In the zone is it the average ratings of the 2 or 3 defenders that's used in the equation? 

In the 2-3 Zone, the PG and SG are averaged together and the SF, PF, and C are averaged together. When you switch to the 3-2 the SF is averaged with the PG and SG.

+1

Thanks, follow up question I just thought of, do we know exactly what gets averaged in? I'd assume ath, sp, def, block and IQ, possibly in game stamina, with everything weighted each part of the zone. Am I missing anything?

one thing ive always wondered...

with reboundeding and the 2-3 zone, in real life, i think we can agree that rebounding is of greatest importance for the center.   and then slightly less important (but still very important) for the PF and SF.  whether you agree with that is not crucial... but one thing that cannot be debated (i think) is that the relative importance of rebounding for the SF and PF is exactly the same in real life in the 2-3.

i think most folks feel that in other defenses the weight given to RE in the rebounding equation decreases as you move away from the basket.  although i think that most folks agree that C and PF both get full value or very close to it.   the key to what i am saying here is that in most defenses i think the HD consesus is that the value of RE for a SF is discounted compared to the PF... but it really feels like this shouldnt be the case in the 2-3.  if normal is 100-100-60,  maybe 2-3 zone should be 100-80-80  but i have no idea if it is like that.

I feel like most folks treat the C and PF positions as interchangeable or close to it,  and treats the SF very differently.  but in a 2-3 zone, at least on the defensive end,  arent the PF and SF identical positions (and very very different from the center?)

i feel like i am not explaining this very well,  maybe someone who knows what i mean can take a stab at explaining it better.  or better yet, maybesomeone knows what i mean and knows how the HD engine treats the 2-3 with regards to rebounding

I play zone in 3 of my 5 teams and I'm honestly not sure Dave.  I recruit my C and PF to be specific - highest reb, def and ath possible, and C I want highest SB possible.  Now for my SF, I just want his reb to be respectable (depends on the level), I focus more on his ath/def ratings since I know those will factor into the defensive average.

I have a DI zone team, C has 94 REB, PF has 76 REB, SF has 42 REB.  Avgs for the year are 7.1, 7.1 and 4.0  FWIW, I avg 33reb/gm vs my opponents 29.2

I worry about the def for averaging, but not rebounding.

Posted by mikvitu on 4/16/2014 7:02:00 AM (view original):
Thanks, follow up question I just thought of, do we know exactly what gets averaged in? I'd assume ath, sp, def, block and IQ, possibly in game stamina, with everything weighted each part of the zone. Am I missing anything?

Ath, def, block- yes
Spd,Iq- probably
Stamina- no

Posted by oldave on 4/16/2014 7:23:00 AM (view original):
one thing ive always wondered...

with reboundeding and the 2-3 zone, in real life, i think we can agree that rebounding is of greatest importance for the center.   and then slightly less important (but still very important) for the PF and SF.  whether you agree with that is not crucial... but one thing that cannot be debated (i think) is that the relative importance of rebounding for the SF and PF is exactly the same in real life in the 2-3.

i think most folks feel that in other defenses the weight given to RE in the rebounding equation decreases as you move away from the basket.  although i think that most folks agree that C and PF both get full value or very close to it.   the key to what i am saying here is that in most defenses i think the HD consesus is that the value of RE for a SF is discounted compared to the PF... but it really feels like this shouldnt be the case in the 2-3.  if normal is 100-100-60,  maybe 2-3 zone should be 100-80-80  but i have no idea if it is like that.

I feel like most folks treat the C and PF positions as interchangeable or close to it,  and treats the SF very differently.  but in a 2-3 zone, at least on the defensive end,  arent the PF and SF identical positions (and very very different from the center?)

i feel like i am not explaining this very well,  maybe someone who knows what i mean can take a stab at explaining it better.  or better yet, maybesomeone knows what i mean and knows how the HD engine treats the 2-3 with regards to rebounding

I think the weight just determines who is most likely to get the rebound in the box score, after it has been determined which team gets it. What you're saying makes sense though, in the 2-3 the SF should have the same weight as the PF, I have no idea if they do or not. But when it comes down to it I don't think it really affects team rebounding at all.

I believe that front court players are weighted more heavily than wing players with RB - but sometimes the stats make me believe that RB in zone carries more importance in back court players than other sets. My starting PG on my Louisville team has a 44 RB rating and is pulling down 4.5 boards a game 13 games into the season. He should grow to around 55 RB I'd estimate as he's still black in potential so I'll see if this increases even if slightly as the season progresses. I believe my team is weak in RB this season as I have no elite RB- FC players - 85 and below - all of them - but because of my short rotation and the minutes my pg is playing, I think he's helping my RB efforts more than I've seen in the past from the PG spot.

Most coaches don't look at RB in guards as they don't have to, but in Zone I think it's at least worth a glance to see where your guards will end up with their RB ratings. SF is a no brainer - you need a SF that can RB in the Zone - whether you're running 2-3 or 3-2 - I personally want a superior RB'ing SF - preferably one who can switch between PF - SF if possible. As I continue to run Zone though - I'm seeing that there are some pretty nice returns from having great RB guards.

I run zone/flex at Virginia union in Knight D2. I have a pretty decent amount of success with this team. Normally, I do not play 3-2 because of the rebounding disadvantage. This season, however, I played a lot more 3-2 because I had elite rebounders. Both bigs were 99-100 for rebounding and even though their ath was only high 50s- low 60s they were both very productive on the boards. My SF was a guard with only 20s rebounding and this didn't hurt me at all last season. I think you can get away with the low rebounding SF as long as you have great rebounders at the 4 and 5, but it really needs to be a priority for your bigs.

As far as being interchangeable at the 4 and 5, I will switch my guys depending on match ups. However, I would really prefer to have the better passing big playing PF, especially against the press. In the past I looked at recruiting bigs, but now I am trying to focus more on having at least one of the two a guy that can handle the ball a little and pass a little. This is more for offensive purposes, so it may be a little off topic.

As for the equation for rebounding, I don't know waty it is exactly or how it is weighted, but based on the last season and comparing that to my other seasons I think by far the most important factor is rebounding itself. I have had rebounders with athleticism in the mid 70s and rebounding in the mid 80s and they didn't produce as well as the 60 ath and 100 rebounding.

I coached Incarnate Word in Knight D2 a while back and had lots of success with the zone/triangle (probably why I still run it now).  Whenever I chose to run 3-2 it was more about lowering opponent FG% (under 40%) as unless you're playing an inferior RB team, most often times you won't win the RB game running 3-2. I think you should run 3-2 if you lack elite RB but have great ATH - SP - Def ratings across the board.

There's always a big debate about passing in bigs but I'm inclined to agree with you because if passing is averaged across the team I don't see how having great passing bigs hurts. I figure passing may work the same way RB works in reverse. I would'nt recruit passing over other core stats but definitely can't hurt on the offensive end.

I don't think anyone knows what the equation is for RB - another debatable topic - but I will say 60 ATH is like the minimum I look at for bigs and the most important rating for RB is RB so it's no surprise a 60 - ATH 100 RB big would outperform 70 ish 80 ish bigs on the boards (that's a pretty hugh difference in ratings there) - I'd be more concerned about defense in the lower ATH bigs and how often they foul or allow baskets to be made - especially in a 3-2. I've been out of D2 for a while now and D1 is pretty different in that you just need higher ratings in all core categories.

dave, mikvitu probably nailed the important part of the answer in that it probably doesn't effect overall team rebounding. I'd guess that the rebounding decision tree is just modified by some flat value for diff. defenses, and that that 3/4 equivalence isn't a factor, but I don't run a lot of zone.

yeah,  ive heard that before about a decision being made first on which team gets the rebound... and then the engine decides... after the fact... which player gets it.

that puzzles me.  but,  even if true,  we still have to understand how the engine decides which team gets the rebound... and i would think it is done similarly.  or do we think a team of 5 guys all with 50 RE would rebound equally as well as a team with  C=99 PF=99 SF=50  SG=1 PG=1 ?

Posted by oldave on 4/17/2014 2:03:00 PM (view original):
yeah,  ive heard that before about a decision being made first on which team gets the rebound... and then the engine decides... after the fact... which player gets it.

that puzzles me.  but,  even if true,  we still have to understand how the engine decides which team gets the rebound... and i would think it is done similarly.  or do we think a team of 5 guys all with 50 RE would rebound equally as well as a team with  C=99 PF=99 SF=50  SG=1 PG=1 ?

I'm hoping gillispie wanders in here eventually, but I think the 99-99 team would be better - just weighting the positions would do that - and if the positions are weighted something like TeamReb (TR) = CR*1+PFR*.9+SFR*.5+SGR*.2+PGR*.1 or some such then the 99-99 team's value would be better, but the same multipllier for the SF would still be applied no matter what defense...I think that's probably close, (in form, probably not in the numbers, which I pulled directly out of my ***) but only from reading all the threads about how everyone seems to understand the engine for so long.

Going back to the first topic of this thread, if I am playing against the zone and  I set my C or PF at a +2, is the sim engine looking at the front court defense or backcourt defense ratings when evaluating a 3 point shot.  Seems like it should be looking at the guard ratings since that is who would be in the vicinity in that case, but not sure if it works that way. 

Same principle applies if I set my guards at a -2 so they penetrate to the hoop.  In that case, they should be going against the inside defenders, but does any one know if the engine really works that way?