I'm done - Page 2 - Hoops Dynasty

Posts: 171 (0)

Hall of Famer

81

Prospect

Posted by a_in_the_b on 4/17/2012 10:40:00 PM (view original):
The difference between a one and a sixteen is much smaller here than in real life and. . .

More tournament games are statistically played in short periods here than have EVER been played in the history of the game. More one versus sixteen seed games have been played BY FAR. I mean, there have only BEEN sixteen seeds IRL since 1985. 27 years. So there have been a grand total of 432 1v16 games in real life. Arguably, you could say that REAL LIFE is suffering from a small sample size compared to the sim

Agree with both your points, but it's just four per year, so actually only 108 1v16 matchups in real life. Ken Pomeroy has made the argument that it's actually extremely unlikely we would have made it this far without a 16 winning in real life. Per his numbers all four #1 seeds making the final four is less likely than a #16 vs #1 upset, and that actually did happen for the first time a few years back.

4/17/2012 11:22 PM

a_in_the_b

Posts: 1653 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 18 667 3

Pro

Oops. Right.

I don't know where I got my 432. I need to sleep<LOL> My math skills are deteriorating. I must have hit equal twice on the calc.

4/17/2012 11:29 PM

nachopuzzle

Posts: 1427 (0)

Hall of Famer

105 2

Prospect

Posted by a_in_the_b on 4/17/2012 10:40:00 PM (view original):
The difference between a one and a sixteen is much smaller here than in real life and. . .

More tournament games are statistically played in short periods here than have EVER been played in the history of the game. More one versus sixteen seed games have been played BY FAR. I mean, there have only BEEN sixteen seeds IRL since 1985. 27 years. So there have been a grand total of 432 1v16 games in real life. Arguably, you could say that REAL LIFE is suffering from a small sample size compared to the sim

I don't recall ever comparing these occurrences to the events that have taken place in real life? I am completely fine with having to deal with inconsistencies, to demand perfection would be ridiculous. I get what you're saying about teams' not being separated by extreme amounts, but I don't agree that this is the primary cause for the majority of upsets.

This season for the first 28 games, I had never once committed more fouls in a game then my opponents, and going undefeated along the way (against a top 20 SOS at that). Surprisingly, I fouled more than my opponents in my last two games and managed to lose them both. I don't have a problem with 1st loss or the fouls, that doesn't seem absurd or anything. However, the disparity of fouls in the second loss, not only in total fouls but also in the wild swing between the first and second half is just way more than I can stomach. And this scenario is something I have witnessed time and time again.

4/17/2012 11:30 PM

smw1763

Posts: 3 (0)

All Star

32 1

Prospect

I was the other 1 seed to loose to a 16. My starters also got in foul trouble but they didn't average more than 20 minutes a game anyways. My back ups should've easily handled that team. My guys, including back ups, had great defensive ratings and this team scored way more than many good teams I played. Also, I wouldn't be so upset about it if that 16 seed had gone on to win a few more games in the tournament, against worse teams than me, but they lost the next game.

4/18/2012 12:29 AM

smw1763

Posts: 3 (0)

All Star

32 1

Prospect

They attempted 48 free throws...that shouldn't even be possible

4/18/2012 12:32 AM

nachopuzzle

Posts: 1427 (0)

Hall of Famer

105 2

Prospect

Posted by smw1763 on 4/18/2012 12:29:00 AM (view original):
I was the other 1 seed to loose to a 16. My starters also got in foul trouble but they didn't average more than 20 minutes a game anyways. My back ups should've easily handled that team. My guys, including back ups, had great defensive ratings and this team scored way more than many good teams I played. Also, I wouldn't be so upset about it if that 16 seed had gone on to win a few more games in the tournament, against worse teams than me, but they lost the next game.

Yeah, I was just as shocked at your loss as mine (and it drove me even crazier knowing that I wouldn't of had to run into your stacked team if we would have won, haha). I agree that having four of your guys foul out is a little much, but, in my humble opinion, that team was perfectly suited to take advantage of your team's one weakness. An uptempo fastbreak/press team with good stamina isn't a good match-up for your guys considering you already go uptempo & press. Especially since that team draws the second highest number of opponent fouls (27.0 per game) and forces the highest number of opponent turnovers (23.4 per game) for the season. Once your back-ups got tired and had to stay on the floor for long stretches they started turning the ball over, thus giving the other team more possessions and your tired defenders more opportunities to fouls - a truly vicious cycle. Also, you played a -3 defensive positioning that may have negatively contributed to your likelihood of fouling.

Still though, a shocking loss to say the least, I feel your pain.

4/18/2012 1:30 AM (edited)

girt25

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

nacho, I've been thinking the same thing about your loss. You played a 2-3 zone team that went -3, and you only have one player on your squad that shoots threes.

4/18/2012 7:32 AM

isack24

Posts: 1566 (0)

Hall of Famer

81 19

Prospect

Why would a -3 contribute to fouling?

4/18/2012 8:12 AM

nachopuzzle

Posts: 1427 (0)

Hall of Famer

105 2

Prospect

Posted by girt25 on 4/18/2012 7:32:00 AM (view original):
nacho, I've been thinking the same thing about your loss. You played a 2-3 zone team that went -3, and you only have one player on your squad that shoots threes.

Well, I had three players I let shoot from behind the arc, but only two with any really consistency. Just to throw some numbers in the mix, my team was ranked #1 in foul margin (-8.3 per gm), #9 in opponent fouls (23.4 per gm), and #13 in fouls committed (15.1 per gm).

4/18/2012 8:18 AM

acn24

Posts: 1020 (0)

Hall of Famer

260 357 172

Rookie

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/18/2012 8:18:00 AM (view original):
Posted by girt25 on 4/18/2012 7:32:00 AM (view original):
nacho, I've been thinking the same thing about your loss. You played a 2-3 zone team that went -3, and you only have one player on your squad that shoots threes.
Well, I had three players I let shoot from behind the arc, but only two with any really consistency. Just to throw some numbers in the mix, my team was ranked #1 in foul margin (-8.3 per gm), #9 in opponent fouls (23.4 per gm), and #13 in fouls committed (15.1 per gm).

I think you also need to check the play-by-play. You had committed 16 fouls (only one above your average) and had an edge in FTA 20-16 until you started intentionally fouling with 44 seconds left. Those 6 fouls and 12 FTs are what is really skewing the game totals.

I don't think you lost this because of fouling, I think you lost because you missed 10 FTs, you only have one player who takes threes (leading to a -3/-5 2-3 Zone), and because you start 3 guards and couldn't exploit the zones rebounding weakness.

4/18/2012 8:57 AM

nachopuzzle

Posts: 1427 (0)

Hall of Famer

105 2

Prospect

acn24, missing a few free throws in the first half is a sympton of the real problem. In the first half, my team only committed 6 fouls (only two of which were by a starting player), and with only one as a shooting foul the other team went 1 for 1 from the free throw line; while the other team committed 11 fouls, putting us in the bonus with 10 minutes remaining in the half, and we went 8 for 18. However, in the second half, my team committed 16 fouls (10 of those coming before the intentionals) with 4 of the first 7 being shooting fouls and reaching the bonus with 8 minutes remaining, and going 22 for 27 from the line in the half; while my opponent managed to only commit 4 total fouls in the second half, with only one being a shooting foul, limiting us to 2 for 2 from the line.

There is no reason for this wild of a swing in fouls, especially given that (without my RS or their walkon taken into account) my team is at a minimun 10 points better than this opponent in each ATH, SP, and DEF ratings, a much better STM rating, superior IQs in both offense and defense, and my opponent playing -3 defensive positioning. If randomness can account for such a wild swing for these two halfs and between these two teams then there is a serious problem with how fouls are determined by the engine.

4/18/2012 10:44 AM (edited)

ike1024

Posts: 410 (0)

Hall of Famer

59

Prospect

I feel like it makes sense that a -5 2-3 zone would barely commit any fouls unless you were able to get some offensive rebounds. They are basically screaming "I dare you to shoot the ball," and if you can't shoot the ball, you aren't going to beat a 2-3 (-5) very often. Even in real life that's the case. It would be EXTREMELY difficult to penetrate a slouching 2-3 zone.

Obviously you don't like what happened and don't think it was right, but that defense did not play to your strengths (and actually countered your strengths perfectly). Even if you were more talented - which you were - and would have won more often than lost, I don't think this is a gargantuan travesty.

4/18/2012 10:21 AM

nachopuzzle

Posts: 1427 (0)

Hall of Famer

105 2

Prospect

Posted by ike1024 on 4/18/2012 10:21:00 AM (view original):
I feel like it makes sense that a -5 2-3 zone would barely commit any fouls unless you were able to get some offensive rebounds. They are basically screaming "I dare you to shoot the ball," and if you can't shoot the ball, you aren't going to beat a 2-3 (-5) very often. Even in real life that's the case. It would be EXTREMELY difficult to penetrate a slouching 2-3 zone.

Obviously you don't like what happened and don't think it was right, but that defense did not play to your strengths (and actually countered your strengths perfectly). Even if you were more talented - which you were - and would have won more often than lost, I don't think this is a gargantuan travesty.

Scoring from the field wasn't my team's problem.

4/18/2012 10:56 AM

isack24

Posts: 1566 (0)

Hall of Famer

81 19

Prospect

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/18/2012 10:56:00 AM (view original):
Posted by ike1024 on 4/18/2012 10:21:00 AM (view original):
I feel like it makes sense that a -5 2-3 zone would barely commit any fouls unless you were able to get some offensive rebounds. They are basically screaming "I dare you to shoot the ball," and if you can't shoot the ball, you aren't going to beat a 2-3 (-5) very often. Even in real life that's the case. It would be EXTREMELY difficult to penetrate a slouching 2-3 zone.

Obviously you don't like what happened and don't think it was right, but that defense did not play to your strengths (and actually countered your strengths perfectly). Even if you were more talented - which you were - and would have won more often than lost, I don't think this is a gargantuan travesty.
Scoring from the field wasn't my team's problem.

It was a huge factor. Your offensive efficiency was nowhere near where it usually is. You average 81 points, 53% from the floor, and ~ 30 FTs per game. Because he played a sagging 2-3 zone, you weren't able to penetrate and get the easy inside looks/get fouled like you usually do. You were forced to take more outside shots (which your team isn't great at shooting) and contested inside shots. Consequently, you only scored 69 points, shot 46%, and only took 20 FTs.

I don't really think there should be much of a debate; a sagging 2-3 zone is more effective against a team of penetrators with no outside shooting than most (or all) other defenses. Certainly moreso than man or press. That's just a basketball fact.

4/18/2012 11:21 AM

acn24

Posts: 1020 (0)

Hall of Famer

260 357 172

Rookie

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/18/2012 10:44:00 AM (view original):
acn24, missing a few free throws in the first half is a sympton of the real problem. In the first half, my team only committed 6 fouls (only two of which were by a starting player), and with only one as a shooting foul the other team went 1 for 1 from the free throw line; while the other team committed 11 fouls, putting us in the bonus with 10 minutes remaining in the half, and we went 8 for 18. However, in the second half, my team committed 16 fouls (10 of those coming before the intentionals) with 4 of the first 7 being shooting fouls and reaching the bonus with 8 minutes remaining, and going 22 for 27 from the line in the half; while my opponent managed to only commit 4 total fouls in the second half, with only one being a shooting foul, limiting us to 2 for 2 from the line.

There is no reason for this wild of a swing in fouls, especially given that (without my RS or their walkon taken into account) my team is at a minimun 10 points better than this opponent in each ATH, SP, and DEF ratings, a much better STM rating, superior IQs in both offense and defense, and my opponent playing -3 defensive positioning. If randomness can account for such a wild swing for these two halfs and between these two teams then there is a serious problem with how fouls are determined by the engine.

You still keep counting the intentionals. 6 fouls to 10 is a huge swing? Given that they switched to extreme sagging, and the 11 fouls in the first half is almost their entire per game average a reduction in fouls for IW makes sense.

I agree with Isack, you had the better team and probably win 7 or 8 times out of 10, but honestly out of your two losses this one makes a lot more sense than your offense getting shut down and being blown out by NJ Tech.

4/18/2012 11:45 AM

Forums

I'm done Topic

Search Criteria