I agree with the percentages being too high and zone sucks.

shooting percentages are fine

we have -2 setting, rl coaches don't

Posted by pinkeye on 1/20/2011 5:26:00 PM (view original):
shooting percentages are fine

we have -2 setting, rl coaches don't

For years in HD, if a team played a 3-2 zone, especially at a plus setting, it would do two things:

1) Usually be fairly effective at keeping your opponent's three point shooting percentage low
2) Almost always force the team to shoot a reduced number of threes compared to the team's average

Now, when I play a 3-2 at plus 3, my opponent might still take 25 or 30 threes, and then hit an unrealistic number of them.

But I guess if pinkeye thinks that seems to be a realistic outcome, I will shut up.

get mad if you want, my 3-2 zone accomplishes those things just fine playing -1

Posted by mniven on 1/20/2011 5:04:00 PM (view original):

I haven't frequented the forums for months, so forgive me if this has already been debated, but what is up with the ridiculously high three point shooting percentages lately.

I tend to favor a zone defense (probably why my teams suck now, but that's another matter) and even when I play 3-2 zones using a +3 or +4 defense I'm getting lit up from downtown. That doesn't seem right.

And looking at the team states, it seems that just about every team is shooting 40% or better from three, which is absurd.

Is this a new issue, or am I just noticing this late as usual?

Its been an issue since day one with this engine. (several forum threads on it).   Seble is "looking into it". 

Mniven I actually don't see what you're talking about. Looking at the overall 3pt% D of your teams none of your 6 teams gives up more than 36% from 3 and your Wesleyan team only gives up about 31%, despite playing zone.

I play zone on a couple of my teams and in general have very good success keeping 3pt shooting in check. By a matter of fact a few seasons back when I was at Bryant in Phelan I was top 3 in all of D2 in both FG% and 3pt% against playing zone.

I tend to think that there is a problem with the 3 point percentage as well.  My team this year had outstanding defense and i still felt the need to play +1 or +2 trying to prevent 3's. Even after playing + defense I still gave up quite a few 3's and ended up getting killed with interior  "tip ins."   I feel like in general more teams are pumping up 15 to 20 3's a game.  I could be wrong but it seems like the perimeter shooting is a little out of whack.    Just my 2 cents.  

I've played 3-2 (usually with a press hybrid) for eight seasons. In seven at D3, it was very successful in holding down the percentage and number of opponents' 3-pt. attempts. This year, with a very under-athletic, overly-slow D2 team that I just picked up, its still worked through the first 15 games at holding opponents to 33 percent or so (I'm getting shelled inside, but I think that would happen regardless with this bunch, so you choose where you take your lumps...)

Overall, I agree the three point percentages are jacked up a tad over NCAA averages, but that's based on general feeling more than research and fact. If anyone's tracking that sort of thing, I'd love for them to chime in. 

Posted by mniven on 1/20/2011 5:04:00 PM (view original):

I haven't frequented the forums for months, so forgive me if this has already been debated, but what is up with the ridiculously high three point shooting percentages lately.

I tend to favor a zone defense (probably why my teams suck now, but that's another matter) and even when I play 3-2 zones using a +3 or +4 defense I'm getting lit up from downtown. That doesn't seem right.

And looking at the team states, it seems that just about every team is shooting 40% or better from three, which is absurd.

Is this a new issue, or am I just noticing this late as usual?

mniven, it's been an issue since the new engine was rolled out. If it makes you feel better, 2pt percentages and ft percentages are too high, too.

Posted by kmasonbx1 on 1/20/2011 7:35:00 PM (view original):
Mniven I actually don't see what you're talking about. Looking at the overall 3pt% D of your teams none of your 6 teams gives up more than 36% from 3 and your Wesleyan team only gives up about 31%, despite playing zone.

I play zone on a couple of my teams and in general have very good success keeping 3pt shooting in check. By a matter of fact a few seasons back when I was at Bryant in Phelan I was top 3 in all of D2 in both FG% and 3pt% against playing zone.

kmason,

Wesleyan isn't a great example, as I just got there, there was no tough non-conf schedule set up and the team has played almost all SIMs.

The places where it has stuck out lately is when I deliberately game plan (not that common for me anymore) to stop a three-point shooting with a stretched 3-2 zone. These two games below come to mind, but it has happened pretty regularly:

http://whatifsports.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=6568584

http://whatifsports.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=6589282

Using a + m2m or 3-2 zone used to be effective in defending the three, but it's lost some effectiveness in the new engine. Going 13-27 against you with a 3-2 zone at +3 is silly. They basically shot as well from 3p as they did from 2p.

It's an area of the new engine that's not as good as the old engine -- there's not as much differentiation between how the different defenses play (particularly I'm talking about m2m vs. zone) and the relative strengths and weaknesses have been tone done. It's a real hit to game-planning strategy. (I used to practice both m2m and zone w. my teams and play both, but I stopped because I realized there wasn't enough difference any more to warrant it. Pretty crappy.) I brought this up to seble immediately (first season of the new engine) and got a dismissive response.

Posted by pinkeye on 1/20/2011 5:48:00 PM (view original):
get mad if you want, my 3-2 zone accomplishes those things just fine playing -1

I think this is the problem mniven is talking about.  Your 3-2 at -1 should not be more effective against a perimeter oriented offense than a 3-2 at +3.

I've had the same problem when facing a team that shoots a lot of threes.  The defense that logically should be the most effective at slowing a perimeter team doesn't seem to do that.  I have no concrete evidence just a feeling of reading boxscores and PBP.  Of course, something to consider is the level of your opponent.  Good teams will likely shoot better than that sim schedule you mentioned mniven.

Mniven, your 1st example in your last post is against my Conference nemisis, ChewChad over at Glenville St. Luckily I play him only once in Conference play, but I seem to get him every year in the Conference Tourny, which was the case this past season. I played that team in your example twice. The first time I played him I got pasted playing a M2M at +3 (he went 9-20 for treys) and I lost by 21 points. The 2nd time we played was in the Conference Semis and I pulled out the win, 66-64, playing a M2M at +4 (he went 10-29 for treys). I don't know about your other examples or experiences, but in my 2 games against Glenville St, he has 2 SG's (one at SF) who have a Perimeter rating of 95 for his starting SG and 87 for his SG at starting SF. I would look at your other examples and check the Perimeter ratings of the other teams/players in question.

there ABSOLUTELY is a skew towards higher 3FG% (and all FG% really) in the new engine.  40% from downtown is the new 30%...just way too easy for $hitty teams and players to light it up from long range even against +3/+4 Man defenses. 

Sure wish seble would come out from hiding and address some issues with the game.