It really is a matchup issue, bistiza, with a pinch of random variation thrown in.  First of all, Lachance is just not that great a shooter for D2.  He's not particularly fast (71 SPD).  The BH (46) is poor for a backcourt player.  I'd have a hard time putting that BH at SF.  His PER, at 76, is nothing to write home about - not bad, but not Steph Curry either.  On the season, he shot 40% overall and 39% from 3.

He's going up against a great defensive player.  As pointed out previously, Kovacs is much more athletic (74) and faster (86) than Lachance.  Add in that 77 DEF rating, and he's one of the best perimeter defenders in D2.

Yes, he's at -5.  He's giving Lachance a lot of space.  However, Lachance is covered by just about the perfect defender to deal with that and still get in his face when he tries to shoot.  Lachance is at a big speed disadvantage so he's not going to be able to create *extra* space.  He's not a good ball handler, so it's going to take him longer than it takes most guards to dribble and collect the ball to shoot.  That gives the much faster and much more athletic defender more time to close when Lachance shows he wants to shoot.

I think it's unrealistic to think he might get up 15 shots.  He got 14 or more six times all season.  You might reasonably have expected more than four shots, but against this defender, even at -5, I don't know if that's even a great idea.

Question: who do you consider to be a better shooter, Lachance or Brubaker?  Note: I'm not suggesting Brubaker should have started or is a better player, or that it was a choice between one or the other.  Just, who is a better shooter?

Posted by bistiza on 3/8/2015 10:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 3/8/2015 6:57:00 AM (view original):
Your distro is plays RUN for a player to shoot, not shoots taken.  Most of the time it equates to the same thing, but not all of the time.

He is playing Man2Man, so even at -5, guys get guarded individually.  Maybe in a zone, the guards are bunch up and close to the basket .. but in Man2Man they still guard their individual man.

Lachance has a -15 SPD differential and a -19 ATH differential against Kovacs .. and Kovacs is an A- defender, with 77 DEF.  -5 or not, there is no way that Lachance gets open to take 3 point shots.  If Kovacs is not double teaming, then Kovacs is still matching up against Lachance .. just playing off him to take away the inside.  But with A- DIQ, 77 DEF, and double digit advantages in SPD and ATH, Kovacs is still able to keep Lachance from getting open.  So you are running plays for Lachance, but he is defended and the shot goes elsewhere even if the play was RUN for Lachance.  Lachance should be able to shoot against the backup SG, but even there the SG has a double digit speed advantage against Lachance (though they are the same ATH and the backup has a B+ DIQ and only 60 DEF).

If you set Wendell Horn to shoot 3's .. Dwanye Smith has +41 SPD advantage against him and Smith is a perimeter defender with a A- IQ and 64 DEF.  Horn does have a huge ATH advantage against Smith and might be able to post up Smith, but likely can't get up to shoot a 3 against him.  That is why, even if you had Horn set to shoot 3's, since he could not get open there, he instead shot more 2's against Smith.  The LOOKED for 3's, had plays run to take them, but were not open.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree with the state "there is no way Lachance gets open to take 3 point shots."

I think you are giving way too much credit to what I see as a relatively small difference in ratings between Kovacs and Lachance in the areas you mention. Even IF those ratings make the huge difference you seem to think they would, even good defenders lose their man sometimes.  This happens MUCH more frequently if the defender is "playing off of him to take away the inside" - or at least, it should happen much more frequently. You can't logically play your man tight if you're playing off him to take away the inside.

I don't care if the guy had 99 ratings in spd and ath, if you play off your man, that man should be getting open fairly frequently. Otherwise, the settings have no downside and therefore no meaning.

First, I don't buy that the threes weren't open enough to even shoot more than ten. If only ten shots were open enough to take from behind the arc all game despite those settings, then the settings are meaningless. You can run -5 all you want and it doesn't matter, you can still shut down your opponent from beyond the arc provided you have a modest edge in a few key ratings in the man to man.  That's ridiculous.

Second, if my settings of +2 and high distro for my three point shooters only mean they will "look" for shots and doesn't mean they will take them, then that setting is equally meaningless. If I set it like that, I want the guy taking a ton of threes, no matter what.  I don't want him looking around and somehow not obeying the settings because he thinks he isn't open enough to even shoot.

If the computer is going to decide how many guys shoot threes for me, I might as well not even coach at all.

Posted by zorzii on 3/8/2015 12:22:00 PM (view original):
I am thinking this thread is about coaching. And it is not simple. This is what makes this game fun. If it was easy, would we play? The distro is certainly about plays run to a player, not shots taken. Say you run a play for someone, he got doubled up or was not in position or received a bad pass, will he shoot at all cost? I doubt it. The game is simulated and unless we can predict what the other team will do, there is no way the distro ends up being what we decided it would be for our players. The defense that probably disrupt the distro the most is man to man. Sometimes I am scratching my head as why I lost a game, why I shot so bad, why I was unable to score over 50... Sometimes I look at teams, check mine and think : I am winning this and it ends up being a nightmare. Coaching. I guess this is why good coaches specialize in a specific offense and in a specific defense.

I am pretty bad at playing press. My teams (I will drop one) lose most close games. I'm pretty bad with Motion offense. Everytime I add another dimension to my recruiting to suit FLEX or ZONE or MAN TO MAN, sometimes I forget about stuff I already knew that were important and it's back to the drawing board. Should I play UPTEMPO, NORMAL or SLOW, how do I set up my distro, which player will score against particular défenses etc.

That is why good coaches are consistent, they know all about that.

Posted by llamanunts on 3/8/2015 1:38:00 PM (view original):

It really is a matchup issue, bistiza, with a pinch of random variation thrown in.  First of all, Lachance is just not that great a shooter for D2.  He's not particularly fast (71 SPD).  The BH (46) is poor for a backcourt player.  I'd have a hard time putting that BH at SF.  His PER, at 76, is nothing to write home about - not bad, but not Steph Curry either.  On the season, he shot 40% overall and 39% from 3.

He's going up against a great defensive player.  As pointed out previously, Kovacs is much more athletic (74) and faster (86) than Lachance.  Add in that 77 DEF rating, and he's one of the best perimeter defenders in D2.

Yes, he's at -5.  He's giving Lachance a lot of space.  However, Lachance is covered by just about the perfect defender to deal with that and still get in his face when he tries to shoot.  Lachance is at a big speed disadvantage so he's not going to be able to create *extra* space.  He's not a good ball handler, so it's going to take him longer than it takes most guards to dribble and collect the ball to shoot.  That gives the much faster and much more athletic defender more time to close when Lachance shows he wants to shoot.

I think it's unrealistic to think he might get up 15 shots.  He got 14 or more six times all season.  You might reasonably have expected more than four shots, but against this defender, even at -5, I don't know if that's even a great idea.

Question: who do you consider to be a better shooter, Lachance or Brubaker?  Note: I'm not suggesting Brubaker should have started or is a better player, or that it was a choice between one or the other.  Just, who is a better shooter?

Posted by hughesjr on 3/8/2015 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 3/8/2015 10:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 3/8/2015 6:57:00 AM (view original):
Your distro is plays RUN for a player to shoot, not shoots taken.  Most of the time it equates to the same thing, but not all of the time.

He is playing Man2Man, so even at -5, guys get guarded individually.  Maybe in a zone, the guards are bunch up and close to the basket .. but in Man2Man they still guard their individual man.

Lachance has a -15 SPD differential and a -19 ATH differential against Kovacs .. and Kovacs is an A- defender, with 77 DEF.  -5 or not, there is no way that Lachance gets open to take 3 point shots.  If Kovacs is not double teaming, then Kovacs is still matching up against Lachance .. just playing off him to take away the inside.  But with A- DIQ, 77 DEF, and double digit advantages in SPD and ATH, Kovacs is still able to keep Lachance from getting open.  So you are running plays for Lachance, but he is defended and the shot goes elsewhere even if the play was RUN for Lachance.  Lachance should be able to shoot against the backup SG, but even there the SG has a double digit speed advantage against Lachance (though they are the same ATH and the backup has a B+ DIQ and only 60 DEF).

If you set Wendell Horn to shoot 3's .. Dwanye Smith has +41 SPD advantage against him and Smith is a perimeter defender with a A- IQ and 64 DEF.  Horn does have a huge ATH advantage against Smith and might be able to post up Smith, but likely can't get up to shoot a 3 against him.  That is why, even if you had Horn set to shoot 3's, since he could not get open there, he instead shot more 2's against Smith.  The LOOKED for 3's, had plays run to take them, but were not open.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree with the state "there is no way Lachance gets open to take 3 point shots."

I think you are giving way too much credit to what I see as a relatively small difference in ratings between Kovacs and Lachance in the areas you mention. Even IF those ratings make the huge difference you seem to think they would, even good defenders lose their man sometimes.  This happens MUCH more frequently if the defender is "playing off of him to take away the inside" - or at least, it should happen much more frequently. You can't logically play your man tight if you're playing off him to take away the inside.

I don't care if the guy had 99 ratings in spd and ath, if you play off your man, that man should be getting open fairly frequently. Otherwise, the settings have no downside and therefore no meaning.

First, I don't buy that the threes weren't open enough to even shoot more than ten. If only ten shots were open enough to take from behind the arc all game despite those settings, then the settings are meaningless. You can run -5 all you want and it doesn't matter, you can still shut down your opponent from beyond the arc provided you have a modest edge in a few key ratings in the man to man.  That's ridiculous.

Second, if my settings of +2 and high distro for my three point shooters only mean they will "look" for shots and doesn't mean they will take them, then that setting is equally meaningless. If I set it like that, I want the guy taking a ton of threes, no matter what.  I don't want him looking around and somehow not obeying the settings because he thinks he isn't open enough to even shoot.

If the computer is going to decide how many guys shoot threes for me, I might as well not even coach at all.

First off, you can't run -5 whenever you want.. You can if you have a guard with Kovacs SPD, ATH, and DEF.. And you are playing man to man.

And I am telling you, if players can not get open, it lowers their Distros.. As does double teaming them.

If you think double digit advantages in both ATH and SPD don't impact perimeter DEF, and that a guy with 77 DEF can't shut down Lachance then I don't know what else to tell you.

Posted by yanks250125 on 3/8/2015 6:05:00 PM (view original):
You put this up and then bash everyone who tries to help.  Everyone had a pretty similar conclusion after looking at it.  If you want to rant, fine.  If you want to learn, listen to the HOFers here and improve.  Or...just go 23-3 every season against bums and lose in the first or second round of the NT over and over then blame the game.

Posted by bistiza on 3/8/2015 8:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 3/8/2015 12:22:00 PM (view original):
I am thinking this thread is about coaching. And it is not simple. This is what makes this game fun. If it was easy, would we play? The distro is certainly about plays run to a player, not shots taken. Say you run a play for someone, he got doubled up or was not in position or received a bad pass, will he shoot at all cost? I doubt it. The game is simulated and unless we can predict what the other team will do, there is no way the distro ends up being what we decided it would be for our players. The defense that probably disrupt the distro the most is man to man. Sometimes I am scratching my head as why I lost a game, why I shot so bad, why I was unable to score over 50... Sometimes I look at teams, check mine and think : I am winning this and it ends up being a nightmare. Coaching. I guess this is why good coaches specialize in a specific offense and in a specific defense.

I am pretty bad at playing press. My teams (I will drop one) lose most close games. I'm pretty bad with Motion offense. Everytime I add another dimension to my recruiting to suit FLEX or ZONE or MAN TO MAN, sometimes I forget about stuff I already knew that were important and it's back to the drawing board. Should I play UPTEMPO, NORMAL or SLOW, how do I set up my distro, which player will score against particular défenses etc.

That is why good coaches are consistent, they know all about that.

Sure, the distro is plays run for a player, but more distro equals more shots (relatively speaking). If it didn't, it wouldn't serve much purpose.

When I give a guy a lot of distro, I expect him to shoot more than guys with less distro. 

On the question you asked which is more personal than having to do with the game itself:

If it was easy, would we play? I don't know about you, but yes, I would. I'm not here for the challenge - real life provides enough of those. I'm still here only because I am successful enough to keep me here. If I was terrible or even only decent, I wouldn't keep playing. I'd give up on it because it's a game and if I can't win to at least a minimum level at a game, it's not worth playing (let alone paying to play it). 

If there were no challenge, I might arguably find it to be MORE fun. I know this because I never tire of playing sports video games against a computer and absolutely destroying the computer opponent. That to me is much more fun that barely beating or sometimes losing to the computer opponent.

Posted by colonels19 on 3/8/2015 9:59:00 AM (view original):
This thread reminds me of what a dick I used to be.