Gameplanning Topic

uconnut
Posts: 228 (0)
Veteran
27
Prospect
not a team I am playing right now, but i am trying looking at various top teams, in various worlds, and making out gameplans in my head for them, just for the practice, then comparing them to the actual gameplans good coaches use against those teams.  how heavy into a plus defense on three two would you go against a team shooting nearly 46% from three, with 58% of its shots coming from three?  i notice that many people don't seem to like any really high plus defenses, but a game like that would seem to beg for one.  

11/26/2011 6:09 AM
johnfoppe
Posts: 110 (0)
Hall of Famer
464 1
Prospect
I would play +2 or +3 assuming I have a couple good rebounding big men in my lineup.  I play man to man on my teams though.
11/26/2011 8:00 AM
Trentonjoe
Posts: 11794 (0)
Hall of Famer
420 658 54 1
Hall of Famer
I use +2 or +3 a lot.   
11/26/2011 2:35 PM
jdno
Posts: 655 (0)
Hall of Famer
152
Rookie
I'd go +4, and maybe even +5 if I'm on the road.
11/26/2011 3:13 PM
rednu
Posts: 2673 (0)
Hall of Famer
185 2 5
Pro
Posted by jdno on 11/26/2011 3:13:00 PM (view original):
I'd go +4, and maybe even +5 if I'm on the road.
Interesting...I've never given thought to varying my defensive positioning based on home vs. away. 
11/28/2011 12:12 AM
jdno
Posts: 655 (0)
Hall of Famer
152
Rookie
I think there's a slight tendency for teams to shoot better at home than on the road.  This is in the FAQs or admin/seble has said as such as well I think.

Just looking at my Illini team, we've shot 64/156 (41%) from deep when on the road and 46/100 (46%) at home.

For your MUSL team, you're 79/230 (34%) on the road and 73/224 (33%) at home.

Your Wooster team is 36/147 (24%) on the road and 34/130 (26%) at home.

Obviously I didn't look at SOS or anything for any of our teams for home vs. away, just went with the raw stats.  Not enough to draw a statistically significant conclusion, but take a look at some other teams and see if there's a slight edge to 3-pt shooting at home.
11/28/2011 9:47 AM
ethan66
Posts: 663 (0)
Hall of Famer
75
Prospect
I'm not sure how one could gameplan without comparing individual players?  That kid shooting 40% from the arc might not look so hot if you can put someone on him with high SPD/DEF.  (I play Man for this very reason).

In fact, most of my gameplanning starts with defensive assignments.  When possible, I will switch players around to exploit defensive advantages first, before I worry about how I'm going to score.


11/28/2011 11:12 AM
jdno
Posts: 655 (0)
Hall of Famer
152
Rookie
agree ethan, though in this case he said he would be playing a 3-2Z, or at least that's how I understood this passage:

"how heavy into a plus defense on three two would you go against...."

But he could still DT in a zone, esp.  if there's a lone mad bomber jacking up many of those 3's
11/28/2011 11:23 AM
uconnut
Posts: 228 (0)
Veteran
27
Prospect
my team plays a zone, so i look at things from a zone perspective.

in this case its five mad bombers.





11/28/2011 11:55 AM
ethan66
Posts: 663 (0)
Hall of Famer
75
Prospect
Posted by uconnut on 11/28/2011 11:55:00 AM (view original):
my team plays a zone, so i look at things from a zone perspective.

in this case its five mad bombers.





I hate those kinds of teams.  A couple of good shooters is enough of a headache.  Five?  Mail it in.

11/28/2011 3:05 PM
rednu
Posts: 2673 (0)
Hall of Famer
185 2 5
Pro
Posted by uconnut on 11/28/2011 11:55:00 AM (view original):
my team plays a zone, so i look at things from a zone perspective.

in this case its five mad bombers.





I'd push as far as I thought I could without risking losing the rebounding battle (darn sure don't want to give a chuck-and-duck team that's hitting in the mid-40s extra possessions!). I rarely extended to a +4 when I was running a 3-2/press combo, but never encountered the sort of team you're describing either if all five are really chucking the rock up there from downtown. For teams running 3 and 4 guard sharpshooter lineups, I found a +3 was usually sufficient and let the engine tweak it to +4 if it felt necessary at halftime.
11/28/2011 3:39 PM
ryandaniel
Posts: 188 (0)
Veteran
22
Prospect
I think I likely played the team Uconnut was looking at. . . or at least a team that sounds like it.  Hamline.  And yes, I went +5 3/2 zone, got beat on the boards but held them to 6 of 21 from three and one by a point, rather unexpectedly for me.

http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Stats.aspx?tid=8470

Five players with 100 or more threes, two with 300+, all shooting 400 or better, all but one shooting 465 or better. 



11/28/2011 8:39 PM
caesari
Posts: 4817 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 57 144 14
Prospect
Posted by ryandaniel on 11/28/2011 8:40:00 PM (view original):
I think I likely played the team Uconnut was looking at. . . or at least a team that sounds like it.  Hamline.  And yes, I went +5 3/2 zone, got beat on the boards but held them to 6 of 21 from three and one by a point, rather unexpectedly for me.

http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Stats.aspx?tid=8470

Five players with 100 or more threes, two with 300+, all shooting 400 or better, all but one shooting 465 or better. 



11/28/2011 8:55 PM
jdno
Posts: 655 (0)
Hall of Famer
152
Rookie
lol, let me help ryan out a bit.  He said:

"Five players with 100 or more threes, two with 300+, all shooting 400 or better, all but one shooting 465 or better."

What he meant was:

"Five players with 100 or more three pt. attempts, two with 300+ attempts, all shooting 40% or better, all but one shooting 46.5% or better.
11/28/2011 8:59 PM
ryandaniel
Posts: 188 (0)
Veteran
22
Prospect
Posted by jdno on 11/28/2011 8:59:00 PM (view original):
lol, let me help ryan out a bit.  He said:

"Five players with 100 or more threes, two with 300+, all shooting 400 or better, all but one shooting 465 or better."

What he meant was:

"Five players with 100 or more three pt. attempts, two with 300+ attempts, all shooting 40% or better, all but one shooting 46.5% or better.
Yeah.  That.  
11/28/2011 9:23 PM
12 Next ▸
Gameplanning 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.