I'm looking for some feedback on why I lost this game. The only notable difference I'm seeing is 10 more turnovers which he had a lot of points off of. What I'm looking for is what I did wrong in gameplanning. I felt we had pretty even teams if not me with a slight edge. Thanks in advance for constructive posts.

http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=8667065

Your starting guards have a 35 and 36 bh facing a FCP. There's your problem, I think. Then a 39 at sf. I probably would have started odaniel instead of dossantos at pg for his bh. Not given him distro.

I'm actually a little shocked your team has been so successful with such an abject lack of BH/Pass.

I think the success came with the scoring ability mostly. I had Cox as my starter at one point because because of his BH and passing, but his defense became a liability and he worked very well coming off the bench. I felt o daniel was too young IQ wise and also a defensive liability. Dossantos and thorton were actually my 2 best scorers as thorton even with his BH issues drew a lot of fouls and dossantos is a high percentage shooter.

This is also a fairly new team for me (4th season) so roster balance is still in the process. I new BH would be an issue, but I felt this was a pretty solid team otherwise (and to be honest, I got a really bad draw in the NT, as a 5th seed, I got someone who had really should  have been higher than a 12 seed imo).

My team not shooting 3's really hurt me as this was a perimeter based team with high percentages. We usually got around 20 per game, but he held me to 9 with his +1 defense.

Outside of the BH issues, any other major glaring issues? Did I gameplan incorrectly otherwise? This team is the first time I've ever run a M2M defense and I'm just looking for feedback on improvements where I could have made them for learning experience.

Poncho your team is an eye opener for me, and definitely refreshing. A bunch of guys with ath below 10, with per in the 90s, and winning...mind...blown...

Posted by tianyi7886 on 9/26/2012 11:55:00 AM (view original):
Poncho your team is an eye opener for me, and definitely refreshing. A bunch of guys with ath below 10, with per in the 90s, and winning...mind...blown...

They only have 1 guy with ATH below 10 (although he's one of their best players, it appears.)

With PER like that, I would definitely go for more rebounding.

Posted by isack24 on 9/26/2012 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Meh, 0-1 against the top-25 RPI.  The other couple teams he beat under 50 weren't good and he plays 9 upperclassmen.  The other teams were all sims.

I'm not disagreeing that the team is slightly more successful than one would think, but that's an objectively crappy schedule and the RPI/SOS are massively inflated. 

I'm not trying to be a dick, but I don't think your record was a reflection of the team's talent.

He beat human teams with RPI 44, 42, 84, 43, and 23. All of his non-conf opponents were RPI 104 or better, and five of them are already at 20+ wins. Obviously his conf schedule is dragging down his SOS (which still finished at a respectable 65), but to call his schedule "objectively crappy" is just flat-out wrong. Not everyone can play all top-50 RPI teams (nor should they).

I tried to schedule well and knew that my conference would hurt my SOS, but considering how much the conference dragged me down, I still felt it went well. Prior to entering conference play I was in the 20's for SOS. 

tianyi, you'd be surprised. In the old system prior to potential, I made a sweet 16 team that was all about perimeter and LP with lower athleticism and defense. It eventually caught up with me though. I went perimeter heavy because I read that the flex is about trying to open up a perimeter shot and so you would need perimeter players. 

Still with lower athleticism and defense, I was pretty evenly matched with my opponent and my perimeter and LP was significantly better. (nearly 10 points better). My athleticism and defense was close to his and my speed was better. From what I see BH and passing were the only things he had a significant advantage on me.