Stamina Case Study Topic

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
jetwildcat
Posts: 1204 (0)
Hall of Famer
198 3
Prospect
1:30 am...central time
12/16/2010 10:00 PM
mullycj
Posts: 2737 (0)
Hall of Famer
214 1
Prospect
Wouldnt you have to SIm games like this 100 times to really call it a case study?
12/16/2010 11:13 PM
Rails
Posts: 263 (0)
Hall of Famer
21 193 13
Prospect

I've been doing that already.  In reviewing mediocre press teams with slightly higher stamina levels I've noticed that those teams create 5+ more turnovers a game than nonpressing teams, while only committing 2-3 fouls more per game.  The slightly above average pressing teams create 7-12 more turnovers a game without fouling any more.  And the good ones create 12+ more turnovers.  It was said that for pressing teams to be "equal," they'd have to have more spd/ath. 

A pressing team with the same ath/spd ratings as an opponent (which would be inferior since those teams "need more to be equal") can be +effective with comparable stamina and be ++effective with slightly higher stamina levels. 

Even this team (http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=7624) with 4 walkons and who has 5 sophomores (awful IQs) have created more turnovers than they've had themselves.  This team's range of individual ATH rating goes from 33 to 11 for nonwalkons.  33!   Although they have fouled 10 more times per game, they've created 1 more turnover than they've had.  This is one of the worst pressing teams.  The problem I have is they are creating turnovers.  Which means that mediocre teams who cut down slightly on fouls and gain a few more boards will more than easily offset the risk with the high amount of turnovers created.  And that doesn't include the above average to very good teams...     

 

12/17/2010 12:04 AM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by Rails on 12/17/2010 12:04:00 AM (view original):

I've been doing that already.  In reviewing mediocre press teams with slightly higher stamina levels I've noticed that those teams create 5+ more turnovers a game than nonpressing teams, while only committing 2-3 fouls more per game.  The slightly above average pressing teams create 7-12 more turnovers a game without fouling any more.  And the good ones create 12+ more turnovers.  It was said that for pressing teams to be "equal," they'd have to have more spd/ath. 

A pressing team with the same ath/spd ratings as an opponent (which would be inferior since those teams "need more to be equal") can be +effective with comparable stamina and be ++effective with slightly higher stamina levels. 

Even this team (http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=7624) with 4 walkons and who has 5 sophomores (awful IQs) have created more turnovers than they've had themselves.  This team's range of individual ATH rating goes from 33 to 11 for nonwalkons.  33!   Although they have fouled 10 more times per game, they've created 1 more turnover than they've had.  This is one of the worst pressing teams.  The problem I have is they are creating turnovers.  Which means that mediocre teams who cut down slightly on fouls and gain a few more boards will more than easily offset the risk with the high amount of turnovers created.  And that doesn't include the above average to very good teams...     

 

You're cherrypicking one sort of random, hand-picked stat there (creating more to's than you have) and trying to present it as though it's the end-all, be-all. That team is only creating one more TO than it's giving up despite the fact that they run a fullcourt press the entire game ... and then committing 11 more fouls per game than their opponents (over 26 fouls per game!) They're also giving up nearly 55% from the field and 46.7% from 3pt range. By any objective measure, their press defense is an abject failure.

So what exactly are you trying to prove here? It seems that you're on a crusade that attempts to prove that stamina is somehow hugely overvalued in the engine, but if you're going to do that, I really think you need to make a more legitimate effort to present all of the numbers.
12/17/2010 12:31 AM
coldplay
Posts: 7 (0)
Prospect
2
Prospect

Gota agree with Dan here... you appear to be seeing only what you want in this case. 

Your above example of a bad team played a 379 rated team with 5 walk-ons who turned it over 25 times.... 11 by the PG who played all 40 minutes...you may want to look into your examples a little deeper.... after only 5 games I'm not sure you can make a case for anything but a small sample size.

12/17/2010 1:21 AM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Well, the prediction was for his Carleton team to lose by 20, but they won by 9 and completely shredded the press (60% shooting and drew 24 fouls). Turned the ball over 15 times, which is only two off their season average. (And the starting backcourt had a 7:1 assist:to ratio.)
12/17/2010 8:09 AM
alblack56
Posts: 3329 (0)
Hall of Famer
490
Pro
THis is very interesting. I hope you'll continue the study
12/17/2010 9:40 AM
oldresorter
Posts: 646 (0)
Hall of Famer
1110 1
Prospect
I have been fooling around a little with the engine of late.  It seems from my perspective, that FCP was fixed (honestly fixed) by making it more susceptible to fatigue, more requiring stamina.  Now that we have team averages, it appears 80 team average stamina is great, and 76-78 is pretty good. 

I don't think you can win a national title FCP without a starting ten near 80 in stamina, as well as all the other core skills required to win it all.  I also think FCP used to have the least trouble vs an equal or superior team (i.e. in the NT), now I think it has the most trouble with such a team.  Not impossible for a FCP team to win it all, just harder than it used to be. 

If I had to rate the odds of which defense you run, and it's impact on winning it all, I would rate m2m 1.1, fcp 1.0, and zone .9.  But, I do think zone has its place, there are reasons and ways to run zone to maximize some teams, but not the traditional ryan75 west conn or dr gill or lostmyth dynasty type teams, man is the way to win with those now, just as fcp used to be.

I also am of the opinion, when seble realized what he did with ratings, he upped the impact of IQ again, for those around long enough, again, IMO, returned it more to where it was at 6 or 8 years, not HD seasons, ago.

All opinion, like many things in this game, no one knows for fact what is going on except the game designers, and they have kept us all guessing, some of us for near 8 years now, I don't think there is any reason to think things will change, so guess away!
12/17/2010 10:00 AM
jetwildcat
Posts: 1204 (0)
Hall of Famer
198 3
Prospect
Posted by oldresorter on 12/17/2010 10:00:00 AM (view original):
I have been fooling around a little with the engine of late.  It seems from my perspective, that FCP was fixed (honestly fixed) by making it more susceptible to fatigue, more requiring stamina.  Now that we have team averages, it appears 80 team average stamina is great, and 76-78 is pretty good. 

I don't think you can win a national title FCP without a starting ten near 80 in stamina, as well as all the other core skills required to win it all.  I also think FCP used to have the least trouble vs an equal or superior team (i.e. in the NT), now I think it has the most trouble with such a team.  Not impossible for a FCP team to win it all, just harder than it used to be. 

If I had to rate the odds of which defense you run, and it's impact on winning it all, I would rate m2m 1.1, fcp 1.0, and zone .9.  But, I do think zone has its place, there are reasons and ways to run zone to maximize some teams, but not the traditional ryan75 west conn or dr gill or lostmyth dynasty type teams, man is the way to win with those now, just as fcp used to be.

I also am of the opinion, when seble realized what he did with ratings, he upped the impact of IQ again, for those around long enough, again, IMO, returned it more to where it was at 6 or 8 years, not HD seasons, ago.

All opinion, like many things in this game, no one knows for fact what is going on except the game designers, and they have kept us all guessing, some of us for near 8 years now, I don't think there is any reason to think things will change, so guess away!
so, it's time to crank the team practice time up to 30 for both O and D again?
12/17/2010 10:27 AM
oldresorter
Posts: 646 (0)
Hall of Famer
1110 1
Prospect
@jet - I sort of explained my reason poorly, I think IQ still allows weaker teams with 4 year starters to compete with stronger frosh teams.  I am on board with this as both a good idea and fair.  I am not positive how much of a change this is in IQ, as a change in my own perception.  It might just be with more variety in ratings the value of IQ has resurfaced.  D3 coaches might have a better idea on this, as D3 has always had variety.  This past season in Crum, I saw 2 very low IQ teams just get hammered, one with the #1 recruiting class in the country and a A+ prestige coach / program.

I will get a view first hand this season, as I have a team with no seniors, one junior, 3 sophs, and 6 frosh, not a very good team either, exactly one player who is above B IQ.  That team is missing 4 EE's and had an awful local recruiting market, it is arguable I have 4 or 5 players on the 10 man team who are d2 level players, again, an A+ school with a pretty decent coach.

One of the reasons I posted this was to find out how strong others think IQ's impact is?
12/17/2010 10:44 AM (edited)
udm_mike
Posts: 603 (0)
Hall of Famer
109
Rookie
Seems to me that stamina and iq are the most important aspects of a pressing team.  Spreed, ath. def are tied for 2nd (ath for bigs, speed for wing). 


12/17/2010 11:06 AM
Iguana1
Posts: 369 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 65
Rookie
I assign points for each player rating trying to determine the most effective players.

For PG my top five core categories are ATH, SPD, DEF, BH, PAS.   Followed by PER, STA and FT%.
For those top five categories I multiple the ratings by a factor somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.00.   A player rating of 50 would give the player 100 points if the multiplier was 2.00.   To account for the IQ ratings I assign total points;  F/F is 0 points, A+/A+ is 150 points.

With my difference between F and A+ IQ being 150 points, or by using a 2.00 multiplier for the core ratings, around 75 core player points.   Or roughly 15 rating points in each of the five categories.

But I may be light on the IQ grades and may up that A+/A+ to 200 points, or 20 points per core category. 
 

12/17/2010 1:12 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
Posted by jetwildcat on 12/17/2010 10:27:00 AM (view original):
Posted by oldresorter on 12/17/2010 10:00:00 AM (view original):
I have been fooling around a little with the engine of late.  It seems from my perspective, that FCP was fixed (honestly fixed) by making it more susceptible to fatigue, more requiring stamina.  Now that we have team averages, it appears 80 team average stamina is great, and 76-78 is pretty good. 

I don't think you can win a national title FCP without a starting ten near 80 in stamina, as well as all the other core skills required to win it all.  I also think FCP used to have the least trouble vs an equal or superior team (i.e. in the NT), now I think it has the most trouble with such a team.  Not impossible for a FCP team to win it all, just harder than it used to be. 

If I had to rate the odds of which defense you run, and it's impact on winning it all, I would rate m2m 1.1, fcp 1.0, and zone .9.  But, I do think zone has its place, there are reasons and ways to run zone to maximize some teams, but not the traditional ryan75 west conn or dr gill or lostmyth dynasty type teams, man is the way to win with those now, just as fcp used to be.

I also am of the opinion, when seble realized what he did with ratings, he upped the impact of IQ again, for those around long enough, again, IMO, returned it more to where it was at 6 or 8 years, not HD seasons, ago.

All opinion, like many things in this game, no one knows for fact what is going on except the game designers, and they have kept us all guessing, some of us for near 8 years now, I don't think there is any reason to think things will change, so guess away!
so, it's time to crank the team practice time up to 30 for both O and D again?
with the slowed rate of improvement, i would say no.
12/18/2010 12:14 PM
12 Next ▸
Stamina Case Study Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.