Posted by johnsensing on 6/25/2010 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dukenilnil1 on 6/25/2010 10:38:00 AM (view original):

The real question is...what was the OP doing playing + defense against a team he thought was a horrible 3-point shooting team.  Effectiveness of the game plan or not, it seems an odd choice.

P.S.  Just posting this to stir the pot and feeling ornery.  No malice intended.

because SIM teams almost invariably jack tons of threes. 

Correct.  Kent St. shoots about 1/3 of its attempts from 3, and from what I've seen, that's pretty much what sims do regardless of skill level.  They also don't adjust to their opponents' weaknesses on a game by game basis.

Posted by pinkeye on 6/25/2010 11:04:00 AM (view original):
+2 isn't "specifically designed to stop outside shooting" on multiple levels

Well then, Coach K, please educate me on what a +2/+3 defense is intended to do because your 170 games of HD coaching experience has obviously taught you a lot more than my 1000+.

mured, I understand your frustration, and there's no question that most of the time you would've forced that team into a poor shooting performance from 3pt range.

That said, I don't know why you think it's so wholly extraordinary and unbelievable that a lesser team could get hot for a game. Frustrating? Sure. I would've rolled my eyes, too. But to think that it's impossible and signifies the downfall of the engine? Not even close.

This game is a lot like poker, you are playing the percentages. And just like a 2-7 will crack pocket aces a certain percentage of the time, a lesser team will have a game like that a certain percentage of the time.

Now, if teams like this were lighting you up consistently like this, that would be another story entirely. But that's not the case at all. You've done a good job defending the three all season.

This kind of stuff should and does happen sometimes. As long as it's not happening consistently (and there's nothing suggesting that it is), it's totally normal. Frustrating ... but normal.

Posted by muredskin00 on 6/25/2010 11:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pinkeye on 6/25/2010 11:04:00 AM (view original):
+2 isn't "specifically designed to stop outside shooting" on multiple levels

Well then, Coach K, please educate me on what a +2/+3 defense is intended to do because your 170 games of HD coaching experience has obviously taught you a lot more than my 1000+.

oh right, 1000 games. i guess you're pretty good at this, then.

it sure seems weird that you're crying about a loss and i'm not, though.

Posted by pinkeye on 6/25/2010 12:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by muredskin00 on 6/25/2010 11:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pinkeye on 6/25/2010 11:04:00 AM (view original):
+2 isn't "specifically designed to stop outside shooting" on multiple levels

Well then, Coach K, please educate me on what a +2/+3 defense is intended to do because your 170 games of HD coaching experience has obviously taught you a lot more than my 1000+.

oh right, 1000 games. i guess you're pretty good at this, then.

it sure seems weird that you're crying about a loss and i'm not, though.

Care to answer my question?  What is a +2/+3 defense is intended to do?

a +5 is specifically designed to defend against 3s.

you'll notice i said +5 and defend, not +2 and stop. and there are major differences in both cases.

but what i'm really saying is...if after 1000 games you think a +2 is going to stop teams from hitting 3s, you have no business posting about the 1 game it doesn't.

Posted by dalter on 6/25/2010 12:10:00 PM (view original):
mured, I understand your frustration, and there's no question that most of the time you would've forced that team into a poor shooting performance from 3pt range.

That said, I don't know why you think it's so wholly extraordinary and unbelievable that a lesser team could get hot for a game. Frustrating? Sure. I would've rolled my eyes, too. But to think that it's impossible and signifies the downfall of the engine? Not even close.

This game is a lot like poker, you are playing the percentages. And just like a 2-7 will crack pocket aces a certain percentage of the time, a lesser team will have a game like that a certain percentage of the time.

Now, if teams like this were lighting you up consistently like this, that would be another story entirely. But that's not the case at all. You've done a good job defending the three all season.

This kind of stuff should and does happen sometimes. As long as it's not happening consistently (and there's nothing suggesting that it is), it's totally normal. Frustrating ... but normal.

Dalter, you're a voice I respect greatly, but I disagree with your parenthetical.  I've seen plenty of evidence to suggest that these kinds of outliers are happening way too much now - just as they happened way too much under the old engine.  Others may not agree and that's their prerogative.  I would point out, though, that 3 point shooting in particular has already been tweaked twice in the new engine.  I could make another thread about some of the ridiculous rebounding results I've had with that team but I don't have the time. 

I have not suggested that anything "signifies the downfall of the engine" (and I'm not even sure what that means), but it does make me wonder what the point of gameplanning is.  Sure, teams can teams get hot - but the kind of performance Kent St. put up relative to: 1) their talent level, and 2) the defense played against them is, in my opinion, a ridiculous outlier.  Again, others may not agree and that's their prerogative.  But as I see it, this would be the equivalent of 2-7 beating pocket aces 11 of 19 times (I grant that's not a scientific analysis).

Posted by pinkeye on 6/25/2010 12:49:00 PM (view original):
a +5 is specifically designed to defend against 3s.

you'll notice i said +5 and defend, not +2 and stop. and there are major differences in both cases.

but what i'm really saying is...if after 1000 games you think a +2 is going to stop teams from hitting 3s, you have no business posting about the 1 game it doesn't.

At least you took a stab at answering the question. 

At the end of the day, it's pointless to argue with you.  I believe a +2/+3 should prevent a team with Kent St.'s talent level from going 11/19 against a team of Miami's caliber - taking talent and IQs into account.  I don't believe a team with Miami's advantages should have to play a +5 to adequately defend the perimeter.  You and some others don't agree, so enjoy your HD experience and I'll hang up now.

Just an interesting statistic.

Given:
-Kent St shoots 35% from 3

Assumptions:
-Kent State shoots 20 3pt shots/game (This is a bit over their actual avg but is easier to work with)
-+/- settings are ignored (unable to factor in without knowing their underlying effect

Using a binomial distribution which works well for this we would expect Kent St to make 10 or more of those 20 three pointers 12% of the time.
So they should shoot 50% or more from 3 12% of the time.

While not that high of a probability over their 26 game season that you would expect 3 or 4 games where they would shoot over 50% from 3. In fact they have surpassed that by only 1 over the season as they have done it 5 times shooting (50, 76.9, 53.8, 50, 57.9). So they are just over the expected value.

I know that ignoring the +/- is a big factor, or atleast an unknown factor since we really don't know how big a role it plays. But when you take into account the fact that offenses can have good nights and defenses can have bad nights(even when they are playing a +2) this result isn't all that surprising.

I can get on board with that argument.

Posted by muredskin00 on 6/25/2010 10:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kowboykoop on 6/25/2010 9:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 6/25/2010 9:13:00 AM (view original):

i think several of the responses to this thread are building some strawmen.  The original post is not so much as a complaint that the other team "got hot" or that mu "hates the new engine when he loses," but that despite a major advantage in spd, and playing a + defense, an inferior team still bombed him out from 3.   that should not happen -- in DI, that Kent St team shouldn't be able to go 11-19 from 3 in an empty gym. 

my understanding was that the new engine was supposed to be designed to give players more "control" over the game -- if you play a + defense and an inferior still crushes you from 3 (and this is NOT an isolated incident), what's the point of gameplanning at all?  this seems to be to be a major flaw in the new engine (which i otherwise generally like).

So, a  bad shooting team should NEVER HAVE ONE GOOD SHOOTING GAME EVER.

That's what you're saying.

Do you watch sports? Bad three point shooting teams have good games all the time. Dallas Braden threw a freaking perfect game...bet that should probably "never happen" according to hit ratings. Jose Lima won a hell of a lot of ballgames one year. Guess MLB in real life is unrealistic. Brian Scalabrine scored 29 points in a game one time. Yeah, Brian Scalabrine....nearly 10x his career average, DESPITE THE RATINGS!!! How can that happen??

There are reasons to complain about the engine. A team having a good shooting night isn't one of them...and it happens more in this game than in real life because there are SOOOO many more games in the WIS universe per calender year than in real life..thus things that happen only 10 or so times a calender year in real life are going to be seen a hell of a lot more in WIS because there are multiple worlds that EACH play at least 7-8 times as many games per year than their real life counterparts...think about it.

I'll only focus on your Scalabrine example because your baseball examples are completely off point.  Whether or not he's a good NBA player, Scalabrine IS an NBA player, and the talent level between him and his peers is significantly closer than the talent disparity between the two teams in question.  If Ron Artest or Bruce Bowen backed off Scalabrine all night and dared him to shoot, I can see him putting in 29 on talent alone.  But if those defenders are in his face, it will NEVER happen.

This is a hell of a lot more than a team having a "good shooting night."  This is exactly what john said it was - a ridiculously inferior team shoots lights out against a defense in place that is specifically designed to stop outside shooting.  If I played a minus defense, then your argument might carry weight.  But I didn't and it doesn't.  And john's points about the effects of gameplanning and the frequency that these types of outliers occur are right on the money and ultimately the issues here.

You said "it should not happen" when talking about ONE game. and 11-19 is pretty good, no doubt, but it isn't some amazing performance that has never been seen before.

and if this game is as easy as "hey, I'll play a +2 and automatically take away their 3 point shooting" than THAT would be a stupid game. There is supposed to be variation, and this is just an example of that. The engine is not perfect. One team having a 11-19 night isn't even close to one of those imperfections. If they shoot that percentage for an extended period of time, than that's a problem...but considering they shoot 35% for the entire year..looks like this is exactly what I'm calling it, an isolated incident. Funny how there are almost always complaints after a loss. Get over it, it's a game. Adjust to it. When I had teams shooting a collective 12% from 3 against every -5 defense I ever played with teams that shot 40+% from 3 against everyone else, you didn't see me crying about it. Adjust to it.

Posted by serb0649 on 6/25/2010 2:01:00 PM (view original):
Just an interesting statistic.

Given:
-Kent St shoots 35% from 3

Assumptions:
-Kent State shoots 20 3pt shots/game (This is a bit over their actual avg but is easier to work with)
-+/- settings are ignored (unable to factor in without knowing their underlying effect

Using a binomial distribution which works well for this we would expect Kent St to make 10 or more of those 20 three pointers 12% of the time.
So they should shoot 50% or more from 3 12% of the time.

While not that high of a probability over their 26 game season that you would expect 3 or 4 games where they would shoot over 50% from 3. In fact they have surpassed that by only 1 over the season as they have done it 5 times shooting (50, 76.9, 53.8, 50, 57.9). So they are just over the expected value.

I know that ignoring the +/- is a big factor, or atleast an unknown factor since we really don't know how big a role it plays. But when you take into account the fact that offenses can have good nights and defenses can have bad nights(even when they are playing a +2) this result isn't all that surprising.

serb, interesting argument.  All things being equal, they maybe should shoot over 50% 12% of the time (which is a rather large assumption you're making -- I don't think any of us -- or me, anyway -- know the "bell curve" that WIS uses on 3-pt shooting).  But all things aren't equal -- in addition to the +/-, there's mu's speed advantage, as well as IQ issues. 

To me, though, what is damning to the new engine is that Kent St shoots 35% from 3 -- that is insane.  Their best PER rating is a 64.  How does that team as a whole shoot 35% from 3 taking approx 20 3sa game?  That's the larger issue -- does PER mean nothing, like the old engine?

PER is not the only thing that determines the ability to shoot the 3, right? Doesn't speed and athleticism also play a role? 

Posted by kowboykoop on 6/25/2010 2:44:00 PM (view original):
PER is not the only thing that determines the ability to shoot the 3, right? Doesn't speed and athleticism also play a role? 

and kent state's guards are very slow and unathletic.  they're not 99 SPD/99 ATH/64 PER....

Posted by johnsensing on 6/25/2010 2:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by serb0649 on 6/25/2010 2:01:00 PM (view original):
Just an interesting statistic.

Given:
-Kent St shoots 35% from 3

Assumptions:
-Kent State shoots 20 3pt shots/game (This is a bit over their actual avg but is easier to work with)
-+/- settings are ignored (unable to factor in without knowing their underlying effect

Using a binomial distribution which works well for this we would expect Kent St to make 10 or more of those 20 three pointers 12% of the time.
So they should shoot 50% or more from 3 12% of the time.

While not that high of a probability over their 26 game season that you would expect 3 or 4 games where they would shoot over 50% from 3. In fact they have surpassed that by only 1 over the season as they have done it 5 times shooting (50, 76.9, 53.8, 50, 57.9). So they are just over the expected value.

I know that ignoring the +/- is a big factor, or atleast an unknown factor since we really don't know how big a role it plays. But when you take into account the fact that offenses can have good nights and defenses can have bad nights(even when they are playing a +2) this result isn't all that surprising.

serb, interesting argument.  All things being equal, they maybe should shoot over 50% 12% of the time (which is a rather large assumption you're making -- I don't think any of us -- or me, anyway -- know the "bell curve" that WIS uses on 3-pt shooting).  But all things aren't equal -- in addition to the +/-, there's mu's speed advantage, as well as IQ issues. 

To me, though, what is damning to the new engine is that Kent St shoots 35% from 3 -- that is insane.  Their best PER rating is a 64.  How does that team as a whole shoot 35% from 3 taking approx 20 3sa game?  That's the larger issue -- does PER mean nothing, like the old engine?

You're also overlooking the fact that Kent State has played a terrible schedule ... the SECOND BEST team they played in non-con has a 153 rpi, and in their conference they have one NT team and one PIT team, and that's it.

Basically all of their 3pt shooting came from the two senior sg's, who combined to shoot about 38.8% from 3p range. Neither has strong pe, but they do have strong iq (A+/A), and solid skills considering the caliber of competition they played. If this team played a legit schedule, they shoot maybe 30% from 3p, maybe less.

Everything in HD is VERY contextual.