Is there a way to look at that without going through each team individually?

This is the kind of sh&^ that drives me crazy.  Do I REALLY need to go to a +5 defense to keep this team from shooting 58% from the arc?

What if I DIDN'T have guards that could play defense?  OMG

http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=10566676

Did you mean to post the Xavier game?

No, when I click it I get Wisc vs Memphis

Posted by mikvitu on 4/7/2014 10:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by terps21234 on 4/7/2014 9:31:00 PM (view original):
Don't worry I got him banned from posting

Impressive

Double impressive..

The Xavier team shot 58% on a -4 which is reasonable considering the extreme sagging - Memphis shot 41% on a +3 and +5 which I would find annoying because they went 7-12 on a +3. I'm thinking HCA here and having 7 players shoot 3's, I guess someone's gonna hit. This is one reason I asked about gameplanning away in a past thread I posted. IQ is also up there for 8 games in - not a young team.

Posted by thinair on 4/8/2014 12:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mikvitu on 4/7/2014 10:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by terps21234 on 4/7/2014 9:31:00 PM (view original):
Don't worry I got him banned from posting

Impressive

Double impressive..

TY.  I could not take it anymore.

im pretty sure it was a team effort, theres at least a half dozen of us (well, i can only think of 5 offhand here on the spot) who think they got him banned, and probably a dozen others who sent in sitemails complaining too. i suppose he did return a couple times after we thought he was banned, so those things didn't directly get him banned - but i think those shorter bans helped lead up to the big one. anyway, not really important, but... go team!

sad thing is, other than that "im going to beat the **** out of you" sitemail, etta sent me a few others, and hes actually a pretty knowledgeable and interesting guy when he doesn't think the shadows are attacking him. i actually enjoyed his last few sitemails, when he was responding to stuff i asked on the forums. i even shot him back a couple sitemails, and he seemed like a perfectly normal guy. its kind of a shame, he could have been a great HD coach someday, and a real contributor on the forums, if only he wasn't so defensive, and would drop that maddening air of superiority.

Posted by rednation58 on 4/8/2014 12:23:00 PM (view original):
The Xavier team shot 58% on a -4 which is reasonable considering the extreme sagging - Memphis shot 41% on a +3 and +5 which I would find annoying because they went 7-12 on a +3. I'm thinking HCA here and having 7 players shoot 3's, I guess someone's gonna hit. This is one reason I asked about gameplanning away in a past thread I posted. IQ is also up there for 8 games in - not a young team.

To be clear, I have no problem with the Xavier game.    Xavier has decent guards but shot almost all their baskets inside the paint so I went -4.   They changed it up against us, and I am 100% ok with the results.    It's the games like the Memphis one, where I know what's coming, I have the roster to defend it, I put in the game plan to defend it (I think), and they still pop off at 40% as if I wasn't there.

So basically, your team sucks at defending the 3. For the year, my team allowed 30.2% from 3, and that's with the set at -3 to -5 almost all season. 6 teams allowed under 32%. My Center with a 35 PER shot 20.5%, not the ridiculous 30% with a ridiculously low PER like you said. So basically, what I experienced is the exact opposite of what you are describing. From what I can tell, there is a lot more involved than just the PER. Your Player A going for 20 on the guy with 90 defense, the athleticism might be low on the 90 D guy while high on the 50 D guy, along with speed and defensive knowledge, which everything I have read says is better than 90 D with everything else low.

Posted by mully1 on 4/8/2014 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednation58 on 4/8/2014 12:23:00 PM (view original):
The Xavier team shot 58% on a -4 which is reasonable considering the extreme sagging - Memphis shot 41% on a +3 and +5 which I would find annoying because they went 7-12 on a +3. I'm thinking HCA here and having 7 players shoot 3's, I guess someone's gonna hit. This is one reason I asked about gameplanning away in a past thread I posted. IQ is also up there for 8 games in - not a young team.

To be clear, I have no problem with the Xavier game.    Xavier has decent guards but shot almost all their baskets inside the paint so I went -4.   They changed it up against us, and I am 100% ok with the results.    It's the games like the Memphis one, where I know what's coming, I have the roster to defend it, I put in the game plan to defend it (I think), and they still pop off at 40% as if I wasn't there.

I know you don't have a problem with the result but you quoted the wrong percentage for the game that's why I brought up Xavier or why Trenton asked about Xavier

The confusion comes from my 58% quote.  I was referring to what Memphis shot in the 1st half against the +3,  not the final game stats. 

Posted by gillispie1 on 4/8/2014 1:23:00 PM (view original):
im pretty sure it was a team effort, theres at least a half dozen of us (well, i can only think of 5 offhand here on the spot) who think they got him banned, and probably a dozen others who sent in sitemails complaining too. i suppose he did return a couple times after we thought he was banned, so those things didn't directly get him banned - but i think those shorter bans helped lead up to the big one. anyway, not really important, but... go team!

sad thing is, other than that "im going to beat the **** out of you" sitemail, etta sent me a few others, and hes actually a pretty knowledgeable and interesting guy when he doesn't think the shadows are attacking him. i actually enjoyed his last few sitemails, when he was responding to stuff i asked on the forums. i even shot him back a couple sitemails, and he seemed like a perfectly normal guy. its kind of a shame, he could have been a great HD coach someday, and a real contributor on the forums, if only he wasn't so defensive, and would drop that maddening air of superiority.

I had a couple back and forth messages with him about real basketball and the game and my problem with him was no matter what he was just so dug in on his points. I'd offer a different point of view or correct him but he would just refuse to even consider any other opinions that weren't his. But that's a journalist for ya.

Posted by gillispie1 on 4/8/2014 1:23:00 PM (view original):
im pretty sure it was a team effort, theres at least a half dozen of us (well, i can only think of 5 offhand here on the spot) who think they got him banned, and probably a dozen others who sent in sitemails complaining too. i suppose he did return a couple times after we thought he was banned, so those things didn't directly get him banned - but i think those shorter bans helped lead up to the big one. anyway, not really important, but... go team!

sad thing is, other than that "im going to beat the **** out of you" sitemail, etta sent me a few others, and hes actually a pretty knowledgeable and interesting guy when he doesn't think the shadows are attacking him. i actually enjoyed his last few sitemails, when he was responding to stuff i asked on the forums. i even shot him back a couple sitemails, and he seemed like a perfectly normal guy. its kind of a shame, he could have been a great HD coach someday, and a real contributor on the forums, if only he wasn't so defensive, and would drop that maddening air of superiority.

+1, I agree it was a community effort.  I told WIS staff that my responses to him will make him look like a pastor if they don't do something, it stopped. I'm sure other guys too did something to the sort.  All I can say is good ridance, I NEVER had a decent conversation with him.

Oh, where to begin on my buddy etta.......

To be honest, I think what finally got him banned for good was his behavior in the Ohio Athletic Conference coaches corner in Rupp (which may have been what many of the before mentioned users reported him for). TO put it lightly, he went a little crazy on the catholics of Xavier, cussed repeatedly at other users, and begged the admins to ban him & erase his account. As much as it pains me, I have to agree with billyg a bit and admit that etta probably has some good whits, but none the less (from my observations) he is an incredibly sensitive user that has trouble with impersonal dialogue.

Most importantly, reporting others was never a problem whatsoever before etta showed up, so I REALLY HOPE that he doesn't leave his stain on the site & forums by having created an environment where others are quick to report comments and emboldened to refer users directly to the site admins.