I agree that ATH is the most important, but if I had a basket of points to allocate to attributes, and I was supposed to build a team to compete for a championship at DIII, I would begin by getting 2-3 players up to 75 PE.

After that, I would get everyone up to 40/40 ATH DE. From there, I would build up two bigs to 75 REB and two bigs to 70 LP (same or different bigs). I would then add SPD to the guards. Once I got to 40, I would add points to either ATH or SPD to get ATH + SPD > 120. Then, I would add ATH to my bigs until they were over 50. Next, I would build up the guards' BH to 40. All points beyond that just improve my team's competitiveness.

I like it when my guards and bigs have some sort of remarkable ability (DE, REB, LP, PE, or BH/P over 80). For my SFs, I want them to have a remarkable ability or no weaknesses.

For DE, I mostly just don't want it to be a weakness. I am happier when my average is over 50 with no weaknesses, and I don't feel competitive if my team is below 40 or has a lot of holes. The said, teams with overwhelming ATH and DE (see tianyi), will win lots of championships.

Posted by isack24 on 8/24/2012 2:04:00 PM (view original):
I don't think that's true anymore, tianyi.  Obviously there's still a correlation, but I don't think it's the stirct 1:1 we were seeing a year or two ago.

Take my Hamline squad from this year: http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=3795

He's talking about Iba 6 seasons ago, 1 a day world, which is close to 9 months ago. I think this before the last update. 

That could be.  I obviously wasn't tracking how long ago it wasn't.  My bad.

This is just one conference.  Ratings below are at the start of the last season.  So things obviously were different by season's end but the general trends didn't change.  I suppose you could argue they all look alike because they have above average ATH/DEF, but I'd disagree.

	ATH	SPD	REB	DEF	BLK	LP	PER	BH	PAS
Castleton State	56	51	34	53	28	32	29	43	37
Johnson State	52	46	34	50	26	29	38	34	35
Lasell	50	46	40	43	33	27	31	37	37
Mount Ida	45	59	32	44	31	37	45	47	45
Thomas	59	48	37	56	28	28	36	41	39

Castleton State - pretty weak rebounding, and the PER rating might be "high" enough that it probably hides the fact that they haven't taken a three point shot in at least 7-8 seasons.  Lost in the Sweet 16, but did still finish with #1 RPI.  Prior to that, the strategy had made it to 5 straight Final Fours with 2 championships.

Johnson State - maybe doesn't belong on the list because "only" was a 2nd round, 14 RPI team.  Included because it is a team that does well and appeared to focus on the topic of the thread (ATH/DEF) more to the expense of anybody else.

Lasell - National Champion, #3 RPI.   Not amazing ATH, not amazing SPD, and so-so DEF.  But terrific rebounding and that took them awfully far.

Mount Ida - National Runner Up, #5 RPI - Amazing SPD, pretty mediocre ATH and DEF.  Little in the way of rebounding.  Amazing guard attributes (PER, BH, PAS).

Thomas - Final Four #4 RPI.  Excellent ATH/DEF.  Probably a team that typifies the thread.  But better rounded that Johnson State.


Again ... one conference.  I see at least 4 different ways of success here, and potentially 5 if you want to differentiate Johnson State's all-in ATH/DEF strategy with that of Thomas.

Johnson & Wales

Exhibit A for the all-in Ath/Def strategy.

Posted by spasticity on 8/24/2012 3:41:00 PM (view original):
Johnson & Wales

Exhibit A for the all-in Ath/Def strategy.

No, that's Exhibit A for how to build a D2 national champion.  That team is good in a lot more than ath/def.

But I'll also bump my previous question: why shouldn't ath/def be valued higher than everything else?

Posted by spasticity on 8/24/2012 3:41:00 PM (view original):
Johnson & Wales

Exhibit A for the all-in Ath/Def strategy.

As impressive as that team is, and I'm in no way shape denying that, I'd argue you haven't gone all in.  You have two excellent rebounders, three good low post players, one good perimeter shooter and another on the way, and a team that can both handle and pass the ball.

For me, going all in would be signing a team full of guys like this one that Dac signed.

EDIT: Damn you, Isack.  Coke or Pepsi?

Posted by spasticity on 8/24/2012 3:41:00 PM (view original):
Johnson & Wales

Exhibit A for the all-in Ath/Def strategy.

That team would go 35-0 in almost all D2. 

Posted by kujayhawk on 8/24/2012 4:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by spasticity on 8/24/2012 3:41:00 PM (view original):
Johnson & Wales

Exhibit A for the all-in Ath/Def strategy.

As impressive as that team is, and I'm in no way shape denying that, I'd argue you haven't gone all in.  You have two excellent rebounders, three good low post players, one good perimeter shooter and another on the way, and a team that can both handle and pass the ball.

For me, going all in would be signing a team full of guys like this one that Dac signed.

EDIT: Damn you, Isack.  Coke or Pepsi?

I think this is just splitting hair here. It's hard enough for a D3 coach to find tremendous ath/def on his players, he now has to find tremendous ath/def with 30s in everything else?

Isack, as to your question, I'm bring up what tianyi did earlier and what I did in a forum thread last week.  I don't think it's a problem that they are valued higher but it is silly that they are correlated the way they are.  As I mentioned in my thread I ended up with an amazingly athletic team by accident.  I was focused exclusively on defense for the roster and the athleticism came along for the ride.  If you actually had to more often choose between one or the other, I don't think it is a problem they are valued high at all.

Tinayi - maybe splitting straws.  But to be honest, when I clicked on the link I was expecting to see something more like U of DC that has completely punted rebounding.  Spasticity's team is both amazingly awesome at ATH/DEF and also has key pieces for the other attributes.

Posted by kujayhawk on 8/24/2012 4:11:00 PM (view original):
Tinayi - maybe splitting straws.  But to be honest, when I clicked on the link I was expecting to see something more like U of DC that has completely punted rebounding.  Spasticity's team is both amazingly awesome at ATH/DEF and also has key pieces for the other attributes.

So spasticity chose to build a "traditional" team focusing on ath/def, rather than not getting rebounds at all. It doesn't mean he didn't build an ath/def team or focused his recruiting effort strongly in those areas.

I mean compare U DC to spasticity's team, spasticity has higher ath and def and he's a division lower. Under your theory, should a team focusing on ath/def just not recruit a player like Chester Tarter? It's not like he grabbed a 30 ath 100 rebound player to get some rebounding. 

Or should he forgo a 90ath/90def player in recruiting because the player has a bunch of high highs in reb/lp/per/bh/p?

I would argue J&W has just barely enough of several things.  When Tolley was hurt for a while in conf play, we basically took no 3's at all, which isn't really great.  We have two great rebounders, but no one else over 60.  Basically two guys who can play point.  <=40 in Reb, LP, Per, BH, and Pass sounds pretty weak to me for a team talking about winning a title.

I definitely think I could've scaled it back a little on Ath/Def and had a better team.  That's why I thought it was fair to call it an "all-in" team.

Posted by kujayhawk on 8/24/2012 4:08:00 PM (view original):
Isack, as to your question, I'm bring up what tianyi did earlier and what I did in a forum thread last week.  I don't think it's a problem that they are valued higher but it is silly that they are correlated the way they are.  As I mentioned in my thread I ended up with an amazingly athletic team by accident.  I was focused exclusively on defense for the roster and the athleticism came along for the ride.  If you actually had to more often choose between one or the other, I don't think it is a problem they are valued high at all.

I would certainly agree with that.  But that didn't seem to be the OP's complaint.

Under your theory, should a team focusing on ath/def just not recruit a player like Chester Tarter?


Well, I was posting in the spirit of the original point of the thread in that all that matters is ATH/DEF.  I was simply suggesting that even when you take it to its extremes - and spasticity obviously is ... he/she is still nabbing some players along the way with some core skills.

But also I also think the original premise of the thread is off target and in any other context, I'd fully support the fact that J&W has gone all-in on ATH/DEF.


EDIT: And I'm posting this as a coach that has gone fairly heavy on ATH/DEF as well.  Nothing close to what spasticity has accomplished, of course.  But in the process of building my teams, I'm doing so in a way that pretty explicitly targets my need to acquire additional attributes.  (And if anybody wants proof of that, you can read 25,000 words over in the Allen forum ....)