Posted by bad_luck on 12/29/2017 11:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/29/2017 11:19:00 AM (view original):
First, I'm not sure why you'd care to change my opinion.

Second, it's simple enough to track if you desired to do it. FG% against you, average FG% for opponent, IQ at time of game. Run out a bunch of D+ guys for a few seasons. Then run out a bunch of B or better for a few seasons. Certainly wouldn't be perfect as no team is the same from season to season but you could find a trend.

Well, it really wouldn’t be easy to track. One, because the actual player skills will greatly impact the results and two, because you can’t just flip a switch and go from D+ to B or better.

Someone needs a lesson on how to run an experiment.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/29/2017 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/29/2017 11:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/29/2017 11:19:00 AM (view original):
First, I'm not sure why you'd care to change my opinion.

Second, it's simple enough to track if you desired to do it. FG% against you, average FG% for opponent, IQ at time of game. Run out a bunch of D+ guys for a few seasons. Then run out a bunch of B or better for a few seasons. Certainly wouldn't be perfect as no team is the same from season to season but you could find a trend.

Well, it really wouldn’t be easy to track. One, because the actual player skills will greatly impact the results and two, because you can’t just flip a switch and go from D+ to B or better.

Sigh. If you have hundreds upon hundreds of seasons, it can be tracked. No one is flipping switches.

You’d have to run a regression and even that will only sorta work if you captured a ****-ton of data. Because IQs and ratings change constantly, you need to match each game with current ratings at that time. Insane. There’s no way anyone could do that.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 12/29/2017 12:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/29/2017 11:19:00 AM (view original):
First, I'm not sure why you'd care to change my opinion.

Second, it's simple enough to track if you desired to do it. FG% against you, average FG% for opponent, IQ at time of game. Run out a bunch of D+ guys for a few seasons. Then run out a bunch of B or better for a few seasons. Certainly wouldn't be perfect as no team is the same from season to season but you could find a trend.

I am not trying to change your opinion. What I meant to imply (and my bad for not being clear enough) is it doesn't really add much to the discussion when your evidence to support a claim that goes against the generally accepted theory is "someone smarter than you told me so".

I am also interested in what bad advise you got about the zone that your benefactor told you to ignore. I am being serious, I am always interested in peoples opinions on how the game works.

Goes back to my first team.
1. The basics of 2-3 vs 3-2. Seems half of WifS didn't know the C stands alone in the 2-3.

2. These two guys should never see the floor alone let alone together. https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/Ratings.aspx?&pid=3499606, https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/Ratings.aspx?&pid=3499337 because they were too slow/unathletic. Snyder ended up 4th in points(6th now as I've had two guys pass him), 4th in REB and 2nd in blocks. Seems REB/BLK are pretty important in big men in zone.

3. I forget which turd was touted as "the only player worth having" in the forums but the advice I received was to use him as a scorer off the bench because he sucked balls in a 3-2.

Anyway, with his advice, I recruited better for zone, ATH/SPD/DEF isn't the only way to success, and had a pretty solid run until I dicked up recruiting a PG in two straight seasons.

At this point, I haven't found a flaw in his zone advice.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/29/2017 12:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/29/2017 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/29/2017 11:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/29/2017 11:19:00 AM (view original):
First, I'm not sure why you'd care to change my opinion.

Second, it's simple enough to track if you desired to do it. FG% against you, average FG% for opponent, IQ at time of game. Run out a bunch of D+ guys for a few seasons. Then run out a bunch of B or better for a few seasons. Certainly wouldn't be perfect as no team is the same from season to season but you could find a trend.

Well, it really wouldn’t be easy to track. One, because the actual player skills will greatly impact the results and two, because you can’t just flip a switch and go from D+ to B or better.

Sigh. If you have hundreds upon hundreds of seasons, it can be tracked. No one is flipping switches.

You’d have to run a regression and even that will only sorta work if you captured a ****-ton of data. Because IQs and ratings change constantly, you need to match each game with current ratings at that time. Insane. There’s no way anyone could do that.

Sure they could. Are you saying the data isn't available? It is.

I wouldn't do it. I'm tracking practice minutes/IQ improvement and that's more work than I really want to do for a sim game.

FWIW, I tracked 20ish seasons of CERA in HBD to get a good guess on the value of pitch calling. It took awhile but I figured it. It's a project and, if it interests you, it can be done.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/29/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/29/2017 12:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/29/2017 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/29/2017 11:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/29/2017 11:19:00 AM (view original):
First, I'm not sure why you'd care to change my opinion.

Second, it's simple enough to track if you desired to do it. FG% against you, average FG% for opponent, IQ at time of game. Run out a bunch of D+ guys for a few seasons. Then run out a bunch of B or better for a few seasons. Certainly wouldn't be perfect as no team is the same from season to season but you could find a trend.

Well, it really wouldn’t be easy to track. One, because the actual player skills will greatly impact the results and two, because you can’t just flip a switch and go from D+ to B or better.

Sigh. If you have hundreds upon hundreds of seasons, it can be tracked. No one is flipping switches.

You’d have to run a regression and even that will only sorta work if you captured a ****-ton of data. Because IQs and ratings change constantly, you need to match each game with current ratings at that time. Insane. There’s no way anyone could do that.

Sure they could. Are you saying the data isn't available? It is.

I wouldn't do it. I'm tracking practice minutes/IQ improvement and that's more work than I really want to do for a sim game.

FWIW, I tracked 20ish seasons of CERA in HBD to get a good guess on the value of pitch calling. It took awhile but I figured it. It's a project and, if it interests you, it can be done.

It’s physically possible. But you’d have to capture all the data, every game, and keep it organized for “hundreds upon hundreds” of seasons and then run a regression. It’s not practical. Definitely not “simple” or easy.

And, even then, I’d guess that you wouldn’t see a huge trend, since most players would usually be in the middle (C/C+/B) and relatively few data points would exist at the extremes.

If you say so. Not interested in arguing this any further. Have a great day!

“Seems half of WifS didn't know the C stands alone in the 2-3.”

This statement could be a little misleading. In zone, the entire defense plays as a unit. Nobody is playing man. It’s true that the Center has his own formula determining his contribution to defensive effectiveness, and is not paired or grouped with anyone in a 2-3. It’s not true - or at least has never, to my knowledge, been explicitly disclosed - that the C is playing man or some version of one-on-one at his position. I don’t know if that’s what you’re getting at here or not. It may not make a whole lot of functional difference, either way, but it’s worth clarifying for people following along.

No, it's not what I'm getting at. He is not averaged in with another player. IOW, PG/SG, SF/PF, C not PG/SG, SF/PF/C.

Right, I think just the wording “stands alone” has given people the wrong idea in the past. The Center isn’t guarding the opposing C alone, as if he was playing man. He’s defending his zone using his own effectiveness formula.

The complex thing about the 2-3, is that the 3SF/4PF work together in the middle part of the 2-2-1, when they are supposed to be on opposite sides of the center. Do they defend against mid range jumpers? How does it impact rebounding compared to a normal 2-3?

Goes back to my first team.
1. The basics of 2-3 vs 3-2. Seems half of WifS didn't know the C stands alone in the 2-3.

This actually wasn't known at all until about 2-3 years ago. If you didn't read the zone thread BillyG contributed in a few years ago, you wouldn't have known it. Real discussion about how the 2-3 works is really only about a year, year and a half ago. I would say it certainly wasn't common knowledge until about a year ago.

2. These two guys should never see the floor alone let alone together. https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/Ratings.aspx?&pid=3499606, https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/Ratings.aspx?&pid=3499337 because they were too slow/unathletic. Snyder ended up 4th in points(6th now as I've had two guys pass him), 4th in REB and 2nd in blocks. Seems REB/BLK are pretty important in big men in zone.

Well, Rebound is important in all defenses. It may be weighed a little more in zone or you may just need more because zone teams tend to have less ATH.

BLOCK is definitely important in zone. Personally, I think it is more important than ATH in the defensive metric and only a little less important than DEF. It's not that important in MAN or PRESS. I am not sure if this is accepted "forum fact" or not but its the basis for my zone teams.

3. I forget which turd was touted as "the only player worth having" in the forums but the advice I received was to use him as a scorer off the bench because he sucked balls in a 3-2.

I don't know who (coach or player) you are talking about but those two guys above are marginal zone players. The scorer guy is, IMO, a really good bench scorer. His defense is average. His stats are inflated because you played a weak schedule (SOS 84) and getting a lot of blocks is meaningless.


Anyway, with his advice, I recruited better for zone, ATH/SPD/DEF isn't the only way to success, and had a pretty solid run until I dicked up recruiting a PG in two straight seasons.

There are lots of ways to win. ATH/SPD/DEF are the most common ways

At this point, I haven't found a flaw in his zone advice.

Posted by thewizard17 on 12/29/2017 1:18:00 PM (view original):
The complex thing about the 2-3, is that the 3SF/4PF work together in the middle part of the 2-2-1, when they are supposed to be on opposite sides of the center. Do they defend against mid range jumpers? How does it impact rebounding compared to a normal 2-3?

The 3/4 in 2-3 are averaged. I suspect it's because the game doesn't decide if you are in the right corner or left corner so it just averages the two.

One way to shred the 2-3 is to play a high speed/high perimeter player at the 3 and have him shoot over it. I used to shred colonels (who ran good 2-3 teams) doing this.

The 2-3 definitely, IMO, helps in rebounding. The 3-2 certainly has a penalty.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/29/2017 12:56:00 PM (view original):
“Seems half of WifS didn't know the C stands alone in the 2-3.”

This statement could be a little misleading. In zone, the entire defense plays as a unit. Nobody is playing man. It’s true that the Center has his own formula determining his contribution to defensive effectiveness, and is not paired or grouped with anyone in a 2-3. It’s not true - or at least has never, to my knowledge, been explicitly disclosed - that the C is playing man or some version of one-on-one at his position. I don’t know if that’s what you’re getting at here or not. It may not make a whole lot of functional difference, either way, but it’s worth clarifying for people following along.

Yeah, I don't have any idea who covers the opponents 5 in a 2-3. I don't play a lot of it but I don't think I have ever had the other team's center blow up on me.

I think that the center in the 2-3 is used as "help" on opposing other teams ATH/LP scorers. That is why the 2-3 is so successful in stopping the FT based ATH/DEF teams. Normally those team's guards feast on low block guards in other defenses but with the 2-3 those guards get some sort of bonus. I firmly believe that the ATH/DEF scoring equation that is opposed by a defensive metric that includes BLK. I don't think the SPD/PER equation is opposed by the block rating.

Sorry to interrupt the ******* match, but I have a question about changing O/D.

I'm currently changing my defense in Rupp, from M2M to FCP. All my defense practice minutes are going to FCP. I was expecting to see some regression in my players M2M defense, and maybe there is some, but if there is it's not much and it's not very apparent. Seeing that this is the first time I've switched, I was expecting to see regression in the old somewhat equal to progression in the new, especially if I'm no longer spending any practice minutes on the old.

Am I imagining this, or is this typical?

IQ doesn't go down.