Duncan/Franklin both started and got 23 minutes each.
Combined for 3-8 FG, 4 REB, 2 ASST, 4 TO, 5 STEALS, 1 BLK, 8 PTS

Again, nothing special but contributors.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/1/2017 10:28:00 PM (view original):
Don't give me "probably". Look at minutes played if you want to jump in. Do the damn research.

FWIW, I've never contended that ATH/DEF should be ignored. I'm just not buying that teams who are "below average" can't win. The game cannot be set up that way. If it is, it's stupid and not worthy of $12 a season.

So testy, Mike! You know I'll jump in to any conversation as often as I like, and don't need to do any advanced research for this particular one. It's not that complicated.

Mike: Anyone got advice?
Others: High ath and defense! Can't win without it!
Mike: That can't be! It's impossible!
Others: Actually, take a look at the top teams now at every level of every world and you'll see it's the way to go.
Mike: I call bullshit! Rabble rabble rabble! Feed me research!

Just being argumentative to be argumentative. Have a Snickers, Mike - you're not you when you're hungry.

I'm not really sure what else to say here.

Yes, high ath/def is the typical way to win. Most successful teams will be constructed this way.

No, you don't NEED high ath/def to win. Without looking too hard I have found a couple teams that have won titles that have not had high ath/def players.

Posted by mbriese on 1/2/2017 9:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/1/2017 10:28:00 PM (view original):
Don't give me "probably". Look at minutes played if you want to jump in. Do the damn research.

FWIW, I've never contended that ATH/DEF should be ignored. I'm just not buying that teams who are "below average" can't win. The game cannot be set up that way. If it is, it's stupid and not worthy of $12 a season.

So testy, Mike! You know I'll jump in to any conversation as often as I like, and don't need to do any advanced research for this particular one. It's not that complicated.

Mike: Anyone got advice?
Others: High ath and defense! Can't win without it!
Mike: That can't be! It's impossible!
Others: Actually, take a look at the top teams now at every level of every world and you'll see it's the way to go.
Mike: I call bullshit! Rabble rabble rabble! Feed me research!

Just being argumentative to be argumentative. Have a Snickers, Mike - you're not you when you're hungry.

Well, as you can see from the post that followed yours, it's not the only way to go. benis looked, he found. And did minimal research. Yet you dispute it without a moment of research. That's kind of a dumb way to make a point.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/2/2017 10:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 1/2/2017 9:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/1/2017 10:28:00 PM (view original):
Don't give me "probably". Look at minutes played if you want to jump in. Do the damn research.

FWIW, I've never contended that ATH/DEF should be ignored. I'm just not buying that teams who are "below average" can't win. The game cannot be set up that way. If it is, it's stupid and not worthy of $12 a season.

So testy, Mike! You know I'll jump in to any conversation as often as I like, and don't need to do any advanced research for this particular one. It's not that complicated.

Mike: Anyone got advice?
Others: High ath and defense! Can't win without it!
Mike: That can't be! It's impossible!
Others: Actually, take a look at the top teams now at every level of every world and you'll see it's the way to go.
Mike: I call bullshit! Rabble rabble rabble! Feed me research!

Just being argumentative to be argumentative. Have a Snickers, Mike - you're not you when you're hungry.

Well, as you can see from the post that followed yours, it's not the only way to go. benis looked, he found. And did minimal research. Yet you dispute it without a moment of research. That's kind of a dumb way to make a point.

Benis made that point earlier in the thread, you're just acknowledging it now because you have someone new to argue with. Splitting hairs, just trying to be argumentative - you know, the main points of both of my prior posts that you skipped over - still stand.

Per Benis, whose research you are now behind all of a sudden, there are outliers. What will you do with this information? I think you should try and win a NC with a low ath / def team and update all of us on your progress along the way. Or find something new to argue about. Any opinions on the Oxford comma?

I acknowledged benis' post almost immediately.

Isn't what Benis found the anomaly though? Aren't 99% of successful teams high Ath/Def? Aren't these few teams that didn't have high Ath/Def outliers in the data-set?

I did what you asked for, I did research. My point is proven there because all but one of the top teams had good-great ATH/DEF, and that one team has pretty solid Ath/Def in his starting lineup and also has 10, who are the ones playing the majority of the minutes and they have 10 upperclassmen.

You asked for research, I provided it, you have chosen to ignore it. I said it's an anomaly for teams to succeed without ATH/DEF, in any study there will be outliers.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/2/2017 6:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 1/2/2017 12:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/1/2017 10:18:00 PM (view original):
Now, after your "You MUST......" statement, benis has shown you several examples of users who've won without superior ATH/DEF. And, after every one, you've said "Yeah, but....."

Did you seriously just copy this from an earlier post?

You still haven't responded to the data I put in.

Well, if you need me to spell it out.....benis provided data that contradicts what you put together.

This is a dick way to respond to this.

I said what Benis put together was outliers, look at what I put together and that proves that.

Posted by mbriese on 1/2/2017 10:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/2/2017 10:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 1/2/2017 9:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/1/2017 10:28:00 PM (view original):
Don't give me "probably". Look at minutes played if you want to jump in. Do the damn research.

FWIW, I've never contended that ATH/DEF should be ignored. I'm just not buying that teams who are "below average" can't win. The game cannot be set up that way. If it is, it's stupid and not worthy of $12 a season.

So testy, Mike! You know I'll jump in to any conversation as often as I like, and don't need to do any advanced research for this particular one. It's not that complicated.

Mike: Anyone got advice?
Others: High ath and defense! Can't win without it!
Mike: That can't be! It's impossible!
Others: Actually, take a look at the top teams now at every level of every world and you'll see it's the way to go.
Mike: I call bullshit! Rabble rabble rabble! Feed me research!

Just being argumentative to be argumentative. Have a Snickers, Mike - you're not you when you're hungry.

Well, as you can see from the post that followed yours, it's not the only way to go. benis looked, he found. And did minimal research. Yet you dispute it without a moment of research. That's kind of a dumb way to make a point.

Benis made that point earlier in the thread, you're just acknowledging it now because you have someone new to argue with. Splitting hairs, just trying to be argumentative - you know, the main points of both of my prior posts that you skipped over - still stand.

Per Benis, whose research you are now behind all of a sudden, there are outliers. What will you do with this information? I think you should try and win a NC with a low ath / def team and update all of us on your progress along the way. Or find something new to argue about. Any opinions on the Oxford comma?

I agree, go ahead and win a NC with low Ath/def teams, get a bunch of players with single digit numbers in that category and win.

I am in favor of the Oxford comma, it's oxford approved, it tells the reader when to pause, and it makes it less awkward to read.

Monster I'm not sure why you provided that data in the first place. I had already showed in another post that the top 10 teams in 2 worlds were all high ath/def. That proves your point that most teams at the top are built like that.

My point is - you CAN win with low or mediocre ath/def ratings. I have several teams like that and made deep runs. I'm not sure it's a huge anomaly. It's uncommon but not like once in a blue moon unusual. Heck my CNU team right now is ranked 19th and is projected as a 3 seed with 49 ath and 48 def avg.

Odds are I won't be good enough to win a NC regardless of what I recruit. Hell, I think I had 8 tourney invites my first go 'round and only produced 4 wins. Not exactly championship material.

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 1/2/2017 2:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/2/2017 6:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 1/2/2017 12:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/1/2017 10:18:00 PM (view original):
Now, after your "You MUST......" statement, benis has shown you several examples of users who've won without superior ATH/DEF. And, after every one, you've said "Yeah, but....."

Did you seriously just copy this from an earlier post?

You still haven't responded to the data I put in.

Well, if you need me to spell it out.....benis provided data that contradicts what you put together.

This is a dick way to respond to this.

I said what Benis put together was outliers, look at what I put together and that proves that.

You provided research, benis provided research. They contradict one another. I don't know that they're "outliers" as much as they are just a few users using a different strategy. If you read the forums, the consensus is "Look for ATH/SPD/DEF and run a Fastbreak/press O/D." So, if a n00b is reading the forums, sees a handful of guys with great success saying that, it's probably what he'll do.

This is basically why I said I agreed with TJ in his post saying he disagreed that you needed high ath/def to be successful.

There are a few reasons why I think you can't generalize it in this way and I'll do my best to explain it

1) You don't want to completely ignore low ath/def players if they can help you win. Yes, don't go get a bunch of guys with 20 def but maybe 1 or 2 could really help your team. By saying "you need high ath/def" you may encourage people to completely ignore these types of players who can be very useful

2) I think you need to be more specific on what ratings you want to have based upon your offense and defense. For M2M, you want to focus more on Def than if you were in press. In press you can go with lower def and higher speed for example. Myers is successful with his high ath/def because of the O/D he plays and the style that he plays it.

3) I agree that Ath/def are the two most important attributes. However, how much are you giving up to get it? If you get a whole bunch of guys who are athletic defenders, then who is going to score? Who is going to rebound? Who is going to pass? Basically I'm trying to make the point that you shouldn't mortgage the farm to buy in on ath/def at the expense of other things. Just like being able to build a successful team with low ath/def, it takes an experienced owner who is savvy enough to know how much of the other attributes to give up to get high ath/def. They don't go all in on those two ratings typically (myers being the exception).

Posted by Benis on 1/2/2017 2:55:00 PM (view original):
Monster I'm not sure why you provided that data in the first place. I had already showed in another post that the top 10 teams in 2 worlds were all high ath/def. That proves your point that most teams at the top are built like that.

My point is - you CAN win with low or mediocre ath/def ratings. I have several teams like that and made deep runs. I'm not sure it's a huge anomaly. It's uncommon but not like once in a blue moon unusual. Heck my CNU team right now is ranked 19th and is projected as a 3 seed with 49 ath and 48 def avg.

I didn't see that, I wouldn't have done it if I had.

It is possible, its way more difficult and far less common,maybe one every season out of the top 25 teams, which is 96%, so maybe I was exaggerating a little with the 99%, but it's a 3% difference. those ratings are pretty close to the 50 line, I would call that decent enough.