Posted by kryutzy on 7/24/2010 7:33:00 AM (view original):
Any thoughts as to why this team can't play defense? We are a DII team playing a man2man/press combo defense.

Through 9 games this season we have given up 52.6% from the field and 44% from 3.

Here is the link to my team, the table below is my team without the walk on calculated into the averages:

whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx

Name	Yr.	Pos.	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	TOT
Kevin Cronk	Sr.	PG	53	91	1	70	4	10	36	80	88	68	88	75	664
Doug Beahm	So.	PG	68	71	7	50	3	2	43	71	84	53	88	54	594
Luis Harper	Fr.	PG	40	69	1	49	1	14	71	49	63	46	81	29	513
Edmund Harkins	Sr.	SG	58	91	22	65	14	13	97	77	77	65	95	50	724
Mohammad Grabill	Jr.	SG	79	82	64	56	22	35	63	83	71	78	90	45	768
Russell Cranford	Fr.	SG	67	69	1	47	10	17	77	50	51	37	76	72	574
Joshua Tracy	Fr.	SF	57	45	34	62	27	14	56	32	28	45	80	53	533
Ronald Rice	So.	PF	62	68	79	36	47	70	29	1	4	30	72	58	556
Ronald Counts	Sr.	PF	76	53	86	36	77	88	32	3	17	43	74	45	630
Robert Hohman	So.	PF	60	35	91	37	82	67	39	34	36	53	76	47	657
David Weber	Jr.	C	61	53	92	56	97	96	12	9	17	68	79	27	667
Averages			62	66	43	51	35	39	50	44	49	53	82	50	625

My man/press defense at D-II Limestone was considerably worse this season than in previous seasons, especially when it came to committing more fouls randomly and giving up higher 3pt shooting %'s across the board.

The team was also more experienced(higher IQ's) and actually better rated defensively(especially at the guard spots).

I'm thinking of scrapping the combo defense as a result.

Posted by daalter on 7/24/2010 11:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 7/24/2010 10:10:00 AM (view original):
I see a lot of people complaining, and I see a lot of people not back it up with actual numbers.

Here's the nine games I've played in Smith so far. I'm not seeing a huge issue.

Allowed:
-2/-2: 6/11
-2/-2: 3/10

-1/-1: 4/12
-1/-1: 14/37
-1/-1: 8/16

+1/+1: 5/10
+1/+1: 2/6
+1/+1: 11/24

+2/+2: 3/4


Made:
-2/-1: 6/14
-2/+0: 11/20

-1/-3: 0/3
-1/-3: 4/11
-1/-3: 5/12
-1/-1: 3/14

+0/-2: 2/8
+0/+0: 4/7

+2/+0: 5/12

Playing a minus defense, your team has allowed 25.5% from 3pt range.
Playing a plus defense, your team has allowed 47.7% from 3pt range.

That seems right to you?

I think you're being a contrarian just to be a contrarian. In my experience, when a bunch of experienced vet coaches are all seeing and experiencing the same thing, it tends to be pretty valid. I'm not saying it's impossible for something like that not to be valid, but it ends up being legit the overwhelming majority of the time.

You haven't produced any evidence yet that you're seeing anything. That was my point. So far, it's just a ******** circle.

And frankly, if every time I play +2 the opposition only attempts four threes, I'm ecstatic. I don't care if they make all four of them.

Or, to phrase that another way: I'm giving up over 17 three attempts a game when I use a minus defense, and only 11 a game when I use a plus defense.  So no, I don't see a problem, I see my positioning working exactly as intended, SSS caveats in full effect.

If you're seeing something different than that, show us the numbers.

Posted by pinkeye on 7/24/2010 11:28:00 AM (view original):
anton as great as some data would be, +2 isn't +5 and as long as people are afraid to leave that little comfort zone the numbers are gonna be cloudy at best

that said, +5 probably won't [and imo shouldn't] be as effective as people on here seem to think it's supposed to be

I can't speak for anyone else, but it's not fear that keeps me in the -2/+2 range. I just don't see any offenses skewed so heavily one way or another that would make me even think of going more extreme.

That said, it shouldn't matter. If the problem is as massive as people in this thread are claiming, it should be apparent even within that -2/+2 range.

Posted by daalter on 7/24/2010 11:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 7/24/2010 10:10:00 AM (view original):
I see a lot of people complaining, and I see a lot of people not back it up with actual numbers.

Here's the nine games I've played in Smith so far. I'm not seeing a huge issue.

Allowed:
-2/-2: 6/11
-2/-2: 3/10

-1/-1: 4/12
-1/-1: 14/37
-1/-1: 8/16

+1/+1: 5/10
+1/+1: 2/6
+1/+1: 11/24

+2/+2: 3/4


Made:
-2/-1: 6/14
-2/+0: 11/20

-1/-3: 0/3
-1/-3: 4/11
-1/-3: 5/12
-1/-1: 3/14

+0/-2: 2/8
+0/+0: 4/7

+2/+0: 5/12

Playing a minus defense, your team has allowed 25.5% from 3pt range.
Playing a plus defense, your team has allowed 47.7% from 3pt range.

That seems right to you?

I think you're being a contrarian just to be a contrarian. In my experience, when a bunch of experienced vet coaches are all seeing and experiencing the same thing, it tends to be pretty valid. I'm not saying it's impossible for something like that not to be valid, but it ends up being legit the overwhelming majority of the time.

Keep in mind that he is more likely to go + against a team with good shooters and - against a team with poor shooters and the waters get murkier.

Posted by _hannibal_ on 7/25/2010 9:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by daalter on 7/24/2010 11:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 7/24/2010 10:10:00 AM (view original):
I see a lot of people complaining, and I see a lot of people not back it up with actual numbers.

Here's the nine games I've played in Smith so far. I'm not seeing a huge issue.

Allowed:
-2/-2: 6/11
-2/-2: 3/10

-1/-1: 4/12
-1/-1: 14/37
-1/-1: 8/16

+1/+1: 5/10
+1/+1: 2/6
+1/+1: 11/24

+2/+2: 3/4


Made:
-2/-1: 6/14
-2/+0: 11/20

-1/-3: 0/3
-1/-3: 4/11
-1/-3: 5/12
-1/-1: 3/14

+0/-2: 2/8
+0/+0: 4/7

+2/+0: 5/12

Playing a minus defense, your team has allowed 25.5% from 3pt range.
Playing a plus defense, your team has allowed 47.7% from 3pt range.

That seems right to you?

I think you're being a contrarian just to be a contrarian. In my experience, when a bunch of experienced vet coaches are all seeing and experiencing the same thing, it tends to be pretty valid. I'm not saying it's impossible for something like that not to be valid, but it ends up being legit the overwhelming majority of the time.

Keep in mind that he is more likely to go + against a team with good shooters and - against a team with poor shooters and the waters get murkier.

This.

Also, quite often teams that are having trouble stopping other teams from shooting threes well will go to plus defenses, the other side of this same coin. 

In Naismith I simply don't see a problem. I believe there is too much emphisis, at times, put on pure numbers and not the situation. IMHO if a coach playes +/- D against the right teams at the right times the outcome will usually be as expected. Of course, just like IRL teams will get hot from 3 pt. land and surprise, but overall I think we're right where we need to be. I also think it's important to factor in your opponent...is it a SIM that is going to stay fairly close to their norm or a human coach that may or may not make radical adjustments against you on any given day? So you understand why I feel Naismith, at least, is right on, the following are the #'s from my Colgate teams non-con schedule.
P=Def position I played that game   G=My opponents 3 pt. shots for that game   Avg=My opponents 3 pt. shooting avg. for the season   Opponent=SIM or Human


P      G      Avg    Opponent
0    5/12   4/15   SIM 

0    6/13   7/17   H

+2  2/11  4/13    SIM

0    5/16   5/15    H

+1  4/15   4/12    H

+1  4/12   6/20    SIM

+2  6/16   4/15    H

-1   3/10   4/11    H

+2  4/13   6/18    H

+2  5/16   6/20    SIM

could it just be that, since the engine is still populated with old recruits...the reason its so hard to stop the 3 is because the opposing players are inordinately good at shooting the 3?

Not sure if this is true or not, but it's one hell of a good guess for "some" of the reason.

That theory doesn't really hold water because the "old engine" players are playing defense as well.

That doesn't necessarily hold true either.  The old recruits aren't proportionately balanced the same against eachother as the new ones:  In other words, the 'Average' new recruit doesn't necessarily have the same difference between their average PER and DEF that the old ones have.  

That doesn't necessarily hold true either.  The old recruits aren't proportionately balanced the same against eachother as the new ones:  In other words, the 'Average' new recruit doesn't necessarily have the same difference between their average PER and DEF that the old ones have.  

that's what i'm saying, something along those lines. maybe in the old engine, 90 defense/A-IQ could hold 99 perimeter/A+IQ/60 ball handling (etc.) to 35% shooting, but now the same defender can only keep him at 40%. shooters like that guy are much more rare now.

i always try to remind myself: seble ran the beta test 5 seasons or so, i believe. the 5th season working is what matters in the long run, and it probably worked better than the 2nd season. without a gradual engine change to take into account the gradual ratings change you're gonna get some loopy results.

Posted by arssanguinus on 7/26/2010 7:14:00 AM (view original):
That doesn't necessarily hold true either.  The old recruits aren't proportionately balanced the same against eachother as the new ones:  In other words, the 'Average' new recruit doesn't necessarily have the same difference between their average PER and DEF that the old ones have.  

Fair enough, if true. This would imply that the new engine recruits are worse offensively and better defensively relative to each other. But have the proportions (off v. def) really changed? Is this based on fact or is it just a shot in the dark?

Just a hypothesis.  But a hypothesis with about as much evidence to support it as any other until someone does an in depth study.

so where do people stand on this issue now?