I always operated under the assumption that minus defense draws more fouls because you are more packed in the paint, but this assumption has no basis whatsoever. 

This may have changed because it is old info, but again, the original developer of the game (TK) explained that a minus defense will tend to commit more fouls than a plus defense simply because you have more bodies in a smaller area.  A plus defense is supposed to have the defenders spread out more, thus less chance of someone reaching in, I guess.  This may be counterintuitive to real life, but this is supposedly how the logic in the engine is programmed to work.  Now Seble may have adjusted some things when he re-did the engine last time, but it seems to me to be the same as it has always been.

Posted by rednation58 on 4/19/2012 2:13:00 PM (view original):
It is tougher to get to the rim which is why more fouls occur in a - setting. And if someone is playing a - defense, depending on their skill set, they are most certainly getting closer the basket. Playing off makes it easier to get closer to the rim if it were not so then 3 pt shooting percentage wouldn't be so great against - defenses.

People arguing that + defenses draw more fouls are not realizing that a + position pulls bodies from the paint. Everyone is defending the perimeter. You presuppose that a player will be fouled because he is beaten playing up and you presuppose a big will even be there in the paint to acquire the foul from a penetrating player. More difficult does not mean impossible. A team that has no other option but go inside because of lack of per will still go inside regardless of a -5 setting. They have no other ability at their disposal to capitalize on the - setting and they can and will draw more fouls if the personnel has the ATH SPD combo to draw them.

Keep in mind, this response only applies to real life.  I understand now that the game apparently doesn't operate this way.

Honestly, I don't think the first paragraph makes much sense.  Essentially what you're saying is that a (-) defense allows more drives, causes more fouls, AND allows a higher 3-pt %. 

The tradeoff should be that a (-) makes it more difficult to not only score inside, but also get inside, and a (+) defense is more effective in stopping perimeter shooting. 

What I am hearing is that there is no reason to play a (-) defense against guard-heavy teams, even if those guards never take 3s.  That's not only counterintuitive, I think it lacks any semblance of common sense.  In real life, if I'm playing team of slashers who can't shoot, I'm packing the hell out of the lane and making it impossible for them to get inside and score going to the basket.  I don't even really understand how that can be debated.

It would seem that a plus defense would result in less fouls per possession, but that it would even it out because the other team would get more offensive rebounds and thus more possessions. 

Posted by isack24 on 4/19/2012 2:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednation58 on 4/19/2012 2:13:00 PM (view original):
It is tougher to get to the rim which is why more fouls occur in a - setting. And if someone is playing a - defense, depending on their skill set, they are most certainly getting closer the basket. Playing off makes it easier to get closer to the rim if it were not so then 3 pt shooting percentage wouldn't be so great against - defenses.

People arguing that + defenses draw more fouls are not realizing that a + position pulls bodies from the paint. Everyone is defending the perimeter. You presuppose that a player will be fouled because he is beaten playing up and you presuppose a big will even be there in the paint to acquire the foul from a penetrating player. More difficult does not mean impossible. A team that has no other option but go inside because of lack of per will still go inside regardless of a -5 setting. They have no other ability at their disposal to capitalize on the - setting and they can and will draw more fouls if the personnel has the ATH SPD combo to draw them.

Keep in mind, this response only applies to real life.  I understand now that the game apparently doesn't operate this way.

Honestly, I don't think the first paragraph makes much sense.  Essentially what you're saying is that a (-) defense allows more drives, causes more fouls, AND allows a higher 3-pt %. 

The tradeoff should be that a (-) makes it more difficult to not only score inside, but also get inside, and a (+) defense is more effective in stopping perimeter shooting. 

What I am hearing is that there is no reason to play a (-) defense against guard-heavy teams, even if those guards never take 3s.  That's not only counterintuitive, I think it lacks any semblance of common sense.  In real life, if I'm playing team of slashers who can't shoot, I'm packing the hell out of the lane and making it impossible for them to get inside and score going to the basket.  I don't even really understand how that can be debated.

My initial response was in regards to the game so I will keep this in mind.

The first paragraph makes perfect sense. Every LP score is not a drive to the basket. Essentially by backing off of me you are giving me space to get closer to the rim. This is more than obvious. I don't have to drive to the rim necessarily, I can also back you down if I have true LP ability. - defense causes more fouls for the simple fact that you are putting more bodies in an area which already, as you agreed, has the highest percentage of fouls committed. And we know why there's a higher 3 pt percentage so I won't get into that.

This is exactly the tradeoff but the initial debate was what setting would cause more fouls right?

As far as this guard-heavy team business... this is a detail you have introduced to the debate. I can't be quoted as saying anything of the sort so this is your rationale not what you are hearing from me. In real life if you are playing 2 slashers who can't shoot... chances are they are quicker and faster than anyone on your team, if you have to resort to packing the paint. There are 5 players on the court who most certainly have differing skill sets which keep defenses honest otherwise you'd just be playing a bad team. Derrick Rose still got in the paint before he developed his 3 pt shot last offseason, the same with Kyle Lowry, Russell Westbrook, Rajon Rondo, Tyreke Evans, even Chris Paul to a degree as far as shooting goes. There are plenty of guards in the NBA that either can't shoot or just developed the ability and were still able to perform night in night out against sagging D. Nothing is impossible. But we can just agree to disagree with this one.

OK, let's make this simple. 

What's the best way to stop a slasher from getting into the lane?

Depends on the players man. If you honestly believe that packing the paint is a sure fire way to stop a Russell Westbrook type player from getting in the paint and also not draw any fouls in the process then that's you. Like I said we can agree to disagree on this one. It's not very complicated as its stated already.

Either way you could trap the guard at half court or you could try to pack the paint. No one way is better it depends on the players.

Posted by therewas47 on 4/19/2012 3:13:00 PM (view original):
It would seem that a plus defense would result in less fouls per possession, but that it would even it out because the other team would get more offensive rebounds and thus more possessions. 

This could absolutely be a factor.  I just did a very superficial survey of a few hundred box scores and determined that there is a relatively linear relationship between +/- settings and unintentional fouls that seems to apply to all defenses but that the difference between a +5 and a -5 is about 1.25 FPG in zone, a little under 2 FPG in man, and right around 2 in the press.  Regardless of how you get there that's not a big enough difference (particularly given that I virtually never play a +/- 4 or 5, maybe once a season at most) to make it a significant factor in the decision-making process for me.  It's so far below the variance in fouls given that it almost wipes out in the noise and doesn't seem like a major player in my gameplanning.

Posted by rednation58 on 4/19/2012 4:26:00 PM (view original):
Depends on the players man. If you honestly believe that packing the paint is a sure fire way to stop a Russell Westbrook type player from getting in the paint and also not draw any fouls in the process then that's you. Like I said we can agree to disagree on this one. It's not very complicated as its stated already.

I'm not much of an "agree to disagree" kind of guy.

It doesn't depend on the player.

Do you think it's easier to stop Russell Westbrook from getting in the lane if you are on his hip, or playing four feet off?

The more space a defender has, the more time he has to react to a drive.  It doesn't guarantee that you can stop someone.  For example, I could play 15 feet off Derrick Rose and still not get to a spot in time to stop him from getting to the basket, but it gives me a better chance than if I was a foot away.

So for all these guys you keep citing as reasons I'm wrong, you're not really analyzing it properly.  Do they still get in the lane?  Of course.  Would they get in the lane easier if people played up on them all the time?  I think the answer is clearly "yes."

To further clarify for anyone who thinks that this is a relevant number of fouls, consider this:

Given that it's a fairly linear scale, the expectation for fouls committed switching from, say, a 0 to a -3 defense is a little over half a foul.  Figure the changes from defensive positioning are probably shooting fouls, so that half a foul is going to be a little over one FT.  Assume an averageish free throw shooter and that gives maybe .8 points.
The expectation value for offensive rebounds allowed switching from a 0 to a -3 should be comfortably south of -1.  Given that a decent offensive team scores somewhere between .9 and 1+ points per possession even a modest estimation of offense and incredibly conservative estimate on the rebounding benefit of playing -3 as compared to 0 yields a .9 point benefit, making the more - defense a net benefit in terms of secondary effects of positioning.  Of course, the change is very small and swamped by even minor changes in overall shooting efficiency numbers.  However, if I'm ever right on the line between two positioning values I always go with the more - value.

Posted by isack24 on 4/19/2012 4:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednation58 on 4/19/2012 4:26:00 PM (view original):
Depends on the players man. If you honestly believe that packing the paint is a sure fire way to stop a Russell Westbrook type player from getting in the paint and also not draw any fouls in the process then that's you. Like I said we can agree to disagree on this one. It's not very complicated as its stated already.

I'm not much of an "agree to disagree" kind of guy.

It doesn't depend on the player.

Do you think it's easier to stop Russell Westbrook from getting in the lane if you are on his hip, or playing four feet off?

The more space a defender has, the more time he has to react to a drive.  It doesn't guarantee that you can stop someone.  For example, I could play 15 feet off Derrick Rose and still not get to a spot in time to stop him from getting to the basket, but it gives me a better chance than if I was a foot away.

So for all these guys you keep citing as reasons I'm wrong, you're not really analyzing it properly.  Do they still get in the lane?  Of course.  Would they get in the lane easier if people played up on them all the time?  I think the answer is clearly "yes."

Well I'm sorry to hear that because you might have to be that guy today. 

I does depend on the player. It absolutely does. Rondo isn't the same slasher as D. Rose is... it also depends on the entire teams style of play as well. 

Assuming I was a player like Iman Shumpert I would probably be better off playing Westbrook tight since my skill set defensively labels me as the best on ball defender in the league right now so Hip for Shumpert. Again it depends on the player. 

If the defender is just reacting chances are he is already beaten, especially when up against a Russell Westbrook. Great defense is predicated on anticipation, quickness, athleticism, tenacity and intelligence. You are also only relegating this debate to guards. What happens when you are playing a dominant front court player? Are you giving him 15 ft too? 

I'm analyzing this perfectly clearly. I believe you are trying to oversimplify the debate to prove a point and unless basketball is a one on one game I don't think you are correct. There are many more guys I can site too. Dwayne Wade is arguably the greatest LP guard in the history of the game. Do you honestly believe just playing off him is going to stop him? I think the answer is clearly "NO". The point of this whole debate was to try and establish what defensive setting would draw more fouls. I can go back through all my postings and not once can you quote me as saying that playing up on a player wouldn't allow them into the lane easier than playing off of them. Never said it. What I said was that playing so far in the paint on a player who scores in the post or paint will accrue more fouls for said player. That's it period.  

There are some players who can get where they want to go on the floor and there's nothing you can do about it. 

Feel free to stop, I just probably won't.

It doesn't matter if Shumpert is a great on-ball defender.  He would have an easier time stopping a drive if he played off than on.  Just because he's better playing up than some others are playing off doesn't mean that he's not better anticipating when he has extra time to anticipate.

And yes, I'm talking about guards because that's really what this whole thing is about.  I don't think anyone ever sags on a big unless they turn.  If someone gets the ball in the post, you have to put a body on them.  It's why I think +/- is stupid and the engine should allow specific players to play +/-.

" Do you honestly believe just playing off him is going to stop him? I think the answer is clearly "NO". "
"There are some players who can get where they want to go on the floor and there's nothing you can do about it."

These two comments show me that you're not analyzing it properly.  Your argument essentially comes down to "there's no way to stop certain people (Wade, Rose, etc.), so playing off doesn't help."  Of course it helps.  No, you can't stop some people, but that's not where this argument should be focused.

" What I said was that playing so far in the paint on a player who scores in the post or paint will accrue more fouls for said player. That's it period. "

Why is the defender playing "so far in the paint"?  I have been, as you have noted, talking about perimeter defense.  If you play back a few steps, which is all (-) defense is (not playing everyone in the paint), it should make it more difficult to penetrate the lane.  If players are having a difficult time penetrating the lane, then they won't be drawing all of these fouls in the lane that you keep talking about.  Obviously it won't stop them every time, but the less a player goes by a defender, the less likely he is to get fouled in the lane.

Your'e right that anticipation and quickness are the key to limit driving and fouling.  If you give anyone in the universe more time to anticipate (by playing off an extra step or two), it will make anticipating easier. 

Why don't you guys just pull out some numbers to settle this. Create a file with # of fouls, # of possessions, and opponents' settings (+/-)? 

Posted by tianyi7886 on 4/19/2012 6:26:00 PM (view original):
Why don't you guys just pull out some numbers to settle this. Create a file with # of fouls, # of possessions, and opponents' settings (+/-)? 

This turned into a "real-life" debate. 

I acknowledged a few pages ago (not that anyone would ever want to read this crap) that the engine probably doesn't work this way, and based on what others have said (-) defenses probably incur more fouls.