Pretty much across worlds it is too high atm, since the new engine.  Thought at first it was an adjustment to the lower rated players, but the low rated players continue to shoot above the norm. 

I'm in the Ivy with one of my teams and we are currently in the conference tournament.  All the players listed in the Stats section are shooting 51 percent or better - that's 25 players.  I cross-checked that with the real-life Ivy in 2009-2010.  There were five players at 51 percent or better.  That's just one example, but I'm guessing it's that way across the board.

The real life Ivy to sim Ivy probably isn't the best of comparisons, whether or not the shooting percentage is too high.  Because in HD the Ivy could challenge for an NT championship.  Here, not so much.  Although a SLIGHT tweak downward would probably 'feel' right.\

As I said, it's the one league I've looked at.  However, I can't find a conference at any level in real life that has that many 51 percent+ shooters. 

there is absolutely 0 question in my mind that fg% is significantly higher than in the old engine and needs to be adjusted slightly. the key word though is slightly. people complained that bigs shot too low (rightly so, or else guards shot too high), and then seble made an adjustment that roughly pushed a 48% shooting big man to 60%. at least in d2. that is not slight. that is dramatic and game changing. my overall complaint with how things have been run lately can be summed up in one word - overcompensation.

i like the direction seble moves in, he just goes too far, like with recruit generation (d1), fatigue (which has been adjusted a couple times since, and may be fine now), fouls, and of course, fg%. i am glad each was tweaked, but i think the staff is getting hung up on making "noticeable" change, not change so slight half the people wouldn't even notice if you didn't tell them. i guess they think people wouldn't complain to get a slight change, and that with the level of dissatisfaction at times, that it was not the time to be subtle. but i disagree completely. and i also question if the site staff is really playing a number of seasons out under each new engine - which to me is critical - because if you are, it is stunningly obvious that these changes have major ramifications, which almost by definition, are bad for the game.

I honestly don't get why it matters. If it's higher for everybody then nobody has an advantage. Why does it have to be exactly inline with real life, simply because it's based on real life. There is already plenty that doesn't mirror real life, like the impossility (is that a word?) of freshman being dominant, or even sophs. If people are goign to complain about FG% being too high then why is nobody complaining about assists being too low or shot blocks being too low? Has anybody ever averaged 8 assists a game in HD or 4 blocks per? Just about every season there is at least 1 person putting up those kind of #s in real life but I've never seen it in HD.

Keep in mind that there is a flip side to this.

In the six years of data on kenpom, only one team per season was able to hold opponents to below 40% from the field.  (This past season there was actually zero.)

The old sim had FG% way too low.  A good team didn't get too high on the offensive side, but a mediocre press defense easily held teams below 40% and a good team could approach 35% while the great held teams below that.

FG% is too high for good players/teams.  But if you look at the numbers, the best defensive teams are holding their opponents to a percentage that is very realistic.

A "fix" shouldn't lower FG% across the board because that means you get teams on the defensive end that are way too good.  And while there obviously is room for improvement, I'm not sure things are all that bad right now.  Any fix should be nuanced.  There are way too many teams shooting 50% and players shooting 55% but a fix that neutralizes the good teams/players could have a terrible impact on the mediocre or poor.

I for one know that I have some players whose defensive ratings aren't entirely compatible with an engine that is now heavily emphasizing that particular attribute.  I think that's a big part of the problem...  My Rochester team has a number of guards with sub-20 defense in the zone.  That's certainly not keeping my opponents' FG%s down.

At the top D1 level I think the % is a bit high but within a few points.

In a small sample size of about a dozen good offensive teams in HD:
Against non big six conf teams those teams shot about 60% on twos, 44% on threes
Against big six conf teams it was a bit lower but still about 53% on twos, 38% on threes

In a RL sampling of about 6000 games, teams from big six conf:
Against non big six conf teams the big six teams shot about 53% on twos, 36% on threes
Against big six conf teams it was a bit lower about 48% on twos, 34% on threes

I broke out the twos vs threes since not many HD teams shoot the RL average of almost 20 3pt attempts per game.

That's only 4-5 points higher in HD for games vs big six competition.
A little larger gap of 7-8 point differences for non big six opponents may in part come from the just overall abundance of pathetic sim teams in HD.

Posted by Iguana1 on 10/7/2010 7:08:00 PM (view original):

At the top D1 level I think the % is a bit high but within a few points.

In a small sample size of about a dozen good offensive teams in HD:
Against non big six conf teams those teams shot about 60% on twos, 44% on threes
Against big six conf teams it was a bit lower but still about 53% on twos, 38% on threes

In a RL sampling of about 6000 games, teams from big six conf:
Against non big six conf teams the big six teams shot about 53% on twos, 36% on threes
Against big six conf teams it was a bit lower about 48% on twos, 34% on threes

I broke out the twos vs threes since not many HD teams shoot the RL average of almost 20 3pt attempts per game.

That's only 4-5 points higher in HD for games vs big six competition.
A little larger gap of 7-8 point differences for non big six opponents may in part come from the just overall abundance of pathetic sim teams in HD.

good analysis! but i'm not sure i'd refer to 4-5 ppg as "only 4-5 points", on a 70 ppg standard game that is a 15% increase, which i think is pretty significant.

what concerns me more than this 10-15% discrepancy, depending on how you look at it, is the individual players. the overall numbers are masking the problem - mushing it all together, balancing the more and less severe imbalances. the shooting % bigs are showing in d2 are crazy, plain and simple. 

a brief example, my long time d2 program SIUE has always been guard first, bigs second. so my bigs benefited fg% wise from lower distro, and i was pleased with 50%. now, with higher distro to bigs (which should hurt offensive efficiency), i have 3 bigs who score - 11.3ppg at 63%, 8.9ppg at 68%, and (a soph) 8.3ppg at 68%. this is after non conf play, with a typical ball-buster schedule (9 road games, 6 ranked teams). to have your bigs play that well against this competition is crazy!! its at least, if not more, than a full 1/3rd increase in fg%, one of the most important stats in the game. these kinds of severe adjustments - justified or not - are categorically bad for the game. nobody wants your player to shoot 48% one season and 65% the next without any material change to the situation. its ridiculous. 

whether the current %s are too high or not is a separate issue. but i'd like to hear one person who actually watches basketball tell me that having bigs shooting like they are on my team above is reasonable in a basketball simulation. even forgetting that the schedule is totally unrealistic in its difficulty, its seems painfully clear, things are out of whack.

edit: i think this particular case overstates the d2 big man scoring change slightly, it was just an example when i said 1/3rd or more... really i feel like it is more like a 25% change, maybe as low as 20%, which is gigantic nonetheless.

Again billy, why does it matter that players across the board are shooting better? If everybody is shooting better, then it affects everybody the same and therefore is a wash. In fact IMO the higher shooting % make the game more enjoyable, because when reading a pbp you see your team making more shots, and it makes it possible to have superstar players. As I pointed to above, why complain about the shooting percentages not being like real life but don't complain about the many other things that aren't exaclty real life.

Posted by coach_billyg on 10/7/2010 10:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Iguana1 on 10/7/2010 7:08:00 PM (view original):

At the top D1 level I think the % is a bit high but within a few points.

In a small sample size of about a dozen good offensive teams in HD:
Against non big six conf teams those teams shot about 60% on twos, 44% on threes
Against big six conf teams it was a bit lower but still about 53% on twos, 38% on threes

In a RL sampling of about 6000 games, teams from big six conf:
Against non big six conf teams the big six teams shot about 53% on twos, 36% on threes
Against big six conf teams it was a bit lower about 48% on twos, 34% on threes

I broke out the twos vs threes since not many HD teams shoot the RL average of almost 20 3pt attempts per game.

That's only 4-5 points higher in HD for games vs big six competition.
A little larger gap of 7-8 point differences for non big six opponents may in part come from the just overall abundance of pathetic sim teams in HD.

good analysis! but i'm not sure i'd refer to 4-5 ppg as "only 4-5 points", on a 70 ppg standard game that is a 15% increase, which i think is pretty significant.

what concerns me more than this 10-15% discrepancy, depending on how you look at it, is the individual players. the overall numbers are masking the problem - mushing it all together, balancing the more and less severe imbalances. the shooting % bigs are showing in d2 are crazy, plain and simple. 

a brief example, my long time d2 program SIUE has always been guard first, bigs second. so my bigs benefited fg% wise from lower distro, and i was pleased with 50%. now, with higher distro to bigs (which should hurt offensive efficiency), i have 3 bigs who score - 11.3ppg at 63%, 8.9ppg at 68%, and (a soph) 8.3ppg at 68%. this is after non conf play, with a typical ball-buster schedule (9 road games, 6 ranked teams). to have your bigs play that well against this competition is crazy!! its at least, if not more, than a full 1/3rd increase in fg%, one of the most important stats in the game. these kinds of severe adjustments - justified or not - are categorically bad for the game. nobody wants your player to shoot 48% one season and 65% the next without any material change to the situation. its ridiculous. 

whether the current %s are too high or not is a separate issue. but i'd like to hear one person who actually watches basketball tell me that having bigs shooting like they are on my team above is reasonable in a basketball simulation. even forgetting that the schedule is totally unrealistic in its difficulty, its seems painfully clear, things are out of whack.

edit: i think this particular case overstates the d2 big man scoring change slightly, it was just an example when i said 1/3rd or more... really i feel like it is more like a 25% change, maybe as low as 20%, which is gigantic nonetheless.

Since when is 4-5 ppg out of a 70 point game a 15% increase?  Isn't it like 6%?

At least we no longer have games ending 32-29.

The 4-5 points I was refering to was actually the 4-5 increases in shooting precentages in HD vs RL.  ie..  53% vs 48% and 38% vs 34%

4-5 % is around a 10% discrepancy from RL.  Which could be somewhere around 6-7 points scored for one team in one a game.

I worry about the phenomenon of the second best - the most important thing in my view is that the game be playable and resemble real life.  The stats dont have to match.  If one tries to make a particular stat match, one runs the risk of skewing others or reducing game playability.

I dont know where this comes out for FG %, but I hope there is not a shotgun fix in which shooting is just cut back with a cleaver