All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > How much of a disadvantage is zone defense?
5/6/2014 12:04 PM
Posted by wildcat98 on 5/6/2014 9:20:00 AM (view original):
Etta, stop polluting all the good threads with your bullshit.
This was certainly much more valuable than recommending to someone that is interested in zone defense to study Syracuse.

Much more useful to make a pointless personal attack.
5/6/2014 12:05 PM
Posted by scaturo on 5/6/2014 9:46:00 AM (view original):
Posted by scaturo on 5/5/2014 9:25:00 AM (view original):
Zone Experiment #1

DEFENSE:
Guard Average:  52/64/61 (ATH/SPD/DEF)
Forward Average: 63/39/62
Center:  42/2/53

REBOUNDING:

Forwards:  11 and 51
Center:  87

BLOCK:

Forwards: 27
Center: 77


My opponents two main scoring options are:

1. A guard  that takes about 60% of his shots as threes.

ATH:41
SPD: 67
PER: 69
BH: 75

This guy has an advantage on my guards.   I will be playing a +2 defense to try to limit him.

2. A guard/forward   that relies on ath/spd to score.

ATH: 67
SPD: 57
LP: 34
PER: 35
BH: 66

Less than 10% of his shots are three pointers and he seems to get fouled alot.   I think this is the type of guy that the high block center will help on it.     We'll see.

Interesting results.

The guard I was worried about went 4-12 (2-7 for 3FGA).

The guard/ forward actually played the 2,3,4 and 5 during the game.   I don't have the time to isolate his shots per position but he went  9-19 (1-1 for 3FA) and  took 11 FTs (although 4 were when we were intentionally fouling).

As a team, my opponents shot a little over 42% for 2 point shots and a little under that for 3 point shots.

We had been playing a 3-2 previously.   As expected, the 2fg% was lower in the 2-3 and the 3fg% was higher.  Although,the computer "adjusted"  my defense at 1/2 time from a +2 to a +0.      Against the +2 my opponent was 2-7 (pretty much our season average) against the +0 they were 3-5.
So I'm guessing you lost? How was rebounding?
5/6/2014 12:12 PM
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/28/2014 10:15:00 PM (view original):
 "I got more than enough of you last season in the OAC, and don't really care to have any contact or conversation with you and am      frankly  surprised you do."


Please be a man of your word and go away.

5/6/2014 12:41 PM
Posted by Trentonjoe on 5/6/2014 12:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/28/2014 10:15:00 PM (view original):
 "I got more than enough of you last season in the OAC, and don't really care to have any contact or conversation with you and am      frankly  surprised you do."


Please be a man of your word and go away.

Used my last post rating of the day to +1 this.
5/6/2014 3:56 PM
Posted by gillispie1 on 5/3/2014 5:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by zbrent716 on 5/3/2014 5:07:00 PM (view original):
Gillispie - Rebound. That's the next question in my mind and really a key. Are the 2-3 PF/SF averaged together for defensive rebounding purposes? And how does the "matchup" aspect of rebounding account for the zone?

If so, this is pretty huge, at least for the way I recruit SF. In the past, I've had no problem playing a High Ath/Def guy at SF even with low rebounding, thinking that his ~20 rebounding could be brought up reasonably by a 95+ C and 80+ PF (so the average is low, but maybe decent enough with very high Ath). If, instead, the SF/PF are averaged together independent of the C, now the average is down to ~50, at that seems too low to really work effectively. 

This is especially important if the relatively new "matchup" aspect of rebounding matches up the opposing PF against the average. In D2, that can often mean a 30+ advantage for the non-zone team on offensive rebounds.

oh yes, perfect, thank you. we were talking about this last night but i totally forgot about it today... its not clear to me if players are averaged together for defense, or also, for rebounding. what about fouls? good question.
Any feedback on the follow-up questions?

Seth Dillard really wants to know whether he will actually get to play this season or whether he's (under the engine) too slow to play SF in a 3-2 and too poor a rebounder to play SF in a 2-3.
5/6/2014 4:25 PM
Posted by zbrent716 on 5/6/2014 3:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 5/3/2014 5:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by zbrent716 on 5/3/2014 5:07:00 PM (view original):
Gillispie - Rebound. That's the next question in my mind and really a key. Are the 2-3 PF/SF averaged together for defensive rebounding purposes? And how does the "matchup" aspect of rebounding account for the zone?

If so, this is pretty huge, at least for the way I recruit SF. In the past, I've had no problem playing a High Ath/Def guy at SF even with low rebounding, thinking that his ~20 rebounding could be brought up reasonably by a 95+ C and 80+ PF (so the average is low, but maybe decent enough with very high Ath). If, instead, the SF/PF are averaged together independent of the C, now the average is down to ~50, at that seems too low to really work effectively. 

This is especially important if the relatively new "matchup" aspect of rebounding matches up the opposing PF against the average. In D2, that can often mean a 30+ advantage for the non-zone team on offensive rebounds.

oh yes, perfect, thank you. we were talking about this last night but i totally forgot about it today... its not clear to me if players are averaged together for defense, or also, for rebounding. what about fouls? good question.
Any feedback on the follow-up questions?

Seth Dillard really wants to know whether he will actually get to play this season or whether he's (under the engine) too slow to play SF in a 3-2 and too poor a rebounder to play SF in a 2-3.
 This guy is too poor a rebounder to play zone period from the 3 - 5 spots and too slow for the 1 and 2. I hope you have some dynamic 4's and 5's. It bugs me when they generate guys like this - you want to take a chance because you see all that ATH and DEF but then - nothing... GL this season!
5/6/2014 6:56 PM (edited)
His rebounding wouldn't scare me off from playing him at the 3, but his ball handling and passing sure as he'll would. Yep, that guy is a trap player

Edit: just realized he was a freshman.....hope he has a lot of room to grow in bh and pa
5/6/2014 6:59 PM
Posted by Trentonjoe on 5/6/2014 12:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/28/2014 10:15:00 PM (view original):
 "I got more than enough of you last season in the OAC, and don't really care to have any contact or conversation with you and am      frankly  surprised you do."


Please be a man of your word and go away.

Just trying to add to the conversation. You left some stuff out that I thought would give a better picture of how your strategy worked.
5/6/2014 7:33 PM
Posted by ohhale on 5/4/2014 10:54:00 PM (view original):
Irl = in real life
Ah. Thanks
5/6/2014 9:37 PM
Posted by milwood on 5/6/2014 6:56:00 PM (view original):
His rebounding wouldn't scare me off from playing him at the 3, but his ball handling and passing sure as he'll would. Yep, that guy is a trap player

Edit: just realized he was a freshman.....hope he has a lot of room to grow in bh and pa
Still high (was high-high before RS) in Speed and Per. Still high (unknown high pre-RS) in BH & Per.

With PT, he projects to (low-end max) of 80 Ath, 60 Spd, 5 Reb, 95 Def, 50 BH, 40 Pas, B+ FT.

Though not ideal, I'd be fine with those generally in a SF. Even now, I'd probably be fine with that (slightly) slow defender in a 3-2. But now he may be severely limited in a 2-3 because the 90+ rebounding C can't help him out (by the averages).

And, frankly, if he's *only* a 3-2 guy, he may not get enough PT now to reach his potentials.
5/7/2014 9:37 AM
Game 2

Zone Experiment #1

DEFENSE:
Guard Average:  52/64/61 (ATH/SPD/DEF)
Forward Average: 63/39/62
Center:  42/2/53

REBOUNDING:

Forwards:  11 and 51
Center:  87

BLOCK:

Forwards: 27
Center: 77

Went worse.  

Played a 2-3 +2 to stop a 3 point threat from the SF (23 ATH, 56 SPD, 93 PER, 41 BH).   It limited his shots (he had 6 3FG and was averaging 9) but he made half of them.

This feels like he was covered by the two forwards.   He was limited in attempts because of the ATH advantage of the DEF but when he did get a shot off he was successful because of the offensive players SPD and PER.

We also got lit up by the PF (68 ATH, 55 LP) as he went 5-9  FG and 3-3 FT.   This was about his per game average.  Again this feels like he was covered by the forwards.   I think their low BLK score allowed him to be so successful.

I was also surprised by his PG (60 ATH, 63 SPD, 12 LP, 37 PER, 85 BH).  He was 5-7 FG and 7-9 FT.   He had season highs in FGA, FTA and points.   I can't quite figure this one out except for maybe he got some sort of advantage "driving to the basket" against the +2 defense.

As a team they murdered us on the boards (69% to 57% using cbg's system)  but they were a much better rebounding team so I don't know how telling  that is.
5/7/2014 9:45 AM
It is not my experience that rebounding is averaged for the 3 and 4 spots in the 2-3. This season at VU I have a PF with sub optimal rebounding (68 with 57 ath and b range IQs) whom averaged just over 6 rebounds per game. The SF has a rebounding in the low 20s. If they were averaged I would expect the PF to have fewer rebounds and that the SF rebounding would somewhat approach that of the PF which it did not.

I would still like to have a little more bh and pa in my SF, ideally, but I think he will still be a very productive player in the 2-3. I might cosider using him in a back up role against the press, but I think his ath and def outweigh his other shortcomings
5/7/2014 9:55 AM
Scaturo, with all due respect, the team you're using for this experiment is not very talented and is extremely young. Im not sure that team is the best example of a zone team that you would want to use in this experiment. I think it is good to try to maximize your results by using the new information, but I would not expect to learn too much from that group of players.

I'm not saying stop posting your results or stop analyzing the results. However, what I am saying is be careful with what you think you are learning. That team is not representative of a good zone team and the results may be swayed by other factors other than the defensive makeup of the 2-3

Good luck with your team
5/7/2014 10:03 AM
I agree with milwood above.  My D3 zone team has a PF with good rebounding numbers (61ATH, 77REB, A IQ) that averages 9 RPG.  My SF isn't great at rebounding (66 ATH, 32 REB, A IQ) and averages 4.1 RPG.  The "ideal" C I posted earlier in the thread (65 ATH, 98 REB, A+ IQ) averages 9.6 RPG.

I play a lot of 2-3, even though I consider my SF more of a G type than a post type.  Just looking back through past games, I also play a lot of minus in a 2-3, more than a few -5's.  

Maybe it's the rebound logic that's been discussed before - decide which team gets the REB, then weighted formula to choose which player gets the actual REB.  I don't think, in very limited eyeball tests, that REB is averaged between the SF and PF.
5/7/2014 12:25 PM
Posted by ettaexpress on 5/6/2014 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by wildcat98 on 5/6/2014 9:20:00 AM (view original):
Etta, stop polluting all the good threads with your bullshit.
This was certainly much more valuable than recommending to someone that is interested in zone defense to study Syracuse.

Much more useful to make a pointless personal attack.
He's talking about the other post where you called the guy an idiot. That was a pointless personal attack.
of 12
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > How much of a disadvantage is zone defense?

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.