Quote: Originally posted by emy1013 on 4/09/2010Knowing why MU posted this and what the scenario was, I hope that he posts CS' responses to his ticket later in this thread.  Their responses will blow you guys away.......

Oh, I will - gonna give some more time for folks to respond. Love the quality of the answers and the discussion so far - even where's there a little disagreement in tactics , everyone's giving a well reasoned answer.

Slow tempo. A cornerstone of HD philosophy is: the fewer possessions, the fewer opportunities (to hit 3s, get rebounds, for you to miss a shot, etc.).

You opponent is probably looking for more 3s, trailing late. So if he starts hitting them, you'd want to limit his chances. If he misses them, then good for you!

Some of the detailed strategies offered above are truly beyond an HD coach's control. So with the imperfect, ham-handed, limited control you do have, I say play the odds. (That's all this game is anyway.)

Play the odds and give him fewer chances.

Well Ideally you hold the ball for a while and probably use your best dribble drive player with about 7-10 seconds , and preferably give him a screen up top.

I have looked at what prompted this post, so I understand. Though look at the UNI/Kansas game, Ali Farokthehoweveritsspelled, took a three without letting time run down (he just didn't miss though).

Bigger problem for you in that game was the 1-5 on freebies after the 1:50 mark.

I almost never run slowdown late in the game. The reason being, in my opinion, the slowdown does not work well against the FCP, it's somehow disaster for my teams. Maybe it works for someone else. However, if the margin was about 10 or 12 with 2 minutes to play, I would strongly consider slow down.

I am assuming this is a 7 point lead at 1:43 with the leading team inbounding after an opponents made basket? The other team has a press on, so unless one of my speedy guys can shake free for a sprint to the hoop and a long inbounds pass and a dunk we look to get it in play and advance across the half court. Once across half court the defense goes m2m. Assuming no doubleteams, we slow down up top while the frontcourt players are active in trying to establish position/find room for baseline cuts. IRL, as soon as my PG spots an advantage either in a cutter or a big in great post-up position, he makes the pass and we go for the score, no matter what time is showing. If that does not develop, at 10 seconds or so our bigs try to set a screen for the SG or SF to drive inside and kick out on pick and roll/drive to hoop for lay-up/foul (no charging!) or stop and pop mid range jumper. If I've got Andy Rautins of that kid from UNI or any cold-blooded assassin 3 pt shooter, double screen for him and take the 3 with 3 or 4 on the clock, and sprint back on D (forget the offensive rebound except the C) so we don't give up any FBP on a long rebound and quick pass. If we make the basket, it is now about 1:05 or so, up 9 or 10. If we miss, still up 7 with about a minute to go and the ball live and in play.

Quote: Originally posted by kentaurus on 4/09/2010
Bigger problem for you in that game was the 1-5 on freebies after the 1:50 mark.

As you'll see when I post my dealings with CS, I have no issue with the missed FTs. Those things do happen.

Thanks to all of you for sharing your insights. Some absolutely excellent thought processes and analyses on display here. To generalize, it sounds like most of you are in agreement that, in this situation, you’d play time and score and shorten the game. If an open layup opportunity presents itself, maybe we take it, but in any event, we certainly wouldn’t tolerate jump shots early in the shot clock - especially when we have an end of game setting that supposedly allows us to shorten the game in exactly this scenario.

Well, time to tell the sordid tale. My apologies in advance for the length (most of it is the CS ticket). Here’s what actually happened:

Our team got the ball with 2:07 , up 7, and in end of game slowdown mode (keep in mind that this was the end of game setting – we had been running normal tempo prior to that):

- At 1:52 (15 seconds into the possession), my PG “misses long.”
- Opponent proceeds to turn the ball over with 1:43 . We’re still up 7.
- At 1:31 (12 seconds into the possession), my SG “misses a 3 from the wing.” Opponent rebounds with 1:29 .
- Opponent scores a 2 with 1:13 . Now we’re only up 5 but with the ball.
- At 0:49 (24 seconds into the possession), my PG’s shot is blocked by Opponent’s PG (not clear from the PBP whether this was a driving layup attempt or a jump shot). Opponent rebounds with 0:47 .

The rest of the game boils down to Opponent making baskets, our team being fouled and missing FTs, and eventually giving Opponent a possession with 0:24 and our team up by 1. Of course, Opponent makes a shot with 0:04 to win the game, but I have no problem with anything that happened after the 0:49 mark.

I look at the situation from 2:07 to 0:49 as an example of a sim engine that isn’t just not working correctly, but isn’t programmed to implement basic principles of time and score in end of game situations. In addition, and perhaps most galling, the engine appeared to completely ignore my instructions to run a slowdown during that time, particularly with respect to the shots at 1:52 and 1:31 (as you’ll see later, I allow that the shot at 0:49 was the least egregious of the three, but still too early in context of time and score).

I sent in a ticket asking for an explanation of why this occurred. Here’s the transcript beginning with CS’s answer:

[Begin script]

4/8/2010 11:35 AM Customer Support

Running a slowdown doesn't guarantee that the team will run out the entire shot clock. If an open shot is available sooner the player may take it.

4/8/2010 12:22 PM muredskin00

Did you actually look at the context of the situation I'm referring to? This is the end of the game, not the middle of the first half. The whole point of using an end of game setting to slow the game down with a large late lead is to run out the clock, not to take open shots. Is the logic of the engine incapable of differentiating an end of game situation from the rest of the game? Do you feel it's OK that it freely chooses to ignore fundamental basketball principles as well as the settings I put in place for EXACTLY this situation? I want to hear a more honest and thought out response than that.

4/8/2010 12:37 PM Customer Support

Players aren't robots and the flow of the game isn't always under your control. You can't dictate exactly how everything plays out on every possession.

4/8/2010 1:37 PM muredskin00

So coaching settings and strategy are meaningless when the engine unilaterally decides to do its own thing? Do I hear you correctly?

4/8/2010 2:16 PM Customer Support

Just curious, what exactly would you expect, your team to hold the ball for 34 seconds every possession. We are striving for realism, and basketball is not a game that is that predictable.

4/8/2010 4:07 PM muredskin00

That's exactly what I would expect at the VERY END OF THE GAME when I'm ahead big and I'm employing an END OF GAME SLOWDOWN STRATEGY TO MILK THE CLOCK. Let's go back and look at the last 2:07 of that game, shall we:

2:07 - Dominican scores to cut the lead to 7. At this point, time is more important than scoring. If we hold the ball 34 seconds, there's no more than 1:33 when Dominican gets the ball back. Instead, we attempt a shot with 1:52 - we just lost the chance to take another 19 seconds off the clock. As a coach, I'd be calling timeout and screaming at the shooter at that point. After some missed FTs, Dominican gets the ball back and turns the ball over with 1:43 .

Now, if you don't think it's realistic that you'd want to hold the ball for 34 seconds when you're up 7 points with 1:43 , then I really question your basketball IQ. So instead, we shoot with 1:31 and miss (we just lost the chance to take another 22 seconds off the clock). Dominican gets the ball back with 1:29 . They score with 1:13 . Now, ponder this: up 7 late, we spent 12 seconds with the ball - and the team that was behind spent 16 seconds with the ball before scoring. That's your idea of realism?

So now we get the ball back with 1:13 , up 5. Again, time is more important than scoring. If we hold the ball 34 seconds, there are no more than 0:39 when Dominican gets the ball back. Instead, we attempt a shot with 0:49 (the least egregious of the three shots, but we just lost the chance to take another 9 seconds off the clock). And I'm sorry, but if you don't think it's realistic that you'd want to hold the ball for 34 seconds when you're up 5 points with 1:13 , then I don't know what to tell you.

So at the end of the game, Dominican gets 24 seconds to get off a winning shot which, of course, they do with 4 seconds . If we hold the ball IN THAT SITUATION, as an intelligent clock manager would, a max of 50 additional seconds would have come off the clock and they don't have that opportunity.

So that's exactly what I would expect - intelligent clock management in an END OF GAME SITUATION. I never suggested that every possession of the game should be run that way. Obviously, you do recognize that end of game situations are treated differently than the rest of the game - otherwise you wouldn't have put into engine the logic to foul when up 3 with time running out.

Now, please tell me what is unrealistic about my analysis and my expectation.

4/8/2010 7:21 PM Customer Support

Thanks for the feedback, we'll take it under advisement as we work on a new version of the SimEngine.

[End script]

I grant that, even if executed perfectly, exactly 34 seconds wouldn’t run off the clock in each possession in that situation, which is why I used the “max of 50 seconds” term, but it wouldn’t be significantly less. Now, here's what really set me off: 1) even after being clearly informed that what was at issue was an end of game situation, CS obviously didn’t even bother to look at context before blurting out a cut and paste reply, 2) they actually suggest that, despite giving you a method to control the play at the end of the game, a coach really can’t be expected to have that control because “players aren’t robots,” and 3) they’re “striving for realism” but apparently know very little about fundamental concepts of basketball like managing time and score. Every one of you that responded said the correct answer was to shorten the game, but obviously CS and their “strive for realism” campaign is viewing some kind of alternate reality – and apparently feel they owe me no explanation for their point of view.

Then, when hit with a point by point breakdown of why their position makes no sense, they run away and hide without having so much as the decency to say “You’re right – this is something we need to look into” or “We disagree and here’s why.” And no, I don’t take “we’ll take it under advisement” as an acknowledgment of anything other than their own cowardice.

So here’s the larger point – we all know the current engine is a train wreck. But to everyone who has been holding out hope that the new engine release will fix the problems – even incrementally - if this is an example of the type of basketball IQ the current developers of this game have, why should you have faith that the new engine will ever give you a better experience than the engine currently in place?

I coach high school basketball in real life and to argue CS's response of:

"Just curious, what exactly would you expect, your team to hold the ball for 34 seconds every possession. We are striving for realism, and basketball is not a game that is that predictable."

In high school there is no shot clock, so there are no limits on how long the ball is held. However, in end of game situations like this, we do not allow our kids to shoot anything quicker than 30 seconds into the possession. We actually have one of the JV kids keep track of the time and yell out "30" to let our kids know that they can at least try to attack the basket now.

In the college/nba games you can see examples of basically the same "time killing" that I have pointed out. The PG (sometimes the best ISO player) will hold the ball until 8,7,6, or even 5 seconds on the clock and then work toward the lane. For CS to ask that question really shows me that they really don't have a clue as to what "real life" means when it comes to basketball.

I know software programming isn't the easiest thing to do, but they should actually get some people that know basketball into the mix. Maybe a quiz should be given before they are hired by WIS on their overall sports knowledge??

The problem is there is slowdown (run a deliberate, Wisconsin Badger type pace) and SLOWDOWN at the end of the game SLOWdown, where you go 4 corners and just hold the ball for 20 second without any attempt to really score.

Currently the engine only has a setting for the Badger offense, not the 4 corners.

most times your team will play a "spread" offense during the final minute. But I haven't noticed the spread before the one minute mark.

Quote: Originally posted by reinsel on 4/09/2010The problem is there is slowdown (run a deliberate, Wisconsin Badger type pace) and SLOWDOWN at the end of the game SLOWdown, where you go 4 corners and just hold the ball for 20 second without any attempt to really score.Currently the engine only has a setting for the Badger offense, not the 4 corners.

This is the crux of what I was trying to get CS to tell me - that: 1) the engine doesn't currently recognize the difference between, to use your terms, "Badger pace" and "4 corners" and that 2) it SHOULD, because the two are clearly different, and WIS's desire to "strive for realism" should lead it to incorporate this crucial difference.

But my responses from CS indicate that they don't even seem to understand the issue - and THAT'S what prompted the creation of this thread. If everyone else here understands there's a difference and that the difference is important but WIS doesn't, why should they be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to overhauling the game engine?

Quote: Originally Posted By Iguana1 on 4/09/2010most times your team will play a "spread" offense during the final minute. But I haven't noticed the spread before the one minute mark

I'd like to see them make this addition to late game options. Perhaps a coach would like to go to the spread up three possessions or more in the last 2 minutes or take it a step further and put a range of up 7-20 = run spread. Up > 20 run normal offense if scrubs are in.

Watching college basketball, many teams seem to go to a type of slowdown around the 5 minute mark taking more time to get a good shot late in the possession to shorten the game.

If teams could go to "spread" offense for the last 2 or 3 minutes, that would fix the problem.

I have lost faith in the product, so I plan to use the economic fix. When current seasons run out, I'm not paying money for a random number generator to spit words at me.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.