I didn't think this should be buried in the first OK thread, although that's exactly where it belongs.

Today's example: 65 pt favs against a 4-win 6 seed in the Conf Tourney. We get twice as many rebounds, three times as many FTs, 5 times more wins, 100 pts per man, they only played 7 guys, and...

We trailed by 3 at the half, it was tied with 1:20 in the game... and we win by 2.

DOES THIS COUNT as another example of how screwed up things are? Or will the Tories cite the victory as evidence that it's all good; that the game was NOT another inexplicable result, because it wasn't a loss?

That makes a double OT win (over an 8-19 team)

2 home losses (a 60 RPI team, with 9 first year players, and a 128 RPI team)

and now a 2pt win against a SIXTY-FIVE point dog with 4 wins and 7 players.

All in the last 6 games!

Does that look like the occasional bizarre result?

I don't think it has to be a loss to be an example of _____ (fill in the blank).

Knowing you as I do, the only logical explanation is coaching. Didn't you stop scheduling Sim teams because you couldn't beat them???

Low possession game and he hit his threes. And I think what is messed up is whatever formula it uses for determining point spreads, frankly. To me it seems really messed up half the time. SOmeone hitting a string of threes is a risk in a game with a low amount of shots in it.

Uh, did you look at his lineup? He was clearly trying to appease some freshmen during the season. In the CT, he gave the minutes back to his seniors.

EDIT: This does not, therefore, count as an example of how screwed up this are.

Quote: Originally posted by theeyetest on 1/08/2010Uh, did you look at his lineup? He was clearly trying to appease some freshmen during the season. In the CT, he gave the minutes back to his seniors.

EDIT: This does not, therefore, count as an example of how screwed up this are.

Ya I would go with that, you can see the first time he played you it was a different line-up with 10 players playing and none of the upperclassmen starting. Playoff time he started all his upperclassmen and you can see how much better of a team he was just falling by 2.

Quote: Originally posted by alblack56 on 1/08/2010Knowing you as I do, the only logical explanation is coaching.  Didn't you stop scheduling Sim teams because you couldn't beat them???

There's no need to bring THAT up, al. What goes in my dirty laundry hamper should stay in my dirty laundry hamper!

And he reminded me that one of his 7 players only played 2 minutes. His 90 and 91 Stamina guys went 40 mins and were "tired" at the end.

Quote: Originally posted by dogget on 1/08/2010And he reminded me that one of his 7 players only played 2 minutes. His 90 and 91 Stamina guys went 40 mins and were "tired" at the end.

Well he was running slowdown as well which allows the player to go a little bit longer in my little experience. Seems like quite a few people though question the Stamina setting in HD and how accurate it is. I think it has to do with how well the player they are guarded by and guarding is as well.

Looks like your other problem, apart from the threes was going 8 - 15 on free throws. Combining those you missed with the one and one free throws you never got to attempt and you could have had a comfortable margin.

The point spread formula is definitely out of whack.

However, this result IS a perfect example of how screwed up the engine is and why I'm quitting once my free seasons run out.

YOu do know that, whatever your opinions on that engine are, its going to be replaced soon, right?

Quote: Originally posted by muredskin00 on 1/08/2010The point spread formula is definitely out of whack.

However, this result IS a perfect example of how screwed up the engine is and why I'm quitting once my free seasons run out.

what a shame. the only coach to ever pull the big upset on me blames it on a screwed up engine :P ah well, what can you do. take care in the after life :)

Quote: Originally posted by coach_billyg on 1/08/2010

Quote: Originally posted by muredskin00 on 1/08/2010The point spread formula is definitely out of whack.
However, this result IS a perfect example of how screwed up the engine is and why I'm quitting once my free seasons run out.

what a shame. the only coach to ever pull the big upset on me blames it on a screwed up engine :P ah well, what can you do. take care in the after life :)

billyg, If I remember correctly, I think you were only a 2 point favorite in that one and I won by 3. A 5 point swing is certainly within my common sense margin of variability. :)

a in the b, I have no doubt that engine changes are coming, but in reading through seble's development blog thread, here are the topics I see covered:

- Role of durabilty in injuries
- Recruit creation
- Rankings and tournament selection/seeding
- Favorite school of recruits
- Rate of player improvement/potential adjustments
- Low post for guards/PER for big men

Now I agree that all of these topics are in need of addressing and I'm pleased to see this regime is very interested in the opinions/feedback of its customers. However, what I don't see in that thread is a sense that the two things I think are most problematic in HD will be addressed at all:

1. In my opinion, the current engine generates far more standard deviation outlier results than we should expect to see based on the relative player ratings and the relative abilities of the coaches involved in a particular game, and

2. Many times, the gameplan I put in simply seems to be ignored by the game engine (this is primarily distro-related).


One of my fellow MAC coaches in Iba made a great statement. "I play this game because I enjoy the sim aspect of it, living the dream of actually being a coach." Isn't that why most of us do this? And isn't the context of that "dream" based on what we observe in the real world? Therefore, from a randomness standpoint, it seems to me that the results we see in the engine should have MUCH more correlation to the real world than they do. If you have ridiculously superior talent relative to your opponent and don't do anything stupid in game planning, you should win nearly all of the time. And if your relative talent levels are at all close to even, game planning should make a big difference in the outcome. While randomness SHOULD exist - as it does in real life - I see way too much of it now for my liking and I don't get any sense that the engine redesign will address that issue.

I know this was covered in another thread, but Chaminade-Virginia are always brought up by some to explain the extreme outlier results. OK, that game means such results are POSSIBLE. But why does that game get talked about so much? Because it's an incredibly unique occurrence over the last 30 or so years of college basketball. Yet we see stuff almost on that scale happening nearly every day in HD, and that's a problem that needs to be addressed before I put down any more money on this product.

Does this count?

A 51-point 2nd half against a team that gave up 55 pp GAME for the entire season.

Vandy was down 13 at the half. Everybody was present and accounted for. No bizarre schemes for UConn. Playin' 'em straight up and not doing that badly. Up 15 in the 2nd half.

51 points in the second half! (We gave up 55 pp GAME! RPI under 10. 5-1 against Top 25 teams.) A 27-5 run along the way. 27 to 5 is about right, isn't it? Given the two teams involved.

Good solid players. Good solid IQs. A good solid strategy. A good solid lead. (Up 15 with 14 mins to go.)

Lose by 10. (Then there's the question of whether or not it was a (head scratching) loss in a BIG game, an IMPORTANT game.)

Does this count?

I'll bet that the propaganda-laced HD Herald says that this does not count, but I personally will back you on every last example. I don't justify things that are blatantly wrong.