First of all, there's the small matter that GTown has more talent than you do. And that's something that you're just not used to.

But the one thing I realized a long time ago -- and this is what's allowed me stay in HD and peacefully thive -- is that you absolutely, positively can not go overboard in your analysis of one game. Good players have bad games. Bad players have good games. Lesser players beat out better players sometimes. That's basketball. That's life. So apart from something absolutely astonishing, I don't think single-game examples are at all relevant or compelling. Now, if you've got a pattern built up over a whole season, that's a different story entirely.

But more to the point, there simply weren't any touches or tweaks to the areas that you're talking about. There should be absolutely no reason for any difference at all.

girt this isn't not a one time game situation. like i said before that i noticed problems all season with my d2 team when the changes went through and bit my tongue and decided to play out that season. this game just pushed me over the edge because i have mentored a gabillion coaches, set up gameplans plenty of times for inferior teams and found ungodly ways of coming out with a win at d1, d2 and of course d3. my track record should be good enough where i don't have to constantly remind you that i know what i'm doing. this isn't a one game thing, this isn't i can't handle losing thing, this is massive gameplanning problems. ..........

as i said before i understand the tweaks looked cosmetic, but they obviously aren't. these changes are having a domino effect.

As suspected I think the press is very much alive and well with this update due to the fatigue and FG% tweaks.  Just for ***** and giggles I switched from zone to press with a bunch of senior A IQ zone players.  Their IQs in press are in the C- range.  We played played the same opponent on the road with press and at home with zone.

Results are staggering.  The biggest is that when pressing the game was extended to 90 possessions.  In the zone it was at about 70 possessions.  One of the biggest supposed negatives to press is FGA% and in both games the opponent shot .455.  Unremarkable.  But maybe the with the tweak .455 was similar to .462 in the old engine.  La dee freakin' da.  Again unremarkable. 

In both games the opponent took 55 FGA, again unremarkable until you factor in the number of possessions and think about it in terms of per possession.  Percentage-wise that's a lot fewer FG attempts against the press (55/70 or .78 shots per possession against zone versus 55/90 press or .61 shots per possession against the press. 

The opponent did shoot 8 more FTs against the press which converted per possession has a lighter impact than its number 8 would indicate  (24 FTA in a 90 possession press game (.26 FTA per possession) versus 16 FTA in a 70 possession zone game (.23 FTA per possession).  

But the whopper stat is 23 turnovers against the press versus 10 against the zone.  Per possession that's 23/90= 26% of possessions ending in a turnover against the press and 14% ending in a TO against the zone.  Same tempo (uptempo), same teams, pressing on the road with C- IQs, playing at home with A zone IQs.

That's 116% more turnovers created per possession in the press while yielding just 13% more FTA.  The press also yielded 22% fewer FGA per possession while the FGA% difference was unremarkable.

I know some of you will say small sample size and it is.  But C- IQs on the road versus A IQs at home.  With fatigue tweaks, FGA tweaks, as a whole fewer fouls occurring in HD than irl even though many teams run press in HD.  It's something I've tracked with other teams for a while.

There is absolutely no downside to the press.  None.  You know it.  I know it.  We all know it.

Ugly:  Regarding the Georgetown game, just a cursory look at it tells me that rebounding was only the first problem.  Gtown also went 17-22 from the FT line to your 8-16, which accounts for another 9 points of scoring differential.   Since the fouls were fairly even I assume that a good percentage of them were And-1s.  And Georgetown cashed in at the line, to the tune of 77% to your 50%.

I also noted that the Sim shows you as the underdog in all 3 of your games so far played.  You beat the spread in all of them but it wasn't enough.   Buckle up against Stanford.  They're +29.

you know what? for fun i'm gonna switch to the press for this stanford game. and by all means i do expect to lose against stanford. they are much better and i can't out gameplan that much of a mismatch, but lets see how press does. this should be funny, or disturbingly effective.

update: i'll go press/zone......best press iq is a c+ i think, lol.

Not sure I see the complaint here.  Your Missouri team did exactly how you would expect they would do.  Thats a difficult schedule for a team with no seniors, although i am sure the loss to the SIM hurt.  I don't have the time or inclination to look at every box score but the results seemed to make sense.  And the GTown game is the same.  16 points looks about right.

You also seem to be forgetting that the opposing coach is allowed to game plan as well.  Maybe he did a good job too.

Posted by uglyskunk3 on 2/23/2011 10:46:00 AM (view original):
thats nice for you. i have been very positive of the engine up and til this 2-3 change, so when i say there are glaring problems across the board then you should believe what i say isn't sour grapes.

8/17/2010 11:00 AM
"hey seble, i suggest you fix the new engine. i just lost to a sim that i had no business losing to. i went over my gameplan with a fine toothed comb and yet i still lost. now i'm starting to see why everyone is complaining. either this sim received superpowers from home court advantage or stamina has become the new ath/spd then i don't like this new engine one bit and thats coming from a coach who won a national championship under this new engine."

From the Suggestions Forum thread.

The 2/3 update has some issues, to be sure, some of which have already been mentioned. But you do also have the tendency to only "notice" engine issues following an upsetting (to you) loss.

@zbrent.........odd i went to the link for the quote and its not there. so how did you dig it up if its not available to me to see? i know i wrote it, those comments are valid to that update and that situation 6 MONTHS AGO. so if your point was to belittle my grievances with this update because i have issues with a feature 6 MONTHS ago with something i can't even remember now, then your wrong.

Once again as i said this isn't a one game issue, please read before commenting. you have to be at least the third person that has made that argument.

@cburton.......that d2 team performed as well as they did last year, that isn't good. last year under the old system it was playing above and beyond with an all sophomore/freshmen class........then this season with increases to ratings and another year under their belt of iq then didn't take one step forward and the conference as good as it is actually was a bit weaker then the previous season.

I've no idea why you can't see the quote - it is the last one in the thread and the thread is now locked so I can't use the "quote" feature, but I assure you I don't have your posts committed to memory so had to copy/paste it from there.

And, if you read my post, you'll see I didn't make any "argument" that it was a one-game issue, and I acknowledged that there are issues with the 2/3 update. But I stand by the fact that you (and others as well, including myself) tend to "notice" those issues following a loss.

And as for refuting the notion that reb is the only rating that matters for rebounding, take a look at zbrent's team, which lacks reb (only one guy over 66), but outrebounds their opponents by about 1000 per game, including a significantly better offensive rebounding percentage.  That has to be a product of his team ath, because his reb is really mediocre.

http://whatifsports.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=6701695

here is an update to stanford game. don't think there are issues? i just used a half full court press/zone with a team that hasn't studied the press at all, and my team had its best defensive game. THE BEST DEFENSIVE GAME with a defense i don't run. thats a problem! a big problem. stanford was a huge favorite and we lost by 11, which is fine i didn't expect to win. 

Posted by isack24 on 2/23/2011 2:17:00 PM (view original):
And as for refuting the notion that reb is the only rating that matters for rebounding, take a look at zbrent's team, which lacks reb (only one guy over 66), but outrebounds their opponents by about 1000 per game, including a significantly better offensive rebounding percentage.  That has to be a product of his team ath, because his reb is really mediocre.

Geez, way to make it personal. We know we lack the talent, but we make up for it in effort!  

Just a quick note... you most likely can't see that post because it's rated below the default threshold set for these forums.

If you go to the bottom of the thread, you'll see a line just below the last post telling you that - at the right of that line there is a "Show" link you can click which will drop down the panel for that post.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming...

As far as I can see, the press really didn't do anything for you, with your opponent committing only 9 t/os. And is stanford really that much better than your team? I don't think so. If you ran just zone, you might have won. 

thanks for the update ryrun

tiany you know i have you blocked, so please don't troll my thread.