Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/18/2012 10:44:00 AM (view original):
acn24, missing a few free throws in the first half is a sympton of the real problem. In the first half, my team only committed 6 fouls (only two of which were by a starting player), and with only one as a shooting foul the other team went 1 for 1 from the free throw line; while the other team committed 11 fouls, putting us in the bonus with 10 minutes remaining in the half, and we went 8 for 18. However, in the second half, my team committed 16 fouls (10 of those coming before the intentionals) with 4 of the first 7 being shooting fouls and reaching the bonus with 8 minutes remaining, and going 22 for 27 from the line in the half; while my opponent managed to only commit 4 total fouls in the second half, with only one being a shooting foul, limiting us to 2 for 2 from the line.

There is no reason for this wild of a swing in fouls, especially given that (without my RS or their walkon taken into account) my team is at a minimun 10 points better than this opponent in each ATH, SP, and DEF ratings, a much better STM rating, superior IQs in both offense and defense, and my opponent playing -3 defensive positioning. If randomness can account for such a wild swing for these two halfs and between these two teams then there is a serious problem with how fouls are determined by the engine. 

Posted by isack24 on 4/18/2012 11:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/18/2012 10:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ike1024 on 4/18/2012 10:21:00 AM (view original):
I feel like it makes sense that a -5 2-3 zone would barely commit any fouls unless you were able to get some offensive rebounds.  They are basically screaming "I dare you to shoot the ball," and if you can't shoot the ball, you aren't going to beat a 2-3 (-5) very often.  Even in real life that's the case.  It would be EXTREMELY difficult to penetrate a slouching 2-3 zone. 

Obviously you don't like what happened and don't think it was right, but that defense did not play to your strengths (and actually countered your strengths perfectly).  Even if you were more talented - which you were - and would have won more often than lost, I don't think this is a gargantuan travesty.

Scoring from the field wasn't my team's problem.

It was a huge factor.  Your offensive efficiency was nowhere near where it usually is.  You average 81 points, 53% from the floor, and ~ 30 FTs per game.  Because he played a sagging 2-3 zone, you weren't able to penetrate and get the easy inside looks/get fouled like you usually do.  You were forced to take more outside shots (which your team isn't great at shooting) and contested inside shots.  Consequently, you only scored 69 points, shot 46%, and only took 20 FTs. 

I don't really think there should be much of a debate; a sagging 2-3 zone is more effective against a team of penetrators with no outside shooting than most (or all) other defenses.  Certainly moreso than man or press.  That's just a basketball fact.

Posted by acn24 on 4/18/2012 11:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/18/2012 10:44:00 AM (view original):
acn24, missing a few free throws in the first half is a sympton of the real problem. In the first half, my team only committed 6 fouls (only two of which were by a starting player), and with only one as a shooting foul the other team went 1 for 1 from the free throw line; while the other team committed 11 fouls, putting us in the bonus with 10 minutes remaining in the half, and we went 8 for 18. However, in the second half, my team committed 16 fouls (10 of those coming before the intentionals) with 4 of the first 7 being shooting fouls and reaching the bonus with 8 minutes remaining, and going 22 for 27 from the line in the half; while my opponent managed to only commit 4 total fouls in the second half, with only one being a shooting foul, limiting us to 2 for 2 from the line.

There is no reason for this wild of a swing in fouls, especially given that (without my RS or their walkon taken into account) my team is at a minimun 10 points better than this opponent in each ATH, SP, and DEF ratings, a much better STM rating, superior IQs in both offense and defense, and my opponent playing -3 defensive positioning. If randomness can account for such a wild swing for these two halfs and between these two teams then there is a serious problem with how fouls are determined by the engine. 

You still keep counting the intentionals.  6 fouls to 10 is a huge swing?  Given that they switched to extreme sagging, and the 11 fouls in the first half is almost their entire per game average a reduction in fouls for IW makes sense.  

I agree with Isack, you had the better team and probably win 7 or 8 times out of 10, but honestly out of your two losses this one makes a lot more sense than your offense getting shut down and being blown out by NJ Tech.

Posted by girt25 on 4/18/2012 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/18/2012 10:44:00 AM (view original):
acn24, missing a few free throws in the first half is a sympton of the real problem. In the first half, my team only committed 6 fouls (only two of which were by a starting player), and with only one as a shooting foul the other team went 1 for 1 from the free throw line; while the other team committed 11 fouls, putting us in the bonus with 10 minutes remaining in the half, and we went 8 for 18. However, in the second half, my team committed 16 fouls (10 of those coming before the intentionals) with 4 of the first 7 being shooting fouls and reaching the bonus with 8 minutes remaining, and going 22 for 27 from the line in the half; while my opponent managed to only commit 4 total fouls in the second half, with only one being a shooting foul, limiting us to 2 for 2 from the line.

There is no reason for this wild of a swing in fouls, especially given that (without my RS or their walkon taken into account) my team is at a minimun 10 points better than this opponent in each ATH, SP, and DEF ratings, a much better STM rating, superior IQs in both offense and defense, and my opponent playing -3 defensive positioning. If randomness can account for such a wild swing for these two halfs and between these two teams then there is a serious problem with how fouls are determined by the engine. 

There are significant swings from one half to the next in a variety of things (shooting, turnovers, fouls, ft shooting, etc. etc. etc.) all the time. That in itself is not even remotely odd, unusual or eyebrow raising. (Edit: The swing in fouls wasn't even significant -- 6 in the first half and 10 in the second before the intentionals, so this is a total moot point.)

Did you have a better team? Yes.
As acn, myself and others have pointed out, was facing a team playing a sagging 2-3 zone a poor matchup for you? Yes. Extremely.
And it was a combination of that and an off game that ended up costing you. 

You'd win that game more often than you lost. But do I think losing it is crazy, or a reason to quit, or a sign that something is wrong? Hardly.

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/18/2012 12:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 4/18/2012 11:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/18/2012 10:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ike1024 on 4/18/2012 10:21:00 AM (view original):
I feel like it makes sense that a -5 2-3 zone would barely commit any fouls unless you were able to get some offensive rebounds.  They are basically screaming "I dare you to shoot the ball," and if you can't shoot the ball, you aren't going to beat a 2-3 (-5) very often.  Even in real life that's the case.  It would be EXTREMELY difficult to penetrate a slouching 2-3 zone. 

Obviously you don't like what happened and don't think it was right, but that defense did not play to your strengths (and actually countered your strengths perfectly).  Even if you were more talented - which you were - and would have won more often than lost, I don't think this is a gargantuan travesty.

Scoring from the field wasn't my team's problem.

It was a huge factor.  Your offensive efficiency was nowhere near where it usually is.  You average 81 points, 53% from the floor, and ~ 30 FTs per game.  Because he played a sagging 2-3 zone, you weren't able to penetrate and get the easy inside looks/get fouled like you usually do.  You were forced to take more outside shots (which your team isn't great at shooting) and contested inside shots.  Consequently, you only scored 69 points, shot 46%, and only took 20 FTs. 

I don't really think there should be much of a debate; a sagging 2-3 zone is more effective against a team of penetrators with no outside shooting than most (or all) other defenses.  Certainly moreso than man or press.  That's just a basketball fact.

The only reason I averaged over 80 pts and 50 fg% a game was because I ran uptempo against the weakest of my conference opponents and had a few uptempo fastbreak/press non-coference games. As for outside shots, if you take away the fullcourt desperation chuck, I was 7 for 14 which gives me a percentage higher than my season average, and making 3pt attempts 25% of my total FGs for the game.

Even if your theory about sagging zone defenses being optimal for stopping penetration and limiting fouls were correct, which I do not agree with at all by the way, it still doesn't account for why my team started acting like fouling was the coolest thing on earth (other than zach galafianakis). When a team is losing at halftime and proceed to shoot worse from the floor than they did in the first half while also taking fewer attempts and the other team shoots the exact same FG% (47.6 & 47.1) plus an additional 14 shots then one can be smuggishly confident when claiming their offensive strategy and performance was very sufficient to say the least. 

Soooooo, what we are left with is a team (that coincidentally has the #1 ranking for foul margin) that decided it would match it's highest single game foul total for the year, the other being the very first game of the season against a fastbreak/pressing team, and for the most part all in the 2nd half of their first round NT game. Therefore, whatever the criteria are that determine whether a play results in a foul, I feel okay in saying that those criteria are absurd.  

Before this goes any further (assuming you want it to), I'd really like to know your rationale for disagreeing with the statement "a sagging zone is optimal for minimizing penetration and fouls."

I'd also like to know why you think a -3 defense is not conducive to limiting defensive fouls, as you stated before.

And you still aren't acknowledging that 12 of the 28 FTs were shot because of intentional fouls, without which an argument based on FT margin is disingenuous.

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/18/2012 12:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 4/18/2012 11:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/18/2012 10:44:00 AM (view original):
acn24, missing a few free throws in the first half is a sympton of the real problem. In the first half, my team only committed 6 fouls (only two of which were by a starting player), and with only one as a shooting foul the other team went 1 for 1 from the free throw line; while the other team committed 11 fouls, putting us in the bonus with 10 minutes remaining in the half, and we went 8 for 18. However, in the second half, my team committed 16 fouls (10 of those coming before the intentionals) with 4 of the first 7 being shooting fouls and reaching the bonus with 8 minutes remaining, and going 22 for 27 from the line in the half; while my opponent managed to only commit 4 total fouls in the second half, with only one being a shooting foul, limiting us to 2 for 2 from the line.

There is no reason for this wild of a swing in fouls, especially given that (without my RS or their walkon taken into account) my team is at a minimun 10 points better than this opponent in each ATH, SP, and DEF ratings, a much better STM rating, superior IQs in both offense and defense, and my opponent playing -3 defensive positioning. If randomness can account for such a wild swing for these two halfs and between these two teams then there is a serious problem with how fouls are determined by the engine. 

You still keep counting the intentionals.  6 fouls to 10 is a huge swing?  Given that they switched to extreme sagging, and the 11 fouls in the first half is almost their entire per game average a reduction in fouls for IW makes sense.  

I agree with Isack, you had the better team and probably win 7 or 8 times out of 10, but honestly out of your two losses this one makes a lot more sense than your offense getting shut down and being blown out by NJ Tech.

Again, the swing isn't entirely based on my defensive performance. Besides, I've dredged all the literature (FAQ's and whatnot) on this site and I've never read anything relating to the positive enfluence negative defensive settings have on preventing fouls, everything I've found actually conveys the opposite notion.

Posted by emy1013 on 4/18/2012 1:44:00 PM (view original):
Isack, according to the original developer of the game, the more a defense packs in, the more fouls they are supposed to commit.  More hands and bodies in a smaller area theory, I guess.  That's probably why Nacho is taking that stance.

One thing that I DO find amusing though is that I don't recall Nacho posting on the forums about how fouls were generated when he was leading the country in foul differential earlier this season.  Apparently it was working as intended then.  Only when it went against his team was the engine not working correctly.

Posted by emy1013 on 4/18/2012 1:44:00 PM (view original):
Isack, according to the original developer of the game, the more a defense packs in, the more fouls they are supposed to commit.  More hands and bodies in a smaller area theory, I guess.  That's probably why Nacho is taking that stance.

One thing that I DO find amusing though is that I don't recall Nacho posting on the forums about how fouls were generated when he was leading the country in foul differential earlier this season.  Apparently it was working as intended then.  Only when it went against his team was the engine not working correctly.

Emy, do you know what it feels like when being a dick backfires and makes you look like a jackass???

Take a look at these two forum topics and the dates they were posted:

http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=438659&TopicsTimeframe=180

http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=444123&TopicsTimeframe=0&TopicsPage=2

Sorry, I missed your one little discussion on the topic despite having been starting threads about this exact same topic for over a year now. You sure do know a lot for a guy that doesn't seem to have a clue what's going on around here. Nicely try though, keep it up and maybe one day your weak sauce comments won't make you sound like a kardashian.

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/18/2012 2:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 4/18/2012 1:44:00 PM (view original):
Isack, according to the original developer of the game, the more a defense packs in, the more fouls they are supposed to commit.  More hands and bodies in a smaller area theory, I guess.  That's probably why Nacho is taking that stance.

One thing that I DO find amusing though is that I don't recall Nacho posting on the forums about how fouls were generated when he was leading the country in foul differential earlier this season.  Apparently it was working as intended then.  Only when it went against his team was the engine not working correctly.

Emy, do you know what it feels like when being a dick backfires and makes you look like a jackass???

Take a look at these two forum topics and the dates they were posted:

http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=438659&TopicsTimeframe=180

http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=444123&TopicsTimeframe=0&TopicsPage=2

Sorry, I missed your one little discussion on the topic despite having been starting threads about this exact same topic for over a year now. You sure do know a lot for a guy that doesn't seem to have a clue what's going on around here. Nicely try though, keep it up and maybe one day your weak sauce comments won't make you sound like a kardashian.

Posted by emy1013 on 4/18/2012 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/18/2012 2:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 4/18/2012 1:44:00 PM (view original):
Isack, according to the original developer of the game, the more a defense packs in, the more fouls they are supposed to commit.  More hands and bodies in a smaller area theory, I guess.  That's probably why Nacho is taking that stance.

One thing that I DO find amusing though is that I don't recall Nacho posting on the forums about how fouls were generated when he was leading the country in foul differential earlier this season.  Apparently it was working as intended then.  Only when it went against his team was the engine not working correctly.

Emy, do you know what it feels like when being a dick backfires and makes you look like a jackass???

Take a look at these two forum topics and the dates they were posted:

http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=438659&TopicsTimeframe=180

http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=444123&TopicsTimeframe=0&TopicsPage=2

Sorry, I missed your one little discussion on the topic despite having been starting threads about this exact same topic for over a year now. You sure do know a lot for a guy that doesn't seem to have a clue what's going on around here. Nicely try though, keep it up and maybe one day your weak sauce comments won't make you sound like a kardashian.

So you posted another thread in a forum that no one reads almost a year ago, ******** about the exact same thing as in this thread.  Wow, pardon me for missing that one!

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/18/2012 1:57:00 PM (view original):
I hope this goes on as long as needed. It's not that I don't think a sagging zone is a bad way to go about limiting the drive, but I don't think it had that large of an impact on my offense, which I've already gone on at length about. It's not conducive to limiting fouls because more defensive bodies that are in the area of a offensive player increases the chances for one of them to commit a foul. Which is more likely to end in a foul: one player trying to block a driving shot in the lane or three peope trying to block a shot in the lane? Plus, I've specifically seen it in more than one place on this site's helpful information (not forums) that playing a negative defensive setting can increase a team's probability of committing fouls.

I haven't been disingenuous in the slightest, and I never tried to hide that point one bit. But the 12 of  those previous14 they made that half were the the only reason they were in the game. If they would have only gone 9 for 13 then we wouldn't have needed to start fouling, which is just one less foul on me, so I don't even want to even get started on what would happen if I could have gone 4-4 instead of 2-2 on their 4 fouls.