Posted by emy1013 on 4/13/2015 5:18:00 AM (view original):
One thing to remember gentlemen is not to make the game any more difficult than it needs to be.  You want a "veteran" coach to give you some inside info?  Here it comes, pay very close attention now, this is good stuff that I'm about to tell you.  Ready?  You give more distro to your better players.  Voila!!  You're now a successful HD coach.  Fellas, a lot of the time that's what it boils down to, something as simple as that.  Some people may think I'm being sarcastic, nope far from it.

It's exceedingly rare that you'll find the perfect player in D2 or D3.  You can look for them and you might sign a really, really great program-changer, but for the most part, recruit solidly, use common sense, and you'll do just fine.  Far too often I see coaches giving advice that makes me just shake my head in disbelief.  For example, a player doesn't have to be 80+ Per to let him shoot from deep.  Very often I'll set my guards three point settings at 0 even if their Per rating is in the high 40's or low 50's.  I almost "never" set that at a +2 either.  Setting it at 0 will have your guy taking plenty of threes, especially if he doesn't have any low post skills to boot.  My low post guys are almost always at a -2, even if they have decent perimeter ratings.  I don't need bigs chucking up threes, that's what my guards and small forwards are for.  Another one that kills me is hearing that coaches have passed up a stud PG because his BH/Pass ratings weren't projected to be in the mid 80's or some other nonsense.  I've done just fine at the D2 level with guys playing the point who had BH/Pass ratings in the low to mid 60's.  Hell, even the 50's in a pinch.  You take the best players you can get and you make them work, easy and simple as that.

This game isn't checkers, but it ain't rocket science either.  Best players, more distro.  Common sense.  Wash, rinse, repeat.  Win.

By the way, none of that is or was meant to be directed at anyone specifically.  I can see how someone might think I was taking a shot at Hughes, but that certainly wasn't my intention.  Hughes is a fine coach in his own right and has different ways of analyzing players and settings than I do.  To each their own.  I just feel that, in general, far too many people tend to over think this game.

emy:  no offense taken  .. it is a computer game and I am a computer weenie .. so I tend to over compute things :)

Posted by emy1013 on 4/13/2015 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by npb7768 on 4/13/2015 9:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 4/13/2015 5:18:00 AM (view original):
One thing to remember gentlemen is not to make the game any more difficult than it needs to be.  You want a "veteran" coach to give you some inside info?  Here it comes, pay very close attention now, this is good stuff that I'm about to tell you.  Ready?  You give more distro to your better players.  Voila!!  You're now a successful HD coach.  Fellas, a lot of the time that's what it boils down to, something as simple as that.  Some people may think I'm being sarcastic, nope far from it.

It's exceedingly rare that you'll find the perfect player in D2 or D3.  You can look for them and you might sign a really, really great program-changer, but for the most part, recruit solidly, use common sense, and you'll do just fine.  Far too often I see coaches giving advice that makes me just shake my head in disbelief.  For example, a player doesn't have to be 80+ Per to let him shoot from deep.  Very often I'll set my guards three point settings at 0 even if their Per rating is in the high 40's or low 50's.  I almost "never" set that at a +2 either.  Setting it at 0 will have your guy taking plenty of threes, especially if he doesn't have any low post skills to boot.  My low post guys are almost always at a -2, even if they have decent perimeter ratings.  I don't need bigs chucking up threes, that's what my guards and small forwards are for.  Another one that kills me is hearing that coaches have passed up a stud PG because his BH/Pass ratings weren't projected to be in the mid 80's or some other nonsense.  I've done just fine at the D2 level with guys playing the point who had BH/Pass ratings in the low to mid 60's.  Hell, even the 50's in a pinch.  You take the best players you can get and you make them work, easy and simple as that.

This game isn't checkers, but it ain't rocket science either.  Best players, more distro.  Common sense.  Wash, rinse, repeat.  Win.

By the way, none of that is or was meant to be directed at anyone specifically.  I can see how someone might think I was taking a shot at Hughes, but that certainly wasn't my intention.  Hughes is a fine coach in his own right and has different ways of analyzing players and settings than I do.  To each their own.  I just feel that, in general, far too many people tend to over think this game.

Right, i understand that better players should get higher distro, but many of us newbies are still trying to understand what a "better player" is. In the past i would have dismissed Sprouse as useless on offense. After reading through hughes's posts, i now see that he may have value.

There seem to be hundreds of ways to win in HD, with hundreds of variables and strategies. So it's really great when veterans like hughes and you take the time to share your HD opinions.

For what it's worth npb, I also dismiss Sprouse as basically useless on offense.

And in the last 4 games, he (Sprouse) is 10/16  (62.5 %) :)

I wouldn't give him ZERO distro, I'd just give him less than you probably would.  He's fine for putbacks, tip-ins, etc.  I just wouldn't make it so he'd really ever be more than a garbage buckets kind of option.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/13/2015 2:28:00 PM (view original):
When you have not so great offensive teams (and I have this frequently) it's a good idea to "play the matchup".   Playing a low DEF PF...give spouse more shots.   Playing low ATH guards, loaded up on your high LP guards.

If Emy's motto is good people take more shots, mine is players with bad defenders take more shots.....

Well........hopefully most coaches aren't so set in their ways and rotations so as to pass up the opportunity to switch a better offensive player onto a worse defender.  That really should be a given, but maybe I'm assuming that everyone "would" do that and should have specified a little more clearly.

Yes, I agree that "playing the matchup" is a very good offensive philosophy.  So much so that when I'm actually engaged and paying attention to my teams, I'm very likely to switch the depth chart, distro, etc. on a daily basis, just to take advantage of those mismatches.

Posted by npb7768 on 4/13/2015 9:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 4/13/2015 5:18:00 AM (view original):
One thing to remember gentlemen is not to make the game any more difficult than it needs to be.  You want a "veteran" coach to give you some inside info?  Here it comes, pay very close attention now, this is good stuff that I'm about to tell you.  Ready?  You give more distro to your better players.  Voila!!  You're now a successful HD coach.  Fellas, a lot of the time that's what it boils down to, something as simple as that.  Some people may think I'm being sarcastic, nope far from it.

It's exceedingly rare that you'll find the perfect player in D2 or D3.  You can look for them and you might sign a really, really great program-changer, but for the most part, recruit solidly, use common sense, and you'll do just fine.  Far too often I see coaches giving advice that makes me just shake my head in disbelief.  For example, a player doesn't have to be 80+ Per to let him shoot from deep.  Very often I'll set my guards three point settings at 0 even if their Per rating is in the high 40's or low 50's.  I almost "never" set that at a +2 either.  Setting it at 0 will have your guy taking plenty of threes, especially if he doesn't have any low post skills to boot.  My low post guys are almost always at a -2, even if they have decent perimeter ratings.  I don't need bigs chucking up threes, that's what my guards and small forwards are for.  Another one that kills me is hearing that coaches have passed up a stud PG because his BH/Pass ratings weren't projected to be in the mid 80's or some other nonsense.  I've done just fine at the D2 level with guys playing the point who had BH/Pass ratings in the low to mid 60's.  Hell, even the 50's in a pinch.  You take the best players you can get and you make them work, easy and simple as that.

This game isn't checkers, but it ain't rocket science either.  Best players, more distro.  Common sense.  Wash, rinse, repeat.  Win.

By the way, none of that is or was meant to be directed at anyone specifically.  I can see how someone might think I was taking a shot at Hughes, but that certainly wasn't my intention.  Hughes is a fine coach in his own right and has different ways of analyzing players and settings than I do.  To each their own.  I just feel that, in general, far too many people tend to over think this game.

Right, i understand that better players should get higher distro, but many of us newbies are still trying to understand what a "better player" is. In the past i would have dismissed Sprouse as useless on offense. After reading through hughes's posts, i now see that he may have value.

There seem to be hundreds of ways to win in HD, with hundreds of variables and strategies. So it's really great when veterans like hughes and you take the time to share your HD opinions.

This is good question, however the answer is not easy...because the definition of "better player" is not only different depending on the role you want them to play, but also the division they are in. For instance (this is my humble opinion) at DII, all things being equal, if I had to choose between a guy with 50 SPD & 95 PER or 80 SPD & 80 PER as my best perimeter scorer - I'd take the second guy. However, if all things weren't equal, then that choice could very well change. And correspondingly, that calculation and choice changes for different types of scorers, defenders, role players, etc...and usually much more than two attributes go into making those determinations.

That's the most coherent thing nacho has ever written....

Posted by scaturo on 4/13/2015 9:41:00 PM (view original):
That's the most coherent thing nacho has ever written....

I've decided to try being a 'productive member of society' for a while...not gonna lie, it feels weirrrrd.

emy:  You probably don't like this guy for a scorer either:  Joseph Hines.

But I like him a lot.  Especially how he draws fouls and makes free throws.

Posted by hughesjr on 4/14/2015 10:36:00 AM (view original):
emy:  You probably don't like this guy for a scorer either:  Joseph Hines.

But I like him a lot.  Especially how he draws fouls and makes free throws.

Nope, I like him a lot actually.  With that Ath/IQ/FT combination and just enough LP/Per/BH, he could be a very valuable part of a team.

What I was trying to say earlier, and I guess I didn't make myself clear, was that players like that guy can be valuable.  Very valuable in some cases, but you won't be able to win consistently with a LOT of players like that.  Nothing at all wrong with a "specialist" or two on a team, but there's a lot wrong with a team FULL of them.

I LOVE players with high Athleticism ratings and good to very good free throw ratings.  Those guys can give you some very efficient numbers over the course of a season or even career.  But eventually, to win and win big (and this is just my humble opinion), you have to have a couple of players you can really lean on to score big points.  Of course, my definition of big points is probably different than others because I tend to try to build more defense-oriented teams that grind it out and shut the other team down.  Sure, it's nice to average 100 points a game, but there's nothing wrong with averaging 60 a game either, especially if you're holding the other team to less than 50 (which is usually my goal that I shoot for, pun intended).

I've probably cost myself a dozen titles (literally) because I'm too hard headed to recruit for big time scoring and stick to recruiting to stop the other team from scoring.  Me personally, I'd rather win a game 60-45, than to win 95-85 but unfortunately what I've tended to notice is that the game really favors an offensive minded team over a shut down defensive-type team.  Don't get me wrong, you can win titles with teams like I try to build, I've got enough titles to prove that.  I just think that it's "easier" to win a title with an offensive as opposed to defensive team.

I guess what I'm trying to say, in way too many words, is that an above average offensive-minded team has a better chance to win a title than an above average-defensive minded team.  If you had two teams, one that you would give an A+ offensively but only a B defensively and they faced off against a team that would be an A+ defensively but only a B offensively, the first team (in my opinion) would beat the second team more often than not.  Again, in my humble opinion, a team has to be "better" defensively by a decent margin than the other team is offensively.  If that makes any sense at all.  I know what I'm trying to say, I just don't know if I'm getting my point across clearly. 

And while we're on the subject, I also feel (again opinion only) that a team running a Zone has to be SIGNIFICANTLY better than the team they are facing in order to have a fair chance.  Zone teams can win, sure, I've won titles with zone teams, but compared to a team running M2M or a FCP, they are at a huge disadvantage right off the rip.  One of the biggest flaws in the game if you ask me (and I know no one did).

Enough rambling for now.  Just my, well, way more than two cents I guess.  Take care.  Oh, and while proofreading I noticed that I offered "my opinion" way too many times, ha ha.  Should have just had a disclaimer at the top that read the following is Emy's humble opinions only.  They do not reflect the views of the HD community as a whole and actually will probably be met with derision, hate, lots of name calling, disagreement, and a whole bunch of flaming.  Proceed with caution.....or, you know, something like that.

One other thing that I've noticed in the last few months.  If you look at the play-by-play, you can "usually" tell within the first five minutes of reading it who is going to win.  If you have a team that jumps out to a big lead, one of two things will happen:  (1) that team will continue to pull away and win by a huge margin, or (2) the team that jumps out early will lose.  It seems to me that very rarely when I read the PBP will a team jump out to a big lead and then barely hang on to win.  It's almost always one of the two mentioned.

When I start looking at it, and I'm playing a team that is pretty much equivalent to mine, whichever team jumps out ahead early is generally doomed.  I can tell about, say 95% of the time, which team is going to win just by those first five minutes or so.

Anyone else who normally reads the PBP notice anything like what I described or is it just my imagination?  I swear, I don't think I'm just imagining, but maybe I've convinced myself of something that's just not there.  Anyone?

emy, I gotta say, I see the opposite.  When I jump out to a lead, I expect it to evaporate.  When I get down by a bunch very early, my teams generally make it close-ish at some point.  The latter is probably true because my teams are usually pretty good, but that doesn't explain the former.  It's my experience that this happens far more than, well, your experience.  Anecdotal evidence, hooray!

Now, if a team is up by a ton at the half, I am always certain that the score is going to tighten.  I'm of the opinion that the post-halftime rubber band is too tight.

I don't know I'll just put out this:

it seems a lot of championship teams are elite defense everywhere with 1/2 very strong perimeter players with elite spd/per/bh.  Like 90+ spd. and respectable Ath like high 50's 60's.

whereas I don't see a lot of elite offense everywhere with 1/2 strong defenders win.

Also Carlbuzz just won a D2 Tark championship running Zone, I still agree it is the weakest defense, just giving out extra deserved props for the coaching there.

Also love the convo that has evolved very informative reading!!

Posted by the0nlyis on 4/14/2015 1:54:00 PM (view original):
I don't know I'll just put out this:

it seems a lot of championship teams are elite defense everywhere with 1/2 very strong perimeter players with elite spd/per/bh.  Like 90+ spd. and respectable Ath like high 50's 60's.

whereas I don't see a lot of elite offense everywhere with 1/2 strong defenders win.

Also Carlbuzz just won a D2 Tark championship running Zone, I still agree it is the weakest defense, just giving out extra deserved props for the coaching there.

Also love the convo that has evolved very informative reading!!

Well, as an example, I think that for a Division II team, you need to have a minimal overall team average DEF and ATH rating of 60 as a goal.  You have to "project" where a player is going to finish based on potential when you recruit him, and you need to set a minimal value for some attributes based on position and not go below those except in an emergency .. for example, I try to never recruit anyone on any of my Div-2 teams that are projected at lower than 50 DEF.

I also use a system similar to the player roles (using the project numbers, not the actual numbers at recruit time), and recruit based on that with some minimal values for important attributes.

The Yatzr Recruiting Tool is ideal for this .. but I used to do it with spreadsheets before that as well.

And this thread is very good to help you decide what final attribute values are important for each position.

Posted by llamanunts on 4/14/2015 1:40:00 PM (view original):
emy, I gotta say, I see the opposite.  When I jump out to a lead, I expect it to evaporate.  When I get down by a bunch very early, my teams generally make it close-ish at some point.  The latter is probably true because my teams are usually pretty good, but that doesn't explain the former.  It's my experience that this happens far more than, well, your experience.  Anecdotal evidence, hooray!

Now, if a team is up by a ton at the half, I am always certain that the score is going to tighten.  I'm of the opinion that the post-halftime rubber band is too tight.

No, we're saying the same thing Llama.  Whoever jumps out early, whether it's you or them, the lead always, as you say, evaporates.  We're in agreement I think.  I generally don't mind being on the wrong end of a bad start because, like you said, the lead always evaporates.  I generally "don't" like jumping out to a big lead either because, well, same thing the lead evaporates.  The way I'm seeing it, I'd rather start slow than start fast.  Again, I think we're in agreement here.

Oh, gotcha.