So - defense generally led to more fouls ... in the old engine...

Are you all finding this is still the case?

Was there an intentional change?

I'm finding a lot more really strange FT disparity issues in the new engine that I never found in the old one.

These have both favored me and hurt me.

I'll post a couple of examples:
-4 defense  man/press, +3 2nd half vs. +1 defense man/press

There were a handful of intentional fouls at the end, but surely not enough to explain the disparity given the SPD mismatches, etc.
http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=5956558

The First game I played against the same team, I shot 30 FT's and he only shot 16, at his place.
I played a - defense and he played a +5,+3.
http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=5903923

I could post examples from throughout the season.  I can't really make sense of FT's anymore.  In the old engine you could seemingly point to SPD and ATH advantages along with +/- to get at least a decent summation of why FT's were the way they were.

Yes, FT's are messed up.  Seble told me that he was looking at both FT's and REB this week.

Your examples, 26-11 and 30-16 are tame compared to some I've seen.   In Naismith DIII, my Drew team went on an 8-game stretch where I was on the short end of FTs by margins of  52-5, 27-4, 52-13, and 43-14..  I also had a 53-17 advantage in another game that I won by only 8 points.  The 52-5 was especially bothersome since I clearly outplayed my opponent otherwise and lost in OT.  I don't have a bad team.  I should qualify for the NT but those 4 losses (all 16 points or less)  couldn've been the difference between NT and PIT

In Smith DII, I was outrebounded 38-23 in a game where my four front-line players had an 84-62 rating advantage, and at least a 10 pt. advantage in both ATH and SP.

Posted by alblack56 on 7/19/2010 4:55:00 AM (view original):
Yes, FT's are messed up.  Seble told me that he was looking at both FT's and REB this week.

Your examples, 26-11 and 30-16 are tame compared to some I've seen.   In Naismith DIII, my Drew team went on an 8-game stretch where I was on the short end of FTs by margins of  52-5, 27-4, 52-13, and 43-14..  I also had a 53-17 advantage in another game that I won by only 8 points.  The 52-5 was especially bothersome since I clearly outplayed my opponent otherwise and lost in OT.  I don't have a bad team.  I should qualify for the NT but those 4 losses (all 16 points or less)  couldn've been the difference between NT and PIT

In Smith DII, I was outrebounded 38-23 in a game where my four front-line players had an 84-62 rating advantage, and at least a 10 pt. advantage in both ATH and SP.

Yeah, I don't disagree that the disparities are worse, I've certainly seen it not only in other games I've had, but around Naismith.

It seemed to used to be quite openly  based on SPD,as well as +/-, but I'm not seeing that pattern anymore.

And thanks on the update as well.

We might not have a complete picture either until we have all new players.

I think that is a good point - with a mix of old and new players, we probably are seeing some warped results - team with 10 old players has superior ATH as well as IQ and draws tons of fouls against a team with say 5 old players - is that a transition effect or the engine giving out too many fouls?

Its tough to tell right now metsmax....the old engine players have such better ratings its going to take a little while before we know which is the cause.

Posted by grantduck on 7/19/2010 7:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by alblack56 on 7/19/2010 4:55:00 AM (view original):
Yes, FT's are messed up.  Seble told me that he was looking at both FT's and REB this week.

Your examples, 26-11 and 30-16 are tame compared to some I've seen.   In Naismith DIII, my Drew team went on an 8-game stretch where I was on the short end of FTs by margins of  52-5, 27-4, 52-13, and 43-14..  I also had a 53-17 advantage in another game that I won by only 8 points.  The 52-5 was especially bothersome since I clearly outplayed my opponent otherwise and lost in OT.  I don't have a bad team.  I should qualify for the NT but those 4 losses (all 16 points or less)  couldn've been the difference between NT and PIT

In Smith DII, I was outrebounded 38-23 in a game where my four front-line players had an 84-62 rating advantage, and at least a 10 pt. advantage in both ATH and SP.

Yeah, I don't disagree that the disparities are worse, I've certainly seen it not only in other games I've had, but around Naismith.

It seemed to used to be quite openly  based on SPD,as well as +/-, but I'm not seeing that pattern anymore.

And thanks on the update as well.

So, coaches may actually have to build a team of, say, basketball players instead of just track stars?  Don't see a problem with that.........

FWIW...my team had MADE more free throws in its first 17 games under the new engine than we'd ATTEMPTED in any 28-29 game season the three years prior under the old engine. I wonder if anyone's tried the "set everyone to -2 and let them get hacked silly on the way to the bucket" offensive scheme yet.

My question is, in addition to the increased number of FT's, are folks seeing an across-the-board improvement in their team FT shooting under the new engine? I graduated a couple of my better FT shooters last season, but saw my team percentage rise approx. 4 percent this year (which, combined with the huge uptick in attempts, was a very nice Christmas present...). Anyone else who tracks their stats from season to season seeing a similar trend in team percentage vs. their team's FT ratings? 

Yes, team FT% are better.  I always look at my opponents' free throw % when I'm gameplanning. Last season, almost every opponent shot under 70%. This season, almost every team is above that figure

The guys taking about old vs. new players have a point I think.

What they need to do is simulate a bunch of games with all new players and see how that turns out then.

I do think that there may be too many fouls in some cases.  Fouls need to be a max average of 25 or so per game for a handful of teams, the rest of the teams around 18-20 to be realistic.

like last night Maryland took 83 free throws at Carolina - Carolina took 31 - now it was triple OT and it was uptempo against uptemp - but that is a lot of trips to the line

www.goseattleu.com/ViewArticle.dbml

This college game from last year was the 1st I'd seen a team literally start fouling every single time the ENTIRE 2nd half. It didn't work and I learned you play short handed (in college) if to many guys foul out.

Posted by grantduck on 7/19/2010 3:24:00 AM (view original):
So - defense generally led to more fouls ... in the old engine...

Are you all finding this is still the case?

Was there an intentional change?

I'm finding a lot more really strange FT disparity issues in the new engine that I never found in the old one.

These have both favored me and hurt me.

I'll post a couple of examples:
-4 defense  man/press, +3 2nd half vs. +1 defense man/press

There were a handful of intentional fouls at the end, but surely not enough to explain the disparity given the SPD mismatches, etc.
http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=5956558

The First game I played against the same team, I shot 30 FT's and he only shot 16, at his place.
I played a - defense and he played a +5,+3.
http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=5903923

I could post examples from throughout the season.  I can't really make sense of FT's anymore.  In the old engine you could seemingly point to SPD and ATH advantages along with +/- to get at least a decent summation of why FT's were the way they were.

Has anyone ever tried fouling out their whole team in HD?