If everyone is a -2, I think what happens is that the SIM gives each player an equal chance to take the 3 point shot and then modifies the base 20% chance by things like standard shooter skills, defender skills, and position.......I think it is unlikely that that base 1/5 chance moves very much by those factors at the end of the equation is probably something like 30-30-20-15-5 in most cases.

Posted by Benis on 1/3/2016 10:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 1/3/2016 10:05:00 AM (view original):
Probably because: 1. Everyone was set at -2, and your 19 PER PF was covered by a poor defender..........if you want to avoid this, set some players at -1.......

I know. I get why the engine chose (seemingly) at random because everyone on the court was at -2. Harris is +1 but he was on the bench.

I don't agree that Curry was covered by a poor defender. No offense to Sillypig but his team is full of average defenders. All guys on the court were between 30-40 DEF. And he was at -5 defense. So it makes no sense to me that with 26 seconds left on the clock, the only look I could get would be from my PF. Who should not be behind the 3 pt line and should down low ready to get rebound should someone miss this last second shot!

Yes, I could set all my guards to -1. But I don't think I should have to. Just have a setting where if a last minute 3 is required, I can choose a few guys who I'd like to have take the shot. Even if they were guarded, I'd prefer them over my bigs. 

I just looked quickly but I thought the other teams PF was low in the ATH department which is in the "who's open " decision and the guards were at least kinda fast which also probably prevents shots from being taken.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 1/3/2016 10:27:00 AM (view original):
If everyone is a -2, I think what happens is that the SIM gives each player an equal chance to take the 3 point shot and then modifies the base 20% chance by things like standard shooter skills, defender skills, and position.......I think it is unlikely that that base 1/5 chance moves very much by those factors at the end of the equation is probably something like 30-30-20-15-5 in most cases.

Let's assume that's the % used to determine who takes the shot.

I have on the court the following

PG - 41 PER
SG - 58 PER
SF- 5 PER
PF - 19 PER
C- 1 PER

So, if the above ratio is true (or close to it) then I have a 40% chance that someone is going to take a shot that has less than a 20 PER. Yes, the PG's PER of 41 isn't that much higher but his BH is 72 (although he is a big slow he is a good scorer on the season). He was at a -5 defense, so I think everyone should be a little bit open, right? Set a screen for my PG/SG and jack one up. That's what should happen.

But as you mention, what you think the SIM does to calculate who takes to take the shot is silly to me. Don't you think it's crazy that at the MOST CRITICAL point in the game, the person who takes the shot is out of your control (assuming everyone is set to -2)? The only way to protect against these late game situations is to set all my guards to -1 for the entire season? 

Schaffer, Roberts and Higgins would have all been set at -1 for most of the seaso if I was running your team.....maybe not the 41 PER guy.......The SIM does quirky stuff when it is left to make it's own decisions.....it doesn't make optimal decisions....I suspect it doesn't because it is HARDER to program that, if it did it would make the SIM AI's harder to beat which is kinda bad for business

Yeah that's fine, so give us a late game setting for 3 pt shooting. That would make it easier to beat sims since we have that control.

Higgins is the 41 PER guy

This could really be solved by adding a -3 for NEVER EVER SHOOT A THREE-POINTER and changing the -2 to "only shoot in late game trailing situations". 

Or we could do a completely over-the-top overhaul of recruiting and ignore all the small, easy changes that would significantly improve the game. 

Posted by trail on 1/3/2016 11:13:00 AM (view original):
This could really be solved by adding a -3 for NEVER EVER SHOOT A THREE-POINTER and changing the -2 to "only shoot in late game trailing situations". 

Or we could do a completely over-the-top overhaul of recruiting and ignore all the small, easy changes that would significantly improve the game. 

God dammit that's the smartest thing I've ever heard. Can I promote you to CEO of WIS immediately?

Note that set at minus one its not like that 41 per guy is going to shoot very many threes at all.  He'll just be able to in those situations.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 1/3/2016 2:22:00 PM (view original):
Note that set at minus one its not like that 41 per guy is going to shoot very many threes at all.  He'll just be able to in those situations.

Ars - Granted this is just one guy and I'd love to hear what others have seen but I have a guy on another team that is an okay 3pt shooter that I had set to -1 for a season and he took 232 total FGA and 63 of them were 3s. So that's 27% of his total shots were 3 pointers. That seems pretty significant and more than not very many 3s at all. So if he's shooting something like 25% of his 3s, that doesn't seem like good value to me, but I dunno, perhaps I'm thinking of it wrong.

How many 3s would you expect a guy to take set at -1 for an entire season, percentage wise?

"Don't you think it's crazy that at the MOST CRITICAL point in the game, the person who takes the shot is out of your control (assuming everyone is set to -2)?" 

But it IS in our control that "everyone is set to -2"  If I knew I had a problem with the wrong guy shooting 3's at the end of the game and I STILL had everyone set to -2 so the problem continued ... well, I think one definition of "crazy" that I read somewhere is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Or maybe I don't understand how this game works yet ...

Posted by CoachSpud on 1/3/2016 2:58:00 PM (view original):
"Don't you think it's crazy that at the MOST CRITICAL point in the game, the person who takes the shot is out of your control (assuming everyone is set to -2)?" 

But it IS in our control that "everyone is set to -2"  If I knew I had a problem with the wrong guy shooting 3's at the end of the game and I STILL had everyone set to -2 so the problem continued ... well, I think one definition of "crazy" that I read somewhere is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Or maybe I don't understand how this game works yet ...

yes, it is possible to control who takes the last second 3 pt shot. I COULD change the settings so I have guards set at -1. But that means I need to adjust my entire gameplan for the season based upon a situation that may or may not happen at the end of the game.

I set up my gameplan that I believe gives me the best chance to win the 40 min game. Not everyone may agree that I have, ever guy except Harris set at -2 and they may very well be correct, but my point is, it's my gameplan and it works decently I think, considering both games I'm complaining about occurred in the Elite 8. So basically the only way to protect against this scenario of needing a 3 to tie, I need to alter my entire game plan.

But okay, let's see what that'd take to protect against one of my bigs taking a 3. I have Harris set at +1 but he's on the bench. As suggested, I should have Schaefer set at -1. But what if he fouls out (he had 4 fouls this game and fouled out of 4 games on the season)? So I set his backup Cathey to -1 now who has a 25 PER? I doubt I'd like him to be taking very many 3s throughout the season. Well, I suppose I could set Higgins to -1 so he could be the one taking that last second shot but he's only a 41 PER. He probably won't be hitting all that great of a % on the season and will probably reduce his effectiveness but I suppose that perhaps could be an option.. How about Higgins's backup Dick Bonds? 34 PER, not very good. Floyd Roberts is my 5th guard and he's got a 46 PER. A little better but not great. I suppose I could set him at -1 all the time. Maybe that's my best option... but he probably won't be on the court when this key play goes down unless I'm deep in the line up. So to ensure I have a guy over 20 PER taking the last second 3 point shot, I need to set all those guys to -1 and reduce their offensive efficiency (in my opinion, but would love to see some data on 3 pt shooting). 

Now yes, I don't have great 3 point shooting. If I did, then maybe I wouldn't be complaining so much. And yes, I just talked about how terrible all these guys at shooting 3s but I'd STILL prefer them over my PF Curry (19 PER) or my Ramapo Center with a PER of 10 taking the last second 3 pointer with the game on the line. 

The point of my rant is that I'd need to change my gameplan for my entire season in order to control this particular situation in every game when all that's needed, as Trail suggested, is another option for 3 point settings. 

Posted by Benis on 1/3/2016 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 1/3/2016 2:22:00 PM (view original):
Note that set at minus one its not like that 41 per guy is going to shoot very many threes at all.  He'll just be able to in those situations.

Ars - Granted this is just one guy and I'd love to hear what others have seen but I have a guy on another team that is an okay 3pt shooter that I had set to -1 for a season and he took 232 total FGA and 63 of them were 3s. So that's 27% of his total shots were 3 pointers. That seems pretty significant and more than not very many 3s at all. So if he's shooting something like 25% of his 3s, that doesn't seem like good value to me, but I dunno, perhaps I'm thinking of it wrong.

How many 3s would you expect a guy to take set at -1 for an entire season, percentage wise?

That's a little high most of my guys are in the low 20's at -1...a bunch of stuff effects that though like opponents positioning, the shooters LP/PER ratio, the defender, trips to the FT line and the players position.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 1/3/2016 4:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/3/2016 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 1/3/2016 2:22:00 PM (view original):
Note that set at minus one its not like that 41 per guy is going to shoot very many threes at all.  He'll just be able to in those situations.

Ars - Granted this is just one guy and I'd love to hear what others have seen but I have a guy on another team that is an okay 3pt shooter that I had set to -1 for a season and he took 232 total FGA and 63 of them were 3s. So that's 27% of his total shots were 3 pointers. That seems pretty significant and more than not very many 3s at all. So if he's shooting something like 25% of his 3s, that doesn't seem like good value to me, but I dunno, perhaps I'm thinking of it wrong.

How many 3s would you expect a guy to take set at -1 for an entire season, percentage wise?

That's a little high most of my guys are in the low 20's at -1...a bunch of stuff effects that though like opponents positioning, the shooters LP/PER ratio, the defender, trips to the FT line and the players position.

TJ - what 3 pt shooting % do you try to attain with those guys set at -1? How do you determine if it's better for him to take 20% of his shots from 3 or 100% of his shots from 2 while adjusting for the FT rate impact?

I don't know, I play by sense of smell.....I like my guys to be above 33% for 3fga though as a general rule.....I constantly tinker though and adjust player settings based on defense and defender probably more than I should

Posted by Benis on 1/3/2016 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 1/3/2016 2:22:00 PM (view original):
Note that set at minus one its not like that 41 per guy is going to shoot very many threes at all.  He'll just be able to in those situations.

Ars - Granted this is just one guy and I'd love to hear what others have seen but I have a guy on another team that is an okay 3pt shooter that I had set to -1 for a season and he took 232 total FGA and 63 of them were 3s. So that's 27% of his total shots were 3 pointers. That seems pretty significant and more than not very many 3s at all. So if he's shooting something like 25% of his 3s, that doesn't seem like good value to me, but I dunno, perhaps I'm thinking of it wrong.

How many 3s would you expect a guy to take set at -1 for an entire season, percentage wise?

Well, as an example, Higgens has a 40 lp to go with his 41 per, so at minus one I wouldn't expect him to attempt all that many threes.  Same with Schaefer and Roberts:  Their LP to per ratio would keep their total three attempts down.