At D2 Bellarmine in the legendary GLV conference in Tark, I had a SR SF named Charles Wilson that I leaned on pretty heavily. We got bounced in the 2nd rd of the NT as a 4 seed by the very talented 5 seed Findlay. In evaluating the season I am wondering if I could/should have leaned on Wilson even more heavily given that he was pretty efficient.

Here is our distro as of our last game. I did tweak it over the season, usually gradually increasing Wilson, but nothing drastic.          

Player	Class	Pos	Health	MPG	PPG	APG	FG%	Off%	Play Dist.	3 PT.
Charles Wilson	Sr.	SF	100	26.9	22.2	2.7	56.6	27.1	12	-2
Nathan Morgan	Sr.	C	100	29.2	9.7	0.9	52.6	12.5	8	-2
Thomas Kimble	Sr.	C	100	19.1	8.3	0.5	55.4	10.7	8	-2
Paul Summers	So.	SG	100	14.0	7.9	1.2	43.9	9.7	4	0
Michael Kerstetter	Sr.	PG	100	23.5	7.4	4.4	46.9	8.9	3	-1
Edgar Cort	Jr.	PG	100	18.8	5.7	1.5	41.5	8.5	2	-1
Thomas Malkin	Sr.	PG	100	15.0	4.7	1.7	42.5	5.7	2	-2
Nestor Smith	Jr.	C	100	11.6	3.8	0.1	51.6	5.4	5	-2
Max Conklin	So.	C	100	16.7	2.9	0.3	46.3	4.2	3	-2
Jeffrey Hardy	Fr.	SF	100	13.0	2.6	1.1	52.3	2.9	3	-1
Wallace Ingham	Jr.	SF	100	9.4	1.9	0.5	45.0	2.6	1	-1
Thomas Lamb	So.	PG	100	9.2	1.3	1.0	37.5	1.6	1	-2
Total:									52

I would have put Wilson significantly higher.   Probably somewhere above 20 using the other players #'s.

I agree I would have also had him some where in the 20s

93 stamina give him more minutes

I would have gone in the 25-30 range depending on how his FG % turned out.

dac, I think you hit the nail on the head -- given the fact that he was still scoring with good efficiency, I would've definitely bumped his distro.

Well, if you moved up Wilson's distro, you would have also needed to move up Kimble's.

He already took mores shots (27.1%) as the next 2 guys combnied (23.2%).

Since all 3 of those guys were more than 50% shooting and neither shoots the 3, I would have maybe bumped them all up, but not just Wilson. But that is how I play ... I know others like to ride one guy a lot more than I do.

Posted by patsrule755 on 6/8/2013 3:18:00 AM (view original):
I agree I would have also had him some where in the 20s

First off, good game dac. I was kind of surprised that there was so much separation in the second half after how close the first half was, especially with my early foul trouble. If I'm reading your table right it looks like you had him at a distro of 12 on a 52 point scale, which would work out to 23 on the 100 point scale I think most people use. That's usually around where I put my best player at. I'm guessing most people who suggested bumping it up into the 20's didn't realize that.

Even though Wilson didn't have the best offensive game, he was still very effective. He fouled out my best player (and former 1st team All American) in 11 minutes. Although I'm not entirely sure how a C+ FT shooter hits 14/15!

You guys realize he really was in the 20's (about24) with his distribution since he only handed out 52 points out of 100 right?

You could have bumped it up a little (1-2 pts) but its not like the rest of the team sucked.

Posted by clouseb on 6/8/2013 12:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by patsrule755 on 6/8/2013 3:18:00 AM (view original):
I agree I would have also had him some where in the 20s

First off, good game dac. I was kind of surprised that there was so much separation in the second half after how close the first half was, especially with my early foul trouble. If I'm reading your table right it looks like you had him at a distro of 12 on a 52 point scale, which would work out to 23 on the 100 point scale I think most people use. That's usually around where I put my best player at. I'm guessing most people who suggested bumping it up into the 20's didn't realize that.

Even though Wilson didn't have the best offensive game, he was still very effective. He fouled out my best player (and former 1st team All American) in 11 minutes. Although I'm not entirely sure how a C+ FT shooter hits 14/15!

thx. funny thing is the way the regression thing is programmed if we'd have had that poor a half in the first half instead of the second we probably would have come back and won. I was kind of impressed with the 14-15 FTs for Wilson, but the 4-12 from the field from both him and Morgan were killers. Other than only shooting 36% from the field everything else went pretty well that game. I mean we only committed 11 fouls even. I don't know whether to chalk it up to an unlucky night shooting, or if your defense was that good to shut us down consistently...

And yeah, I stopped using 100 points for distro quite a while ago. I generally just build up from 1 for my shittiest/youngest players, 2 or 3 for the next tier guys, 4-5 for ok/pretty good and then 7-12 or so for guys that can really score. I actually think that I bumped Morgan and Kimble a bit for that last game - I think they were usually at 7 for Morgan and 6 for Kimble. 

Posted by mullycj on 6/8/2013 12:25:00 PM (view original):
You guys realize he really was in the 20's (about24) with his distribution since he only handed out 52 points out of 100 right?

You could have bumped it up a little (1-2 pts) but its not like the rest of the team sucked.

yeah, that's why I posted this, although maybe I should have explicitly mentioned that its not a 100 point scale...
According to the offensive % figures Wilson was 27% already, more than the next 2 players combined (barely) like hughesjr pointed out...

I'd want Wilson taking around half the shots on that team.  He's a stud.  Feed him.

I would have had his distro at 38/100, or at your scale, ~20

I'd probably have started out in the 20's and then bumped it up as the season progressed until he stopped being so effective.