I'll explain that game.  Even if you had set the distros correctly, you didn't actually let your good 3 point shooters off the bench and into the game.   So, your opponent read the tea leaves and decided you weren't going to sell out for the perimeter and went -5.

Brubaker might have been able to hit from the perimeter, but he rode the pine all game.   Lachance might hit a few from the perimeter, but was matched up against Kovacs and was substantially outclassed due to his dreadful BH.   Borland was your best chance to shoot 3's, but he only got in the game for 14 minutes.   No one else was really a threat.  I won't pretend to be as good as some, but I think he sold out to the interior because your team is so strong in the post and at the FT line.  You probably should have made sure your perimeter players got in the game to shoot and that your post players went ahead and attacked.   It looks like your distros were much too balanced in that game and over the whole season.

Another problem appears to be your team's fatigue.  Looks like you used target minutes.  I could be wrong, but  I think your bench is too good to try to milk extra minutes out of your starters.   However, that was never going to be a game your team couldn't lose.

Posted by zorzii on 3/7/2015 11:17:00 AM (view original):
Terps : The question shoud be this, when do you need to send your gameplanning so it is taken into consideration? Maybe it's the problem. Is there a time limit. Terps : Did he double your PG or your C? Maybe it's the reason for one of the two.

I don't think there is a time limit. I made changes 4 hours before hand. I'm not worried about my C scoring, I was stumped as to why his guy scored so well on my best defender. Oh well. **** happens

Posted by rogelio on 3/7/2015 3:23:00 PM (view original):
I'll explain that game.  Even if you had set the distros correctly, you didn't actually let your good 3 point shooters off the bench and into the game.   So, your opponent read the tea leaves and decided you weren't going to sell out for the perimeter and went -5.

Brubaker might have been able to hit from the perimeter, but he rode the pine all game.   Lachance might hit a few from the perimeter, but was matched up against Kovacs and was substantially outclassed due to his dreadful BH.   Borland was your best chance to shoot 3's, but he only got in the game for 14 minutes.   No one else was really a threat.  I won't pretend to be as good as some, but I think he sold out to the interior because your team is so strong in the post and at the FT line.  You probably should have made sure your perimeter players got in the game to shoot and that your post players went ahead and attacked.   It looks like your distros were much too balanced in that game and over the whole season.

Another problem appears to be your team's fatigue.  Looks like you used target minutes.  I could be wrong, but  I think your bench is too good to try to milk extra minutes out of your starters.   However, that was never going to be a game your team couldn't lose.

nicely put.

Yeah, rogelio's got this.

I see some of what rogelio is saying, but I don't agree with it all.

Yes, some of my three point threats came off the bench, but (in theory) at least some of the time they should have been playing against his bench (weaker players). That should have only helped them.

Besides, he thought I wasn't going to sell out for three and went -5, but that's EXACTLY what I did. It just didn't appear to work for some reason.

Lachance should have been jacking up more threes overall. His BH isn't great by any means, but I don't see it as "dreadful", and he only turned the ball over twice in the game. So it is reasonable maybe he could have gotten up two more shots had he not had those two turnovers. Otherwise, he shot 2-4 (50 percent!) from three, but the problem is he only shot the ball FOUR times. Again, even without the two turnovers, that's only two more shots.  That's far too few shots.

As for Borland, 14 minutes is a decent amount of time on the floor coming off the bench. There's no real way to get him more without starting him. I'm not worried about this, and I wasn't relying on Brubaker at all.

Really, Lachance should have shot the ball 15-20 times from behind the arc.

I'm mainly unhappy because I anticipated my opponent's game plan (I expected -2 or -3 and he actually did me better with -5). I adjusted my settings as perfectly as I can expect and it's like they didn't even matter. As I said, when I started reading the PBP, I was THRILLED and half expected to completely blow his team out.

I'll take it under advisement that my distros could have been too balanced during  the season, but part of that is by design so that it makes it difficult to game plan against us.

I didn't use target minutes. Some of my starters played more simply because of high stamina ratings.

Sure, no game is ever a "can't lose" situation - but with my settings versus his -5, I'd expect possibilities like this: 50 percent of the time we destroy his team due to the settings, 35 percent we win by a decent amount, 10 percent we win a close one, and 5 percent we lose.

My problem isn't so much losing as to the fact that the game plan I used apparently didn't work at all.

Oh well, as I said, I'll move on. I just wish things had looked more like they should, even if I did lose.

So....what was your distro set at? Cause the results are so far from what you're expecting.

Posted by terps21234 on 3/7/2015 11:06:00 AM (view original):
Glad this is a rant topic. I just lost in S16 in IBA and spent 30 minutes gameplanning, but it didn't matter. Yes the other team was better, but I thought I game planned better to win. How do my best 2 defenders giveup the most points and his worse defender shuts down my best scorer. Why game plan if the computer is not going to take that into consideration. My pg, 93sp 92per, 79bh went 3-13 & 2-10 3's against his pg 84sp, 42ath, and 44 def. Than my C 84ath, 91 def gives up 22 points to his C at 86 ath and 69 lp. Why bother gameplanning.

I here you bistiza, this game doesn't take into consideration some changes you make to your team. It seems like it's mostly luck.

Explain this, if it's "mostly luck", why do the same coaches keep winning all the time?

Your distro is plays RUN for a player to shoot, not shoots taken.  Most of the time it equates to the same thing, but not all of the time.

He is playing Man2Man, so even at -5, guys get guarded individually.  Maybe in a zone, the guards are bunch up and close to the basket .. but in Man2Man they still guard their individual man.

Lachance has a -15 SPD differential and a -19 ATH differential against Kovacs .. and Kovacs is an A- defender, with 77 DEF.  -5 or not, there is no way that Lachance gets open to take 3 point shots.  If Kovacs is not double teaming, then Kovacs is still matching up against Lachance .. just playing off him to take away the inside.  But with A- DIQ, 77 DEF, and double digit advantages in SPD and ATH, Kovacs is still able to keep Lachance from getting open.  So you are running plays for Lachance, but he is defended and the shot goes elsewhere even if the play was RUN for Lachance.  Lachance should be able to shoot against the backup SG, but even there the SG has a double digit speed advantage against Lachance (though they are the same ATH and the backup has a B+ DIQ and only 60 DEF).

If you set Wendell Horn to shoot 3's .. Dwanye Smith has +41 SPD advantage against him and Smith is a perimeter defender with a A- IQ and 64 DEF.  Horn does have a huge ATH advantage against Smith and might be able to post up Smith, but likely can't get up to shoot a 3 against him.  That is why, even if you had Horn set to shoot 3's, since he could not get open there, he instead shot more 2's against Smith.  The LOOKED for 3's, had plays run to take them, but were not open.

Posted by emy1013 on 3/8/2015 3:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by terps21234 on 3/7/2015 11:06:00 AM (view original):
Glad this is a rant topic. I just lost in S16 in IBA and spent 30 minutes gameplanning, but it didn't matter. Yes the other team was better, but I thought I game planned better to win. How do my best 2 defenders giveup the most points and his worse defender shuts down my best scorer. Why game plan if the computer is not going to take that into consideration. My pg, 93sp 92per, 79bh went 3-13 & 2-10 3's against his pg 84sp, 42ath, and 44 def. Than my C 84ath, 91 def gives up 22 points to his C at 86 ath and 69 lp. Why bother gameplanning.

I here you bistiza, this game doesn't take into consideration some changes you make to your team. It seems like it's mostly luck.

Explain this, if it's "mostly luck", why do the same coaches keep winning all the time?

Hall of Fame Cheat Codes?

This thread reminds me of what a dick I used to be.

Posted by rogelio on 3/7/2015 11:21:00 PM (view original):
"Really, Lachance should have shot the ball 15-20 times from behind the arc." 

Just on this, here's my guy that I try to have shoot 15-20 times from behind the arc: Donald Labkovsky.  Vince Lachance got no chance at that (he only got to 15 once).

I'm not bashing ya, but I don't think your expectation of what was going to happen is in line with your perimeter guy's ratings.

I think we have two different perspectives on what goes into how many times someone shoots (specifically, how many times they shoot three point shots).

Your perspective is that it is at least partially - perhaps a great deal - based upon ratings, and that the game decides how many shots should be taken based upon that.

My perspective is that the number of shots taken should depend ENTIRELY upon my settings.  What happens should be based upon the ratings - does he hit or miss those shots? Turn the ball over? Or whatever.

The coach settings determine the number of shots, and the ratings determine the outcome. If your perspective is correct, there is no point in "coaching" because the game does that for me.

Posted by hughesjr on 3/8/2015 6:57:00 AM (view original):
Your distro is plays RUN for a player to shoot, not shoots taken.  Most of the time it equates to the same thing, but not all of the time.

He is playing Man2Man, so even at -5, guys get guarded individually.  Maybe in a zone, the guards are bunch up and close to the basket .. but in Man2Man they still guard their individual man.

Lachance has a -15 SPD differential and a -19 ATH differential against Kovacs .. and Kovacs is an A- defender, with 77 DEF.  -5 or not, there is no way that Lachance gets open to take 3 point shots.  If Kovacs is not double teaming, then Kovacs is still matching up against Lachance .. just playing off him to take away the inside.  But with A- DIQ, 77 DEF, and double digit advantages in SPD and ATH, Kovacs is still able to keep Lachance from getting open.  So you are running plays for Lachance, but he is defended and the shot goes elsewhere even if the play was RUN for Lachance.  Lachance should be able to shoot against the backup SG, but even there the SG has a double digit speed advantage against Lachance (though they are the same ATH and the backup has a B+ DIQ and only 60 DEF).

If you set Wendell Horn to shoot 3's .. Dwanye Smith has +41 SPD advantage against him and Smith is a perimeter defender with a A- IQ and 64 DEF.  Horn does have a huge ATH advantage against Smith and might be able to post up Smith, but likely can't get up to shoot a 3 against him.  That is why, even if you had Horn set to shoot 3's, since he could not get open there, he instead shot more 2's against Smith.  The LOOKED for 3's, had plays run to take them, but were not open.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree with the state "there is no way Lachance gets open to take 3 point shots."

I think you are giving way too much credit to what I see as a relatively small difference in ratings between Kovacs and Lachance in the areas you mention. Even IF those ratings make the huge difference you seem to think they would, even good defenders lose their man sometimes.  This happens MUCH more frequently if the defender is "playing off of him to take away the inside" - or at least, it should happen much more frequently. You can't logically play your man tight if you're playing off him to take away the inside.

I don't care if the guy had 99 ratings in spd and ath, if you play off your man, that man should be getting open fairly frequently. Otherwise, the settings have no downside and therefore no meaning.

First, I don't buy that the threes weren't open enough to even shoot more than ten. If only ten shots were open enough to take from behind the arc all game despite those settings, then the settings are meaningless. You can run -5 all you want and it doesn't matter, you can still shut down your opponent from beyond the arc provided you have a modest edge in a few key ratings in the man to man.  That's ridiculous.

Second, if my settings of +2 and high distro for my three point shooters only mean they will "look" for shots and doesn't mean they will take them, then that setting is equally meaningless. If I set it like that, I want the guy taking a ton of threes, no matter what.  I don't want him looking around and somehow not obeying the settings because he thinks he isn't open enough to even shoot.

If the computer is going to decide how many guys shoot threes for me, I might as well not even coach at all.

By the way, I'm frustrating and ranting, but I'm honestly trying to figure this out - and if any of these answers are true, then this game isn't nearly as meaningful or as fun as I thought it was.

Wondering what your distro settings were for your players? Not the +2 positioning setting, but the numbers you used under the "Player Game Plan" settings tab.

This thread has been a great learning experience. Great discussion of how the game works, especially hughesjr at 6:57am today.