i am looking at something on my kentucky team, and am fairly stunned by it. when you look at the top d1 teams around, you see player after player with fantastic ath/def and often very good speed, and these guys are not really lock down defenders.

then there is dennis wallace, who is my starting center with a mere 70 ath, 55 spd, 57 def, and 76 sb. but, he has A+ iqs. i've looked at roughly my last 15 games  and there is literally not one single game in which the opposing starting center has had a good game. i didn't look all the way back, but you go much further, and you get to my mostly sim non conf schedule. there are some opposing C performances that aren't really bad, but a lot of them are, and at the very best, you have borderline mediocre. that is including a couple guys (i only checked a couple, the ones who took the most shots) who are VERY good offensively.

what gives? am i missing something? or am i getting incredibly lucky? wallace is being backed up by a true freshman, who has good ratings, but still, as a true freshman, they really are quite far from what i would consider a lock down defender.

meanwhile, wallace is putting up 7 ppg at 65% efficiency, which is a fantastic fg%. i just cannot imagine he is better, on average, than his opponent - on either side of the court - but he is demolishing his opponents performance wise. in fact, i considered cutting him, in many ways, he is the worst player i have recruited to kentucky, possibly ever. but he is doing GREAT for me. i just don't get it. not one bit. his iq is good - is that all that matters?

99 views, 0 comments =( one last shot... anybody have any ideas? or at least does anybody else think this is pretty unusual? or am i just thinking something is crazy that isn't? 

Well. . .it looks like alot of the opposing centers probably were not set to a high distribution(They barely TOOK any shots, much less made them) - and quite a few others seemed to get in foul trouble.Also, wallace is only playign about twenty minutes a game, meaning his backup you mention is in ALOT.

what would bother me more is if such a player always stopped everyone, every game.  There is more than enough evidence that a team full of such players indeed does play substantially better defense than a team without in this game.  Plus, in real life, bruce bowen really does not stop everyone, every game, matter of fact, far from it, but over the long haul, he is fine.  Since we have such large sample sizes in this game some of that happens.

Plus, the low distro bad players on great teams is a bit of glitch, but real life, playing on great passing, fast team with next to no touches will make for some efficiency also.  There is a real life chart on % of offense vs offense efficiency for real life players.  For guys like jordan, they continue to hold their own into the 30's% of their team's offense, maybe even the low 40's, for guys like steve blake, they drop off once they hit 10-12% of their team's offense.  In this simulation, low touches tends to very high efficiency, since things like put backs and break aways are at a higher % than maybe real life.

I think seble has reduced the number of touches found for low distro players this way, maybe even the shooting %'s, enough, maybe, maybe not, I don't think any of us want to see guys shooting 50% on break aways or put backs, if a player has only a few % distro, that is what we are left with in the simulation.

the short answer, neither of the issues you raised bothered me, conversely, if either were changed, it might bother me.

but ars, if I saw that guy in the starting lineup against me, i'd load up my distro against him. especially since the rest of the players on UK are better defensively. he can't have played all bad coaches...

I loaded up both times, and the player who started at center was our leading scorer both times. We still got smoked, but, you know...

Posted by wronoj on 2/27/2011 12:39:00 PM (view original):
but ars, if I saw that guy in the starting lineup against me, i'd load up my distro against him. especially since the rest of the players on UK are better defensively. he can't have played all bad coaches...

That might be, but look at the number of shots attempted;  it just was not all that high.  I'm not saying what they should have done, only what it looks like they did do, no?

 

(And yes again, for those who aren't aware, this is an alias)

Posted by oldresorter on 2/27/2011 12:28:00 PM (view original):
what would bother me more is if such a player always stopped everyone, every game.  There is more than enough evidence that a team full of such players indeed does play substantially better defense than a team without in this game.  Plus, in real life, bruce bowen really does not stop everyone, every game, matter of fact, far from it, but over the long haul, he is fine.  Since we have such large sample sizes in this game some of that happens.

Plus, the low distro bad players on great teams is a bit of glitch, but real life, playing on great passing, fast team with next to no touches will make for some efficiency also.  There is a real life chart on % of offense vs offense efficiency for real life players.  For guys like jordan, they continue to hold their own into the 30's% of their team's offense, maybe even the low 40's, for guys like steve blake, they drop off once they hit 10-12% of their team's offense.  In this simulation, low touches tends to very high efficiency, since things like put backs and break aways are at a higher % than maybe real life.

I think seble has reduced the number of touches found for low distro players this way, maybe even the shooting %'s, enough, maybe, maybe not, I don't think any of us want to see guys shooting 50% on break aways or put backs, if a player has only a few % distro, that is what we are left with in the simulation.

the short answer, neither of the issues you raised bothered me, conversely, if either were changed, it might bother me.

i see what you are saying OR, and i pretty much agree. but in the last 15 games, at the time i checked, there was not 1 single good offensive performance off of a player who is not a good defender for d2. that is really the worry to me. i was just pointing out his offensive %s as a comparison, i think it was high still but not alarmingly so. similarly, i don't expect *every* player to destroy wallace, but, i would expect at least 1, especially when you consider that my defense at the 1-3 was awesome, and thus, i would expect (as wronoj pointed out) people would flock to make me pay for having a d2 quality center.

Posted by dacj501 on 2/27/2011 4:09:00 PM (view original):
I loaded up both times, and the player who started at center was our leading scorer both times. We still got smoked, but, you know...

this is pretty misleading though dac. in our first game, at your place, your center was in fact your leading scorer - but he shot 6 for 15. 6 for 15 at home to me is a pretty crappy performance for a guy of your offensive caliber given mine.

then in the CT, neutral court, your starting C went 5 for 13. sure, he did take 6 fts, which isn't bad, but he also had 4 turnovers, as small forward playing the 5. once again, not a good performance at all, if you ask me. 

so in your examples, your starting centers went a whopping 11 for 28, or just under 40%. for players playing the 5, that is pretty damn awful, to be frank!

I looked back tru your last 10 games or so and the guys he guarded were pretty lame for a Big-6 schedule. He only looked like he guarded one guy who averaged more than 5-6 ppg in that stretch. Several averaged 2-3 ppg. The opposing coaches really had some weak guys playing at the 5 against him. just saying, maybe he's as good as alot of who he was playing

Little busy right now so I only have time for one example that agrees with Billy's point. I have this player: http://whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=1758558 and he played against this player: http://whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=1785570 and my guy shot 7-18 and turned it over 4 times while only scoring 17 when his season average is 22.7 and shoots 45% from the field.

Posted by coach_billyg on 2/28/2011 6:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 2/27/2011 4:09:00 PM (view original):
I loaded up both times, and the player who started at center was our leading scorer both times. We still got smoked, but, you know...

this is pretty misleading though dac. in our first game, at your place, your center was in fact your leading scorer - but he shot 6 for 15. 6 for 15 at home to me is a pretty crappy performance for a guy of your offensive caliber given mine.

then in the CT, neutral court, your starting C went 5 for 13. sure, he did take 6 fts, which isn't bad, but he also had 4 turnovers, as small forward playing the 5. once again, not a good performance at all, if you ask me. 

so in your examples, your starting centers went a whopping 11 for 28, or just under 40%. for players playing the 5, that is pretty damn awful, to be frank!

I agree that its crappy coach, but not for a lack of distro or trying. Our bigs aren't very good. That's why I tried the SF 2nd time around...your guy may not be stellar, but he's better than my bigs, and your guards smoked me - not sure what you expected us to be able to do frankly - I'm guessing that in the first game the speed difference between the 2 players may have been a big factor (my guy 15 spd, Wallace 55 spd). In the second game, the guy I put out there shot even worse, but as a team we only shot 37% the 2nd game, so I'm not sure you can get any useful data there...

At least I recognized where your "weakness" was and tried to go for it. Even if my centers in either game had hit 80% of their shots I don't think we win. Too big a talent divide.


ETA: coach, I see why I didn't understand your post to me at first - I wasn't commenting in reply to your OP (so I guess I should have block quoted or something) - I'm not saying that either of my guys had good games against Wallace, just that I tried to put someone there who could, and it didn't work (for the reasons above most likely)  - more in response to wronoj than you...my bad.

So, an immaculate knowledge of an o/d can be very effective. Is it the best way to run the game? Idano. May mean more calls to coaches during recruiting

I've noticed just generally that IQ has been increasingly important in HD, especially in the "new engine" they putin a few seasons ago. 

I'd be curious to see anyone having major success with say a lineup full of freshman 5 stars with very low IQ's.