just got one, asking me if I really think gameplanning does not matter, my answer was that I do think gameplanning matters, but that I don't think def level has more than a couple of point swing in any game best to worst, and almost no effect if just slightly changed.

In terms of what does matter, here is my list:

#1 ratings (40 point difference between the best and worst teams per game)

#2 how the RNG fell that night (+/- 10 any given night)

#3 all of gameplanning (+/- 10 any given night)

**EDIT = #4 - HCA - (5-10 points)**

included in all of gameplanning is def and off type, lineups, fatigue setting, practicing, off pace, def levels, end of game settings, distro, shot selection, etc)

My logic for #1 is based on my observation, and the 40pts is more a bad d3 team vs a great one, moreso than two human d1 teams, where I would guess the PPG rating diff to be around 10-15 pts.

My logic for #2 is also based on a guess, and is a pretty big number, what I am saying is if a game on average simmed to 50-50, that 2/3's of the results will fall between 60-40 and 40-60. This is the part of the game that most coaches do not like, IMO

My logic for #3 is borrowed from #2, that in an equal game, coaching can just about trump the RNG, maybe 2/3's to 80% of the time.

I think any of these guesses might be off by a fair amount, but I do think a structure something like this is how ratings, RNG, and gameplanning work together.

Are you sure that breakdown isn't reflective of real life? I mean, you have to remember you probably have a half decent game planner on the opposite side and we're somewhat limited in what we can do with the game plans.

Coaching and pre game preparation has a much bigger impact on RL than in HD. I think the big problem is that a lot of the impact of coaching in real life is during the game which we have no control over. Subbing patterns, finding guys who are playing well together, keeping the hot guy out on the floor, calling sets, changing defense on the fly, those are things that have huge impacts on games but we cant do that.

i think your use of best to worst metric is a tough one. if you work it, you can game plan a team into the ground. i would say its more like +/- 50 from all of game planning from best to worst.

sadly, i don't really have a good metric to suggest. i have considered, team-optimal vs game-optimal, but none of us really know if we are getting there anyway. i think we can get within a point or two though. anyway, i figure that difference is about 3ppg on average. over the course of a NT run, that can be 18 points, which IMO is quite significant.

also, ive considered like "reasonable game plan" vs team optimal, where reasonable game plan is something you might expect from a guy with 10 seasons under his belt. but, the perception of what that quality is obviously changes from coach to coach, all of whom may be equally right. i would fathom a guess of 5-10 points per game.

because my terminology is not clear, when i say team optimal, i mean the optimal setup for a team at a given point in the season, not knowing your opponent. game-optimal would take into the account the opponent. i've also considered "season optimal", which would be the best setup for a team for a whole season, i.e. set on day 1. a lot of coaches set up teams and then let them go, so i think it is a useful way to think about it. i would say season optimal is worse than team optimal, because of freshman and sophmores improving among other things, by maybe 1-2 points on average (at one point, they will be equal, so i am thinking on the tail ends if you put that point in the middle of the season, its about 2-4 points).

Bottom line, you need skilled players in order to win. That's at least 80% of the game right there.

....snip ....i would say its more like +/- 50 from all of game planning from best to worst..... snipped from gil's post

______________________________________


gil, you know plus or minus 50 means a 800 team rating with a poor plan loses to a 800 team with a great one, on average 20-120?

what I am saying, is a 800 team with a poor plan loses to a 800 team with a great one, on average 60-80

Quote: Originally posted by thewizard2 on 12/01/2009Bottom line, you need skilled players in order to win. That's at least 80% of the game right there.

I think that's true in real life. Mid-Majors that consistently kill giants are pretty rare and often have BCS talent on their rosters since we've seen increasing parity due to the AAU circuit.

Quote: Originally posted by oldresorter on 12/01/2009 ....snip ....i would say its more like +/- 50 from all of game planning from best to worst..... snipped from gil's post______________________________________gil, you know plus or minus 50 means a 800 team rating with a poor plan loses to a 800 team with a great one, on average 20-120?what I am saying, is a 800 team with a poor plan loses to a 800 team with a great one, on average 60-80 

if you are +/- 10 on average (variance), your opponents expected value is still 0 off their average. on average, with equal ratings and game planning, you are at the same score, like 70-70. so i would say +/- 10 means 60-70 or 80-70. +/- 50 on a great game plan might be 30-70 to 80-70, as much of the variance is below the average game plan (you can really drive a team into the ground, for example, give your worst player all the distro and play him all game. the amount you can improve the average game plan is much more limited).

anyway, if you are saying poor game plan, like one that would be drawn up by a 10th to 25th percentile coach, then i think we are close to the same page. but the worst game plan? i think that is way, way more. that is why i brought up the worst game planning metric, it doesn't make sense to talk about it, as there are so many ridiculous and unrealistic cases. maybe by worst, you meant worst realistic? that is still really tough for me to gauge... the worst coach might be really, really bad. i like poor game plan much better :) sorry if i am splitting hairs, that is not my intention!