who would you start at center on this team? i have struggled with this decision since last season, when i had 0 seniors, and i lost nobody early... so its the exact same team, less the freshman sf who doesn't play. and really, i am also curious how you'd fill out the whole lineup.

if you dont want to read any of this long rambling, the most important question i have is this - assuming you are playing winarski at 4, and costa and murray are your starters at the 3/5, who would you start at the 3, and who at the 5? now you can ignore the rest :)

for those still reading, winarski is the single elite big on the team, but i prefer him at PF, due to feeling his great speed, per, and bh would serve him better at the 4 than 5. i don't want him at the 3 either, he is too good a rebounder. however, im open to opinions on how to do that differently.

for the rest of my lineup, i start hill and zulauf at pg and sg, and it seems that is a no brainer (open to comments there too though). i dont think dowdle is good enough to play backup 1/2 with so many minutes, so chrznowski can't start at the 3, i think. so he plays 2nd at all spots at the 1-3, and is pulling a good 23 minutes or something. dowdle then only pulls like 6-7, which is great. so basically, i have to decide who to start at the 3 and 5, and then who is backup at the 4/5, and who gets a few minutes at the 3 behind chrzanowski.

i feel like houle is the obvious 3rd man at the 3, so i play him there. hes not great in any way, but hes a strong rebounder, has low 50s bh/pass, and his ~70 ath/spd is acceptable, i think. where as most of my other bigs are too "biggy" :)

i start murray at the 3 right now, i played him at the 5 much of last season but didnt finish there. i figured his sb was low, which made him less inclined to be my center than others, and his really strong passing (for a big) made me happier with him at the 3 than others. so, ive been starting costa at the 5, but of all my starters, that is the one i am least happy with. this decision is really the crux of my confusion. i have also considered starting cort. his 69 ath is far from elite, and this is a very good team, so i hate to have 69 ath at my starting C spot. but hes got really solid reb/def/sb and a full partial grade of iq on the other guys (a vs a-). it seems id lean costa, but then i have cort as backup 4/5, getting the bulk of the minutes (i play really a heavy 7 man rotation right now, with like 6 minutes for dowdle, 9 for olsen, and maybe 8 for houle. thats in close games, and since i put cort as backup for both 4/5, so if you check my minutes houle seems higher - but hes really not as i have it set now, in close games). and anyway, with costa having so much better bh/pass, id almost rather him be the backup at the 4 than cort.

one thing i really love about my starting lineup is how good of bh/pass my bigs have. i originally built this team planning to start zulauf and chrznowski, so that id have a 2 guard, 3 big lineup - where both guards were like ~60 reb and my bigs were all ~60 bh/pass. just seemed like that would be pretty bad ***. but hill is too god damn good, hes the only elite guard i have, and the lead scorer (more so in this season's NT than he is now). but even if i keep the same starting 5, i am torn on the costa vs murray at the 3/5 decision. if nothing else, thats what id like an opinion on. 

if there was one other thing id get an opinion on, its how to handle olsen/houle. i had houle at 3rd 3 and 3rd 4 (behind multi position chrznowksi at the 3 and multi position cort at the 4). olsen was 3rd at the 5. last year, it made sense, but olsen has improved and now their iq is just a little more than 1 partial grade different (olsen is a lowish a-, houle is a highish a). and i think olsen makes the better big, but not the better 3. so would you guys agree, when minutes are available at the 4/5, go olsen, and at the 3, go houle? or is one enough better than the other to get all the minutes (they only get about 16ish between them so either guy could get the lions share, but now they roughly split it, olsen getting a couple more).

final question is, am i crazy to always pipe dream about starting chrznowski, along with my 2 other guards? not sure which of him/zulauf would play the 2/3, but that would give dowdle a good 17 minutes picking up the slack at the 1/2, and id basically be using a 3 guard rotation - which really is not a problem, except for foul trouble. i have played it safe and stayed away from dowdle, but heres my issue - at the end of the season, when his iq is up and hes a little better, he very well may be better than some of the guys, like houle and olsen, who he would effectively be taking time from (and chrznowski would get some more as well). but then i think, is chrznowski really any better of a 3 than murray, or costa? and also, dowdle at the 1 seems like trouble to me, even with great bh/pass at every other position.

any thoughts?

Name	Yr.	Pos.	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	FT	TOT
Stjepan Chrzanowski	Sr.	PG	82	91	64	99	46	19	71	82	91	76	98	87	C	906
Roger Hill	Jr.	PG	98	95	25	96	42	29	94	95	92	68	80	49	C	863
Aaron Dowdle	So.	PG	91	87	24	95	11	60	79	83	62	67	74	61	B	794
Marijan Zulauf	Sr.	SG	99	77	60	99	36	60	70	100	79	75	97	58	B-	910
Adam Echevarria	Fr.	SF	87	54	65	78	59	78	72	68	56	79	82	37	C	815
Robert Houle	Sr.	PF	69	74	98	79	79	85	30	53	52	75	80	73	C+	847
Vyacheslav Winarski	Jr.	PF	96	71	98	98	75	78	66	64	56	76	72	49	C-	899
James Cort	Sr.	C	69	29	99	94	96	69	46	7	35	55	81	93	C-	773
Cesar Costa	Jr.	C	80	43	89	99	84	74	37	66	68	95	87	42	B-	864
Chance Murray	Jr.	C	98	42	86	95	70	91	17	56	77	71	74	82	B-	859
Edward Olson	Jr.	C	80	26	98	84	87	78	32	40	45	43	79	78	C+	770

Too long to fully read for my short attention span but from my cursory glance, here is what I think you could do:

First, idk if the starting 1/2 combo of Hill/Zulauf is a no brainer. What about Chrzanowski/Hill combo as 1/2. You lose some bh in the pg but gain p and more ath/speed.

And I don't think Cort belongs in the starting lineup, even if his IQ edge is a letter grade, much less at 1/3 of a letter. 

On the issue of how to use Winarski, I think this is highly matchup dependent (on your opponents' bigs). Winarski is no doubt your best big but he can play sf. With him at the 3, you would play something like Murray/Olson with Costa as first backup. This is fine if your opponents' bigs aren't dominant. If your opponents's starting pf/c are both 95+ ath with 90+ in reb/def/blk/lp, you probably have to start Winarski along with Murray at the 4/5 to not get dominated. Under this scenario, a starting 1/2/3 of Zulauf/Hill/Chrzanowski (with you moving Hill around 1-3 by matching him up against your opponents' worst defender) is a very strong lineup.

Edit: Ok just checked out your whole team...ranked #1, #1 rpi, might as well stay with the same lineup considering it's working perfectly. 

tianyi, having the #1 rpi and #1 ranking is EXACTLY why i dont want to just stick with the same lineup. if ive said it once, ive said it a hundred times (and i have) - the biggest mistake, by far, made by #1 ranked teams is sitting on their laurels. they are afraid to mess something up. you can ALWAYS go back. but teams evolve, and the starting optimal settings are almost never the end optimal settings... and more important, almost nobody can get it dead right the first time. so what happens is, a team pulls #1, goes oh ****, i better not touch anything - while his evolving team reduced the quality of the setup, and all his opponents are improving through the standard iterative process. come tournament time, the #1 team is often no longer even favorite!

besides, if there is ever a time to put the work in to get it right, its when you are #1. if you are #10, maybe you can become #5 in chance to win the NT - maybe thats taking you from 3% to 5% or something. but if you go from a #1 to a strong #1, that could be 5-10% or even more chance to win the title. 

We have a word for your kind in fantasy football: rosterbating. 

Anyways, back to Cort, I think he's a liability in the starting 5. If I were to face you with a good D1 team (or even my Tulsa team), I would load up distro on my 90/90/etc. big, put him at the 5, and have him go wild against cort. 

This ties back into the Winarski question, with him playing 3-5 depending on matchup and the quality of your opponents' big. 

And to be honest, I'm quite surprised that Murray is shutting down his opponents at the 3. Guess the value of sb is pretty big for sf. 

thanks for the comments tianyi! i really do appreciate it. hopefully this follow up is not too ridiculously long, but if it is, i have no problem if you dont respond or whatever, i appreciate the insight you have offered so far. 

anyway, on your comments themselves... you are suggesting going from hill/zulauf to chrzanowski hill at the 1/2. maybe you are thinking zulauf is my pg now or something? because when you say i lose some bh and gain p and ath/spd, hill actually has more ath, spd, bh, and pass than chrzanowski does. hill is hands-down the best pg on the team, but i can see the merit in using chrz/hill, for the passing overall (not at pg though, it would be increase at sg). 

now, if i had chrznowski as a starter, i definitely could switch him and hill more easily to take advantage of a bad defender. there is decent merit there. however, without knowing my opponent, it seems zulauf is the guy for the sg spot - he does have 14 less speed, and 12 less passing, which is pretty important, but he has 17 more ath and 18 more bh. they are pretty similar all in all, until you get to offensive ability, where zulauf has 60lp/70 per instead of 19lp/71 per. and hes got a b- ft grade instead of a c. so basically, defensively, its a wash. rebounding, wash. offense, zulauf has a big edge. and in terms of "running the point" or ball control or whatever, chrznowski takes a small edge. i think he is a better pg from a traditional pg standpoint though.

another thing about those guards is, whoever is backup, is backup at the 1, 2, and 3. i dont love zulauf as a pg, his weaknesses are his spd and pass. he does do better at sf but chrznowski is totally fine there really. so thats kind of another reason i went with zulauf as starter. that, and i dont have an offensive juggernaut of a team. my defense is top notch, rebounding is exceptional, bh/pass is excellent... but offense is our weakest area (as it should be, ideally). so i like to have my big 3 offensive players on the starting lineup (hill, winarski, zulauf). and with hill/zulauf starting, either is more than capable of taking advantage of a weak defender (which neither are likely to face, against the teams who have a chance of beating me in the first place), so i dont really have to suffer having him at starting pg in basically any case, i believe.

anyway, not trying to argue with you (obviously), but obviously ive also put more thought into my team over the past 2 months, so i am wondering if you still think i should maybe start hill/chrz in light of that stuff.

the thing i found most interesting in your post is you say cort shouldnt start, but suggested olson as a starter, over costa. i think my bigs are all close there, so its definitely a fine line, but i thought olson was the 3rd dude of cort, costa, and olson, in terms of starting potential. what makes you lean towards him? at a glance, hes got the same 80 ath as costa, and hes 98 (really 99 when i get that point back) rebounding to costa's 89. do you think that 10 points of rebounding outweights costa's extra 15 defense and 25 bh/pass? 

and with cort, do you think olson's extra 11 ath is more important that cort's partial grade of iq, 10 def and 10 sb? olson does have some bh/pass on him too. you know, i had sort of forgotten, but i think my original plan was to use cort as my 7th man (3rd big) earlier in the season, and then switch to olson later. i actually (just a game or two before this post) changed to olson, for the PT, because regardless - cort isnt improving, and olson is (he actually still is high lp at 78 which could be pretty darn useful some day if i can get him enough PT to get it up). 

i think your comment about the big rotation is pretty interesting, too. question - would you have any concern with winarski/murray, which you suggest against premier bigs (particularly its the 90+ ath/lp part that i am talking about), neither having good sb? they are 70 and 75. murray's 75 is largely why i have him starting at sf. against super strong bigs, id definitely want winarski defending the strongest (if its a notable difference), even at the 5 - although i really HATE to take that 71 spd, 66 per, and 64 bh to the C position. although lately my opinion of the value of per at the 4 and 5, and especially at the 5, has really changed - im sure winarski would be an amazing C, i just felt he was a slightly more amazing PF. and i think his only weakness (sb) is less of a weakness at the 4 than 5. any other thoughts there? i haven't been changing my lineup thus far really, thinking the fundamentals so far outweighted the matchups, but i also dont game plan in the season enough. ill definitely be tinkering with that now that you mention it. but again, sadly, the reality is so often that you have so homogenously amazing defense on a lineup, that considering moving guys around to exploit defenders is often a moot point. i probably should be moving winarski around to exploit any amazing bigs though, although there just really aren't many offensively dominant bigs in HD.

last question. when you talk about hill/zulauf/chrznowski being my 1-3 when i have to play winarski/murray against 90+ ath/reb/lp type bigs - how concerned are you about me playing a 3 guard rotation, with dowdle being the 3rd? i really am not that impressed with him right now, but by season end, he should have solid iq and should be a pretty staunch defender. but i hate to see him play pg, with only a maxed out 62 passing, a 83-will-be-88ish bh, and an 87 to be 88ish spd. hes really not that good of a player, although if minutes are going his way instead of houle/cort/olson/costa, i dont think it would be so bad.

one other general question for anyone listening - my opinion, not being a m2m expert, is that spd at the 3 is not that critical from a defensive standpoint. thats why i have no problem playing one of my bigs, who has the bh/pass, a guy like murray who has 98 ath/95 def, but only 42 speed. how good of a defender do you consider him at the 3? probably have to consider his 70 sb too, which is strong for the 3, well, at least compared to guards. i consider him to be a borderline strong/very strong defender, but definitely not elite (again, thats at the 3). what do you man to man coaches out there think about that?

Posted by tianyi7886 on 9/14/2012 11:05:00 PM (view original):
We have a word for your kind in fantasy football: rosterbating. 

Anyways, back to Cort, I think he's a liability in the starting 5. If I were to face you with a good D1 team (or even my Tulsa team), I would load up distro on my 90/90/etc. big, put him at the 5, and have him go wild against cort. 

This ties back into the Winarski question, with him playing 3-5 depending on matchup and the quality of your opponents' big. 

And to be honest, I'm quite surprised that Murray is shutting down his opponents at the 3. Guess the value of sb is pretty big for sf. 

i apologize for the rosterbating :) ive had plenty of better teams than this, but ive always been a 3 guard guy through and through, and this kind of team is genuinely unfamiliar to me. and truly, its the analysis of teams at the highest of level of play that is most interesting to me! practice does not make perfect - only perfect practice does =)

anyway, interesting point on cort. i honestly think his 69 ath, paired with A iq and 94 def, and 96 sb is enough to limit my exposure. but you are probably right, i definitely prefer him as a backup. only problem is, i prefer all my other bigs (except winarski) as backups too, hehe :) i wish one or two was slightly worse, and one or two slightly better, but it is what it is.

your comment about murray is an interesting one, ties into my biggest general question. so im going to assume you are suggesting you think spd is quite important at the 3? can anyone else comment on that? one of my biggest questions ive been asking myself, for late-NT play, is this - what if i came up against an elite 3 guard team, the kind of teams i loved so well myself. would i HAVE to start chrznowski, regardless of my disdain for dowdle as backup pg (dont mind him being backup sg, but still not ideal), if the opponents 3 was a really strong offensive guard? would my lack of speed leave me wide open on the perimeter? this game doesn't really work like, oh, this player is too fast for that player. but is my aggregate defense against a pure perimeter player too poor, with a 3 who is SO interior defense oriented? i mean his near perfect ath/def and 70 sb really makes him a truly elite defender at the 3, when i am not facing a perimeter shooter, in my opinion at least. but like i said, im not a m2m expert, not close to i was with the press in my day. i would LOVE to know what some more experienced (and less experienced, really anyone) coaches think about speed at the 3, and a defender like murray's ability to hold the fort down against a guard like hill, if he played the 3. i might have to start a separate thread, i fear the length here and all the other stuff muddles that question too badly...

i dont think that sb at the sf is honestly hugely important, especially with 3s typically being the weakest spot on the floor - but it can't hurt, either! and i thought you were in the camp (with dahs and a couple others) of guys who ran regressions, and concluded sb was the most important defensive stat for bigs (and maybe for guards too, if you are dahs?)

I'll give you a longer post when I read your stuff, but from the way Murray has performed, he's doing great. Opposition is barely shooting over 40% against him. 

We have discussed this before and agree that the engine comes out with an output based on a number of inputs x a weight. I always held the view that ath is the most important input, with speed as 2nd most important for 1/2/3. But with Murray shutting down the opposition, I guess speed might not be as large as I thought, or ath + sb are much bigger than I thought.

Regarding Hill as your PG. He's hands down your best scorer. I think he should be move around based on matchup as well. 

I mentioned Costa as the starter alongside Olsen should Winarski play sf because Olsen is also at sub 90 reb. I don't quite like not having a dominant rebounder at the 4 and 5 on the court at the same time.