Posted by ettaexpress on 2/14/2014 12:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 2/14/2014 12:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 2/14/2014 12:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/14/2014 5:31:00 AM (view original):
He was covering Moore for 10 of the 11 minutes.
So how does Moore, my best rebounder, not just abuse the guy on the glass?
oh, is that the bit you were upset about? your first post is quite vague. it definitely make these conversations more constructive if you would identify the game and players in question, and the particular issue you are seeing. this goes against the conventional wisdom that one game is too small of a sample size to get upset about anything, but it still isn't bad to have examples, so if you want to get that specific (one game), the more specific, the better!
I don't think it's overly vague. There isn't just one thing I was upset about, but the center thing is a really obvious example of a flaw in the sim logic. As soon as that guy goes in the game, the sim should be doing everything possible to take advantage of his presence. Running screens to force switches to get him matched up on other guys, taking advantage on the offensive glass, basically anything.
If my FR center is supposedly horrible on defense (even though I've seen a bunch worse, and again now we're getting back into more value judgment of what is "terrible" largely from the perspective of veterans used to contender-quality teams), this guy is worse.
The "5 minutes" phenomenon isn't one game at all. I'm guessing there have been 10 games this year that have been lost largely based on what happened in a 5 minute stretch. Not saying all should have been won, but certainly some should.
You want to talk about vague...all these unquantified evaluations like "oh this guy is just terrible" without identifying what good or average is. Consistently, the definition of awful and terrible here has been inconsistent with what I've seen from teams I've played against, and my schedule hasn't been bad.
you are the guy asking for help, evaluating a result you think is unrealistic. i am simply pointing out a more intelligent, focused conversation results when you make it clear which elements you are unhappy with. it would also help to make it clear which game you are talking about, although i think most of us were able to guess which you meant.
its strange to me you would complain about 10 games being decided in a 5 minute interval, when you are a proponent for realism. most college games i watch are decided in the last 5 minutes. besides, if you cherry pick the best and worst 5 minutes of any game, there is usually a very big stat discrepancy, and saying those 5 minutes decided the game when there are 35 other minutes, is fairly misleading and there just isn't much substance to it.
i think you expect the sim to do too much coaching for you. when we coach and see a guy is going to be defending who should get destroyed, we put guys against him and give them lots of shots, to abuse him. both teams are playing man defense here, and your main player at that position only scores 1.6 points per game. you consistently flip flop between complaints that the sim ignores your game plan, and that it doesn't do enough to override your game plan. you can't have it both ways. you *explicitly* told the engine not to try to score on his center. i would start looking there for an explanation of why the engine did not overly try to score on his center.
also, you are way off when you suggest your schedule hasn't been bad. you seem very unsure of the context from where we are speaking on this forum. well, that context varies, so its hard to pin down, so let me elaborate for you. to be clear, most people have a pretty healthy idea of the context, and by *no* reasonable forum standard, is calling your guy bad vague. calling him terrible on defense would be more accurate, but i was trying to be nice. here's the thing - you are new, and you don't know the standards here. so the way to deal with that is to ask, not to criticize someone else for what boils down to your lack of understanding. im not saying you don't understand basketball, although im not saying the opposite - to be clear, im saying you don't understand the standards on the forum, which hopefully you are smart enough to recognize is not an insult (and frankly is true for every new coach).
so, there are generally a range of standards used in answering questions. many coaches use their own context as context, but many veterans tone down their rhetoric (because, for example, its not helpful to you for me to use the standards i use for myself, when you have less than 1 season and i have 20 championships). so, i think the standard many of us try to use is the standard for teams trying to make the NT consistently. this standard may sound unreasonable when you consider there are 300 and something teams in d3 and d1 - however, most are sim. many d3 worlds have only 100 human teams, and sims are really bad, so comparing to sims is an unreasonably low standard (which, i believe, gives you some of your context issues - your playing of sims is not representative of the typical human who cares about the game). furthermore, the forum community tends to be better educated on the game, and therefore of higher quality than non-forum community coaches. so the "goal" of the lower end forum community is to crack into the NT with some consistency. thats really the first hump, its not hard to get there (many of us are that good in less than 1-5 seasons), although it does require a decent understanding of the game and sim engine, and also, you have to have a decent team (which can take 2 seasons of recruiting even as a quality recruiter, because of what you inherit).
with a new coach such as yourself, many of us are using this standard i have just described, as it is generally considered the lowest helpful standard there is for the forum community. there is no value in telling you how your team compares to totally crappy sim teams. for other posters, and from other posters, you will see a context with much higher standards. many use, in high end discussions, the standard of competing for championships consistently. some will discuss what it takes to be the average #1 quality team. other times, in less high-end discussions, people talk about what it takes to be a quality NT team - a team who can win a couple games and has a decent shot at a deep run.
now that the context is hopefully clearer to you, you may want to take some time to look at some bottom half NT teams. the projection report 30s-50s is probably the place to look (for lower end at large bids). look at those players, and i think it will become immediately and abundantly clear why i consider your center very poor on defense. with all the confusion about use of adjectives based on relative standards, it would really be helpful to you (and we suggest this to all new coaches) to look at some higher end teams (top 10ish), to see what is considered "really good", to look at some 15-25ish teams starting players to see what is considered "pretty good" to "good", and look at some lower end NT teams, 35-55ish, to see what is considered "solid" to "decent". of course, the top players on those teams are better than solid to decent, and the bottom players are worse, but that should give you a much better idea of where we are coming from. any coach who recruited that center, with the goal of managing to make the post season (which is a really, really low standard for anything but an extremely short term goal, given there are 96 post season teams and roughly that many humans), would be told he is way too bad of a defender. so, you should not take this personally. i think if you are a little less defensive about these things, it would go a long way in assisting your development as a coach. telling you your player is bad is not an insult to you personally, in any way. most people are appreciative when people are candid and tell them which players suck and which strategies are sub par, because now they know where to look to improve.
2/14/2014 1:10 PM (edited)