i've played this game long enough to know that not all HD owners pack in the paint. a lot play + defenses as well.

i think the "telling" number is to see how much more aligned the Naismith (old engine) numbers are with RL vs. what we have seen in Smith and Tark (new engine) through a good portion of the season.

In IBA

#1 = UConn @ 53.1% 11 games in

#25 = N. Carolina St. @ 45.2% 11 games in

Quote: Originally posted by mullycj on 6/08/2010Zbrent - overall FG%s are also up accross the board which would probably go even higher if teams moved out to more + defenses.

And you also still have teams that are either a) running the FCP with 7, 8, 9 guys who are dead tired or b) recognizing they don't have the horses to run a FCP so still learning a new defense.

I'm not saying for certain that the new engine is working as intended, and I have no experience under the old engine to be able to make a fair comparison myself, but there just isn't enough data that can be isolated to draw the conclusion that things are broken.

That said, this is the same sort of thing that happens in HBD every engine update and, based on that, if people keep posting long and loud enough, I feel confident that WhatIf will make a change depressing 3-point % at about the same time changing teams learn the new defenses. Then we'll see a thread about no team hitting 35% of the threes and people will complain to have the pendulum swing the other way again.

Quote: Originally posted by zbrent716 on 6/08/2010

Quote: Originally posted by mullycj on 6/08/2010Zbrent - overall FG%s are also up accross the board which would probably go even higher if teams moved out to more + defenses.

And you also still have teams that are either a) running the FCP with 7, 8, 9 guys who are dead tired or b) recognizing they don't have the horses to run a FCP so still learning a new defense.

I'm not saying for certain that the new engine is working as intended, and I have no experience under the old engine to be able to make a fair comparison myself, but there just isn't enough data that can be isolated to draw the conclusion that things are broken.

That said, this is the same sort of thing that happens in HBD every engine update and, based on that, if people keep posting long and loud enough, I feel confident that WhatIf will make a change depressing 3-point % at about the same time changing teams learn the new defenses. Then we'll see a thread about no team hitting 35% of the threes and people will complain to have the pendulum swing the other way again.

zbrent - the Naismith numbers were very close to RL before. there was little to no need to change this aspect of the game.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

i mentioned this in another thread, but i don't believe it is just the press teams getting lit up. i run a zone/press combo with 2 teams in the new engine. i have one team with good stamina, one with not so great (so i run slow down).

the team with lots of upperclassmen and a good combination of DEF/IQ/SPD is allowing 7% worse on 3s thus far (including an increased number of attempts, which would in theory drop the % a bit). keep in mind that we return everyone, meaning we are faster, smarter, and quicker than the year before.

my other team in the new engine, which has overall ratings/IQ amongst PER players than last season in the old engine, is getting burned over 4% worse from beyond the arc.

these are substantial differences over the course of the season.

i will agree with you in that it's not completely fair to match to RL. you are right, we don't see 40 minutes of hell defenses in RL. there are LOTS of things we can't plan for in HD that you can in RL (like in game coaching changes). if we had these options, you would probably see very few coaches trying "40 minutes of hell" FCPs.

we are limited in scope with these aspects, among others. that being said, i don't think it's a bad thing to make have the statistics resemble RL. it is a good basis point for accuracy in terms of testing the SIM engine. if numbers are similar to RL, i think this is a good basis to get close to a realistic game. right now, teams are shooting at NBA Jam type levels, even when not facing a FCP.

Quote: Originally posted by haasdr on 6/08/2010i mentioned this in another thread, but i don't believe it is just the press teams getting lit up. i run a zone/press combo with 2 teams in the new engine. i have one team with good stamina, one with not so great (so i run slow down).

the team with lots of upperclassmen and a good combination of DEF/IQ/SPD is allowing 7% worse on 3s thus far (including an increased number of attempts, which would in theory drop the % a bit). keep in mind that we return everyone, meaning we are faster, smarter, and quicker than the year before.

my other team in the new engine, which has overall ratings/IQ amongst PER players than last season in the old engine, is getting burned over 4% worse from beyond the arc.

these are substantial differences over the course of the season.

i will agree with you in that it's not completely fair to match to RL. you are right, we don't see 40 minutes of hell defenses in RL. there are LOTS of things we can't plan for in HD that you can in RL (like in game coaching changes). if we had these options, you would probably see very few coaches trying "40 minutes of hell" FCPs.

we are limited in scope with these aspects, among others. that being said, i don't think it's a bad thing to make have the statistics resemble RL. it is a good basis point for accuracy in terms of testing the SIM engine. if numbers are similar to RL, i think this is a good basis to get close to a realistic game. right now, teams are shooting at NBA Jam type levels, even when not facing a FCP.

What are the zone IQs of your two teams running combo Ds? Are they equal to the IQs of those teams when they ran the press under the old engine? If not, and I suspect most are not even if you have the exception, you cannot draw conclusions about 3-point % without taking that into consideration.

I agree if *all* numbers and usage are similar to RL, then the engine is probably close to ideal.

But, like in HBD (which is just what I have more experience with) you will never get that because owners here do things differently for at least a few reasons (including the lesser control you mentioned and the fact that we can afford to think outside of the box more than coaches can in RL).

Quote: Originally posted by haasdr on 6/08/2010i think the "telling" number is to see how much more aligned the Naismith (old engine) numbers are with RL vs. what we have seen in Smith and Tark (new engine) through a good portion of the season.

Mmm, not really. If coach tendencies in Naismith last season leaned towards consistent minus defenses (which wouldn't surprise me in the last) than the 3P%'s shouldn't have matched up with RL. They should have been higher.

Without comparing HD defenses to RL defenses, you've got no way of knowing which set of numbers is "better".

I don't know what's going on with you guys, but my 5 teams on the new engine are holding teams to very low three point shooting percentages. I'm running either zone or man on all the team, except for one running a zone/press.

Quote: Originally posted by antonsirius on 6/08/2010

Quote: Originally posted by haasdr on 6/08/2010i think the "telling" number is to see how much more aligned the Naismith (old engine) numbers are with RL vs. what we have seen in Smith and Tark (new engine) through a good portion of the season.

Mmm, not really. If coach tendencies in Naismith last season leaned towards consistent minus defenses (which wouldn't surprise me in the last) than the 3P%'s shouldn't have matched up with RL. They should have been higher.

Without comparing HD defenses to RL defenses, you've got no way of knowing which set of numbers is "better".

from my experience in all worlds, i see as many neutral or + defenses as I do minus defenses. but lets suppose the hypothesis about Naismith last season is true - coaches do tend to slightly sag their defenses - the current %s were ALREADY SLIGHTLY HIGHER meaning that if they played a "standard" neutral defense the %s would be even closer to RL.

as for comparing RL to HD, we all agree that RL is certainly different in that RL coaches can change how they want to defend on a possession basis, where in HD it can change at halves/end game only.

maybe i just differ than you and zbrent, but because of the differences we cannot change between RL and HD, i think it makes sense for the numbers to at least be similar to RL. i feel like we had this before, assuming "neutral" defenses.

So just as interesting thing to add, I have an Allen D1 team that is giving up 26% 3PT FG%.

How many of the made threes are open looks in junk time blowouts, which are happening more due to increased dependence on def, IQ, stm, etc.

since i do have a few seasons , i have calmed a bit and will see how the season plays itself out.

that being said, i've always been a good, patient customer but i think it's more likely my frustration with the changes appearing to be more bad than good will win out.

Quote: Originally posted by mniven on 6/08/2010I don't know what's going on with you guys, but my 5 teams on the new engine are holding teams to very low three point shooting percentages. I'm running either zone or man on all the team, except for one running a zone/press.

Same with me at OK State. I've played -2 twice and +2 once in 12 games, with the other nine games being at zero, and we're allowing a .363 3P%.