I think some of you guys are making this out to be much more complicated than it really is or needs to be.  It's a fairly straightforward strategy really.  If a team shoots lots of threes, I play some form of a "plus" defense (up to and including a +5).  If they rarely shoot them, I play some sort of a "minus" defense (up to and including a -5).  If they shoot around a third of their shots from distance, I play a fairly "even" setting (-1, 0, +1).  Yes, there are times when those generic settings don't work and I lose.  However, that's to be expected with "any" setting.  But there are far more times when they do work and it's a "W" for my team.  Don't make this too complicated fellas, it's not rocket science.

Any chance you're winning (because of more talent) in spite of those settings?

I would have agreed with you a few years ago.  Now, I think it's a mistake to play -5 against a team that racks up a ton of FTA by guards.  I would definitely stay closer to 0.  Again, that's because I think there is a massive logic flaw that -5 causes more fouls than 0 against slashers.  (there's no dispute that's how the game works; -5 = more fouls than 0.)

That's a very simplistic version of how I determine my settings Ike.  Remember the title is advice for new coaches.  I'm just trying to maybe give them some solid, basic, generL, generic advice instead of getting real in-depth and confusing and losing them along the way.  And I'm not disputing that a -5 causes more fouls than a neutral setting.  In fact, not long ago, I argued and argued the very same issue with a coach that just would not accept that is how the game worked.  It might not imitate real life (or it might), but I couldn't get through to him that this is how THIS game worked.  No argument from me there, I'm in total agreement.

By the way, obviously each team has to be looked at individually to determine your defensive setting, but I still stand by my statement that against a team that doesn't shoot threes at all, you're better off sagging as opposed to not.  Again, any setting can and will get beat occasionally, but I still think that sagging will produce a win more often than not.  I might go along with the "winning in spite of instead of because of" argument except that I've won far too many games using that strategy to think that it was "in spite of".  That's just way, way too many games to win by simply "out-talenting" my opposition when the settings were set at "in spite of not because of" mode.  My teams are generally pretty good, but they're not THAT good.  Not even close. 

But, to each his own, I guess.  Agree to disagree and all those other cliches.  That what keeps the game interesting to me, that so many different strategies, styles, and settings can still generate wins.  If the game was simply spoonfed to us (and unfortunately, every update that we get, although years apart by now, seems to head us that way) and there was a cookie cutter style feel to the game (think the FCP when it was ultra-high powered.  Talk about titles needing asterisks next to them and there are a TON of them), I think you'd see a real mass exodus.

Wow, I didn't expect a big discussion on a post I made drunk at 4am LMAO, But I like it.

I agree with what dcy0827 said

I should probably clarify something, which may be where some of the disagreement is coming from.  The strategy that I discussed earlier was geared towards more of a D2-type team.  It was also geared towards facing your "average" D2-type team, with normal to slightly better than normal D2 guards.  Teams that have the "shouldn't be in D2 but they are because the low level D1 coaches missed them or because their potentials went through the roof" kind of guards are a whole different breed of animal and have to be adjusted to and gameplanned for much differently than a standard D2-type guard.  I'm talking about the guards whose Ath is up in the mid 80's or better, Spd is at a Usain Bolt level, etc. and so on.  I'll agree that these guys have to be defended differently and that sagging against THEM might not be in your best interests due to their propensity for drawing fouls.  But then again, depending upon the makeup of your team and the rest of their team, sagging still might be your best bet.  That's a different discussion than what I was thinking when I laid those strategies out earlier.

I should have clarified from the start that I was speaking about your average, normal, not Lebron ratings players, not the anomalies that shouldn't exist in D2 in the first place, but only do because most of the low level D1 coaches don't know how to recruit, simply because instead of learning the game at the lower levels, they were in such a rush to get to D1 that they missed a bunch of crucial lessons on the way, and now they suck at their D1 school and want to quit because the game is too hard and is too geared towards the BCS big boys (and I'm looking directly at a certain coach when I say that).  Whew, time for a break.  Hope that might have cleared up any confusion I may have caused earlier.  Apologies.

I agree with all of that. 

Accounting for this being (1) advice for new coaches and (2) geared towards middle-of-the-pack teams, I totally agree.

My end of the discussion comes from complex gameplanning against elite teams/players/coaches.

Posted by isack24 on 12/17/2012 1:53:00 AM (view original):
I agree with all of that. 

Accounting for this being (1) advice for new coaches and (2) geared towards middle-of-the-pack teams, I totally agree.

My end of the discussion comes from complex gameplanning against elite teams/players/coaches.

If I had clarified my posts right from the start, it probably would have helped out just a bit, don't you think?  Sometimes I don't type what I'm thinking and some times I type what I'm not thinking.  Those are the times it starts to get a little dicey, ha ha.

Another thing which makes a difference is what you are playing as a defense and tempo: if you are playing a slowdown zone, for example, you can often afford to just absorb the increased foul rate.

Posted by vegask on 12/17/2012 1:10:00 AM (view original):
Wow, I didn't expect a big discussion on a post I made drunk at 4am LMAO, But I like it.

I agree with what dcy0827 said

haha, I thought this was a random drunk post when I saw it the other day - I was going to respond with "High Five!! FTW!!!" - pretty interesting stuff in there though, and I just eyeball things which I don't recommend to any new coach

Another aspect concerning negative positioning (-5) vs. postitive(+5) is the effect on rebounding.  Even if a team shoots crazy 3’s, I still don’t do a +5 just because I think it effects rebounding.  I usually want my team winning the rebounding battle.

Posted by skinndogg on 12/19/2012 4:58:00 PM (view original):

Another aspect concerning negative positioning (-5) vs. postitive(+5) is the effect on rebounding.  Even if a team shoots crazy 3’s, I still don’t do a +5 just because I think it effects rebounding.  I usually want my team winning the rebounding battle.

No rebound if the shot goes in.

Do the opposite of what i do!