Running slowdown has long been known to be the favored approach to maximize chances when up against a better, deeper team. Slowdown is generally known to decrease overall possessions and decrease the effects of fatigue on the team running it (secondarily also decreasing fatigue on the opponent). As a consequence, it also places a premium on the quality of the starters, and de-emphasizes the bench. This mitigates risks of early entry losses and lost battles at D1 in particular.

If this is *all* it did, I think running uptempo would be a balanced counter, and would be a rational gameplay option. However, what I am seeing is that slowdown is typically beating uptempo in these instances in otherwise even looking teams. This leads me to suspect tempo has some other functions, like affecting turnover rates (beyond the changes we would expect just relative to possession increase or decrease) and/or FG% changes. And if those are true, slowdown has a clear double dip advantage, and deserves some attention.

I’m lazy though, and don’t collect data. This is all speculation, and anecdotal. So let’s talk about it.

**Also, I use slowdown like anyone else. Coaches should do what gives them the best chance to win, within the parameters of fair play, so don’t take this (or any of my coaches corner rants) as any kind of personal aspersions against coaches who run slowdown against me.

IMO, tempo is off in the game logic. Both slowdown and uptempo. Teams practice to be run and gun, or teams practice to be slow and defensive. Styles of basketball vary and the superior style can be debated. High-power offenses... more thrilling for fans, fun to watch. Yet, those teams can be sloppy, and if their shooting goes cold... RIP.

In HD, we all accept the fantasy realm of running fast offense in one game, scoring 100 points, and then shifting gears in the next round to slow... holding an opponent to 45 points while we score 49. The option is there for us in tempo settings. It’s unrealistic, a vast difference between this Sim and reality.

I think Tempo and Offense Schemes are being mixed here. I think the Tempo has too much affect on the outcomes of games, than it should.

Running Up Tempo or Slowdown should only impact the time of possession, IMO... If you're running Up Tempo, it's because you're trying to outshoot your opponent. If you're running slowdown, it's because you're trying to limit possessions and let your defense do the talking.

The unfortunate part/reality of HD, is the emphasis it has on Ath and Stamina... Up Tempo exposes ST more than anything else, and Slowdown is the only play in those scenarios. Fatigue is such a crippling effect in 3.0 that I think it twists our minds around Up Tempo and Slowdown. Honestly, you're probably right though, I'm sure there's some hidden functions of Tempo, because the stats are dramatically affected running either Slowdown or Up Tempo.

Game 1 - both teams normal. Jackson St wins on the road by 13.

Game 2 - both teams normal. Jackson St wins at home by 20.

Game 3 - Northern AZ runs slowdown. NAZ wins the conference title by 16.

Tempo wasn’t the *only* change, to be sure. But certainly the most significant, in what turns out to be an enormous swing.

A few seasons ago I lost to Providence running slow tempo. In the conference tournament I forgot to change my game plan and went normal and won. So in my book I guess slow tempo hurts teams.....

Posted by shoe3 on 12/17/2020 5:12:00 PM (view original):
Game 1 - both teams normal. Jackson St wins on the road by 13.

Game 2 - both teams normal. Jackson St wins at home by 20.

Game 3 - Northern AZ runs slowdown. NAZ wins the conference title by 16.

Tempo wasn’t the *only* change, to be sure. But certainly the most significant, in what turns out to be an enormous swing.

He out rebounded you by a huge margin. You are playing 3-2 zone (-1), expected. He also made free throws.

In game one .. you played a -3 in the 3-2 .. you should rebound better and you did. Same for game two. With the 3-2 (-1), you gave him a huge rebounding advantage (+13). That lead to 11 extra shots. That plus free throws is the game.

Posted by mullycj on 12/17/2020 6:01:00 PM (view original):
That is what I mean about blaming temp for the RNG. I skipped breakfast today and it snowed. I ate cereal every other day this week and it didnt.
The game has enormous swings...... its the nature of HD. You dont like slow temp so you blame it for the inconsistencies.

That’s silly. Everyone - like literally everyone - knows that slowdown is the way to maybe compete with teams that are deeper and/or much better. So don’t act like this is just a random chance event like snow after breakfast. The question is not whether slowdown has a significant effect on gameplay, we know it does. The question is whether it is too severe, specifically if there is a double dip aspect to it which renders its potential counterbalance (uptempo) ineffective.

shoe3, looking at my spread sheet .. I would have expected you to win the game. But the I would also have played 3-2 (-3) or 2-3 (+1) and not 3-2 (-1).. I see you played half court press / 3-2 (-1) .. I have no idea how that impacts things, I have never played a combo defense.

I see you with a huge advantage at PF and a fairly large advantage at both guard spots .. with SF and C being very close.

Posted by hughesjr on 12/17/2020 8:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/17/2020 5:12:00 PM (view original):
Game 1 - both teams normal. Jackson St wins on the road by 13.

Game 2 - both teams normal. Jackson St wins at home by 20.

Game 3 - Northern AZ runs slowdown. NAZ wins the conference title by 16.

Tempo wasn’t the *only* change, to be sure. But certainly the most significant, in what turns out to be an enormous swing.

He out rebounded you by a huge margin. You are playing 3-2 zone (-1), expected. He also made free throws.

In game one .. you played a -3 in the 3-2 .. you should rebound better and you did. Same for game two. With the 3-2 (-1), you gave him a huge rebounding advantage (+13). That lead to 11 extra shots. That plus free throws is the game.

I moved out 2 notches (from the first game, not the second), one of the *much smaller* changes I referenced. Due respect, that pales in comparison. Keep in mind, NAU was playing out at +3 as well for this last one. That setting doesn’t remotely account for the rebounding discrepancy. I move in and out between 0 and -4 very frequently, this kind of swing is not explained by setting. I’d be tempted to chalk both anomalies - rebounding and the poor FT shooting night - up to a bad RNG shake and leave it at that, except amplifying bad RNG shakes is a known consequence of the slowdown, through reduced possessions.

I didn’t post these examples to get caught up in specifics of these individual games. We can always find alternate causality supporting whatever outcome we want to get at anyway. The idea here is that since I have seen quite a few examples myself, and seen quite a bit of chatter from other folks in the past few months, it would be good to get people talking about this strategy. Because at the very least, this is emerging as something of a prevalent strategy, even if it turns out tempo really does only affect possessions and secondarily fatigue, and has no direct impact on turnovers or fg% at all.

Game 1 - NAU 18 turnovers
Game 2 - NAU 17 turnovers
Game 3 - NAU 11 turnovers

And you could say “well of course, they were playing slowdown, so fewer possessions.” Except their overall possessions were actually a little higher in the last game.

I am almost positive that both uptempo and slowdown have a negative effect on FG%. Or at least that they did a few years ago.

Hahaha....well, if anyone knows about game mechanics being overpowered its the new guy coming from Blizzard. Here we are talking about nerfs already haha, I wonder if he thought those days were behind him.

So far in my career I haven't noticed slowdown being overpowered. I use it all the time and still lose quite often. Yeah I think it gives me a better chance to beat a superior opponent, but isn't that it's purpose? When I use it I don't feel like its giving me an unfair advantage at all, just a slightly better chance to pull off an upset, or at least make the score look more respectable.

Nerfing game mechanics is a very slippery slope.

Also, what do you guys think of Shadowlands so far?

Posted by dahsdebater on 12/17/2020 11:01:00 PM (view original):
I am almost positive that both uptempo and slowdown have a negative effect on FG%. Or at least that they did a few years ago.

I think that’s the way it *should* work, and with turnovers too. Deviation from normal should have some negative impact in both. I’m not seeing that in the limited scope of results I see, though. I think it may impact uptempo negatively, but that does not seem to be the case with slowdown. Again, speculation and anecdotal, that’s why I’m hoping to see more perspectives.

if slowdown reduces the number of possessions in the game, it should - and I think does - give a weaker team a better chance.

This isnt game engine, its statistics. If each possession is an independent event, fewer events make an upset more likely. If the better team is 55-45 on each possession to "win" the possession, a large number of possessions makes the favorite waaay likely to win. Fewer possessions, higher chance of upset.

Hence, for example, more upsets in baseball than in say tennis or basketball.