Two issues with the game as I see it:

1) Uptempo does not work.  Too many times I have gone uptempo vs. vastly inferior teams and lost.  My feeling is playing uptempo increases the odds of being upset when you are the superior team as opposed to increasing your odds of winning (as suggested through increased possessions).

2) Fatigue is backwards.  I see players on teams playing zone getting about the same number of minutes as teams playing M2M or Full Court when using fatigue settings.  It's the other team that seems to benefit from playing against zone (increase in minutes) or to the detriment playing against full court (decrease in minutes).  That in my opinion is backwards, it should be your team that feels the effects of the defense you are playing and not the other.

Posted by stockplayer on 1/7/2012 12:39:00 PM (view original):
Two issues with the game as I see it:

1) Uptempo does not work.  Too many times I have gone uptempo vs. vastly inferior teams and lost.  My feeling is playing uptempo increases the odds of being upset when you are the superior team as opposed to increasing your odds of winning (as suggested through increased possessions).

2) Fatigue is backwards.  I see players on teams playing zone getting about the same number of minutes as teams playing M2M or Full Court when using fatigue settings.  It's the other team that seems to benefit from playing against zone (increase in minutes) or to the detriment playing against full court (decrease in minutes).  That in my opinion is backwards, it should be your team that feels the effects of the defense you are playing and not the other.

wow ....where to start ......
1)  Couldnt disagree more (to quote girt).    There is no mathemmatical reason whatsoever that is you use uptempo "when you are supposed to" that you have a smaller chance of winning.   Now maybe, you are as superior as you think you are?  Maybe you are trying to run uptempo with a short bench?  Whatever the reason, the statement for #1 is completely wrong.

2) Part #1 if that statement is false.    All else equal, players that fun FCP play less mins than man, which are less than zone.   Part 2 of the statement is sort of true and I think the engine does affect the offense a bit.  Maybe not as much as you would like.   

So when in your opinion do you run uptempo?

For your first issue I disagree, although I tend to run uptempo a lot and if I am superior I almost always use it. I like to run uptempo if they have a shallow bench or a bad defense too. Also I think your type of team dictates your tempo and that may be why you are having issues with it.

The second issue I may need to look into a bit more but I agree that zone defense should not benefit the other team fatigue-wise significantly. I disagree that FCP teams have the same minutes though, through my observations.

I also agree that running uptempo is the way to go if you have good depth and a strong team. Even if your team has a lower overall rating than your opponent, if they have a thin bench and you can keep shuffling fresh players in, I think it gives you a good chance of winning. You want to be sure that you have good stamina for this to work.

Does anyone think running uptempo decreases the offensive efficiency?  Simply put, does 'rushing' the shots cause lower fg%?  Sometimes I wonder if some offenses are better designed to run slow tempo, uptempo (fastbreak obviously)... or either?

WIS has stated the only thing uptempo increases is the number of possessions.  In other words, you're not playing faster, you're just shooting early in the possession.  Since this is a mathematical game, playing uptempo should result in a better chance of winning when you are the superior team.  My experience is playing uptempo decreases your chances of winning when you the superior team.  This is opposite of what WIS has stated.

Brian the answer to your question is no according to WIS

I have found the WIS answer to be correct.

I play uptempo if I think

a. my team is superior overall - for the reason stated, as a matter of probability more possessions - all things being equal - means the better team is more likely to win.  (Just as the better player more often wins in tennis where there are a very large number of points while weaker teams often win baseball games, for example)

b. my team is weaker or equal but my depth is better - this isnt just who has a better bench - but rather a comparison of the guys who I think likely will get a few more minutes at faster pace

c. sometimes I do it when I cant think of something else to do, just to give something a try

in my experience uptempo DOES help the better team - all things being equal, depth and otherwise.  I'd suggest that you go back and look at the games that you think didnt work that way and consider whether you were actually superior, how was the depth comparison and is the sample big enough to reach a conclusion.  A handful of games can go either way no matter what the odds are.

I'm sure you're not only reacting to your last loss with CMHMS, but that seems to be what prompted your post. You didn't lose that game because you went uptempo. You lost it (at least in part) because of other gameplanning mistakes, including giving a bunch of distro to post players not equipped to score, etc.

No I formed my opinion of years over observation and my distributions were pretty even, it was just how the game played out.  The CHMS loss was probably more attributed to the 8 seniors simmy had...

Posted by stockplayer on 1/8/2012 1:13:00 PM (view original):
No I formed my opinion of years of observation and my distributions were pretty even, it was just how the game played out.  The CHMS loss was probably more attributed to the 8 seniors simmy had...

I disagree. I side with girt, guys like pickles should not be one of your top 3 shooters in that game. Heck, your leading scorer isn't very impressive, as the 6-16 from the field will attest.

Posted by caesari on 1/8/2012 1:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by stockplayer on 1/8/2012 1:13:00 PM (view original):
No I formed my opinion of years of observation and my distributions were pretty even, it was just how the game played out.  The CHMS loss was probably more attributed to the 8 seniors simmy had...

I disagree. I side with girt, guys like pickles should not be one of your top 3 shooters in that game. Heck, your leading scorer isn't very impressive, as the 6-16 from the field will attest.

Let's not read too much into just one game. We've all had games where the shot count has been skewed compared to the distro.

Okay, that's true. I was just pointing out the fact that in this particular game, this was the case.

I just went back and looked at previous games, turns out this was by far the most skewed distro. So I amend my statement.