Posted by reddyred on 8/8/2012 6:26:00 PM (view original):
That's true but we can agree you are more likely to foul if you're tired right? We can agree that press teams are supposed to foul more than any other D right? These are both statements you can find in the players guide. All I'm saying is regardless of what determines who commits a foul, recently I have noticed that my zone teams who are supposed to be on the lower end of the spectrum in fouls committed, commit as many or more fouls than press teams in certain junctures of the game. Now I will never argue the scoreboard. Whoever wins wins. But to me a zone team that is less negative than a press team should not foul more considering both teams are pretty close in talent and IQ. It seems that you can pretty much count on getting 15+ TO's running a press which ultimately leads to FBP. All a press team really has to do is win the boards and their chance of winning increases that much more. 

press team winning boards is a tall order. And I don't think 15 t/o is a given for a fcp team. 

That statement is in direct correlation to my team. It's actually a lower number as when I run a normal tempo, I usually see a press team getting an avg of 20 TO's a game. And it's not that tall an order against a zone team, at least on the offensive boards. 

Neither of you see any problem with the fact that your argument is based on 1 game's worth of statistics, honestly?  I think almost any coach on here would agree that fatigue absolutely matters, just because it doesn't show up as blatantly as you'd like in terms of 1 statistic in 1 game doesn't mean it doesn't matter.  That's just a silly claim.

FWIW, my Rochester team, which was really nothing special (and that's being kind) just finished 4th in Knight D3 in terms of not committing fouls, and we didn't play a whole lot of slowdown.  In fact, the top 6 teams in that category are all human-coached zone teams.  Given how few human-coached zone teams there really are I think that says a lot about how meaningful your blanket statement that zone teams foul just as much as press teams, or even man teams, really is...

8, 9, 11, 12, 13 (sim), 15, 16, 17, 18 (sim), and 19 (sim) are all zone teams as well.  There isn't a non-zone sim-coached team in the top 25 or a single press team of any kind in spite of the fact that many times as many human coaches run the press as the zone.  In fact, I'll bet that the 14 human-coached zone teams in the top 25 for not committing fouls are nearly all of the established human-coached zone teams in D3 Knight.  There are probably 20 or fewer total teams that run zone.  And several times that many running press, not a single one of which is in the top 25.  But you keep pointing to your one game sample size and telling us what a massive problem it highlights.

Posted by reddyred on 8/8/2012 7:16:00 PM (view original):
That statement is in direct correlation to my team. It's actually a lower number as when I run a normal tempo, I usually see a press team getting an avg of 20 TO's a game. And it's not that tall an order against a zone team, at least on the offensive boards. 

What would any defensive set have to do with performance on the offensive boards?  Did you bother to think about this statement before you posted it?  Are you implying that you would LIKE to see some relevance to offensive boards of the press defense?  The only set that I would like to see impact opposite-side rebounding (not sure if it does or not since I've never studied it or had any interest in running it) is the fastbreak, which should impact defensive rebounds from guards since they should conceivably be taking off sometimes.

"IMHO, billyg probably had the better game plan (and it could have been even better by simply playing slowdown),.."  - I didn't think Drury should have run slowdown, but, rather, SIU.  Then there wouldn't have even been that nasty orange "tired" in the pbp.  

Is the bar to my being able to show evidence of my points really that I need to complete a longitudinal study of all worlds before posting?!? The example is pertinent, because the game involved the person asserting that all counter evidence to his assertions were the result of selection bias actually running press with a low stamina team against a higher stamina zone team.   Surely I can assume that he might be aware of that game? 

The issue, at least for me, is not whether a team running FCP at uptempo can get a ton of turnovers and raise the number of fouls committed by both teams.  The issue is whether those teams actually are having to field teams with the better stamina that so many have asserted they must.  I don't see the evidence for that in the past several months.  Many have noted that they feel they used to be able to run uptempo against pressing teams and get them fatigued, but that strategy no longer seems viable.  I don't think that those sentiments, plus actual analysis of games across several threads is "just a silly claim".  

I think about everything I post Dahs. And I was waiting for someone to come on this post talking about sample size once again. If everything is left to sample size then nothing gets answered because there are never enough samples to get a concrete answer. I'm not going to deal with the one game statement because my whole argument actually is not relegated to one game. It's just one game that was used as an EXAMPLE not as basis for what is and isnt in all of WIS (I don't have time to post seasons worth of stats to satisfy your sample size). I'm also not the only coach here saying there is some dominance with the press.  As far as boards, everyone knows zone teams seem to get less offensive boards, it's a statement even CS has confirmed yes CS told me this) so why even state this in this manner? You use sims to fuel your argument and you can't use sims because most sims are horrible teams that haven't been recruited for properly. Furthermore you should show a bit more respect in addressing peoples statements. Using words like "silly" or asking questions about whether someone thought about what they posted is just flat out rude.  I posted a statement earlier in this topic that you didn't  read correctly as far as -4 vs -2... did anyone ask if you were illiterate? no. Let's be civil in our comments to one another. 

That being said, I can look at my human coached zone team and see a correlation of increased fouls against good press teams throughout the course of a season. THIS IS WHAT I HAVE NOTICED with my particular teams. Nothing more nothing less. I'm not making a statement saying this is how it is for everyone. This is my experience. I also said zone teams normally foul less... not as much or more than other D's I said less. My zone teams commit the least fouls in my conference regularly, but against pressing teams my zone tends to foul more. 

Yes the zone statement about offensive rebounding was off but everything else I said is true to what my team experiences through the course of a season.

I went back and saw that I misread what CS sent me, but I can say that my zone teams are consistently either the best or second best rebounding teams in their respective conferences but I always notice I get beat on the offensive glass. 

You probably also have better than average teams in terms of offensive efficiency, which costs you offensive rebounding opportunities.  For example, your Incarnate Word team grabbed 327 offensive rebounds and allowed 335.  BUT, your offensive rebound rate was

327/(1494-740) = 43.4% grabbed

vs.

335/(1621-639) = 34.1% allowed

And that was even with you doing your defensive rebounding out of the zone defense.

Before we get too far along, I apologize to reddyred for running off with his example.  However, reddyred and rogelio are not the same person (I  don't even know him within this game, honestly).  

I want to clarify that the point for which I am using that game as an example out runs to the line of reasoning put forward by drsnell about fatigue (and repeated tacitly or overtly by many others: that assume the FCP team to have and exploit better team stamina and depth).  Here there is a substantial difference in the other direction and it seemed to have no bearing on the result.

My secondary point, that may have caused some of the confusion, is that I simply reject your bland declaration that all dissent from your views is baseless and any counter-examples provided are the basis of selection bias (to paraphrase).  However good you are at this game, it's unnecessary to enter a debate with that position.  You may expect a reaction to it.

Posted by rogelio on 8/8/2012 6:28:00 PM (view original):
It seems to me that SIU at Drury game is a fine example of the issue.  Notwithstanding billyg's assertion that "all is well", here is a press team on the road running normal tempo against a zone team at home running normal tempo.  Both start the game at (-2) and both teams carry 11 scholarship athletes and a redshirt.  The team average defense ratings are equal and SIU enjoys a 2 point ATH advantage and a 1 point SPD advantage.

The initial difference?  You guessed it.  Taking out the redshirt on each team, Drury has an 80.1 average team stamina and plays zone, while  SIU boasts a 74.5 team average and plays press.   According to drsnell's math, that gives the zone team 881.1 stamina points to the pressing team's 819.5.   You might, therefore, guess that the pressing team playing (-4) during the second half and, to the sims credit showing some signs of fatigue in the pbp, would foul more than a 3-2 zone still playing at (-2).  Again, nope.   Omitting the end of game period (where Drury, losing, is bound to foul more), from the start of the 2nd half to the 4:55 mark Drury commits 8 fouls to SIU's 7.  

IMHO, billyg probably had the better game plan (and it could have been even better by simply playing slowdown), but it is baffling that fatigue appeared to play no part whatsoever in this game.  So SIU got a 10 turnover advantage without any concomitant cost in the form of fatigue leading to more fouls.  

Obviously...nothing to see here.

cherry picking stats from 1 game, where the team who should have lost, lost? yes, nothing to see here is right.

no need to apologize to me rogelio, thats why I spoke on the game. I just think it's unfortunate that people have a desire to make others feel foolish about what they post in the forums when it really isn't warranted. I would like to believe that the coaches who come here are just thirsty for knowledge and are working collectively to either prove or dispel different theories. It's ok to disagree, but is it necessary to be a dick in the process? 

and billyg, why should I have lost this game? I would just like to hear your reasoning. 

You know what would be an interesting study, which nobody (especially myself) is going to take the time to do manually?

1. Take the top 25 or so, D2 and D3 (I don't believe this discussion applies *at all* to D1, but sure, get that info if you like)
2. Get the margin of victory/defeat in each game, and compare it to the spread for that game to generate a +/- value - favored by 2, win by 3 = +1.
3. Compile the +/- value for each defensive set

That will give you a very rough, but probably very informative, look at how the defenses stack up.  Do FCP and M2M teams both end up with the same ballpark number?  Nothing to see here, move along.  Is there a substantial difference?  Something to see here, have a seat.

Anybody here got the time and programming chops?  If yatzr can scrape all that info for his recruiting tool, you can get this stuff.  You can put this discussion to bed...

Posted by llamanunts on 8/9/2012 10:23:00 AM (view original):
You know what would be an interesting study, which nobody (especially myself) is going to take the time to do manually?

1. Take the top 25 or so, D2 and D3 (I don't believe this discussion applies *at all* to D1, but sure, get that info if you like)
2. Get the margin of victory/defeat in each game, and compare it to the spread for that game to generate a +/- value - favored by 2, win by 3 = +1.
3. Compile the +/- value for each defensive set

That will give you a very rough, but probably very informative, look at how the defenses stack up.  Do FCP and M2M teams both end up with the same ballpark number?  Nothing to see here, move along.  Is there a substantial difference?  Something to see here, have a seat.

Anybody here got the time and programming chops?  If yatzr can scrape all that info for his recruiting tool, you can get this stuff.  You can put this discussion to bed...

My programming WE would be about a 5, and my assistant coach has already sent out an email saying it's max'd out.  You could get the data, but it'd be a humungous pain in the *** to write.