Two Number 1 seeds lost last night in Phelan DI. Same thing happened to me 6 mos ago in Naismith. Definitely not fun.

Here is the St. Johns v. Bucknell boxscore(I think):

http://www.wisjournal.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=6074159

Here is the Texas v. Denver boxscore:

http://www.wisjournal.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=6074143

Why not counting stamina, especially now and especially in an uptempo game?

 

Contreras vs west seems to be the place where he made up the most ground in points, and that is exactly where, in addition to Contreras being a capable player, he had a 28 point stamina advantage over his opposite.

well we're only 4 games into the Rupp season and with my 2 D-1 teams I've already lost as a 41 pt and 45 pt faves.  One at home by 1 to a really incredibly lousy SIM team, and the other on the road by 13 to a human-coached team.  WTF?

you're really reaching here, ars.  in stamina, his average was 80, mine was 78.  Contreras is a reasonable player, but he's massively inferior in spd/ath to West, and i believe that his stamina advantage there should have been undone by at least two factors: (1) he played 30 min to west's 21; and (2) there's not a huge dropoff from West to Oropeza, my backup SF, especially defensively, since Oropeza's also got a SPD/ATH advantage and is 100 in defense.

You can try to spin this all you want, but it is bad for the game when 1 seeds get upset by such obviously inferior opponents.

Not spinning a thing.  Just pointing out that, especially after the latest changes, just routinely ignoring Stamina as a category when comparing doesn't make sense.

stamina was essentially even between the teams.  that doesn't explain the result.

A: I wasn't, really, tryign to explain the result, that wasn't really the point. Again, the point is that many people seem to reflexively ignore stamina when comparing teams.  Seems to me that might be an error now because the importance of stamina has been increased.  .

and

B. . you can't just use team averages anyway - especially when both teams are playing man to man defense.  

Looks to me like Bucknell shot an unusually-high percentage of their attempts from beyond the arc. That's at least a contributing reason.

The thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is the ridiculousness of a 16-seed beating a 1-seed WHILE TWO STARTERS WERE ON THE BENCH, having fouled out. That's just crazy.

That game is a joke johnensing. Seble and CS can spit out the "upsets happen" crap as much as they want but the truth is except for improving the # of posessions in the game, this engine is not any better (and even worse in some instances) than the old one.

If I read one more boxscore where a PF with 8 PER drains 3-5 3 pters I think I'll puke over my keyboard.

I understand your frustration, johnsensing.  I'm dropping my three DI teams at the end of each world's season.  I feel as if I am wasting my money in DI as well.  Fortunately for me, I still find the lower divisions quite a bit of fun.

Posted by johnsensing on 8/20/2010 6:39:00 AM (view original):
javascript: OpenWindow("/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=6074159", "Boxscore", 750, 600);

Evidently 140 point-plus overall advantages (not counting WE/STAM/DUR) ain't what they used to be -- not a player on Bucknell would crack my 2-deep. What's even more ridiculous is that Bucknell ran uptempo. If any vets/newbies/interested parties have an explanation for either: 1) how this idiocy occurred; or 2) why I or anyone should continue to waste my money on such a blatantly flawed product, I would love to hear them. Seble, that goes for you too.

And yes, a ticket has been submitted -- I am breathlessly awaiting a response.

1) As you stated in #2, the game is flawed.  2) I don't know! 

I'd be interested to see the response from CS on this one.