How can my team be bad for peri and neutral for paint? I always assumed they moved in synch???

I have no idea what the game uses to decide those preferences. If it is based on the IQs of your team, if it is based on what your team practices. If it is based on stats. Or something else entirely.

I thought they were based on the % of shots that you take from either inside or outside. I'm not sure if midrange shots are considered to be paint shots, but that could be the cause of the discrepancy.

I don't remember the exact figures, but I think it's something like 40% of your shots being 3pt shots to get to Very High in perimeter preference. You don't even have to make them haha.

the weird thing to me, is that I have always thought that bad from peri implied good from paint and vice versa

Posted by metsmax on 12/8/2022 10:16:00 AM (view original):
the weird thing to me, is that I have always thought that bad from peri implied good from paint and vice versa

Maybe that depends on shooting percentage, if stats are somehow used. So X shots in 'per' vs 'post' .. and also maybe percent made. Maybe not, who knows ;)

I just look if they say I have an advantage or not.

buddhagamer explained this in another thread a while back, I think he was tracking it. The thought was that it is just based on % of 3FGA; but that those parameters don't line up inversely, which is why it's possible to see teams that are bad in one and only neutral in the other. It doesn't really make a lot of sense, but that category has always been a prime one in my mind to make more intelligent. In both cases, efficiency should at least play a part in the preference. A team getting lots of guard scoring, but only attempting 25% of it's total FGs from beyond the arc should be more attractive than a team launching half its shots from down town and only hitting 30% of them.

Also - Paint scoring *should* be based on points in the paint, which the game notes in the box scores, but unfortunately doesn't track over a season apparently.

An efficient, balanced team should be attractive to both players who want paint scoring and perimeter scoring, and it's absurd that it's not possible.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/8/2022 2:10:00 PM (view original):
buddhagamer explained this in another thread a while back, I think he was tracking it. The thought was that it is just based on % of 3FGA; but that those parameters don't line up inversely, which is why it's possible to see teams that are bad in one and only neutral in the other. It doesn't really make a lot of sense, but that category has always been a prime one in my mind to make more intelligent. In both cases, efficiency should at least play a part in the preference. A team getting lots of guard scoring, but only attempting 25% of it's total FGs from beyond the arc should be more attractive than a team launching half its shots from down town and only hitting 30% of them.

Also - Paint scoring *should* be based on points in the paint, which the game notes in the box scores, but unfortunately doesn't track over a season apparently.

An efficient, balanced team should be attractive to both players who want paint scoring and perimeter scoring, and it's absurd that it's not possible.

I will counter your points here and agree that it has to be based on % of attempts. Basing it on shots made or % made only indicates that you had good enough players to execute the gameplan. The preference being based on attempts shows that your gameplan matches the style. If the recruit prefers that style, efficiency doesn't really matter, because maybe he wants to play in the paint more, even if your team would be better off balanced or shooting more 3s.