OK, so what is the general consensus on the best way to stop a high ath/lp team with no per that takes no 3s and racks up huge FT numbers?

I don't want to rehash the stupidity of a (-5) defense somehow creating more fouls than a (0) defense in this situation, but that apparently seems to be the way the engine works.  Obviously a + defense seems stupid as it doesn't make sense to play up on guys who you know aren't shooting jumpers, so do I just play 0 or -1 and hope he doesn't draw too many fouls?

Thanks.

When I'm up against a team that gets, say, 5% of its points from 3-point range and 75% of its points from guards, I go ahead and play a +1 or a +2.  If he's taking a lot of pull-up ten-footers than that's still fine - if he's Rose/Westbrooking, maybe you'll get your big men out a bit to cut off the driving lanes.

This is where I've always been confused.  I think you're right, that +1 works better than -1, but it seems to me I would prefer my bigs closer to the basket to alter/block shots.  But again, your experience is the one I've had recently (i.e. +1 works better), but that's why I'm asking.  It's the one offense in the game that I don't know how to limit.

So if +1 works better in this situation, when is a (-) situation ever beneficial? Does it work in reverse, e.g. if they shoot a lot of 3's do you go (-)? Do you only go (-) if you absolutely have to, like if they have a huge REB advantage?

My personal opinion is that playing a + defense in this scenario would be a big mistake.  To each their own though.

Posted by bdpoor on 7/20/2012 12:03:00 PM (view original):
So if +1 works better in this situation, when is a (-) situation ever beneficial? Does it work in reverse, e.g. if they shoot a lot of 3's do you go (-)? Do you only go (-) if you absolutely have to, like if they have a huge REB advantage?

That's the huge disagreement I got in with like five people on another thread.  Everyone seemed in agreement that - defenses cause more fouls.  Well I don't want to cause more fouls against a team that already draws twice as many as their opponents, so how do you play a team like that?

What was even more annoying was that people not only seemed to think that's how the engine worked, but that's how the engine should work.

That led to this thread, in which I am now wondering how to defend against this type of team, as - defenses would be the obvious answer, but I have no interest in watching the other team shoot 50 FTs, even if the FG% goes down by 5%.

Billyg said in his interview that he generally plays a -2 or so.

Good enough for me!

Posted by isack24 on 7/20/2012 12:40:00 PM (view original):
Good enough for me!

Me too.

If a team rarely shoot 3's, I use -2 also. I don't worry too much about fouling

Posted by alblack56 on 7/20/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):
If a team rarely shoot 3's, I use -2 also. I don't worry too much about fouling

Nice. Make it your own.

Just kidding. ;) I would agree with this and CBG's sentiments.

Posted by alblack56 on 7/20/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):
If a team rarely shoot 3's, I use -2 also. I don't worry too much about fouling

Yeah, I mean that's easy to say in the abstract, until you play -3 against a team that shot 6 3s all season and give up 54 FTs and lose by 6 despite having comparable ath and elite def.

To the bigger picture, I feel like that's a gimmicky offense that would be easy to stop in real life, but because of the poor HD logic that packing the lane against slashers = more fouls, there really isn't a good way to defend those offenses.

You would only give up 54 fts if you are way behind in ath/spd and team have bad defense, in which case, you would give up 50 fts even when you play +5. 

You can't stop it... you can only hope to contain it.

It started as a low murmur.... deep in the bowels of D3.

It now has spread across  D2.... and if it makes it's way into a cellar-dwelling Big-6 school... it might be devastating.

Imagine.... Rutgers.... winning a title while shooting 1200 ft's.... t h e  h o r r o r... t  h  e   h  o  r  r  o  r