They had flashbacks to your Wilmington Matchups :)

I do agree that destroy was a little harsh.

Well I guess we can look at each position.

PG Not sure who gets the advantage here. Theirs is slightly faster and a better ball handler. Mine is ridiculously better at defense and much more athletic. Perfect for FCP, if defense mattered. But it doesn't so I would have to say even.

SG They look the same to me, not very good. But mine is much more athletic and also faster. I would have to say the edge here goes to me.

3 position Their SG that plays at the 3 does have good passing but my SF is better in ath, spd, reb, def, lp, and bh. Edge to me.

4 position Their PF has more athleticm which is important for the position. However my C who was national defensive POY (for all that it is good for) is better in spd, reb, def, sb, and lp. I don't see the ath difference being enough against the other ratings so I will say the edge goes to me.

C Their C has better reb and passing. Everything else is close to the same. Edge to them.

Bench I can find players that match up with similar ratings with the slight edge to me except for Stanger. No one over there comes close. Edge to me.

IQ Not sure. I see mostly B's for both teams. Looks even to me.

Given what we have here I would have to say that I should definitely be favored to win. Add to that the strange beast of defense and we should win no problem. But defense doesn't matter in a FCP because if it did, I would have more steals, fastbreak layups and dunks, and more points off turnovers. Not to mention drawing some fouls in the process. So yes I would agree that destroy is a little harsh but I would expect to win way more than 50% no matter where we played. Anyone is welcome to point out anything I didn't include (or thought of).

I always shoot lots of 3's against zones no matter what setting they play

Quote: Originally posted by cyric612 on 2/24/2010They had flashbacks to your Wilmington Matchups :)

Now that you're not there anymore I was thinking I got this conference wrapped up! I'd much rather lose to your teams than what we're doing now.

Your team is better, but not way, way better as you first stated. Also, you were on the road, so that helps to lessen your advantage.

But mostly, you gameplanned your way to a loss here.

Quote: Originally posted by zhurdlez on 2/24/2010I always shoot lots of 3's against zones no matter what setting they play

7 of 33 against zone teams may be fine for a DI team. I wouldn't know since I don't have one. But that kind of shooting would not help me. I guess I just need better shooters.

Making a team honest to the three point threat is one thing. But coming through is a whole different matter. I just don't see how shooting under 30% is helpful. And if anyone gameplanned against me correctly, as in this case, why would they ever come out of -2 or -3? I just need better shooting.

Swift, people have given you suggestions. You are choosing not to take them. That's your choice.

Quote: Originally Posted By swift1976 on 2/24/2010 And if anyone gameplanned against me correctly, as in this case, why would they ever come out of -2 or -3? I just need better shooting

He clearly did gameplan properly. The best way to beat a team who wants pound it inside is a 2-3 (-).

Sounds like a great gameplan to me. What's better? Shooting open threes with mediocre three point shooters or forcing the ball into a slouching zone? Give me the open threes.

Well see since we are talking WIS you guys are most likely right. I will have to force more threes. But in real life I think it would be different and that must be where my confusion starts.

What happens if my players still don't make 30%? And how would this still be the better option shooting this poorly?

Side note: Why is it that just because we don't shoot a lot of threes we are automatically pounding against the zone? My guards still did shoot quite a bit from the perimeter and not all threes.

Well based on the amount of TOs, I would say your guards were either trying to penetrate the zone and losing the ball, or throw it down low - both are bad ideas in WiS without the right players (and even then). Plus, it looks like your PF's distro was high.

In real life it's only different in that you'd run a 1-3-1, so it's easier to hit the middle of the zone. Unfortunately, that's not an option here. I agree, that's stupid, because no one would motion offense when the outside of the zone just passes them off the entire time.

If you shoot 30%, it's probably still fine. That's an adjusted 45% from 2, so it's not as bad as you think. You could certainly have off nights. I have better 3pt shooters than you and lost to a team playing a 2-3(-2) after going 2-19 from 3. Should I have lost? No, but it happens. That still gave me the best chance to win.

It's the better option because you're getting open shots and lots of offensive rebound opportunities because the a zone is generally poor at defensive rebounding (not having a 1-1 matchup to box out, leaving the weakside open, etc.). Which is better than throwing the ball into a vortex of ten hands trying to knock away every pass.

Thank you. I felt like I was the only one having this problem. Everyone had pretty much the same advice but it didn't seem like they were going through the same thing. As it turns out we are doing well against man to man teams. Too well in fact. It is just perimeter shooting that is my weakness and the zone d exploits it.

You can't read too much into one game, especially one that seemed ripe for some sort of upset. Heck my ISU squad lost by 30 to a team they clearly shouldn't have who had horrible DE rankings, but what are you going to do? It doen't happen consistantly enough to say it's a problem.

Case in point, just lost another by 33 with my AA SF getting shutdown and outscored by a 632 freshman. Would that happen many times in 100, probably not, but it did this game and we move along.

Wow, you lost two game sby 33 last night. That threw me off.