I have a quick question since I am running fastbreak with high defense and I put practice time into conditioning. Should I go all gaurds instead of all small fowards my next generation of class here at Chowan? My next generation will be season 87 when my first class graduates 86 and my 2nd class graduates season 87. Either I am doing all gaurds or all small fowards I got it down to these two for my next generation of class.

I am in Allen(world 6).

Posted by CoachWard95 on 4/1/2016 4:21:00 PM (view original):
I have a quick question since I am running fastbreak with high defense and I put practice time into conditioning. Should I go all gaurds instead of all small fowards my next generation of class here at Chowan? My next generation will be season 87 when my first class graduates 86 and my 2nd class graduates season 87. Either I am doing all gaurds or all small fowards I got it down to these two for my next generation of class.

I am in Allen(world 6).

you should stick with building a "normal" team before experimenting with other types of lineups.

Okay here we go. I think this will show a little better what I was trying to explain. So I used a similar formula to calculate out possessions as tkimble shared. Below is a link to a google doc that anyone can use to calculate out their advanced stats for their team and players. If you happen to come across any errors (which is quite possible), let me know so I can correct. I got all the formulas from Kenpom and other advanced stats sites.

All right, here's a table that I think shows what I mean by "you get more possessions with FB, but not more shots (FGA)". I took a few of my teams in the past that I had stats for and pulled out the season averages for Poss, FGA, FTA. I also included Offensive rebounding and Turnovers too just to see how possessions are ending.

I also went ahead and took mfmyers Dickinson stats (hope he doesn't mind!) since he's a great coach who uses FB and goes uptempo exclusively. But note that the Dickinson Phelan is in only in year 2 of a rebuild for him.

Anyway, check out the stats below. I'd like to point out my Ramapo 83 team where I went uptempo in almost every game. Compare this to all 5 of the FB teams I have listed. Playing Flex, they had more FGA than any of them (tied with CNU 92 actually). But looking at the FGA per Possession, the Motion/Flex teams seem higher than the FB. Especially compared to mfmyers two really good Dickinson teams.

What do you guys think? We can add more teams to the table and get more data if you'd like and see if this holds.

Team	Offense	Poss.	FGA	FTA	Oreb	TOs		FGA/Poss	FTA/Poss	Tempo
Ramapo 81	Flex	69	50	32	9	13		0.73	0.46	Mostly Normal/Slow
Ramapo 82	Flex	70	50	38	10	12		0.71	0.55	Mostly Normal/Slow
Ramapo 83	Flex	80	60	44	13	13		0.74	0.55	Mostly Uptempo
Ramapo 84	Flex	75	56	36	12	13		0.75	0.48	Some Uptempo
Chestnut 79	Motion	71	57	24	11	15		0.80	0.33	Mostly Normal
Chestnut 80	Motion	66	52	23	10	13		0.79	0.35	Mostly Normal/Slow
Chestnut 81	Motion	74	55	32	11	14		0.75	0.44	Some Uptempo
Chestnut 82	Motion	64	46	28	8	13		0.72	0.44	Mostly Normal/Slow
Chestnut 83	Motion	67	48	30	9	13		0.72	0.46	Mostly Normal/Slow
Chestnut 84	Motion	66	50	29	10	13		0.75	0.43	Mostly Normal/Slow
CNU 91	FB	81	58	38	13	18		0.71	0.47	Some Uptempo
CNU 92	FB	85	60	37	12	20		0.70	0.44	Some Uptempo
Dick Allen	FB	88	58	52	14	19		0.66	0.59	Always Uptempo
Dick Iba	FB	82	52	47	12	19		0.64	0.58	Always Uptempo
Dick Phelan	FB	84	57	36	12	23		0.67	0.43	Always Uptempo

All right, so what you are saying is that since FB causes more fouls less actual FGA are taken in the FB.

Name	games	FGA	FTA	OFF REB	TO	Total Possessions	Possessions/G	FGA/G	FGA/POS
Brooklyn (flex)	30	1718	739	333	386	2118.33	70.611	57.26666667	0.811016225
Williamette (FB)	12	740	299	151	190	919.53	76.6275	61.66666667	0.8047589529
NYU(T)	12	601	301	107	175	810.47	67.53916667	50.08333333	0.7415450294
PLattsburgh (MO)	31	1693	601	368	446	2053.47	66.24096774	54.61290323	0.8244581124
Cal poly (T)	33	1649	740	339	402	2059.8	62.41818182	49.96969697	0.8005631615

Benis, I think what is "distorting" your numbers is that the FB teams you are looking at are designed to draw fouls. My Williamette team isn't and is averaging 33% to 50% less in the FT/POSS category.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/1/2016 8:08:00 PM (view original):
Benis, I think what is "distorting" your numbers is that the FB teams you are looking at are designed to draw fouls. My Williamette team isn't and is averaging 33% to 50% less in the FT/POSS category.

Hmm, yes fair point. But most are, no? Does your FB team take a lot of 3s? Do you have a link to the team?

Yeah, about 27 3FGA/G or roughly 45% of my total FGA.

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Stats.aspx?tid=13581

Okay, so let's put in 3FGA in the table. My teams typically don't take a lot of 3s as you can see below. There is a correlation between 3FGA and FGA/Poss and that makes sense.

So looking at a couple of your teams below, the 3 teams taking over 20 3s a game have the highest FGA/Poss but the FB isn't the highest (even though they also take the most 3s a game). So I think this supports my hypothesis, right?

Team	Offense	Poss.	FGA	3FGA	FTA	Oreb	TOs		FGA/Poss	FTA/Poss
Ramapo 81	Flex	69	50	6	32	9	13		0.73	0.46
Ramapo 82	Flex	70	50	2	38	10	12		0.71	0.55
Ramapo 83	Flex	80	60	4	44	13	13		0.74	0.55
Ramapo 84	Flex	75	56	3	36	12	13		0.75	0.48
Chestnut 79	Motion	71	57	15	24	11	15		0.80	0.33
Chestnut 80	Motion	66	52	14	23	10	13		0.79	0.35
Chestnut 81	Motion	74	55	8	32	11	14		0.75	0.44
Chestnut 82	Motion	64	46	2	28	8	13		0.72	0.44
Chestnut 83	Motion	67	48	5	30	9	13		0.72	0.46
Chestnut 84	Motion	66	50	9	29	10	13		0.75	0.43
CNU 91	FB	81	58	4	38	13	18		0.71	0.47
CNU 92	FB	85	60	6	37	12	20		0.70	0.44
Dick Allen	FB	88	58	0	52	14	19		0.66	0.59
Dick Iba	FB	82	52	1	47	12	19		0.64	0.58
Dick Phelan	FB	84	57	1	36	12	23		0.67	0.43
Willamette	FB	77	62	27	25	13	16		0.80	0.32
Brooklyn	Flex	71	57	22	25	11	13		0.81	0.35
Platsburgh	Motion	66	55	23	19	12	14		0.82	0.29
NYU	Triangle	68	50	13	25	9	15		0.74	0.37

What's your hypothesis? I got confused....

Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/1/2016 9:43:00 PM (view original):
What's your hypothesis? I got confused....

I guess it wasn't really a hypothesis. More like just a counterpoint to the statement "you get more shots with FB".

I think the data we have here shows that you don't actually get more shots (meaning more FGAs) when everything else is equal (turnovers, 3pt shooting, O reb). Your FB team shooting 27 3s a game shows that. They're shooting a ton of 3s but your other teams that are shooting a few less 3s a game that play non FB are actually taking more shots per possession. My two Chestnut Hill teams that took 14-15 3s a game were pretty much on par with your FB team in terms of FGA/Poss.

I think total FGA is more important that FG/poss if you jack up threes at a high rate. I think. Overall, I am not sure which is more offensively efficient.

If you want more FGA per game, then why not just play uptempo? Look at Ramapo 83 above, while only taking 4 3's a game, I averaged 60 FGA per game. If I was taking 27 3's a game then FGA per game would be way higher.

For efficiency, you shoot a higher 3pt% with flex right? So if what you want to is jack up 3's then go Flex and uptempo. This way you get a higher fg% and you'll end up taking more of them per game.

I think the majority of the time, FLEX UPTEMPO is the best way for deep, perimeter based teams. I am trying to figure out if FB UPTEMPO is a superior strategy in some (rather extreme) cases. Fighting off the stamina issues is the hardest thing for me to overcome.

Posted by scaturo on 4/2/2016 1:34:00 PM (view original):
I think the majority of the time, FLEX UPTEMPO is the best way for deep, perimeter based teams. I am trying to figure out if FB UPTEMPO is a superior strategy in some (rather extreme) cases. Fighting off the stamina issues is the hardest thing for me to overcome.

Based upon the limited data collection I've done, that's what I believe too. I think FB works best the way mfmeyers does it. Pound it inside and go to the FT line. This gets easy points but also gets the other team in foul trouble.