- settings definitely increase the chance of fouling. + settings decrease the chance of fouling but also affects rebounding. A -5 zone would probably foul less than a -3 or -4 MTM because in this engine, the zone fouls less than any other defense. All of this is in the FAQ and the players guide and for the most part I have found it to be true. 

I feel like there are a number of FAQ that were never updated.  And I typically find the opposite to be true.  Again, I think it goes against common sense that a push-up, in-your-face defense is going to foul less than a sagging defense in which the defender wants the ball handler to shoot.  It wouldn't shock me if that was changed somewhere along the way.

I guess I'd like to know what others think about +/- and fouling, though, because it would definitely affect my gameplanning approach.

Agreed -- I tried charting data many seasons back, keeping my sample pool to games where I won big so none of the halftime auto-adjusts, in-game if/then defensive positioning changes kicked in or late-game intentional fouls could skew data. I quit after something like six or seven seasons because it just didn't seem significant enough to continue the exercise. The difference from a +1 to a -3 was something like 0.9 fouls/game more in the -3. It just wasn't significant enough to inspire me to keep logging the information. 

Damn, a bit off topic, but in Tark Final Four, Washington State (aka Miami Heat) had an 18 point lead with 10 minutes to go over UNC and 10 point lead with 2 minutes left.  UNC somehow got back into it and hit a halfcourt shot at the buzzer to send to OT.  Then UNC held on to win by 3. Crazy play by play and game, WOW.
Me and blapo have had our share of battles and rivalry somewhat, but that has got to be a horrible feeling. I would be done after something like that.

Horrible feeling? Yes. Done? Come on.

Posted by dahsdebater on 4/19/2012 1:10:00 AM (view original):

I absolutely find the Players' Guide to be correct on this issue, but I don't think the impact is extremely large; in fact, I think it's very small.  It's always hard to tell because you can't sim games with different settings enough times to get statistically significant data for different defensive settings.  That said, it has always seemed to me that - defenses foul slightly more often.  I think the common conception that the opposite is true is based off of coaches coaching based on their notions of how the game should emulate reality (one of many such misconceptions).  In this case I'm not sure it's not the realistic situation anyway...  Teams take fewer 3s against + defenses and drive more often, and shooting fouls are going to be more common in the lane than on jumpers...

I don't understand the last sentence, dahs. Seems from the prefatory language of that sentence that you think + defenses should commit less fouls, but then the rationale seems to indicate that + defenses should commit more.

Posted by isack24 on 4/18/2012 4:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/18/2012 4:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 4/18/2012 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/18/2012 1:57:00 PM (view original):
I hope this goes on as long as needed. It's not that I don't think a sagging zone is a bad way to go about limiting the drive, but I don't think it had that large of an impact on my offense, which I've already gone on at length about. It's not conducive to limiting fouls because more defensive bodies that are in the area of a offensive player increases the chances for one of them to commit a foul. Which is more likely to end in a foul: one player trying to block a driving shot in the lane or three peope trying to block a shot in the lane? Plus, I've specifically seen it in more than one place on this site's helpful information (not forums) that playing a negative defensive setting can increase a team's probability of committing fouls.

I haven't been disingenuous in the slightest, and I never tried to hide that point one bit. But the 12 of  those previous14 they made that half were the the only reason they were in the game. If they would have only gone 9 for 13 then we wouldn't have needed to start fouling, which is just one less foul on me, so I don't even want to even get started on what would happen if I could have gone 4-4 instead of 2-2 on their 4 fouls. 

The first paragraph all operates under the assumption that you're getting in the lane at the same frequency.  A sagging zone prevents people from even getting into the lane where all those appendanges are flailing wildly.

That may be the case in real life, but when it comes to how the engine works that can only be conjecture at best, and I'm honestly not trying to be rude when I say that.

I don't know why this piece of information about the game can simply be treated as if it probably doesn't apply anymore? It came from the people that made the game and I haven't seen this information refuted anywhere or said to not apply anymore, especially considering how few and far between change is around here if it concerns the engine, though it has come along way.

I agree that it's conjecture.  I was always under the impression, based on who knows what, that + defenses had a higher foul rate.  Seemed like common sense, so I went with it.  Frankly, this is the first time I've ever heard any different.

I can't be bothered to get through the rest of the personal arguments, so my apologies if this has been said already...

my thought is that fouls increase the further you get from 0, no matter which direction.

While that is an interesting thought, I think there are so many factors involved in being assessed with a foul. We have to look at matchups, type of defense being played, tempo and stamina, offensive and defensive game plans, etc. there is much to be considered when judging why a certain number of fouls are called in any given game. I don't know about anyone else but I like to look at my matchups against sim teams to really determine how the fouling system works. Sims always play 0 in the first half and sims have no predetermined distribution settings that I know of.

While I don't have the statistical data to back up my opinion, I can say that I have noticed more fouls occurring in - settings. If you think about it logically the closure you get to the rim, the more likely it is a foul will be committed. The further away from the rim the less likely a foul is to be committed. I can count on one hand the times I've had players take 3 FT attempts from being fouled beyond the arc. Most players regardless of settings play to their strengths and I have noticed that having a LP game tends to override any other offensive skill. A guy that has PER equal to his LP will defer to LP in my opinion which is what he should do as great basketball works for the best available shot. That being said most shots occur around the rim and therefore most fouls do as well which I believe is why the players guide states more fouls occur in - settings.

Posted by rednation58 on 4/19/2012 11:13:00 AM (view original):
While that is an interesting thought, I think there are so many factors involved in being assessed with a foul. We have to look at matchups, type of defense being played, tempo and stamina, offensive and defensive game plans, etc. there is much to be considered when judging why a certain number of fouls are called in any given game. I don't know about anyone else but I like to look at my matchups against sim teams to really determine how the fouling system works. Sims always play 0 in the first half and sims have no predetermined distribution settings that I know of.

While I don't have the statistical data to back up my opinion, I can say that I have noticed more fouls occurring in - settings. If you think about it logically the closure you get to the rim, the more likely it is a foul will be committed. The further away from the rim the less likely a foul is to be committed. I can count on one hand the times I've had players take 3 FT attempts from being fouled beyond the arc. Most players regardless of settings play to their strengths and I have noticed that having a LP game tends to override any other offensive skill. A guy that has PER equal to his LP will defer to LP in my opinion which is what he should do as great basketball works for the best available shot. That being said most shots occur around the rim and therefore most fouls do as well which I believe is why the players guide states more fouls occur in - settings.

Again, while I won't argue whether that's true in the game, I think that logic is decidely faulty in real life.  Playing a step back doesn't let you get closer to the rim, it allows me more time to react to you making a move to the rim, thus not allowing you to get the hoop as easily. 

Do you guard Rajon Rondo by pressing up on him or standing three feet away?  You play up on him and he'll go right around you, and is more likely to draw a foul going to the rim.  You play off, he can't get by you as easily.  Of course, it's easier for him to get off a good perimeter shot, but that's the tradeoff.

Guys play off rondo because he can't shoot well consistently and his strength is his LP and passing game. No one fouls rondo out on the perimeter (ie pressing up on him) they foul rondo on the Layups and put backs he gets from being a rebounding guard. If you did go plus on rondo he wouldn't get fouled as much because the paint would be open for him to go to work. Like you said he would go around you and into the paint. Hes done it too many times to people thats why they play off of him. A guard like Rondo is going in the paint regardless of where the defense is set because he's just that good and if he cant score he will draw the foul in the paint where the D will be because they are scared he will get by them. I guess my point is someone has to be in the paint for the foul to occur. It's more likely people will be in the paint in a - setting. Guys guard Blake griffin low too and he just jumps over them and gets fouled. Easy buckets with less fouls for these guys if the paint is empty.

And no need to argue its truth in the game but it is a basketball fact that most fouls occur the closer you get to the rim. I have more of a chance to draw a foul if there are 3 guys there vs. 1 and my opinion is that this is WIS logic as well.

Posted by isack24 on 4/19/2012 10:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 4/19/2012 1:10:00 AM (view original):

I absolutely find the Players' Guide to be correct on this issue, but I don't think the impact is extremely large; in fact, I think it's very small.  It's always hard to tell because you can't sim games with different settings enough times to get statistically significant data for different defensive settings.  That said, it has always seemed to me that - defenses foul slightly more often.  I think the common conception that the opposite is true is based off of coaches coaching based on their notions of how the game should emulate reality (one of many such misconceptions).  In this case I'm not sure it's not the realistic situation anyway...  Teams take fewer 3s against + defenses and drive more often, and shooting fouls are going to be more common in the lane than on jumpers...

I don't understand the last sentence, dahs. Seems from the prefatory language of that sentence that you think + defenses should commit less fouls, but then the rationale seems to indicate that + defenses should commit more.

You're right, it was late when I posted it.  I guess less guys in the lane to foul on the drives?  I don't know, it's not my job to worry about why it's programmed the way it is, but I did find that + defenses commit marginally fewer fouls.

Posted by rednation58 on 4/19/2012 1:11:00 PM (view original):
Guys play off rondo because he can't shoot well consistently and his strength is his LP and passing game. No one fouls rondo out on the perimeter (ie pressing up on him) they foul rondo on the Layups and put backs he gets from being a rebounding guard. If you did go plus on rondo he wouldn't get fouled as much because the paint would be open for him to go to work. Like you said he would go around you and into the paint. Hes done it too many times to people thats why they play off of him. A guard like Rondo is going in the paint regardless of where the defense is set because he's just that good and if he cant score he will draw the foul in the paint where the D will be because they are scared he will get by them. I guess my point is someone has to be in the paint for the foul to occur. It's more likely people will be in the paint in a - setting. Guys guard Blake griffin low too and he just jumps over them and gets fouled. Easy buckets with less fouls for these guys if the paint is empty.

And no need to argue its truth in the game but it is a basketball fact that most fouls occur the closer you get to the rim. I have more of a chance to draw a foul if there are 3 guys there vs. 1 and my opinion is that this is WIS logic as well.

Right.  Fouls occur closer to the rim.  But it's tougher to get to the rim when you play off someone.  Playing off means you're playing them to drive, giving more time to cut off the drive.  If you go around me, which is easier to do if I'm playing up on you, then the chance of me fouling from behind or drawing a foul on a big is better.

People arguing that - defenses should foul more are all presupposing that players are getting closer to teh basket with the same frequency.  Playing off makes it significantly more difficult to get close to the basket, meaning less fouls near the basket, and more perimeter shots.

Posted by dahsdebater on 4/19/2012 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 4/19/2012 10:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 4/19/2012 1:10:00 AM (view original):

I absolutely find the Players' Guide to be correct on this issue, but I don't think the impact is extremely large; in fact, I think it's very small.  It's always hard to tell because you can't sim games with different settings enough times to get statistically significant data for different defensive settings.  That said, it has always seemed to me that - defenses foul slightly more often.  I think the common conception that the opposite is true is based off of coaches coaching based on their notions of how the game should emulate reality (one of many such misconceptions).  In this case I'm not sure it's not the realistic situation anyway...  Teams take fewer 3s against + defenses and drive more often, and shooting fouls are going to be more common in the lane than on jumpers...

I don't understand the last sentence, dahs. Seems from the prefatory language of that sentence that you think + defenses should commit less fouls, but then the rationale seems to indicate that + defenses should commit more.

You're right, it was late when I posted it.  I guess less guys in the lane to foul on the drives?  I don't know, it's not my job to worry about why it's programmed the way it is, but I did find that + defenses commit marginally fewer fouls.

True.  I'm glad this conversation is going on because I have been operating under an incorrect assumption for a very long time.

It is tougher to get to the rim which is why more fouls occur in a - setting. And if someone is playing a - defense, depending on their skill set, they are most certainly getting closer the basket. Playing off makes it easier to get closer to the rim if it were not so then 3 pt shooting percentage wouldn't be so great against - defenses.

People arguing that + defenses draw more fouls are not realizing that a + position pulls bodies from the paint. Everyone is defending the perimeter. You presuppose that a player will be fouled because he is beaten playing up and you presuppose a big will even be there in the paint to acquire the foul from a penetrating player. More difficult does not mean impossible. A team that has no other option but go inside because of lack of per will still go inside regardless of a -5 setting. They have no other ability at their disposal to capitalize on the - setting and they can and will draw more fouls if the personnel has the ATH SPD combo to draw them.