge gaps between any of the three.

in man/zone, i think most people would agree that ath is at least as important as speed, just from a defensive standpoint i mean, and probably more so.

however, there is also the offensive angle. from an offensive standpoint, for traditional guards, speed is way more important. for pure 3 point shooters, its not close. for solid per guards (can take 3s effectively but only have say 75-80 per in d1) its still speed. i've been trying to study the impact of the various ratings on slashing type guards, which didnt exist in the old engine, so i really have no comparison point from when i really played. but it does seem to me to be very possible that ath actually trumps spd for lp/ft based scoring guards. 

the conclusion here is, it depends. you cant just look at ratings and say one is more important than the other, when they are so complicated ratings like this. sure, you can say SB is never as important as ATH for a guard, but these tricky ones, it really depends what you are using the player for. for most defense oriented guards, maybe its ath, for most offense oriented guards, maybe its speed. most. its really more complicated than that and there is no simple answer, IMO.

also just FYI, a 70 ath/spd guard is basically unusable in high d1. they can be decent for NT bound mid majors trying to break into the big 6, but they really have no place in high level d1 play.

 
of 2

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.