Posted by dahsdebater on 4/19/2012 4:31:00 PM (view original):

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.

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.

Thanks for the info-- I don't care about the real-life argument because the bottom line is, it has everything to do with the player.  His speed and ball handling ability will determine how close I will be to stop him from penetrating and the faster the guy is, (unless he is a terrible ball-handler) the more space I give him.  That really is just common sense.  However, the engine and real life don't mimc each other at all so what I was asking is how the engine reacts.  Would one of you veterans be willing to ask CS their take on that nowadays, as I find information but it seems like it is outdated.  I don't have enough games to run data that would be significant yet, but I can tell you if I run +3, +4, or +5, both of my starting guards are going to get in foul trouble very quickly.  I don't care too much about the extra ft's-- I am more concerned with keeping my guys on the floor.  My guess is that the fouls are related heavily to speed differentials so whereas you guys have good speed, you can run the high + without noticing much of an effect but that multiplier effect makes my slower guys get into foul trouble very quickly.  That would make logical basketball sense but...
   
   Still, it would be nice to have a somewhat definite answer from the people we are all paying and they won't respond to my requests so hoping one of you well-respected guys can just ask and then post the response.  Much appreciated.

Posted by isack24 on 4/19/2012 6:19:00 PM (view original):
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.