If I was the coach of that Wisci team, I would be terrified of what a slowdown -5 with doubles against Chronister/Leonard/Han could do. You could lose first round in a 5/12 game against a truly bad mo/man team. I think you at least need to play all three of those guys a lot together so all three can't be doubled...I would also play Herrod a lot at the 2 and make him a primary scorer to assuage the doubles.

”if wisconsin is 8-3 now...' right - but they were 2-5 - hence the conversation. you can't just say, if instead of being 2-5, they were 8-3, everything would be fine, and therefore, everything is fine. 2-5 is about 6 universes over from 8-3. the essence of this is super simple - you want to say everything from 2-5 to 8-3, that's all luck, but i'm willing to hand-wave away up to 2 universes of luck, but not 6, unless i have a damn good reason to rule out literally everything else. and that's just not the case here, after 10 seconds of scrutiny, there's something super tangible and very important to point to (weak per).“

The whole point is that you’re talking about this in broad generalities because you’re trying to prove some 40000 foot argument, which ultimately comes down to the style of game you prefer. But it doesn’t pan out when you actually look at those 3 games. The losses in those specific 3 games don’t come down to lack of perimeter, and certainly not to the wrong post player starting. Those losses are bad sim luck amplified by slowdown. That’s the difference between 2-5 and 5-2 at that point (8-3 now). You want to look at the results and prove causality after the fact, and it doesn’t work that way.

And again, if what you are saying was actually valid, we could not expect a real turnaround from this team without major lineup changes, or sudden massive perimeter gains. But arguably the turnaround is already underway (predictably).

And it should be noted, and I think you will admit, that a lot of your comments of this nature are grounded in an understanding of the sim that probably isn’t realistic anymore, ie the types of teams that are regularly attainable. Yeah, there are some teams better (specifically Stanford and Duke). And obviously having some elite perimeter players is always great when you can get them, and certainly makes life easier in flex. But (not trying to speak for anyone) there is an issue of simply taking what the recruit gen gives you at play here, among some other things. Team composition in this game isnt just one formula; like I said before, great coaching (to answer doggg) is what you can do with what you can get. And when the system is handing you a stack of 4-5 star forwards in WI-MN (which has maddeningly been the case since I’ve left) to some extent you roll with the punches and try to pick up some perimeter scoring where you can find it. There is nothing wrong with that approach, and rowle1js can absolutely take the team that exists deep.

Posted by Basketts on 1/7/2022 2:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/7/2022 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Basketts on 1/7/2022 1:29:00 PM (view original):
That team is going to be tough to beat when they can finally bench Dawson for a scorer which will then allow Herrod to get a much needed bump in minutes. I would probably agree that one of the scoring bigs with higher IQs might be better while Dawson is starting, but Paquet is certainly no slouch.

Once Leonard is in *at the 3* for Dawson, this team is fire. But for now, subtracting Paquet’s elite rebounding for a (possible) *small* bump in post scoring is not a net positive. Not for a flex team.

I'd probably still give the edge to Brooks in rebounding since he's 93 Ath / 100 Reb and crucially, A+ IQ and 90 Stamina. Downside is you'd be giving up quite a bit of SB defense for that edge in LP. Since his team Ath/Def is as elite as they come, I'd probably make that swap. But then again, I agree with you that this is very minor stuff and isn't likely the issue.

Yeah by my flex/combo(press-zone) oriented ratings, Paquet is 83.4 to Brooks’ 82. If I was weighing on straight man, it’d be closer to even for sure, in which case the IQ edge is definitely closer to swinging it. But even then, we are talking about a minuscule, if any difference - and all the difference is on the defensive side which is not even really under discussion.

Posted by cubcub113 on 1/6/2022 2:30:00 PM (view original):
Yah, Wisconsin has 0 shooting in flex/man. Paquett is completely unstartable. I would probably play both 60 Reb 100 LP SFs some at the 3/4. Wisci just needs the scoring that bad. But 10th best team in country at the best.

Then Brooks/Han should easily be starting at the 4/5.

Paquet is unstartable in (high end) D1? I guess I still have alot to learn, Id have started him on probably 99% of the teams I've had of the top 10 teams I've had. Brooks is slightly my favorite of all three but I think Paquet is an above average starter on a good team.

I'm sure Rowle has had enough of people dissecting his team (and on a fairplay thread no less!) and I think probably everyone on this thread is somewhat right that its a mix of bad luck/PER/scheduling, but Ill toss in my 2 cents. He's got 4 guys with above 70-80 PER. That's not ideal but with a dominate team in the other phases of the game defense/reb/LP/elite PG, I think you could get pretty far. I just let all four of them shoot threes at a much higher clip (try to get it to 28%ish of the total shots). They wont shoot a particularly good percentage (esp with their speed) but it'd good enough to prevent teams from playing -4 / -5. With the other 70% coming from ELITE post players, that team will do well. It'd be nice to not be in flex, but still, that team would be one of the favorites to make a final four. As is, shooting 16% from 3 and almost all of that coming from one player is asking for opponents to play way under and double/if leading scorer the one shooter.

Posted by gillispie on 1/7/2022 3:47:00 PM (view original):
tough one... in this context i think it means we all respect and like rowle and are a bit concerned about any of this coming off as negativity towards him in any way! i'd be happy to debate the merits generally in another context ;)

I like rowle as well. He's just one of the coaches that gets involved in my trash talk conversations. So until he wins one, he gets NO "beast coach" vote from me! Nada

Posted by shoe3 on 1/7/2022 4:58:00 PM (view original):
”if wisconsin is 8-3 now...' right - but they were 2-5 - hence the conversation. you can't just say, if instead of being 2-5, they were 8-3, everything would be fine, and therefore, everything is fine. 2-5 is about 6 universes over from 8-3. the essence of this is super simple - you want to say everything from 2-5 to 8-3, that's all luck, but i'm willing to hand-wave away up to 2 universes of luck, but not 6, unless i have a damn good reason to rule out literally everything else. and that's just not the case here, after 10 seconds of scrutiny, there's something super tangible and very important to point to (weak per).“

The whole point is that you’re talking about this in broad generalities because you’re trying to prove some 40000 foot argument, which ultimately comes down to the style of game you prefer. But it doesn’t pan out when you actually look at those 3 games. The losses in those specific 3 games don’t come down to lack of perimeter, and certainly not to the wrong post player starting. Those losses are bad sim luck amplified by slowdown. That’s the difference between 2-5 and 5-2 at that point (8-3 now). You want to look at the results and prove causality after the fact, and it doesn’t work that way.

And again, if what you are saying was actually valid, we could not expect a real turnaround from this team without major lineup changes, or sudden massive perimeter gains. But arguably the turnaround is already underway (predictably).

And it should be noted, and I think you will admit, that a lot of your comments of this nature are grounded in an understanding of the sim that probably isn’t realistic anymore, ie the types of teams that are regularly attainable. Yeah, there are some teams better (specifically Stanford and Duke). And obviously having some elite perimeter players is always great when you can get them, and certainly makes life easier in flex. But (not trying to speak for anyone) there is an issue of simply taking what the recruit gen gives you at play here, among some other things. Team composition in this game isnt just one formula; like I said before, great coaching (to answer doggg) is what you can do with what you can get. And when the system is handing you a stack of 4-5 star forwards in WI-MN (which has maddeningly been the case since I’ve left) to some extent you roll with the punches and try to pick up some perimeter scoring where you can find it. There is nothing wrong with that approach, and rowle1js can absolutely take the team that exists deep.

on the unattainably good comment - i'm not saying he should have 3 90 per players. i am saying with 3 90 per players to bring his per up to the caliber of the rest of his team, his team is unstoppable, amazing, incredibly - so obviously that's where he's weakest. i think with 2 90 per guys, he's very possibly the best team in the country. perhaps depends on the world, and coaching, and all that. but just 1 guy would go very far! having 0 is definitely a weakness. i'm not expecting the 3 90 per guys, or requiring it to consider a team good or anything. it was just an extreme example to show the extreme difference between his team and insane ones, and that the difference is all because of per. but outside the silly example, per is clearly his weakness, i just don't see how that is controversial.

i guess if you want to look at actual games -
loss 1 - tennessee - wisconsin loses in OT on the road, slight lead in reb and TOs. goes 3-12 from 3s, 25%, for 9 points, while the opposing team has 30 points from 3s on 39% shooting. wisconsin pulls a respectable 54% on 2s, which makes sense given their offensive strengths, and their opponent's +3/+3. pretty clear wisconsin's weakness here is the 3pt shooting, yeah?

loss 2 - duke - wisconsin loses by 10 on the road. wisconsin leads in reb, tied on TOs. duke plays a -4 to punish wisconsin for their lack of 3s. wisconsin goes 20-50, a terrible 40%, from 2s, in large part because of duke's obvious exploitation of wisconsin's tactical weakness, 3pt shooting. on the 3pt side, wisconsin musters another 9 points, going 3-9. the 33% is an improvement over last game, but not *nearly* enough to make up for getting romped on 2s. so uh, pretty clear wisconsin's critical 3pt weakness was essential to this loss, yeah?

loss 3 - texas - wisconsin loses at home by 4, to a team starting 4 freshman and a sophmore. wisconsin only loses by 2 TOs despite facing the press, which is definitely a positive. wisconsin lost by a good margin on rebounding, to a good team, as a very good but not great reb team themselves (wisconsin). that definitely contributed, so this game wasn't just about the offense. but still, look at the offense! texas played a -2/-3 here. again, starting 4 freshman and a sophmore - this is game 5 - so atrocious iq. wisconsin punishes them by going 5-9 from 3s, 55%. a good %, but the volume is just obviously quite low. wisconsin goes a crummy 16 of 35 from 2s, 46%, in part due to that significant - they faced, you know, because of their important 3pt shooting weakness! so it wasn't only about offense here, but wisconsin's not so great offense allowed texas to play a solid -, and wisconsin took the hit on reb and 2pt, which showed - while they pulled a good 3pt%, but without many points to show for it.


do i need to go on? how much more obvious can i make this?

loss 4 - wisconsin loses at st bon by 3 - st bon plays a 2-3 zone, 0, a heavy 2pt defense. wisconsin punishes them with 3-10 3pt shooting, 9 points. goes 20-42 from 2s, a mediocre 48%. on their face, wisconsin is a significantly more talented team.

loss 5 - wisconsin loses by 3 at montana, a significantly less talented team. montana plays a 0/0, probably a mistake, one of the only coaches not to punish wisconsin for their weakness via game planning (montana is 48 rpi now after 12 games). wisconsin pulls a 2-7, 29% from 3, and a 17-35, a decent but not good 49%, from 2s.


see the theme here? against good teams, good coaches who are paying attention, wisconsin should expect this -2/-3 stuff all NT. what are they going to do about it? if the answer is, the same nothing they are doing about it now, they are in big freaking trouble. this is not marginal stuff here man. this is a major defecit, that the coach is not aggressively compensating for. its a recipe for disaster. of course wisconsin's play since was less of a disaster, but come on, you can't set the bar lower than that... this is supposed to be a clearly top 5 team, right?

bottom line, if you know teams, this is obvious: wisconsin has a substantial per weakness, and their ability or lack there of to overcome that to have an efficient offense, will determine their entire season. because of this weakness, even at their best, wisconsin is not is good as you think. and they are not at their best. this is not some 10,000 foot view thing, rubber hits the road here, you are missing the mark entirely. some luck. but plenty of real tangible stuff, too. you are wrong to wave it away!!

Well I’d never, half of me wants to take some constructive criticism and the other half wants me to prove the nay-sayers wrong, lol. Trust me if I could’ve pulled a bunch of good per players I would’ve, they are the most overpowered and hardest players to get in the game. I personally think I am a lot better than my record and some of those games to me was an act of bad sims, I always play a tough schedule, it’s just more fun to me than just rolling over 10 Sim teams, also it points out my weakness to tweak for conference play and more importantly NT play. Also, playing with five teams, I’ve become my lackadaisical with my regular season play, because normally I easily roll into the NT and don’t have to over think it, but clearly it’s hurt me this time around. But it’s been a fun read regardless, okay…carry on.

Posted by texashick on 1/7/2022 5:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 1/6/2022 2:30:00 PM (view original):
Yah, Wisconsin has 0 shooting in flex/man. Paquett is completely unstartable. I would probably play both 60 Reb 100 LP SFs some at the 3/4. Wisci just needs the scoring that bad. But 10th best team in country at the best.

Then Brooks/Han should easily be starting at the 4/5.

Paquet is unstartable in (high end) D1? I guess I still have alot to learn, Id have started him on probably 99% of the teams I've had of the top 10 teams I've had. Brooks is slightly my favorite of all three but I think Paquet is an above average starter on a good team.

I'm sure Rowle has had enough of people dissecting his team (and on a fairplay thread no less!) and I think probably everyone on this thread is somewhat right that its a mix of bad luck/PER/scheduling, but Ill toss in my 2 cents. He's got 4 guys with above 70-80 PER. That's not ideal but with a dominate team in the other phases of the game defense/reb/LP/elite PG, I think you could get pretty far. I just let all four of them shoot threes at a much higher clip (try to get it to 28%ish of the total shots). They wont shoot a particularly good percentage (esp with their speed) but it'd good enough to prevent teams from playing -4 / -5. With the other 70% coming from ELITE post players, that team will do well. It'd be nice to not be in flex, but still, that team would be one of the favorites to make a final four. As is, shooting 16% from 3 and almost all of that coming from one player is asking for opponents to play way under and double/if leading scorer the one shooter.

Pacquet is pretty much a great guy to have with the right team. I've won numerous titles at Illinois starting an even more punchless offensive option at the 4. But all of those teams had not just one, but two elite shooters at the 1/2/3.

Examples:
John Harris
Jason Jones
Matthew House
Sean Talbot

Harris, Jones, and House won titles starting in the NT on truly elite teams (and Talbot was an instrumental part of some very high quality teams, including a team that won the title), but they all had guys around them to carry the scoring, especially on the outside. As good as they all were for me, adding them to Wisconsin in place of Rowle's walk-on would have *nearly no impact* on how good the team is. He already has plenty of elite bigs that don't really add much on the offensive end. But these guys were just integral to my title teams...remove them and add some 80 ath/reb/de/sb/lp guy and we have 5-7% lower chance of winning a title.

Also, I really agree with the second paragraph... screw it, set Glenn to +1, Evans to +1, and Herrod to -1. Will at least help against the incoming -5 in the NT.

Lol. Gil you are moving the goalposts all over the place on this discussion. I hope you’re doing it on purpose, because if it’s accidental, you have a problem.

If the question is “what is Wisconsin’s biggest weakness”, perimeter shooting is the clear winner. But that wasn’t the question going in, was it? The question was whether a lack of elite perimeter scoring, or more accurately elite 3-pt shooting, is a valid explanation for 1) a 2-5 record (notwithstanding SOS) from an elite ath-def-rebounding team, and 2) a reason to disqualify said team from discussion of a world’s “Top 5 teams”.

Every team could benefit from more 3 point scoring in every game they lose, gil. If that’s the answer you want to get going in, you can always plug it in and find a way to interpret that result. It’s not falsifiable. But Tennessee shot 56% in that game. While they’re shooting 55% on the year, they haven’t played anyone else - except in exhibition, shooting 47% against Colorado. So yeah - you could *always* say “gosh, if only I had more 3 point shooting….” But that’s a weak answer, and it doesn’t explain the upset well. Tennessee unexpectedly shot lights out against an elite defensive team.

Against Texas - again, the weak answer, which can apply to any loss, “more perimeter shooting!”. But the real answer here is Texas, who while a good rebounding team on paper only out rebounds opponents by one board on the season (maybe because of all the youth) somehow pulls in 6 more boards than Wisconsin, #7 in the country in rebounding differential. Which answer has more power?

And against the Bonnies, I asked how you could look past 9-19 FT shooting, from a high C+ team otherwise shooting over 72% on the year without that game. And I guess you answered the question… you just ignore the obvious, and reach for the solution in search of a problem.

So again, there is nothing Wisconsin can do to magically improve perimeter shooting ability this year, right? So one more time, before you waste time on another novel, let’s just acknowledge that if what you say is valid, there is no reason to expect improvement. It’s fixed. No growth possible. So let’s just see.

Nothing like reading a back-and-forth in the HD forums with my thesaurus out so I can follow along with what gil and shoe talk about

Shoe, obviously Gil is saying there is growth possible. Wisconsin is 5-6 with #41 RPI, so obviously when he says they're a fringe Top 10 team he expects them to get back on their feet and grab a 4/5 seed, and maybe make the S16 as well.

And I also think there's a good chance Rowle gets really lucky and plays against man/zone coaches throughout the year that don't chose the optimal underdog strategy of slowdown/-5/doubleteams against Han/Chronister. If Han and Chronister aren't double-teamed, I guess starting Paquet doesn't matter that much. To me, it's still a shockingly easy decision to play Brooks over him, and is probably worth a point per game or so, but it's not *that* important. But you're missing the forest through the trees here with the simple point that when a team really lacks perimeter shooting and a -4 with double-teams is imminent you need to start whatever post-scoring threats you have to stay afloat.

And I don't think Gil and I have even gotten into the 90 vs 73 STA advantage Brooks has over Paquet, which is just as important as the 13 extra points of LP and B vs C FT. I also think there's a very out-of-the-box strategy I would at least test the waters with that starts Chronister-Herrod-Leonard-Han-Brooks so you have FIVE scorers to really mitigate the double team damage in the NT. I know Rowle is starting 2 freshmen, but what's up with Herrod only playing 49 minutes this year as well! I love him, he's a total beast. This team is honestly a single guard away from being a title favorite, it's loaded with talent at the 1/3/4/5!

This team is obviously getting bad sim luck, but its conversion of talent to team quality is pretty low, which I'm sure Rowle understands. It's easier said than done to acquire a 95 spd/per/bh guy with reasonable ath/de in 3.0. I've had a few elite teams fail because of this very issue, and I'm sure Gil has as well. But it's unproductive to blame the sim gods for it completely.

You want to see a team that is 8x better than Rowle's Wisci? Try his Minnesota in Wooden. Roderick and Taylor are the elite gods that Wisci yearns for. You can slowdown your way to a title with this one!

Posted by cubcub113 on 1/7/2022 11:29:00 PM (view original):
Shoe, obviously Gil is saying there is growth possible. Wisconsin is 5-6 with #41 RPI, so obviously when he says they're a fringe Top 10 team he expects them to get back on their feet and grab a 4/5 seed, and maybe make the S16 as well.

And I also think there's a good chance Rowle gets really lucky and plays against man/zone coaches throughout the year that don't chose the optimal underdog strategy of slowdown/-5/doubleteams against Han/Chronister. If Han and Chronister aren't double-teamed, I guess starting Paquet doesn't matter that much. To me, it's still a shockingly easy decision to play Brooks over him, and is probably worth a point per game or so, but it's not *that* important. But you're missing the forest through the trees here with the simple point that when a team really lacks perimeter shooting and a -4 with double-teams is imminent you need to start whatever post-scoring threats you have to stay afloat.

And I don't think Gil and I have even gotten into the 90 vs 73 STA advantage Brooks has over Paquet, which is just as important as the 13 extra points of LP and B vs C FT. I also think there's a very out-of-the-box strategy I would at least test the waters with that starts Chronister-Herrod-Leonard-Han-Brooks so you have FIVE scorers to really mitigate the double team damage in the NT. I know Rowle is starting 2 freshmen, but what's up with Herrod only playing 49 minutes this year as well! I love him, he's a total beast. This team is honestly a single guard away from being a title favorite, it's loaded with talent at the 1/3/4/5!

This team is obviously getting bad sim luck, but its conversion of talent to team quality is pretty low, which I'm sure Rowle understands. It's easier said than done to acquire a 95 spd/per/bh guy with reasonable ath/de in 3.0. I've had a few elite teams fail because of this very issue, and I'm sure Gil has as well. But it's unproductive to blame the sim gods for it completely.

You want to see a team that is 8x better than Rowle's Wisci? Try his Minnesota in Wooden. Roderick and Taylor are the elite gods that Wisci yearns for. You can slowdown your way to a title with this one!

Yeah I was really disappointed in my Minnesota team losing in the 2nd round, guess I screwed up not playing my top per guards and running slowdown, I never really understood the slowdown method and why that is so powerful, I feel like as the more talented team you should run uptempo to get more possessions, so you can run the other team off the court, and have less chance for the lesser team to get lucky and the odds will go in your favor. Guess not, doesn't make sense to me, also I've always found slowdown to be boring and only usually run it when I have depth issues. Maybe you can enlighten me on why it's so good. I almost don't want to run it just to win a title, like putting a cheat code or something.

I guess when gil starts out misquoting me in the very first sentence, turning “coaching ability has little to do with it” (referring to the difference in start between Army and Wisconsin) to “coaching has nothing to do with it” I shouldn’t be surprised when now cub finishes up acknowledging that Wisconsin “obviously” has suffered bad sim luck, but “it's unproductive to blame the sim gods for it completely.” As if that’s been done.

And look, you really can’t have it both ways. Because if you’re going to spend thousands of words explaining why the preseason #1 team *can’t* be considered a top 5 team because the losses suffered are “self-inflicted” (gil’s words) due to flaws that exist which cannot be adjusted now (the lack of elite perimeter threats) but then go on to hedge and say this is a perhaps a *top 10 team* that can “get back on their feet” (which is nonsense if you believe the existential lack of perimeter is what is behind a 2-5 start), well then you are clearly hedging because you don’t actually have confidence in the things you’re saying. And that’s cool, but let’s all be honest about that, ok? Perimeter scoring is Wisconsin’s biggest (only real) weakness, and while you two are both overstating it a lot, it does make them vulnerable in some ways, as most teams are. It does not, however, disqualify them from being considered a valid top 5 team. Plenty of teams advance to the Final 4 without elite perimeter scoring.

Also, using words like “shockingly easy” to describe Brooks over Paquet is hyperbole to a dumb degree. Missed you cub, but this is just dumb. There is no meaningful difference between those two in the numbers. Utilize Brooks more in a flex offense, his efficiency and rebounds will look about the same. The LP advantage is mitigated by an athleticism and BH disadvantage, and stamina is not a major factor in effectiveness (in flex/man), especially if you’re assuming opponents will be slowing down. Brooks might give you an extra couple minutes as a starter, but they’re not better minutes, and they’re not keeping scrubs from getting playing time, so it’s not an issue here. Flip a coin, really doesn’t matter much - but calling it out as a reason for a disappointing start is as funny as it was when gil first brought it up.

“I've always found slowdown to be boring and only usually run it when I have depth issues. Maybe you can enlighten me on why it's so good. I almost don't want to run it just to win a title, like putting a cheat code or something.”

I knew I liked you.

Shoe's slowdown myth is not accurate. Slowdown is not a cheat code. It's just another option that can help coincide with your team needs. If it was so powerful, no one would ever run normal or uptempo.

There's so many reasons to run each tempo. And rowle, there's no discredit for ANY setting when trying to win. Just go win bro! It doesn't matter how you do it! (Unless you've won 50 titles by staying at the same D3 team. THEN it's time to do something else! Haha). With that line of thinking, it would be like saying a press title is "cheap" because someone just ran uptempo the whole time. Winning it all is winning it all. It's HARD no matter what. There's no cheat codes