Posted by tianyi7886 on 11/17/2011 3:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ryandaniel on 11/17/2011 3:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tianyi7886 on 11/17/2011 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by blackdog3377 on 11/17/2011 12:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tianyi7886 on 11/16/2011 7:31:00 PM (view original):
He's shooting too many 3s. Take out those 3s and he's 9/16 from the field. Set him to -2 and up his distro a bit. 70 is the bare minimum I would have in per before I let a guy shoot 3s, and he would only shoot 3s if I have no other 3 point shooters on my team. 

I disagree with the 70 being the bare minimum for 3 point shooting especially for DIII. AT DII for PG, SG, SF I tend to set guys at -1 if they are around 50-55 and once they get up to around 75-80 I will put them at 0. Ive found that even guys as low as 50 per can shoot over .500 from 3 if they are set at -1 and it helps to keep defenses a little more honest.

Going 4 for 8 from behind the arc in 20 games doesn't count. Can you find any player that actually shoot a decent # of 3s at over .400 with 50 per? I'm having a hard time finding one. 

Why would over 40% be the standard?  Shouldn't it be over 33%?  One out of three three pointers equals a point per shot, which is the same as 50% from two pointers.  As long as they are making at least a third of them, they shouldn't be hurting the team.
 

It would be, except fg% in D3 in this game is higher than real life, and 2pt shots have the benefit of drawing fouls (3 point play, foul out opponents starters, etc.). 

I agree with that statement, but I would also agree that you're setting the PER bar too high. At D2, I've got 4 perimeter guys who average a 66 in PER and are shooting a combined 38% 3PT. Even if you do a weighted average of their PER based on 3PA, it's about 68, and none are higher than 72. Again, that's at D2.

At D3, I start letting guys shoot the 3-ball at around 50 PER, and usually go to 0 or even +1 at 60-65.

Posted by rogelio on 11/14/2011 9:09:00 AM (view original):
Your team is close.  My thought would be about system.  My experience with the triangle is that it works much better with a low post presence.  You need to have a C and/or PF with big LP & ATH.  You'll notice that Wilkinson substantially outperforms Dunn.  I would keep increasing Wilkinson's distro until his FG% drops to 55%, but even his LP isn't really high enough.

On the defensive side, you wont be able to be consistently competitive until the players on the floor have a higher average defensive rating.  A zone allows you to hide one bad defender, but doesn't allow you to play with a full team of mediocre defenders.  You're also giving up a ton of O-REB.  Other than recruiting more REB for your big men,  I'm not sure how you would gameplan to lower that; even switching to 2-3 might not affect it.

In general, the benefit of triangle/zone combo is that you only need 9 or 10 players to make it work.  If I were recruiting to that system I would be willing to risk more money on pulling down more skilled DII players; knowing that I didn't mind taking a walk-on or two.

I agree with most of this.  Pack that zone with a high ATH/REB big man, even if he's slow and can't score and dribbles off his shoe, and watch your rebounding margins go up up up.  For now I'd keep Wilkingson and Dunn on the court longer than 23 mins a game; from their turnovers and fouls it looks like they can handle it.

i was thinking of moving bullock to pg, promoting cornwell to the starting lineup, and having furr be the first backup at both positions - to give me both more ath and more def among my starters.

Posted by rogelio on 11/14/2011 9:09:00 AM (view original):
Your team is close.  My thought would be about system.  My experience with the triangle is that it works much better with a low post presence.  You need to have a C and/or PF with big LP & ATH.  You'll notice that Wilkinson substantially outperforms Dunn.  I would keep increasing Wilkinson's distro until his FG% drops to 55%, but even his LP isn't really high enough.

On the defensive side, you wont be able to be consistently competitive until the players on the floor have a higher average defensive rating.  A zone allows you to hide one bad defender, but doesn't allow you to play with a full team of mediocre defenders.  You're also giving up a ton of O-REB.  Other than recruiting more REB for your big men,  I'm not sure how you would gameplan to lower that; even switching to 2-3 might not affect it.

In general, the benefit of triangle/zone combo is that you only need 9 or 10 players to make it work.  If I were recruiting to that system I would be willing to risk more money on pulling down more skilled DII players; knowing that I didn't mind taking a walk-on or two.

the low post presence is one reason i give gideon alot of distribution - to make use of his 71 lp and give me some post scoring.