Posted by rogelio on 8/5/2012 6:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 8/5/2012 3:10:00 PM (view original):
But isn't that more a perceptual/psychological advantage than a real game mechanics advantage? If I'm first on the recruit,  I get the bragging rights of 'woohoo! I'm first!' but nothing tangible from the game itself until the first 24 hours pass and I'm still the only team being considered, right? It's not originating from the game, but from fellow coaches who opt not to play chicken with me to see who wants Player X more. 

Also, isn't the "advantage" of pouncing on a kid first cycle offset by advantages received by the slower-acting coaches? After all, if I do nothing the first cycle or two, I now get to see how things have shaped up. I save money by not even making initial contact with recruits that were jumped on early by teams I can't realistically win battles against. I can eyeball states that other nearby schools may not have FSS'd and can target them. If Team A is on a recruit I want and I don't feel there to be a suitable comparable player to go after, I'm able to analyze Team A's consideration list, see how many states may have been FSS'd based on where the players considering him early are, how many other battles that coach might be in and make a more informed decision about trying for that player? The fast-acting coach gets a psychological advantage only if I choose to give it to him, whereas by acting fast, he's provided me with a very tangible benefit of information from which I can make more informed and strategic decisions. 

I guess what I'm failing to see is how things really change if HV's and CV's are abolished for first cycle. In essence, you're just pushing back the race to see who can get on a kid from the first cycle to the second cycle. The same psychological advantage of getting your name listed first on the recruit's consideration list will continue to exist because it is the people playing the game, not the game itself, that's creating that edge. 

I expected this suggestion to have some detractors, but I'm not sure that I agree with the characterization of that strategy as "playing chicken".  However, for the sake of argument, assume there is no actual advantage gained by the coach jumping early.  My first thought is that this recruiting tactic lacks reality as there is no way that HV or CV would be scheduled in the first week/"cycle" in which a recruit could be contacted.  

More importantly, at high D1, it may be that money could be drained from the overall recruiting "economy", if you will, by coaches choosing to scout players whom they would otherwise avoid when seeing other top-tier teams on the considering list.   That is, the recruiting landscape might actually skew back towards top-tier teams fighting for top tier talent, provided they are provided no other option in the first cycle, but to send scouting trips, coach calls, etc., but cannot lock down a target immediately.   My supposition is that there is a trickle down effect in the "economy" that leaves Big 6 schools much too much money to use to poach middle tier talent, etc., etc...   Some of Seble's comments during the last update have informed this opinion. 

Third, this means that many coaches may be using FSS to the exclusion of scouting trips (except as needed to pulldown).  I think that, too, alters the economy from the intended operation.

This change may be insufficient to have much effect, but, you know "a butterfly flaps its wings..."  

To be clear, I didn't mean the "playing chicken" part derisively -- that's just how I visualize the recruiting process...two coaches (or more) lock eyes on a recruit, they throw money/effort at the recruit, repeat as necessary until someone decides the risk is too extreme and veers off to find Plan B or the recruit indicates a winner by signing with someone. 

Thanks for your further explanation -- I understand more where you're coming from with the suggestion now!

I have tried to stay out of rogelio's threads on FB/FCP uptempo basketball, But I can no longer handle the frustration with the misconceptions his logic is built on. This is not a personal attack on you but an attempt to clarify where you logic breaks down. Since this could end up being very long, I would first like to say that I think that HD has it pretty close to right.

I ran Uptempo/ Pressure Basketball for 20 years fron the 5th/6th grade level to the last 10 years at a Community College (JUCO) level in California  where I retired  and where there are 93 JUCO"s playing, all in one division.  We had a turnover on average of between 5 and 8 players a year on a 13 man roster (No scholarships). Without getting into all the specifics, because of my system at the JUCO level. I could have my entire system (12 press fronts and the sideline fast break in addition to the standard numbers fast break) in in 3 weeks and IQ's high enough in about four weeks to run a devastating system. Ideally I ran our system with 9 players (5 outside, 4 inside). There were a couple of years I was fortunate enough to be able to run it with a 10 man rotation. However all 13 players could Press and run without embarassing us or themselves. This was the only possible way we could compete with inferior talent. An example would be a D- D1 team being able to compete with an A  D1 team in HD. Teams did not like to play us. Our system made our players better as a whole than they  were as individuals. In it's simple form, we pressed and ran and ran and pressed and shot the three and pressed and ran. Our offensive philosopy was, "The first available good shot  with an inside out approach."  A "good shot" was defined as a good shot for the person shooting. For some it was a layup for other's an open "3".

A thought that might come up is "12 Press fronts? No way! Your crazy." Let me explain. What most coaches at all levels never understand is showing press fronts is only to worry the other head coach and the players bring the ball in bounds so they will go to their press breaks that they practice to break "this Press". That allows us to dictate where the ball is coming inbounds over 80% of the time and our configuration allows us to know in advance where the second pass is going the majority of the time. The key that most coaches never understand in their careers is the simple concept that no matter what the fronts, once the ball is in bounds all presses are some form of 2-2-1 or 1-2-1-1 depending on whether there is 1 defender on the ball or a trap on the ball. Once the kids understand  and reduce their mechanics to this concept and learn how to simply rotate and fill in, it's all the same. Rotation, rotation, rotation!

The five programs that influenced my philosopy. utilized these concepts quite well. there were 2 minor and 3 major influences. The 2 minor were Arkansas, Nolan Richardson's "40 minutes of hell." and Paul Westhead's Loyola Marymount teams. Nolan got 7 kids who were very good but not highly recruited out of high school, made them believe in the system. Made them work harder than the opponent and made them a really good team. Paul Westhead took 2 good players not heavily recruited in high school and built a team around them who weren't much and couldn't play a lick of defense and made them a pretty darn good program at a little bitty D1 school. He was 1 of 2 teams in D1 that incorpoated the sideline fastbreak successfully. His system was a dismal failure in the NBA becuase you could never get NBA players to work as hard as required for this system to work. The only D1 team I saw effectively run the sideline break last year was Michigan State and they only ran left sideline.

The three major influences were UCLA, UNLV and Rick Pitno's Providence team. Pitino for his multiple presses and automatics with no stars out of high school. UCLA's Walt Hazzard teams. Hazard was not a major recruit star out of high school. He with some OK to good D1 players became a great pressing team. I have most  of John Wooden's books. More important I got to sit thru 3 lectures and got to personally meet with him 3 times in very small groups who were allowed to ask questions at his summer camps. He was a great coach, fiercely competitive, but a far better person than coach.

Finally UNLV.  I loved Tark "The Shark". He loved coaching and loved his kids and they loved him. He cared more about his team and his kids than he did about the NCAA and his personal life. The reason for his downfall! He was so inovative for his time that most wondered how a guy like Tark could be so great. He did not come across that way. His AC was Timmy Gugurich an ex-marine drill sargeant. I believe the greatest "D" coach of all time. When the Tark days were over, he became the "D" coach for the Seattle Supersonics for the great "D" years with Peyton and Kemp and then on to other NBA teams. Tark took Larry Johnson a high school superstar, Stacy Augmon a defensive specialist, Greg Anthony a not highly recrutied local point guard, Anderson Hunt a shooter and a couple of nondiscript centers Jones and Echols who rebounded and guarded the basket and some no name subs and made the"Running Rebels" the greatest running pressing team of all time. They were the first I ever saw to use and understand the right and left sideline fastbreak. I was fortunate enough to spend quite a bit of time with that staff and worked there summer camps as a coach.

The first misconception regarding FB/FCP I would like to address is the fatigue issue. Think about it. Your team is a half court "D" & "O" team who runs a fast break when you have numbers. That's what you practice on. You only practice against a press when your next opponent presses. I a FB/FCP team practice all out an hour to an hour and a half a day geared to pressing and running. I condition my team to run and press the whole game ( actually I want the whole team to go all out for  4 minute inervals). We get in a game. Who's tempo are we playing at? No matter how good you are, we are playing at my normal tempo and your players are playing out of their comfort zone Stamina will be an issue more for you than me. We are going 40 minutes. I at my tempo, you above yours. You must go deeper into your bench than your use to. If 2 runners are going a mile (40 minute game). You training and stamina is based on running 16 100 meter sprints with rest in between. My conditioning and stamina is based on running the long distance mile all at once. The distance runner will always beat the sprinter. HD totally has it right on this i

The next misconception is that a FCP has to breakdown at some point so the "O" can "make them pay and score a slew of points. Actually the opposite happens. Early in a game the press may not seem as effective. The teams go along fairly even. In fact the pressing team may fall behind. A press is not a get rich quick skeem. It takes it's toll over time. We are playing at my tempo, outside your comfort zone. You get fatiqued faster. You go deeper in your bench. You foul more than you usually do. You have more people foul out. Your shooting %, 3% and FT% go down. Your TO's go up.  Because of these factors I go on 2-3-4 runs of 10
+ points per game. Le'ts say that at some point you actually make some kind of run. It doesn't rally affect me. I'm used to seeing runs all the time in practice and I can score faster than you to get it back.because of FB offense. Advantage FCP/FB.

Let's say there is a breakdown at some point. The result is not near as magnified as you suggest.  Presses that are out of sink or out of position still don;t pay a majority of the time.  First of all the player with the ball under pressure has to reognize the openiing then he has to deliver the pass, the pass has to be caught, the open player has to convert before the pressing team rotates and covers. You would actually be amazed at how many passes are intercepted or deflected in the offensive teams paint plus shots are hurried, layups are missed. shots are blocked from behind. But let's say you score one time. Over the season your scoring 44% anyway. A breakdown is not statistically significant. Plus in our FB, we could score a 3 in 2.5 seconds after you scored. We could score a power post 2 in 4.5 seconds and a skip and 2 or 3 in 6.5 seconds after you scored. Your score triggered our fast break.

The last misconception which does not come from this thread is the concept that because a fastbreak team goes faster it should effective their offensive efficiency. Absolutely false from a results point of view. That conclusion is from coaches who don't go uptempo. It is true that their teams %'s would go down and fouls would go up if they went too fast because it's outside of their comfort zone, therefore hurried. There's the confusion FB/Uptempo teams practice executing at that pace. It's not hurried for them. It's their normal tempo. Is it possible that a FB/FCP team might have lower %'s, more fouls & TO's then if that same team played a half court style? Absolutely! But your playing an opponent not yourself.  My teams got more open shots in open court than we could have in half court, so our %''s were better.  Also because of small inside players we got far more rebounds than we could in half court. Because of our style of play, we averagewd 15 TO's a game for 10 years which was my target rate. Our opponents averaged 23. Our opponents routinely scored more points than their average, but they had a lower FG%, 3%. FT%. They  had higher TO's  and fouls than their avg. In 8 of the 10 years, regardless of record we outscored our opponents. We led the state in scoring (93 teams) at 105 pointsper game. State top 10 5 of 10 years with inferior talent. Never in my career played slow down against a superior opponent. Another misconception. A slowdown against a superior opponent only keep the final score of the winner lower. What do I care what the final score is, if I lose?

In closing, I love HD's FB/FCP. I would agree that FB/FCP in HD is not realistic when compared to RL, but a number of things aren't. In Rl, once the ball got across half court uncontested, we dropped back to a MM or Zone. However we pressured and trapped out of both of those. If HD ever changes this, they must also change the way IQ ratings work. They are not realistic. Now they are weighted heavily to class ( IE: Senior A/A+, Frosh D.. The higher you go the slower the grade changes. With the formula tweaked for playing time, WE, Intelligence and high school IQ's. It just doesn't work that way in real life. Do you think Kentucky's kids can't be proficient in Cal's system in their freshman year? I could train my new kids in 6th grade to be better at our system than you are at your by the first game of the year.
Another item that would have to be changed is how practice time is allocated. As it is setup now. If you practice MM 20 min and I practice press 10 min and MM 10 min your IQ's advance faster. It doesn't really work that way. Press teams who convert tohalf court "D" do not use twice the team practice time. We put in our "D" techniques,  slide, closeout, on ball, help, rotation, lowpost. Then we put in our Press techniques. Then we used the same techniques in both the rest of the year.
In HD the only way I can become as proficient with my combo D is take take time away from indiual skills. A sever disadvantage the way it's setup.
 
I apologize for being so long, but I had to establish some base, so hopefully it would not sound like just another guy spewing info. I would welcome any responses. Just keep them civil. we can always agree to disagree.

Posted by dacj501 on 8/5/2012 3:42:00 PM (view original):
when the new engine was first introduced fatigue worked like I think you think it should, and FCP teams all got sucky coz everyone got tired all the time, so seble nerfed the fatigue rate and the fatigue effects and now FCP seems to be dominant again. M2M is more competitive than it used to be I think, so I guess most people are ok with where its at. I liked it better before the nerf coz running uptempo at a press team might actually do something good for you. After the nerf I tried going uptempo against a (rather studly its true) team with just 8 scholarship players and still couldn't get them tired with my 12 man roster...

Reading dacj's point and the following from rednu, I believe we are all basically on the same page:

Coachvegas44, I may need to re-read that, but I think that you and I are mostly in lock-step.  Check my arguments in the link that I included in the original post: whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx.  Thanks for the post  [edited to delete the full quotation.] 

My thought is that in the HD game, a true FB/FCP team could be less talented, but (at least for this game's purposes) would need to have very high overall team stamina & depth.   I don't want to have to research this (as I'm actually kinda lazy), but my anecdotal impression is that an HD FCP team can be effective the same depth & stamina as its zone opponent.  Would you agree that that (if true) needs to be addressed?

Vegas,

The only disagreement I have is that you everything you described is inconsistent with how HD FCP works.  In real life, you're right.  But you admitted a number of times that you didn't hardcore, uptempo press and trap AT ALL TIMES.  If you did, don't you agree that your teams would get more fatigued than they did in RL?

Your response will likely be "but RL shouldn't dictate how FCP is run in HD."  Problem is, because of the constant trapping, elite HD FCP teams generate 20+ TOs per game.  I don't have any idea how many teams force that many in RL, but I doubt it's many, if any.

My point is that HD's FCP forces TOs at an unrealistic rate because it's an unrealistic defense that is unrealistically unaffected by fatigue.  I think something needs to be done to change that; my suggestion is to get rid of it as a base.

Hey rog, I understand what you are saying, but I still have a little bit different point of view.

On stamina I think HD has it right. I don't think you address stamina issues but tweaking the engine to. Instead they address it exactly like you address stamina in RL with substitutions. In RL it trained my teams to go all out based on their abilities for 4 mins at a time. In a game when they were getting fatiqued I subbed for them. In HD, I feel they do take that to the extreme to the detrement of uptempo teams. I follow box sciores of all kinds of teams. For teams playing uptempo, HD subs from about 35 secs to 2 mins. My concerns actually may be the opposite of yours. I don't understand why they sub so often and I don't understand there time and sub pattern at the end of close games when they take a starter out who has been in a short time. I run Fastbreak or uptempo on all my offenses whenever possible. Of couse I won;t do a triangle team. Uptempo is contrary to the triangle concept which is a slowdonw setup offense and in fact is now even a college offense. It is strictly a 3 men stand around watch 2 guys until they're stopped pro set. 

As far as I can see, depth on HD is game player developed concern and a non issue. Which may be your point. Again I must politely disagree. In RL for 20 years at all level. I ran uptempo/pressure with a 9 player rotation. Occassionally I was crazy lucky enough to have 10. I did it alot of times with an 8 man rotation with liberal substitution. I did ususally  have 1 or 2 breathing bodies around if I needed them. In HD I learned very quickly that every source told me it was impossible to play Uptempo/ pressure without going 11-12 deep. My own experience has found this inaccurate. All my teams RS a player every season when the players will cooperate. In my 6 seasons I can't remember a game where I had to go 11 players deep.

I know you were using a zone for stamina and depth comparisons asa simplified example but it does bring up an interesting concernof mine with HD.  Many players in HD use zone primarily to hide weak defenders. Does that happen in RL? Absolutely! And those teams lose. It is almost impossible to win without  one of either good defensive skills or a good team defense. Teams that have bad defenders lose. There is a huge difference in playing a zone to hide a good defender in foul trouble and playing to hide bad defenders. I played a zone team not to long ago that had 7 of 10 scholly players with a "D" rating under 30. 3 in the teens. They have actually won some games. No way. Although I am sure there must be a lot more,  I have only seen 1 great zone team in HD. That was Defiance in Rupp D3. But he had excellent defenders. It's impossible hide bad defenders in a zone against a FB offense because they can't sit up in their weak zone.  In fact you can't hide weak defenders against any uptempo offense. You will be expose.

Rog, as you can see. I am very passionate about Uptempo/Pressure basketball. I get excited. I have war stories you wouldn't believe. I can tell you stories that you would doubt that actually happen. This philosophy kept me in and winning games for 20 years with inferior talent. Games on paper, that we had no right to win. Obviously, I feel it gives me the best chance to win in HD. I believe they have it more tweaked right than wrong. They have a better understanding of the concept than the large majority of the players do. Thanks  for exchanging ideas.

Isack, I agree that in RL teams drop from a FCP to a half court "D". Ideally that should be how HD works. However I believe the tweaks that would be required may not be feasible. While HD's concept may not  be "real" the results absolutely are. As I stated earlier, in 10 years, good and bad our opponents average 23 TO's a game. There were 5 to 7 programs out of 93 that were better than that. I wouldn't accept less than 20 per game. Eventhough we dropped back into something, man or zone, we were still very aggressive defensively and used  the same concepts. It was not alot different.

Fatigue and stamina are a nonissue if you look at them in the right perspective. As a coach, if stamina or fatigue becomes an issue during a game the simple solution is to sub players in for shorter periods of time. If it's an issue for you, it sooner or later is an issue for your opponent. If you have better stamina than I. I just substitute more for shorter periods.

I have a concern if HD does away with their FB and/or FCP concept.  Now if on "O" or "D" I practice FB 20mins and FCP 20 mins. I get the comparable benefits from using my FB or FCP that you get from practicing you "O" & "D". If they would change the engine so I would have to run a FB into a half court "O" or a FCP into a half court  "D", I should get the same benefits as I got when I only practiced 1 item at each end of the court. I am using my same "D" & "O" concepts full or half court. I should progress the same as I did under the old engine.
 
HD is already warped in IQ moving so slowly thru IQ with the major determination of increased IQ being class level. In RL I could take a new 6th grader and in 4 weeks of 3 practices a week have him ready to press and outrun you better than you could play against it. It took 3 weeks at the JUCO level,  with over 50% of the team being new to run on you and pressure you better than you could play against it. I would classify that at a "B" HD IQ rating. IN RL I could take your HD team that plays zone and triangle slow tempo (not even a college offense) and they could beat your old team in 3-4 weeks. Not because I am a great coach but because of the inherent advantages and opportunities built into the Uptempo/Pressure philosophy that allows you so many more opportunites to win than sitting in the half court and I run my stuff and you run yours. When you play that way, talent almost always wins.

As much as I disike the IQ rating improvement by classconcept. I really don't see how you can change too much. You certainly can't change the FB/FCP without changing the way IO's are determined. The easiest way to deal with the situation and frustrations of dealing with FB or FCP teams is run it yourself.

coachvegas, I have difficulty believing that fatigue shouldn't be an issue for a FCP team that ran a short bench unless the average stamina of the players that played were all in the mid-90s (as far as this game is concerned).   To keep this thread on target, I am just looking for a solution to this problem:  when the NT in D3 & D2 is set, an extraordinary number of teams are FCP teams.  You have to admit that few college teams run a FCP, many more run a "combo" defense as far as this game is concerned (and, admittedly, trap out of that zone set or m2m set), while most are either zone or m2m teams.  

I am persuaded back to my original suggestion:  teams that play FB/FCP should be forced to play uptempo only (which, you'll agree, is the point), while "combo" teams would be allowed to run slowdown (e.g. flex & halfcourt press/zone).  That would create some incentive for coaches to run the more prevalent "combo" system, based upon the desire to avoid having to recruit only players with STAM > 85 or 90.  I am on your side, in the sense that a team of, say, 10 - 90 STAM players and 2 walk-ons should be able to run a great press, but I believe that a FCP team with 9 - 80 STAM players should, more often than not, run into problems against equivalent zone or m2m teams.   

Your reservations on IQ are well taken, but I want to drag the thread back to the concept of "EASY" implementation of modest adjustments.  Simply nudging up the tempo run by FCP teams (which I am more convinced to be part & parcel of the system's concept of turnover generation) may get more coaches to decide that they need to run "combo" defenses and bring the skewed number of FCP teams back into line.

Can't remember the last time I ran across someone so full of themself.  Yeesh!

Paul Westhead took 2 good players not heavily recruited in high school and built a team around them who weren't much and couldn't play a lick of defense and made them a pretty darn good program at a little bitty D1

False.  Not heavily recruited??? Gaithers & Kimble were both McDonald's All-Americans.  Westhead got lucky when Raveling revoked their schollies at Southern Cal, for sure...but they certainly were both heavily recruited initially.

1. FB/FCP - I agree that there's an issue here, and I like your solution.  Using tempo, I think, is an easy and elegant way to address it - and you're right to focus on easy and elegant in this thread.

2. There should absolutely be some form of targeted scouting trips.

3. I like this!  I think outlawing HV/CV on the first cycle will encourage more battles and make it easier on those who can't make the first ridiculously short, ridiculously timed recruiting cycle.

4. Sure.  There should be crazy amounts of statistics and historical data available.  It's confusing that there isn't.  This site is already very "sticky" and would only get stickier.  No reason for WIS not to do it.  Data storage is, in a practical sense, free.

5. Sure.

6. Sure, as obvious as the targeted scouting trip.

Rogelio, I like all the tweaks (stress tweaks - not major changes).  As long as we are tweaking the scouting trips, I would like to introduce one more facet to the recruiting. Once a player signs with a team that coach should be able to "ask" his/her scout for more in depth detail about a player's high attributes.  It has happened several times that no matter how many scouting trips you send you just don't get the high potential on, say, passing.  I should be able to ask my scout to tell me if the potential is high/high or low/high once that player is on my roster.  I'm not looking for an exact amount of improvement just the same information available through scouting trips.  Can't my scout "scout" our team's practice and give me that same information?

Posted by emy1013 on 8/6/2012 1:34:00 AM (view original):
Can't remember the last time I ran across someone so full of themself.  Yeesh!

I hope this was meant to be tongue-in-cheek