Posted by fd343ny on 12/18/2020 2:01:00 AM (view original):
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.

I get that, and accept it, even though the idea of slowing down effectively increasing your odds against a strong and deep full court press (as if such a thing exists in high level D1 anyway) is pretty absurd. Whatever. This is fantasy, and it’s about gameplay. As long as there is a good counter for the favorite to employ to neutralize the threat of amplified bad RNG shakes by limited possessions, cool.

That counter would be running uptempo, right? But it isn’t. It just doesn’t work that way. Uptempo doesn’t *just* increase possessions, it also definitely seems to increase your rate of turnovers and hurts fg%. If running slowdown also did those things, we would still have a balanced gameplay situation. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. So, if all this anecdotal speculation is true, we would have the double dip situation. The upshot is that the counter isn’t for the stronger team to run uptempo, it’s actually for the stronger team to also run slowdown. Lots of coaches are picking upon this. That’s why a coach like cubcub reports doing it like 6 of 6 NT appearances, or whatever they said on the other thread.

In the big picture, this situation also leans a little heavy on the side of favoring teams running short rosters every year. That has its own gameplay implications, which I’m not sure are positive.

FD nailed it. And it's not THAT many possessions that are reduced either.
"IF" uptempo hurts FG% and increases TO% then that is more likely due to stamina impact on the game. But this would be the same in theory for a 7 man roster running slowdown. If you play at "getting tired" there is a performance impact.

Why not just ask Seble what is built into the game engine?

"In the big picture, this situation also leans a little heavy on the side of favoring teams running short rosters every year. That has its own gameplay implications, which I’m not sure are positive."

This point I agree with but I view it as "the impact of stamina" on the game issue. But the counterpoint that I also see is if you look at real college teams they only go 8-9 deep.

Posted by mullycj on 12/18/2020 11:15:00 AM (view original):
FD nailed it. And it's not THAT many possessions that are reduced either.
"IF" uptempo hurts FG% and increases TO% then that is more likely due to stamina impact on the game. But this would be the same in theory for a 7 man roster running slowdown. If you play at "getting tired" there is a performance impact.

Why not just ask Seble what is built into the game engine?

You might think, but that’s not what I’ve seen. Last year’s Oregon team was 12 deep with very good stamina at most positions, and was my standard HCP/zone. Running uptempo very rarely brought anyone under green on the PBP, which means guys were never at or below “fairly fresh” for long in those games. But my impression of those results was that uptempo was hurting their performance pretty clearly.

The developers are free to clarify whatever they want, of course. But I generally don’t like them revealing too much about the engine. The more revealed, the more (like this) that gets gamed, the worse game it ends up. My preference is that if it’s actually a double dip, it just gets fixed, because I think a developer would recognize the gameplay problem with that pretty quickly when brought to their attention. If it’s not, and if it’s just a gameplay issue with how the community is utilizing the tools, then talking about it in an open forum is a good way to bring the strategy to light, and help folks develop counters to it.

Ohhh ok I miss understood the part about the favorite also running slow down.

So you're saying if the favorite assumes their opponent is going to run slowdown, that the favorite has a better chance of winning by also running slowdown rather than normal?

So overall slowdown is greater than normal? There is really no reason to ever run normal? If you have a super deep team with good stamina it would make sense to run up-tempo, otherwise always run slowdown? I think I'm finally catching up.

In my head if I were the favorite I would be afraid to run slowdown because I would assume it would keep the game close at the end no matter what. In a single elimination tournament close games are sketchy. So if this really is a big advantage, I see why you're bringing it up, because in some ways it is counter intuitive to the favorite and its something I wouldn't have ever tried.

I'm not agreeing that it needs to be changed, but if this is an advantage, then I think its good for more coaches to know about it to so they can use it as well and mitigate the effectiveness of the "top" coaches who do use this to their advantage.


Also, if someone wants to mentor me I could use some help with this game. I'm D2 running motion/man. Looking for help in all areas of the game. Please site mail me if you would like to help. Thanks.

"So you're saying if the favorite assumes their opponent is going to run slowdown, that the favorite has a better chance of winning by also running slowdown rather than normal?"

That's what he is insinuating here. But I think if you search every other thread regarding tempo questions you will see unanimous agreement to not run slow down as a favorite UNLESS you have a very short bench.

Posted by mullycj on 12/18/2020 2:53:00 PM (view original):
"So you're saying if the favorite assumes their opponent is going to run slowdown, that the favorite has a better chance of winning by also running slowdown rather than normal?"

That's what he is insinuating here. But I think if you search every other thread regarding tempo questions you will see unanimous agreement to not run slow down as a favorite UNLESS you have a very short bench.

Not exactly. What I’ve always said, and advice I still give (as recently as yesterday), is that there are teams built to run uptempo efficiently and well. I know that’s true, because I used to have one. But they are specific types of teams. Usually FB, always excellent stamina, very good speed/BH/pass. All that naturally limits exposure to fatigue and turnovers that uptempo exacerbates. So the teams I still see doing relatively well running uptempo (FB or not) generally fit that criteria.

If your team meets all that, uptempo is probably still a good option. I mean, if you’re running FB, slowdown isn’t an option anyway. But it’s undoubtedly a *much* more narrow cross-section of programs that benefit from that option than those that benefit from slowdown.

.

Posted by Arfy on 12/18/2020 8:39:00 PM (view original):
.

Thank you for your contribution!

if the thread is suggesting that uptempo has a more narrow use case than slowdown, in HD as it stands today, i would agree - although the usage of slowdown in HD tends to be pretty sensible, while the usage of uptempo tends to be pretty poor, so part of it is really the coaches, not the game. if the suggestion is the counter to slowdown by the favorite is more slowdown, i would disagree.

if you think slowdown is OP, the counter is straight forward, run press. slowdown is not nearly as an effective counter against press as it is against top tier m2m and zone teams. the m2m and zone teams can counter with a powerful top 7. if your sole concern is beating the short stack slowdown teams, run a normal tempo deep fb/fcp, having someone running slowdown into those teams is a major benefit to them.

perhaps its my long history of running press myself but i have few qualms with slowdown from a balance standpoint. i think tempo is implemented somewhat superficially and not terribly well, in all cases. but i do not think slowdown is overpowered in general.

Posted by gillispie1 on 12/19/2020 10:37:00 AM (view original):
if the thread is suggesting that uptempo has a more narrow use case than slowdown, in HD as it stands today, i would agree - although the usage of slowdown in HD tends to be pretty sensible, while the usage of uptempo tends to be pretty poor, so part of it is really the coaches, not the game. if the suggestion is the counter to slowdown by the favorite is more slowdown, i would disagree.

if you think slowdown is OP, the counter is straight forward, run press. slowdown is not nearly as an effective counter against press as it is against top tier m2m and zone teams. the m2m and zone teams can counter with a powerful top 7. if your sole concern is beating the short stack slowdown teams, run a normal tempo deep fb/fcp, having someone running slowdown into those teams is a major benefit to them.

perhaps its my long history of running press myself but i have few qualms with slowdown from a balance standpoint. i think tempo is implemented somewhat superficially and not terribly well, in all cases. but i do not think slowdown is overpowered in general.

From a game-to-game standpoint, that’s incoherent. A coach can’t just switch sets to run press against a short stacked slowdown team, in the same way a team can just click the slowdown button and run slowdown with no real risk or drawback. That’s the point. You’re suggesting that the “counter” to a gameplay strategy is to completely overhaul a coaches program design, a process that effectively takes at least 2+ seasons. That’s... not a serious suggestion, is it?

Posted by shoe3 on 12/19/2020 11:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 12/19/2020 10:37:00 AM (view original):
if the thread is suggesting that uptempo has a more narrow use case than slowdown, in HD as it stands today, i would agree - although the usage of slowdown in HD tends to be pretty sensible, while the usage of uptempo tends to be pretty poor, so part of it is really the coaches, not the game. if the suggestion is the counter to slowdown by the favorite is more slowdown, i would disagree.

if you think slowdown is OP, the counter is straight forward, run press. slowdown is not nearly as an effective counter against press as it is against top tier m2m and zone teams. the m2m and zone teams can counter with a powerful top 7. if your sole concern is beating the short stack slowdown teams, run a normal tempo deep fb/fcp, having someone running slowdown into those teams is a major benefit to them.

perhaps its my long history of running press myself but i have few qualms with slowdown from a balance standpoint. i think tempo is implemented somewhat superficially and not terribly well, in all cases. but i do not think slowdown is overpowered in general.

From a game-to-game standpoint, that’s incoherent. A coach can’t just switch sets to run press against a short stacked slowdown team, in the same way a team can just click the slowdown button and run slowdown with no real risk or drawback. That’s the point. You’re suggesting that the “counter” to a gameplay strategy is to completely overhaul a coaches program design, a process that effectively takes at least 2+ seasons. That’s... not a serious suggestion, is it?

sure, i'm serious. i don't see a problem with slowdown balance, but if someone *does* think it is overpowered against the slower sets, you can offset it by running a higher pace scheme. or by running slowdown yourself, it follows logically, but it feels to me like making one wrong two wrongs, not two wrongs making a right. generally speaking, running press isn't a game-to-game counter (not sure where i suggested it was), but it can be if you run hcp or dual scheme as you have in the past. i'm just saying - if someone is THAT worried about slowdown - i'd suggest a scheme change over going into a slowdown vs slowdown battle.

but yeah. my 2 cents is, nothing to see here. except a tad bit of irony if you want to see the 'everyone else only has a problem with X because it affects them personally by diminishing their advantage over the have-nots' guy take a twist and actually advocate for the big guys to have a bigger stick. oh, poor exceptional teams, their opponents might run slowdown! cry me a river.

Posted by gillispie1 on 12/19/2020 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/19/2020 11:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 12/19/2020 10:37:00 AM (view original):
if the thread is suggesting that uptempo has a more narrow use case than slowdown, in HD as it stands today, i would agree - although the usage of slowdown in HD tends to be pretty sensible, while the usage of uptempo tends to be pretty poor, so part of it is really the coaches, not the game. if the suggestion is the counter to slowdown by the favorite is more slowdown, i would disagree.

if you think slowdown is OP, the counter is straight forward, run press. slowdown is not nearly as an effective counter against press as it is against top tier m2m and zone teams. the m2m and zone teams can counter with a powerful top 7. if your sole concern is beating the short stack slowdown teams, run a normal tempo deep fb/fcp, having someone running slowdown into those teams is a major benefit to them.

perhaps its my long history of running press myself but i have few qualms with slowdown from a balance standpoint. i think tempo is implemented somewhat superficially and not terribly well, in all cases. but i do not think slowdown is overpowered in general.

From a game-to-game standpoint, that’s incoherent. A coach can’t just switch sets to run press against a short stacked slowdown team, in the same way a team can just click the slowdown button and run slowdown with no real risk or drawback. That’s the point. You’re suggesting that the “counter” to a gameplay strategy is to completely overhaul a coaches program design, a process that effectively takes at least 2+ seasons. That’s... not a serious suggestion, is it?

sure, i'm serious. i don't see a problem with slowdown balance, but if someone *does* think it is overpowered against the slower sets, you can offset it by running a higher pace scheme. or by running slowdown yourself, it follows logically, but it feels to me like making one wrong two wrongs, not two wrongs making a right. generally speaking, running press isn't a game-to-game counter (not sure where i suggested it was), but it can be if you run hcp or dual scheme as you have in the past. i'm just saying - if someone is THAT worried about slowdown - i'd suggest a scheme change over going into a slowdown vs slowdown battle.

but yeah. my 2 cents is, nothing to see here. except a tad bit of irony if you want to see the 'everyone else only has a problem with X because it affects them personally by diminishing their advantage over the have-nots' guy take a twist and actually advocate for the big guys to have a bigger stick. oh, poor exceptional teams, their opponents might run slowdown! cry me a river.

Still not a coherent take, gil. If you read more closely, you’d see the problem is not that slowdown is a limited possession concept to allow less talented teams to *sometimes* compete - that’s a given, and accepted. The problem is that it’s being used by exceptional teams to win championships, with no viable gameplay counter.

And if what you’re looking for is consistency from me, here you go - A+++ prestige teams can (and currently do) just take 3 walkons every year, sign nothing but elite-for-level players, run 8-9 man rotations at slowdown with the double dip perks that come with it. I don’t have any problem with the first part, never have. That’s a viable team building choice. But I do have a problem if there is a feature of the game allowing them to reap risk-free benefits of the strategy. That’s a competitive gameplay problem the developers should be looking at. That’s a feature of the game which closes off viable paths to success, and promotes one-path strategic thinking, which is a terrible model for a large multiplayer game for obvious reasons.

Every choice in the game should have a risk/reward proposition attached to it. They can have various levels of both, but any choice that is only risk or only reward, or is skewed in one direction is harmful to gameplay, and ought to be adjusted. When a coach decides to adjust tempo from normal, they are making a determination that there is some reward to be gained, but if they are not also risking anything at the same time, then that choice is skewed and harmful to gameplay.

The risks of choosing uptempo are known, and can be severe. If there is currently a risk to choosing the slowdown option, in the vast majority of situations, I haven’t seen it yet. It would make sense, as gil seemed to imply, if slowing down against a press caused more turnovers. But it clearly doesn’t. I mean in theory it should. But it doesn’t. It does the opposite, if anything. And as others have suggested, it would also make sense if choosing slowdown also increased the risk of bad shots, for example as the play clock runs down, which currently doesn’t happen. Those are very rational things that could be done to balance the risk/reward proposition without making anything feel like trying to force two “wrongs“ into a right.

I think you are confusing slow tempo with "X is playing a spread offense (hold ball) ". Most shots in slowdown come with about 10 seconds left on the shot clock. Hardly rushed.

I could argue the opposite and say the shooting % should be better as the offense takes its time to get the best shot possible (aka the old Princeton pick and roll/backdoor cut offense).

I could also argue the slow down offense should tire out the opposing team more because it takes more energy to play defense than to play offense. But neither scenario is built into the engine (and I don't think it should be).

As I have said before the only difference I see between the three tempos is :
1) at what point in the possession is the RNG rolled to see the result
2) the effect on stamina

Downsides to slow down are
1) its harder to get opponent into foul trouble
2) its harder to get their starters off the court
3) its harder to come back from a big half time deficit (less possessions)
4) domination in rebounding has less of an impact (again less possessions impacted)