lol, OR, that just can't be true...

Im starting to question it myself its like it doesnt even matter anymore but I do only usually change from -2 to +2

Posted by oldresorter on 7/23/2010 8:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by aporter on 7/23/2010 8:20:00 PM (view original):
I played +1 and +3 last night and held the other team to only 10-16 from 3 with their only having 1 guy with 90 PER.  Meanwhile their -5 held me to only three 3pt. attempts, our lowest attempt total in a game on the season.

porter, is it possible the code was written backwards, + stops inside, - stops outside???????

In the morning I'm going to look at 3pt percentages shot against us in a + position vs - defensive position.

Posted by emy1013 on 7/22/2010 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by daalter on 7/22/2010 7:15:00 AM (view original):
In the old engine, you could count on defensive positioning to (generally) have in impact on your opponents' shooting. Not every game, of course, but overall it was very clear. If you played, say, a +2 all the time, you would defend the 3pt shot extremely well.

In the new engine, I see example after example of teams playing significant + defenses and still getting lit up from 3pt range. I see it on a nightly basis. I had a game last night where I played a +2/+4 and the other (significantly inferior) team shot 11-17 from 3p range.

Again, I'm seeing this frequently.

It's disappointing because it's part of an overall trend I've seen where gameplanning (other than distro, which does work better than before imo) has less and less of an effect on game results. (Same thing with practice plan, because so many players have low potentials, etc.) With gameplanning effectiveness limited and the new recruits not set to improve as much, we're looking at Recruiting Dynasty (ahem, OR). And I'm a good recruiter, but that's not the game that I signed up for, and it's not a game that's interesting.

I would put defensive positioning up there with rebounding and the foul issues as items that are quite simply not functioning properly in the new engine.

Agreed.  What's funny about this to me is that I posted the very same thing when the engine had just come out and was told by many long time coaches that it was too small of a sample size, it was a one game aberration, give it some time, etc.  Fellas, sometimes you don't have to give it time, sometimes you can just tell.........

Amen brothers.  I made a very similar post about a month ago and got an even more hostile reaction than emy did.  And to echo daalter again, the quality of defenders/quality of offensive players appears to have very little impact on the wacky results.

Any thoughts as to why this team can't play defense? We are a DII team playing a man2man/press combo defense.

Through 9 games this season we have given up 52.6% from the field and 44% from 3.

Here is the link to my team, the table below is my team without the walk on calculated into the averages:

whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx

Name	Yr.	Pos.	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	TOT
Kevin Cronk	Sr.	PG	53	91	1	70	4	10	36	80	88	68	88	75	664
Doug Beahm	So.	PG	68	71	7	50	3	2	43	71	84	53	88	54	594
Luis Harper	Fr.	PG	40	69	1	49	1	14	71	49	63	46	81	29	513
Edmund Harkins	Sr.	SG	58	91	22	65	14	13	97	77	77	65	95	50	724
Mohammad Grabill	Jr.	SG	79	82	64	56	22	35	63	83	71	78	90	45	768
Russell Cranford	Fr.	SG	67	69	1	47	10	17	77	50	51	37	76	72	574
Joshua Tracy	Fr.	SF	57	45	34	62	27	14	56	32	28	45	80	53	533
Ronald Rice	So.	PF	62	68	79	36	47	70	29	1	4	30	72	58	556
Ronald Counts	Sr.	PF	76	53	86	36	77	88	32	3	17	43	74	45	630
Robert Hohman	So.	PF	60	35	91	37	82	67	39	34	36	53	76	47	657
David Weber	Jr.	C	61	53	92	56	97	96	12	9	17	68	79	27	667
Averages			62	66	43	51	35	39	50	44	49	53	82	50	625

I see a lot of people complaining, and I see a lot of people not back it up with actual numbers.

Here's the nine games I've played in Smith so far. I'm not seeing a huge issue.

Allowed:
-2/-2: 6/11
-2/-2: 3/10

-1/-1: 4/12
-1/-1: 14/37
-1/-1: 8/16

+1/+1: 5/10
+1/+1: 2/6
+1/+1: 11/24

+2/+2: 3/4


Made:
-2/-1: 6/14
-2/+0: 11/20

-1/-3: 0/3
-1/-3: 4/11
-1/-3: 5/12
-1/-1: 3/14

+0/-2: 2/8
+0/+0: 4/7

+2/+0: 5/12

I don't understand all the people saying distro is working better.  I'm not seeing it.

Posted by antonsirius on 7/24/2010 10:10:00 AM (view original):
I see a lot of people complaining, and I see a lot of people not back it up with actual numbers.

Here's the nine games I've played in Smith so far. I'm not seeing a huge issue.

Allowed:
-2/-2: 6/11
-2/-2: 3/10

-1/-1: 4/12
-1/-1: 14/37
-1/-1: 8/16

+1/+1: 5/10
+1/+1: 2/6
+1/+1: 11/24

+2/+2: 3/4


Made:
-2/-1: 6/14
-2/+0: 11/20

-1/-3: 0/3
-1/-3: 4/11
-1/-3: 5/12
-1/-1: 3/14

+0/-2: 2/8
+0/+0: 4/7

+2/+0: 5/12

Playing a minus defense, your team has allowed 25.5% from 3pt range.
Playing a plus defense, your team has allowed 47.7% from 3pt range.

That seems right to you?

I think you're being a contrarian just to be a contrarian. In my experience, when a bunch of experienced vet coaches are all seeing and experiencing the same thing, it tends to be pretty valid. I'm not saying it's impossible for something like that not to be valid, but it ends up being legit the overwhelming majority of the time.

Posted by cburton23 on 7/24/2010 10:54:00 AM (view original):
I don't understand all the people saying distro is working better.  I'm not seeing it.

Could you provide an example?   For you E. New Mexico team, which has played an entire season, did you top distribution guys end up taking the most shots?

Here are my + and - percentages for DIII Drew (Naismith)-  32 games

+2 (4 games)         17-59   (28.8%)
+1 (4  games)        13-41   ( 31.7%

-1 (16 games)        53-169 ( 31.6%)
-2 (  8 games)        18-62  (29.0%)

The sample is small and about skewed. For instance,  26 of the 62 shots at -2 were in the same game.

anton as great as some data would be, +2 isn't +5 and as long as people are afraid to leave that little comfort zone the numbers are gonna be cloudy at best

that said, +5 probably won't [and imo shouldn't] be as effective as people on here seem to think it's supposed to be

Posted by colonels19 on 7/24/2010 12:04:00 PM (view original):
These "results" would be nice if HD were played in a vacuum. The ratings, especially per and def and spd, others need to be considered as well...it isn't just, I put my settings at +3 against a good 3pt shooting team, therefore I should stifle them from beyond the arc. There are SO many factors that are involved here...I'd love to see some player ratings involved, because if they aren't, your argument doesn't carry much weight.

I understand the point that you're trying to make, but it doesn't hit. When there's this many examples -- 10 games here, full seasons there, a lot of different people all making the same observation, etc -- that effectively accounts for a wide range of the other factors. Some of those games will have been against strong 3p shooting teams, some against weak, etc. etc. etc. Obviously you won't stifle a great 3pt shooting team as much as you'd stifle a poor one, but that's not the issue here -- the issue is whether playing (for instance) a +2/3 is having the kind of effect it should vs. a -2/3, and it's clear that the answer is no.

Posted by alblack56 on 7/24/2010 11:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 7/24/2010 10:54:00 AM (view original):
I don't understand all the people saying distro is working better.  I'm not seeing it.

Could you provide an example?   For you E. New Mexico team, which has played an entire season, did you top distribution guys end up taking the most shots?

Funny that you pointed out ENMU Al. That's actually my one team where distros were close, within 1-2 either way. But both my GT and N Colorado team have also played full seasons and are way off. On each team I have 3-4 guys off by at least 5%. Terry on my GT team is off by almost 8. I must be the only one who had distro working better in the old system.

Posted by daalter on 7/22/2010 7:15:00 AM (view original):
In the old engine, you could count on defensive positioning to (generally) have in impact on your opponents' shooting. Not every game, of course, but overall it was very clear. If you played, say, a +2 all the time, you would defend the 3pt shot extremely well.

In the new engine, I see example after example of teams playing significant + defenses and still getting lit up from 3pt range. I see it on a nightly basis. I had a game last night where I played a +2/+4 and the other (significantly inferior) team shot 11-17 from 3p range.

Again, I'm seeing this frequently.

It's disappointing because it's part of an overall trend I've seen where gameplanning (other than distro, which does work better than before imo) has less and less of an effect on game results. (Same thing with practice plan, because so many players have low potentials, etc.) With gameplanning effectiveness limited and the new recruits not set to improve as much, we're looking at Recruiting Dynasty (ahem, OR). And I'm a good recruiter, but that's not the game that I signed up for, and it's not a game that's interesting.

I would put defensive positioning up there with rebounding and the foul issues as items that are quite simply not functioning properly in the new engine.

I can agree with that.  It's considerably harder to stop the 3 pointer, even with + defense and good defenders/IQ, but it seems to be somewhat random as well, because - defenses can still also shut down good 3pt shooting teams.