Posted by llamanunts on 9/14/2012 8:27:00 PM (view original):
Yes, you can bank minutes early and skimp later.

this is true. also, there is a forum fact (forum myth, same thing) that you need to give a kid the promised minutes. this is false. its true that seble made a change so you could not blanket give kids 80% of the promise with 100% chance of no issues. now, some kids will complain about 14.5 minutes, if you promise 15. HOWEVER - as seble has stated himself - if you give a kid less, and then you correct the problem - he considers if you corrected the problem from the time of the complaint. for example, if you promise a kid minutes, and then forget to set your team up for whatever it is, 8 games or so - you might think you are boned. say you promised 20 minutes and can only get the kid 21 minutes due to stamina. well, you aren't boned just yet. even if hes the kind of kid who would complain about 19.9 minutes, as long as he averages 20 for the rest of the season, you are in the clear.

you are playing with fire by abusing the above, but you certainly can do it. also, note that once you hit the CT, if hes not complaining, you are home free. and with starts, you still can always get away with like 6 random games you choose not to start him for.

Posted by uconnut on 9/13/2012 11:56:00 PM (view original):
ok. callahan - a one year rental, lowe - useful enough - and brooks - good riddance; are graduating. still in building mode, i think what i want is two guards and a big. for flex is there anything specific it would be best to look for? this isn't really a question about my specific roster(although i welcome helpful comments there is someone sees something I really need to correct) but more about generally what to look for for flex. As an example in a guard in flex what order of preference would you put bh, passing and per in?

as tianyi said, its really more about what you need for your team. for example, if you need a "pure" style point guard, it doesnt matter what offense you run, your speed and passing are going to be more important than they are for guards in general. if you need a "top scorer" type shooting guard, it doesn't matter what offense you run, your speed and per are going to be more important than they are for guards in general. if you need a strong defense type shooting guard, it doesnt matter what offense you run, your ath/def/spd/passing are going to be the keys.

i probably argue more for the impact of catering to your offense more than maybe any coach in HD's modern history (last 5 years). im not sure who else it could possibly be. im sure there are others who believe it, but i am probably the most vocal defender of the significance of these things. with that perspective in mind - recruiting the ratings you need for players from a team planning perspective (putting together complementary players with complementary skill sets to build a team that is strong for their given talent level) is going to be ten times more important than catering to your offense.

however, that said, i will answer your question. for flex, like triangle, passing plays a bigger role for non-primary scorers than ball handling does. in motion, it leans more towards ball handling (although passing still probably trumps for like, pure pgs, its just that the importance of passing vs ball handling favors passing more so in the flex and triangle offenses than it does in motion, and probably fb too). for offensive players in the flex, speed and perimeter are very important. flex is definitely the #1 offense in terms of the relative importance of spd and per in your primary scoring guards.

also, flex allows you to load scoring up heavily into just a couple very strong guards. therefore, in flex, in the ideal situation, you'd make bigger sacrifices in your top couple scorers (who should be guards) in the non spd/per areas, to get more spd/per, than you would in other offenses. also, flex offense does very well with 3 point shooting. you can play a +2 without hesitation for guards in the 70+ per range. 

I second that flex is the best offense for shooting 3s, albeit with a small sample size (I ran flex for Tufts in Knight for 4 seasons). 

there is NO HIT from breaking promises. there is ONLY a hit from a player transferring as a result of broken promises.

I stand corrected - but doesn't it seem like the hit should come from the broken promise, regardless of transfer?

i honestly woulda thought so too i was just trying to figure out how bad it would be.

Posted by dacj501 on 9/15/2012 2:26:00 AM (view original):

there is NO HIT from breaking promises. there is ONLY a hit from a player transferring as a result of broken promises.

I stand corrected - but doesn't it seem like the hit should come from the broken promise, regardless of transfer?

some players, if you minorly break a promise, can decide to stay anyway, even though they take a work ethic hit. this happened to me once with some nasty business about eligibility, where it wasn't really clear what should happen, and i had already decided to petition CS to reinstate the player when they left, as they had set some precedent for doing so. i think it makes sense not to penalize in those cases. the obvious loophole is the one we are talking about, but i had assumed most people realized the loophole and did the same, effectively neutralizing things. 

if you are going for realism, nobody really knows what goes on behind the closed doors of a basketball team until someone leaves. i mean, you hear things, and a lot is known, but like, if some kid is a little ****** off about playing time, how is that different than a hundred other schools? i think its reasonable it has to be noteworthy - look, it was so bad there, someone transferred over it.

Posted by gillispie1 on 9/15/2012 8:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 9/15/2012 2:26:00 AM (view original):

there is NO HIT from breaking promises. there is ONLY a hit from a player transferring as a result of broken promises.

I stand corrected - but doesn't it seem like the hit should come from the broken promise, regardless of transfer?

some players, if you minorly break a promise, can decide to stay anyway, even though they take a work ethic hit. this happened to me once with some nasty business about eligibility, where it wasn't really clear what should happen, and i had already decided to petition CS to reinstate the player when they left, as they had set some precedent for doing so. i think it makes sense not to penalize in those cases. the obvious loophole is the one we are talking about, but i had assumed most people realized the loophole and did the same, effectively neutralizing things. 

if you are going for realism, nobody really knows what goes on behind the closed doors of a basketball team until someone leaves. i mean, you hear things, and a lot is known, but like, if some kid is a little ****** off about playing time, how is that different than a hundred other schools? i think its reasonable it has to be noteworthy - look, it was so bad there, someone transferred over it.

good points Jeff, makes a lot of sense...

you know me, the WIS apologist :)

if you are doing a slow down zone, could you possibly get away with a three man rotation in the post without it hurting? and if you wanted a three man rotation, and then to define a player that would only go post in an emergency?

Posted by uconnut on 9/17/2012 12:00:00 PM (view original):
if you are doing a slow down zone, could you possibly get away with a three man rotation in the post without it hurting? and if you wanted a three man rotation, and then to define a player that would only go post in an emergency?

you can get away with three post players getting almost all the minutes - especially if they have good stamina and yo run slow zone

there is not an emergency setting, but you could put another guy on mopup or you could put him in the 4th slot with the 3rd slot empty - you'd have to see how the rotation works

there would surely be some risk of fatigue

http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=3908

(I would copy but so far I can't figure out how to make the iPad keep the formatting on a copy and paste)

I was wondering, if I was trying to win one game with this team, if starting Kirkland at sf would be plausible. Or would his bh/passing be too low to make it work?

A starting lineup of McKinnon/Forrest/Kirkland/Lowe/Walker

(Haven't used so far because I have been keeping promises, but if I read what I see on here right I could probably try the lineup out in a game or two and then use it in the nt and not suffer disaster?)

.

you can easily not start anyone like 5 times in the regular season, plus all of the post season. so yeah, you can try it for a game here or there. at first, the "if i was trying to win one game with this team, if starting kirkland would be plausible" threw me off. i was going to say, trying to win 1 game with this team seems like pretty low ambitions! but i see what you mean. 

its d3. bh/pass at the 3 are optional. really, anything at the 3 is optional, except sort of defense. its hard to find natural small forwards at d3 so i usually just used a guard, not even a guard with rebounding, but generally it let me find an otherwise good guard with lower standards on passing and to some extent, bh, than i usually held. or else sometimes id use a big for a rebounding boost. but you can use whatever you need for your team. poor guard offense? get a strong offensive sf. lower rebounding bigs? get a rebounding sf. bad defense? get a new team :)

anyway, yeah, i think kirkland would be ok. not ideal, but not terrible either. good luck!

i think i'll be much better once callahan and brooks are out of my system and replaced by players who can defend worth anything. since i started that many freshmen, my goal for wins was somewhere in the double digits this year. more than ten, likely less than fifteen.

and i meant in the ct not the nt. im not that delusional.