So I just did a search, and other than a hysterical thread from 2016, I couldn't find a lot of information I don't really already know.

What I think is "forum fact" is that double teams:

• Don't really have a huge effect
• Work better against low pass players
• Are not commonly used

What I believe to be actually true is:

• You can double at most 2 players on the court
• Designating double teams in FCP is useless

With all that being said, I was wondering if the knowledge base has increased in the last 6 years. While I firmly believe DT is situational, I have found that I probably double in 85% of my games and that people double team my guys less than 50%. I also think (but it just might be confirmation bias) the DT'ing plays a significant role in outcomes. I play exclusively zone at this point so that might cloud my opinions.

Anyway, I was just kinda wondering what others thought about the strategy in HD.

Doubles have become more common in the last few years. Back in 2018 or so, I talked about employing a strategy (with my press/zone teams) around going heavy negative and doubling the shooters as a hedge. I see that a lot more now, more folks going all the way to -5 (which I generally don’t do, except sometimes with a 3-2 base). Rarely goes the other way (doubling down low, heavy + setting).

I am pretty sure most of us want to overthink doubleteams. They are not intelligently incorporated into game design, they essentially just (slightly) increase the doubled players turnovers and (slightly) decrease their fg%, while (very slightly) increasing the generic efficiency of everyone else. You can’t really count on distribution or ancillary personnel to counter, though. You could have a brilliant, high IQ distributor at point, with 3 scorers fairly even on the distribution plan, but what it will come down to is basically a binary RNG roll whether or not your opponent’s double is effective or not. If it’s effective, your offense is going to struggle. You’d think you would have been set up to get around it well. And *if they lose that roll,* you will do fine. But not consistently. I’m sure this will get some pushback, but I’ve seen so many wildly inconsistent results, on both sides of the double, it just doesn’t make any sense to me to think about it like a tactical weapon you use to do a specific thing, unless that thing is to give yourself *a chance* to stop a great scorer.

I do suspect IQ might play a small part in increasing the odds of getting a favorable roll (effective/ineffective). But I have no data for that.

Three to add to the forum facts list that I believe:

-Work better against lower BH
-You should double any player that has over 25% offense share
-Increase DTed players offensive foul chances through turnover mechanic

Posted by bpielcmc on 3/3/2022 5:57:00 PM (view original):
Three to add to the forum facts list that I believe:

-Work better against lower BH
-You should double any player that has over 25% offense share
-Increase DTed players offensive foul chances through turnover mechanic

I have no issue with the first, and no clue regarding the third. But as for the second, I differ a bit on approach. Instead of looking at straight off%, I look at relative points per share, or basically ppg/off%. There’s no magic number, because every team is different depending on how the coach runs them. But ppg/off% is basically my in-game cheat for efficiency. If there is a guy on the team that sticks out as more efficient, then that’s a guy I’ll think about doubling.

Unless, of course, I’m going with the classic “cross my fingers, slow-down, heavy negative, and double the shooters” to dial in the upset special.

I actually don’t think pass or BH have much to do with the DT effectiveness.

The way the game works is that the engine decides who will shoot and then if the that player, shoots, is fouled, or tunstheball over.

I suspect that DTs first limit the chance the player doubled teamed actually shoots then applies a negative penalty to if the shot goes in.

I don’t think it increases the chances a player is fouled because I don’t see the evidence in the box score and admin has never mentioned it.

I am unsure if the double team penalty applies to the likelihood the player turns the ball over. DT’ed players do tend to turn the ball over more so maybe it increases the chances there is a turnover as opposed to a shot. A multiplicative penalty there would be a bigger penalty on the low pass/bh players because they are more likely to turn the ball over anyway.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/3/2022 7:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bpielcmc on 3/3/2022 5:57:00 PM (view original):
Three to add to the forum facts list that I believe:

-Work better against lower BH
-You should double any player that has over 25% offense share
-Increase DTed players offensive foul chances through turnover mechanic

I have no issue with the first, and no clue regarding the third. But as for the second, I differ a bit on approach. Instead of looking at straight off%, I look at relative points per share, or basically ppg/off%. There’s no magic number, because every team is different depending on how the coach runs them. But ppg/off% is basically my in-game cheat for efficiency. If there is a guy on the team that sticks out as more efficient, then that’s a guy I’ll think about doubling.

Unless, of course, I’m going with the classic “cross my fingers, slow-down, heavy negative, and double the shooters” to dial in the upset special.

This is a cool idea and makes sense to me to limit the opponents efficiency. I may start implementing this for teams that have balanced to semi balanced offenses.

My thinking, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that at around the 25% mark (could be bigger, maybe 28-30) the decrease in fg% for the DTed player is equal to the slight increase in the team (other players) fg%, so at that point it’s just a free way to lower team fg%.

i have warmed up to double teams in my time back in 3.0 (last 2.5 years perhaps?). i was almost exclusively a press coach in the old days, i had a few man titles and a zone title with a bunch of runner ups, but i didn't really push the double teams much. i didn't feel like they were very effective against me, and i just couldn't use them in press, so that is mostly what i went on. i think in part my press teams were just so good, that it made it easy to miss if there was some occasionally productive double teaming, because those teams mostly won anyway (at least my best 15 teams all have won their titles, i've never had a team i considered amazing not win the championship, you'd have to go down pretty far maybe even into the 20s before you get to a team who came up short for me, which makes it a bit hard for me to assess what 'worked' against those teams). i don't think the double team strategies employed were always the greatest, either!

anyway. i don't have any specific comment, but i sort of consider double teaming a core part of man and zone now and i didn't used to (my solo teams since i have been back have been exclusively m2m). definitely feel like i was leaving things on the table back then. i have used double teams a little, for ages, but i think there are a bunch of interesting scenarios in all this, a bunch of good use cases i didn't used to mess with. so i would pay attention to double teams if you don't now...