Look, I understand HBD. I answer questions pretty much daily on it. And, when someone says "You MUST....", I call bullshit in HBD. So, when someone says "You MUST....." in HD, I'm somewhat skeptical. Obviously everyone would love to have 80s across the board. Well, that's not going to happen. So you have to find other ways. If there's only one way to win, the game is stupid and not worth anyone's time.

Now, after your "You MUST......" statement, benis has shown you several examples of users who've won without superior ATH/DEF. And, after every one, you've said "Yeah, but....."

There are plenty of folks willing to offer advice. I generally pass on the "You MUST...." folks. But thanks anyway.

How about I say "You should get strong Ath/Def". As I said those are the 1%. I had not seen any team succeed with low Ath/Def in my 50 seasons in the game. Pass on my advice if you want.

I'd say "Of course I should. And I should probably get some other strong ratings too."

But then I'd ask "Is it really only 1%?" And is the NC the only measure of success? 380ish teams and only one is successful? That seems crazy. If nothing else, I'd at least expand it to Sweet 16. I'd probably be cool with top 32.

In Wooden these are the top 6 seeds, or in other words the top 24 teams, the teams that generally are the ones to do well. Its in the round of 32 right now. The numbers on the left are their top 25 rankings, which are not as accurate but I thought I would include them.
NT seeds
1 seeds
1) 58/60
2) 56/55
3) 60/60
4) 59/61
2 seeds
5) 60/56
6) 55/62
11) 61/59
14) 57/52
3 seeds
8) 50/52
12) 54/49
23) 49/50
24) 50/50
4 seeds
10) 54/57
13) 39/43 (This team has 10 upperclassmen, most teams can do well with 10 upperclassmen no matter the ratings)
20) 62/60
Unranked) 50/50
5 Seeds
9) 50/52
19) 56/56
25) 46/44 (Lost in the 1st round of the NT to a 53/54 team)
Unranked) 56/53
6 seeds
7)62/65
18)63/62
Unranked) 46/48 ( The 6 non-freshman are recruited by nwc23 and are good players, the 6 sim recruited freshman bring down the averages and they aren't the ones winning games)
Unranked) 48/42 (lost in the first round of the NT to a 49/47 team )

As you can see there is only 1 team that has somewhat low ratings, and they have 10 upperclassmen, I can tell you tomorrow if they make the sweet sixteen or not. Every other team has good or high Ath/Def, and all of the 1 and 2 seeds have very good Ath/Def.

Oh and see how those 2 teams with low Ath/Def lost in the first round of the NT to 12 and 11 seeds with higher Ath/Def than them, there is a correlation here.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/1/2017 5:10:00 PM (view original):
I'd say "Of course I should. And I should probably get some other strong ratings too."

But then I'd ask "Is it really only 1%?" And is the NC the only measure of success? 380ish teams and only one is successful? That seems crazy. If nothing else, I'd at least expand it to Sweet 16. I'd probably be cool with top 32.

Now wait a second...you bashed on me for not winning any NC's. Depsite being a perennial top 25 on my teams you disocuntedmy body of work because I have never won the big one. Which is it? Do NC's define success as you judged me? Or is there more to it as you are arguing now?

I honestly don't recall that. I do recall saying "See? He's won 7 NC. He knows what he's doing too" when a user offered a differing opinion on Franklin. I've never said you were clueless just that others know **** too.

What's your response to what I pulled together?

Now, after your "You MUST......" statement, benis has shown you several examples of users who've won without superior ATH/DEF. And, after every one, you've said "Yeah, but....."

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/1/2017 10:18:00 PM (view original):
Now, after your "You MUST......" statement, benis has shown you several examples of users who've won without superior ATH/DEF. And, after every one, you've said "Yeah, but....."

Worth noting that some of those examples probably have average ath/def ratings for the team, but the starting 5 still probably had solid ath/def with role players coming off the bench. I think you're splitting hairs here regardless of how they phrased it, Mike. I asked Benis for help when I was starting and the first thing he told me was not to discount ath and def ratings, and that's pretty solid advice.

Don't give me "probably". Look at minutes played if you want to jump in. Do the damn research.

FWIW, I've never contended that ATH/DEF should be ignored. I'm just not buying that teams who are "below average" can't win. The game cannot be set up that way. If it is, it's stupid and not worthy of $12 a season.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/1/2017 10:28:00 PM (view original):
Don't give me "probably". Look at minutes played if you want to jump in. Do the damn research.

FWIW, I've never contended that ATH/DEF should be ignored. I'm just not buying that teams who are "below average" can't win. The game cannot be set up that way. If it is, it's stupid and not worthy of $12 a season.

Somebody way smarter than me said "Offense wins games, defense wins championships!" In the game of basketball, athleticism is an incredibly powerful trait. Look at most of the dominant players throughout history--all are incredibly gifted athletes for their position (except maybe Bird, but only if you compare him to Michael and Magic...the more old footage I watch the more I step and think he was a lot quicker and more agile than he got credit for). Is it so far fetched to think that maybe when writing the engine the gods of coding that developed HD put a stronger emphasis on the skill categories that matter more in basketball? EVERY dominant HD team I have seen, and certainly every dynasty (consistent NC threat) has had well above average Ath and Def ratings. If a team with below average Ath or Def gets deep into the tourney it is an anomaly that garners attention.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/1/2017 10:18:00 PM (view original):
Now, after your "You MUST......" statement, benis has shown you several examples of users who've won without superior ATH/DEF. And, after every one, you've said "Yeah, but....."

Did you seriously just copy this from an earlier post?

You still haven't responded to the data I put in.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/1/2017 10:28:00 PM (view original):
Don't give me "probably". Look at minutes played if you want to jump in. Do the damn research.

FWIW, I've never contended that ATH/DEF should be ignored. I'm just not buying that teams who are "below average" can't win. The game cannot be set up that way. If it is, it's stupid and not worthy of $12 a season.

The La Grange team that is the 4 seed starters are fairly decent in Ath/Def except for one.

46/44
49/51
49/46
13/34 (the one bad guy)
46/65

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 1/2/2017 12:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/1/2017 10:18:00 PM (view original):
Now, after your "You MUST......" statement, benis has shown you several examples of users who've won without superior ATH/DEF. And, after every one, you've said "Yeah, but....."

Did you seriously just copy this from an earlier post?

You still haven't responded to the data I put in.

Well, if you need me to spell it out.....benis provided data that contradicts what you put together.

Anyway, back on topic a bit(shot distribution is what it sort of morphed into), last night's settings/results.

Harris/Pritts-30
Snyder-15
Davin-10
Duncan/Franklin/Visovsky-5

1. 29 shots
2. 5 shots
3. 8 shots
4. 11

Zeier-0 took 1 shot, Grinstead-0, 0 shots

Harris/Pritts should have taken 32.4 shots if they were to get 60% so it's pretty close. Davin and Snyder are essentially backwards in distribution.