This team is making me crazy:

www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=13996

Last season? 15-1 in conference, won the conference tourney. Graduated exactly one player, a good,  but not great, power forward. Have a pre-season All-American (and this for the Sun Belt) in Paul Krell. And the team is losing to everyone.  Left and right. *It's the same players*. I haven't varied in strategy until lately, where I've messed with some different defensive depths and tried a few different reserves (including messing around with the starter at small forward). If anyone takes a look and see something obvious I'm doing wrong, I'd be glad for the help. Obviously,  this is a low-level D-1 program, so the answer, "Recruit better players" isn't really going to help. I know I could have a better point guard, some better defense, etc. But beggars can't be choosers. The thing that sticks in my craw (once again) is the fact that it's the same players, save one, from a 15-1 team, and they're all a year older. How could things go so differently? It doesn't make sense. I hate to blame HD, but that's the only conclusion I've been able to come up with so far. This game is losing me.

I don't play D1, so can't offer an informed option on how your ratings may compare, but perhaps things just broke well and you over-achieved last season?

My first guess was that you scheduled up following a successful run, but looking at your schedule I see that can't be the explanation, so over-achievement is all I came up with.

Have you thought about playing some 2-3? You've played 3-2 every game (I think) and that is far from optimum strategy. You're getting absolutely destroyed inside.

I also think you were making a mistake starting three bigs when you only have four on your roster. That kills your depth.

Without being able to see exactly what happened last season, my gut is that it may have been a bit flukey. (I would say an easy schedule, which is true, but you have an easy sked this season, too.) That team you have is not a 26-4 team, even from a weak conference.Your fastest guard is a 79 sp and your next fastest is 68. Your best rebounder is 84 and no one else over 80. Lots of defensive ratings in the 40's/50's/60's. You just don't have the talent ... looking a the talent, I would expect you to be a middling team in the Sun Belt.

A few things I notice, for what it's worth:

1. You are playing some of your starters very heavy minutes, so fatigue may be an issue.  I know it is hard to argue that Krell and Cook need more rest, considering that they are putting up big numbers, so I don't think you should cut back on their minutes.  I'd change over to a slow tempo unless you are facing a team you should absolutely crush.  That should minimize the impact of fatigue, given that you really do need those two guys in the game as much as possible.

2. Baker is not far behind Fermin as a PG, plus will return next year so you want to develop him.  I'd probably raise his minutes a bit, helping him to develop for next year and making sure you have a fresh PG in at all times.  If you're subbing by fatigue, make sure both of these two players are set on "fairly fresh."

3. I think Maher is better than Maus at this point.  I know the shooting percentages indicate otherwise, but based on very small samples.  They are similar offensively and Maher is significantly better than Maus on defense, so time to give Maher the second-team SG slot behind Jones.  (Just keep Maher's distro really low until he proves he can score more efficiently, but meanwhile he will help some on defense.)

4. I'd consider starting Davis ahead of Wright at SF.  I wouldn't play Doles at all, with his ATH and SPD he is the worst defender on your team at any position.  I would even consider Tillman as a backup here, his decent ratings in ATH, SPD, and DEF mean he will hold his own defensively, and with his PER he'll even hit an occasional outside shot.  I'd rather give backup minutes to him than to Doles.

5. If Davis ends up playing a lot of SF minutes, all the more reason to go slowdown tempo because that will leave you even thinner at the big positions.

6. Distro-wise, I would give Jones more of a share.  He is easily your best outside threat, and when you consider his 63/45/80 percentages on twos/treys/FT's, it is clear that he could be a bigger part of the offense.  If your opponent positions more inside in the second half in response to Krell and Cook, Jones may be able to take up some of the slack with his shooting.

Just some ideas, good luck!

PS with regards to (6) - Jones is outshooting Krell and Cook on twos, threes, and from the stripe.  Give that guy the ball more!

i can fix you.

your bigs are playing too many minutes, move davis to backup pf, make delfino the primary backup at center, make sure everyone is on fatigue/fairly fresh

tillman and maher need to be playing. wright should not be the starting sf. make baker the starting sf. wright can backup at sf. maus backup pg. maher backup sg. tillman third line backup pg and sg. put doles on the fourth line for sf.

your welcome.

i barely read this, but playing a 3-2 with 3 bigs starting and playing a lot of minutes seems silly...

Thanks for all the advice. Wronoj, I agree, but having experimented with three bigs last season (the 15-1 season), that was what I ran...a 3-2 zone that had three bigs (one out on the wing, obviously), and clearly it worked. But I'm through being stubborn with it. Uglyskunk3 and davis are clearly on the same page...I should follow davis's advice if I want to switch over to a 2-3, and u.s.'s if I want to stick with a 3-2. I'll try each idea here and see how it goes. As for whether a 15-1 season can be a "bit fluky," don't we think that's kind of messed up? We're talking about the same players and the same system, and we get that kind of variance? I can tell you: the *scores* weren't fluky last year. I romped last season (albeit through an easy conference and a relatively easy non-conference schedule). So while all this advice is appreciated, and I'm going to try and salvage things by heeding it, I'm most disturbed by the dramatically different results with essentially the same inputs. Not realistic, wouldn't you all agree? Anyway, you've all been very generous with your time, and I thank  you.

Why can't a 15 - 1 season be 'A bit fluky"  If the team goes "A bit fluky" In one direction the first season and "A bit fluky" the other direction the next. . .

were you blowing people out by forty in your 15 - 1 season?

Posted by zooeydog on 1/21/2011 1:08:00 AM (view original):
Thanks for all the advice. Wronoj, I agree, but having experimented with three bigs last season (the 15-1 season), that was what I ran...a 3-2 zone that had three bigs (one out on the wing, obviously), and clearly it worked. But I'm through being stubborn with it. Uglyskunk3 and davis are clearly on the same page...I should follow davis's advice if I want to switch over to a 2-3, and u.s.'s if I want to stick with a 3-2. I'll try each idea here and see how it goes. As for whether a 15-1 season can be a "bit fluky," don't we think that's kind of messed up? We're talking about the same players and the same system, and we get that kind of variance? I can tell you: the *scores* weren't fluky last year. I romped last season (albeit through an easy conference and a relatively easy non-conference schedule). So while all this advice is appreciated, and I'm going to try and salvage things by heeding it, I'm most disturbed by the dramatically different results with essentially the same inputs. Not realistic, wouldn't you all agree? Anyway, you've all been very generous with your time, and I thank  you.

Keep in mind, you don't have to just play a 3-2 or just play a 2-3. Optimum strategy is to mix them up based on the tendencies/strengths/weaknesses of your opponent.

a_in_the_b - "A bit fluky" sounds like "just trust the game, it's doing the right thing," without much critical thinking. If a real-life team went 26-3 (before the national tourney) with a team full of juniors and comfortable winning margins, and the next season with all but one player returning went 9-11 with no end in sight, I don't think any fan would call it "a bit fluky." That sounds like "wildly fluky" to me. But because we like WIS and HD (and I do, in general), we make excuses and call it just "a bit"? I'm sorry, that's more than "a bit." It's borderline nonsensical. And having perused many threads in these forums, I see that I'm not the only person making this claim. While I'm appreciative of everyone here who's given strategy advice, and I'm trying to take some of it, these were the same strategies I used with the same personnel last season. If you put the exact same inputs into a machine twice, and one time it returns an .897 winning percentage and the next it returns a .450 winning percentage, that would not fit the definition of "a bounce here, a bounce there...." Frankly, it feels like a reason not to play anymore, and that's too bad.

No one's mentioned the possibility that maybe it's just the competition that's improved here while you've remained roughly the same?

Posted by zooeydog on 1/21/2011 8:31:00 AM (view original):
a_in_the_b - "A bit fluky" sounds like "just trust the game, it's doing the right thing," without much critical thinking. If a real-life team went 26-3 (before the national tourney) with a team full of juniors and comfortable winning margins, and the next season with all but one player returning went 9-11 with no end in sight, I don't think any fan would call it "a bit fluky." That sounds like "wildly fluky" to me. But because we like WIS and HD (and I do, in general), we make excuses and call it just "a bit"? I'm sorry, that's more than "a bit." It's borderline nonsensical. And having perused many threads in these forums, I see that I'm not the only person making this claim. While I'm appreciative of everyone here who's given strategy advice, and I'm trying to take some of it, these were the same strategies I used with the same personnel last season. If you put the exact same inputs into a machine twice, and one time it returns an .897 winning percentage and the next it returns a .450 winning percentage, that would not fit the definition of "a bounce here, a bounce there...." Frankly, it feels like a reason not to play anymore, and that's too bad.

I understand your point, but I think you're taking it to an extreme.

First, the type of thing you describe happens in real life way more than it happens in HD (largely because there are a lot of factors in real life that simply don't exist in HD).

Second, I think you're underestimating the lost of your starting pf from last season. You're thin and pretty weak inside now. You're getting pounded in there defensively (it's by far you're single biggest problem to date). So I think his absence has hurt a lot more than you were expecting.

Lastly, looking at the talent, there's simply no question in my mind that you overachieved last season. You don't have anything close to 26-4 talent, even vs. a weak sked. If I were looking at this two-sesaon slice, what would be much more confusing to me was how you did so well last season. Even though this season's sked has not been difficult, I'm guessing that an incredbily easy sked last season was part of it.

I dunno. As for my relative lack of talent, you have to remember this is a DI team that's recruiting from the dregs, and really only stands a chance of landing one quasi-elite recruit per class. The fill-in guys are, of necessity, going to be limited -- we down here in the Sun Belt have a hard time doing any better. As for my results: the conference hasn't changed. I'm getting my butt handed to me by SIM teams that were also SIM teams last year, and I was beating by 15 points. You all have been very generous in your responses, really, and I definitely feel a sense of community as a result of this thread, but I have to admit that I also don't feel satisfaction with the answer, "This year isn't the fluke, *last* year was the fluke." I mean, is that any better? The fact that the same players with the same strategy (true, I did lose Charles Bayne to graduation) could be *this* much different, whether you call this season or last season the "fluke," makes it tough to swallow that this engine is a (for lack of a better word) meritocracy. 

Just because they are still sims doesn't mean they can't also be better.   There are levels of talent in sims too.  The Sims had players improve, players graduate, and new players added as well.  Against the other division your home and away games changed.  ALso lost in your example is the fact that MANY other teams DON'T have this scenario, indeed MOST don't.