One reason I like recruiting versatile players - because then i can slide a few players around to accomodate different recruit availiabilty; if i cant get that guy i wanted to play SF i can go for a pf instead and slide someone over and adjust my depth chart.

I'm with you, a in the b. It seems pretty clear that playing guys out of position is a tool I want to use. There are PFs that can take minutes as C. Cs that can play PF. SF/PF... a lot of versatile recruits that can play both. And then as for guards... I am disregarding PG or SG and just considering them all Gs. There are so many recruits listed as PG that I think should actually be playing SG and vice versa.

Posted by craigcoug on 4/9/2013 4:06:00 PM (view original):
I'm with you, a in the b. It seems pretty clear that playing guys out of position is a tool I want to use. There are PFs that can take minutes as C. Cs that can play PF. SF/PF... a lot of versatile recruits that can play both. And then as for guards... I am disregarding PG or SG and just considering them all Gs. There are so many recruits listed as PG that I think should actually be playing SG and vice versa.

listed positions have no impact on game play and should be disregarded

Posted by craigaltonw on 4/9/2013 3:35:00 PM (view original):
gillespie... I like the idea of recruiting with specific holes to fill in mind. And I love the idea of building team chemistry and not settling on talented individual players who don't fit the team needs.

However, what do you say to adjusting your team chemistry to the recruits? I guess my question depends on recruiting style. But I would rather put my eggs in several baskets when I'm recruiting just in case the perfect-fit player I have targeted does not work out. Chances are that I wont get that player... if he wants to play far from home and I'm 10 miles away, for example.

At what point do you adjust your "needs" to the recruits that might originally be a back-up option for you?

you do have to adjust to the reality of what is out there, and every system should have some flexibility. if you have 4 openings, then you really, if team planning has gone well, probably need 2 guys to make a solid core 10, and 2 guys are sort of "options". you want to choose those options players in a way that is conducive to building a core around those 4, but you have flexibility. say you need a PG and C, those are your 2 "needs", well a SG and PF would go pretty well, but a SG and SF (not listed, but by your intentions for them) would be fine, too. it partly depends on the offense of that C and PG - if neither is offensively oriented, your 2 optional players should be. there are a lot of ways to skin that cat, you should have some "ideal" type situations in mind, and do the best you can to achieve one of them. in that kind of situation, theres quite a few different setups id be happy with. you could have a scoring oriented PG, a reb/def oriented SF and PF, and a good scoring C. you could have a non-scoring PG, a scoring SG and SF, and a non scoring C. theres all kinds of combos that really get you where you need to be, by providing you enough offense, defense, rebounding, and ball control, to be a successful club.

now, you could be in a situation where you boxed yourself in somewhat, even with good team planning - maybe that C you want has to be offensive minded to fit well with the rest of his team (a freshman's offense doesnt matter, and a sophmores doesnt matter much - but if as a junior, he'd be the only offensive oriented big, that could be a big deal). or maybe that PG of yours really needs to have good per-  because you have way too little per scoring without him, when hes say, a junior. if thats the case, you hopefully only have 1 really big need like that, and you can scout until you find someone suitable. even if your primary guy doesnt happen, your backups should be of a similar mold, if its that critical - you dont want to need a high scoring PG and replace him with a low scoring PG, your team will suffer significantly.

so, theres definitely flexibility and adjusting to what you can find. in that first case with 4 guys and 2 needs, really ANY great player at ANY position should be able to be worked into that 4 man class, effectively. its definitely an art, and there is a good deal of finesse, but over time you'll get there.

really the key to starting to team plan is breaking the team down into abilities: defense, offense, rebounding, and ball control. how much of each do you need to be effective with your system? that is a central question everyone should ask themselves, the more you can refine the answer, the better off you'll be. where do you get great returns, and where do diminishing returns kick in? youll find that defense is basically the one category where diminishing returns dont ever kick in - not even for teams way better than the average national championship squad. everything else experiences diminishing returns in a big way, and finding the sweet spot is key - you cant max all 4 of those abilities. but that also means the first great defender buys you less than, say, the first great scorer - the first great scorer or two reap HUGE dividends. on the other hand, having 5 great scorers is a total waste.

if the concept of team planning is really interesting to you, i think i talk about it pretty much in the interview i did a year ago or whatever. its a very long read though, so consider yourself forewarned!

 

http://wisjournal.com/beyondtheboxscore/default.asp?article=interview_20120702

This actually comes as a big shock to me because I put a lot into player IQ's when recruiting....  I don't understand how guys go after two years Jucos who don't know the offense and finish with a B+ at best.

To piggy back on Super Coaches thesis (which is silly because he is way better at this than I am), I try to make sure all my guys can play DEFENSE and then have one other skill.

For perimter players, I don't want you unless you can be a PG (high BH/PASS), shoot the three (HIGH BH/PER) or score without PER (LP/FT).  Sometimes guys need to "grow" a 2nd skill set but if they can always play defense you set their DISTO low and then their other skills grow.

Because I don't really value REB in my 3 slot, I need both my bigs to REBOUND.  If they can score that's great but it's an added bonus not a requirement.  I often look for the guy with the 12 LP and high high potential and wait until he's a senior to let him shoot.

Just sayin'.....

Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/10/2013 2:35:00 PM (view original):
To piggy back on Super Coaches thesis (which is silly because he is way better at this than I am), I try to make sure all my guys can play DEFENSE and then have one other skill.

For perimter players, I don't want you unless you can be a PG (high BH/PASS), shoot the three (HIGH BH/PER) or score with PER (LP/FT).  Sometimes guys need to "grow" a 2nd skill set but if they can always play defense you set their DISTO low and then their other skills grow.

Because I don't really value REB in my 3 slot, I need both my bigs to REBOUND.  If they can score that's great but it's an added bonus not a requirement.  I often look for the guy with the 12 LP and high high potential and wait until he's a senior to let him shoot.

Just sayin'.....

For 3's you want Speed/Per

I assume all my perimeter have high speed, athletic and defense.

http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/help/hoops101.aspx

http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=184523&TopicsTimeframe=30

http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=329367&TopicsTimeframe=30

Posted by craigaltonw on 4/8/2013 9:26:00 PM (view original):
A follow-up question... If there is anything I firmly believe from my first few errors on HD as a rookie it is that no offense or defense type is the "winning" offense or defense. I believe you can win with any of them....

Why would you ever decide to "install a new offense" or defense in this game? In real life, I get it. But unless you are taking over a program with 1 senior and 10 open scholarships or something extreme... I just don't see the benefit in switching the style of offense or defense that the returning payers already know. Right?

Short answer?  Although it has been dialed back from it's days of being nearly unbeatable, the FCP is still the defense du jour, so to speak.  It works a lot better than it actually should (by a whole, whole lot) and frankly, many coaches can't win running anything else.  That's why you'll see them switching defenses to run a FCP.  It's all they know, they know it's successful (and deep down, whether they'll admit it or not, they know it's far more successful taken as a whole than it should be.  There should be very few teams that are able to successfully pull off running a "legitimate" FCP for 40 minutes of a game.  Yet you'll find dozens upon dozens of teams running it every season and running it well.  Shouldn't happen, but it does), and they're scared to try anything else.

You're right, there really isn't a "winning" offense or a "winning" defense (despite what was stated above, you CAN win with the other two defenses.  FCP just gives a bump to teams that really shouldn't be getting one.  My personal pet peeve, as you can tell).  I've won titles running all three defenses and I've won titles running all the offenses except Fastbreak.  I just stick with whatever O and D were in place when I got there, never did see much reason to change.

Posted by vegask on 4/10/2013 2:09:00 PM (view original):
This actually comes as a big shock to me because I put a lot into player IQ's when recruiting....  I don't understand how guys go after two years Jucos who don't know the offense and finish with a B+ at best.

JuCos are a little different Vegas.  When the coaches earlier were saying that they disregard IQ completely, I'm assuming that they meant freshmen who would have four seasons to improve.  At least I would hope so.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/10/2013 5:07:00 PM (view original):
I assume all my perimeter have high speed, athletic and defense.

And yet, they don't.

If they don't it was either a recruiting mistake or they haven't finished development.

Posted by emy1013 on 4/12/2013 2:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by craigaltonw on 4/8/2013 9:26:00 PM (view original):
A follow-up question... If there is anything I firmly believe from my first few errors on HD as a rookie it is that no offense or defense type is the "winning" offense or defense. I believe you can win with any of them....

Why would you ever decide to "install a new offense" or defense in this game? In real life, I get it. But unless you are taking over a program with 1 senior and 10 open scholarships or something extreme... I just don't see the benefit in switching the style of offense or defense that the returning payers already know. Right?

Short answer?  Although it has been dialed back from it's days of being nearly unbeatable, the FCP is still the defense du jour, so to speak.  It works a lot better than it actually should (by a whole, whole lot) and frankly, many coaches can't win running anything else.  That's why you'll see them switching defenses to run a FCP.  It's all they know, they know it's successful (and deep down, whether they'll admit it or not, they know it's far more successful taken as a whole than it should be.  There should be very few teams that are able to successfully pull off running a "legitimate" FCP for 40 minutes of a game.  Yet you'll find dozens upon dozens of teams running it every season and running it well.  Shouldn't happen, but it does), and they're scared to try anything else.

You're right, there really isn't a "winning" offense or a "winning" defense (despite what was stated above, you CAN win with the other two defenses.  FCP just gives a bump to teams that really shouldn't be getting one.  My personal pet peeve, as you can tell).  I've won titles running all three defenses and I've won titles running all the offenses except Fastbreak.  I just stick with whatever O and D were in place when I got there, never did see much reason to change.

you still think FCP is overpowered compared to man? in d1, seems like man has it beat very significantly. d2/d3, maybe press is a bit strong, but i dont really see that myself, running man. i used to run press only but have no press teams right now. my m2m teams have generally been better than press teams, and there is no doubt which of those sets i play better myself. right now i think the defenses are pretty nicely in balance, easily the most balanced they've been in my HD career, IMO - and if i had to pick a most powerful defense, my vote is for m2m.

Posted by gillispie on 4/12/2013 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 4/12/2013 2:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by craigaltonw on 4/8/2013 9:26:00 PM (view original):
A follow-up question... If there is anything I firmly believe from my first few errors on HD as a rookie it is that no offense or defense type is the "winning" offense or defense. I believe you can win with any of them....

Why would you ever decide to "install a new offense" or defense in this game? In real life, I get it. But unless you are taking over a program with 1 senior and 10 open scholarships or something extreme... I just don't see the benefit in switching the style of offense or defense that the returning payers already know. Right?

Short answer?  Although it has been dialed back from it's days of being nearly unbeatable, the FCP is still the defense du jour, so to speak.  It works a lot better than it actually should (by a whole, whole lot) and frankly, many coaches can't win running anything else.  That's why you'll see them switching defenses to run a FCP.  It's all they know, they know it's successful (and deep down, whether they'll admit it or not, they know it's far more successful taken as a whole than it should be.  There should be very few teams that are able to successfully pull off running a "legitimate" FCP for 40 minutes of a game.  Yet you'll find dozens upon dozens of teams running it every season and running it well.  Shouldn't happen, but it does), and they're scared to try anything else.

You're right, there really isn't a "winning" offense or a "winning" defense (despite what was stated above, you CAN win with the other two defenses.  FCP just gives a bump to teams that really shouldn't be getting one.  My personal pet peeve, as you can tell).  I've won titles running all three defenses and I've won titles running all the offenses except Fastbreak.  I just stick with whatever O and D were in place when I got there, never did see much reason to change.

you still think FCP is overpowered compared to man? in d1, seems like man has it beat very significantly. d2/d3, maybe press is a bit strong, but i dont really see that myself, running man. i used to run press only but have no press teams right now. my m2m teams have generally been better than press teams, and there is no doubt which of those sets i play better myself. right now i think the defenses are pretty nicely in balance, easily the most balanced they've been in my HD career, IMO - and if i had to pick a most powerful defense, my vote is for m2m.

Honestly, yes I do.  I also think it's very difficult to run a FCP in high end D1 because you're constantly playing schools that are equally as talented as you are, thus negating some of the effectiveness of the press.

I would also have to agree that right now is pretty close to being the best balance since I started HD, although I still think the Zone is underpowered.  I recently had a D2 Zone team that ran about 9 1/2 deep, had all 5 starters with an Ath and Def in the 80's or higher, guards with speed in the high 70's or low 80's, big men with Reb in the 80's or above, SB the same.  In all reality, a starting five that was about D1 mid-major quality.  Bench players were a little less talented, but still would have started for just about any other D2 team in that world, and wouldn't you know, I got knocked off in the title game by.........wait for it........wait.......a 6 SR/6 JR FCP team (which seems to be a rapidly increasing trend, the 6/6/0/0 setup).  By a point.  After I had a 14 point lead at two different times in the second half.  And then, as the game wore down to it's conclusion, and I should have been benefitting from stamina issues what with him pressing and me sitting back in a zone, well all of a sudden I couldn't stick my thumb up my...well, never mind that, but I couldn't do anything right and he couldn't miss.  Mind you, he hadn't made anything for the first 35 minutes, so why would I expect him to suddenly turn it on in the last five?  But of course, he did.  After the game, that coach even posted on my Coaches Corner that there was no rhyme or reason to that PBP and that the better team had not, in fact, won.  So maybe I'm a little biased against FCP teams, maybe not.

What bothers me is when I actually bother to check the Final Fours of some of the worlds I'm in after I get eliminated and I see that 6 of the 8 D2/D3 teams or 7 of 8 D2/D3 teams in the FF are FCP teams.  I know that you've made the statement that the FCP can make a good team great and a great team elite and I would agree with that 100%.  And personally, I don't see anything wrong with that if.....and it's a BIG IF.....a team is set up properly to run the press.  By properly I mean, "elite" athleticism and speed, "elite" defense and stamina.  Okay, maybe "very good to elite".  But not just "good".   But too many "good" teams tend to dominate when they should be getting shredded. 

Another thing that I think needs to be changed is IQ's.  I think it needs to be made much harder to reach the A/A+ levels that nearly ALL seniors reach.  Small tangent here, I don't believe for one second that HD couldn't have a non-potential (like the old worlds used to be) along with potential worlds.  The line given was that it wouldn't work since one is linear growth and the other non-linear.  Someone who is a programmer (Jeff) will have to explain to me then how players can have ratings grow in a non-linear fashion yet IQ's are still of the linear variety they were on day one of world one.  Since we're using potential now, how come IQ's don't come with potentials?  We've all seen those kids who pick up the game like some kind of prodigy and we've all seen those kids who even after four years just don't get it.  Why should they both end up at the same level as seniors?  Why not cap the IQ's of some kids like what we see "in real life"?  Would certainly introduce more strategy into the game without making major changes to the gameplay, wouldn't it?  Just a thought and just rambling.

Back to the original question, at D1 I think M2M is the best defense, pretty easily.  At D2/D3, I still think the FCP is too strong, but not by too much.  It's certainly, much, much more in line than it was a couple of years ago.  Back then, it pretty much took a FCP team to beat a FCP team.  Exaggeration, okay, but not by much.  You remember those days right Jeff?  Okay, ramble over.