Posted by tampafla on 5/6/2018 7:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 5/6/2018 3:48:00 PM (view original):
I did a study a few seasons ago and found the 3pt shooting in the last minute was actually higher against a +5 defense than the other defenses played during the rest of the game. Sure the sample size was still smallish (50 shots or so). But I also have a suspicion they purposely increase the chance of making a 3 at the end of the game no matter what you do anyway.

To answer your question. If a team needs to make a 3 to tie the game I am going to instinctively send out the defense that is supposed to stop a 3 whether it actually works or not. If they make it while I run a -2 then I would blame myself.

Well the end of game logic you mention makes sense. It’s exactly the way it works in the GD game. They force unrealistic upsets and outcomes into the game. But gotta take the good with the bad. I do agree that bad defenders shouldn’t impact shots AS MUCH AS a good defender. But if the effectiveness is tied just to defensive skill ability then that’s unrealistic. Even more so then the CS agent saying that was the fix that was implemented. That is an awful fix to the engine if true. Formation IQ should mean something.

It definitely does seem that teams will get hot during the Quick Shot offense even against +5. It is pretty odd for a team to make several straight during this short time period at the end of the game against a defense specifically designed to stop the 3 pointer but they shoot very poorly the other 39 minutes of the game against a balanced defense.

Sure, it can happen based upon probability but it seems like it's running off a different algorithm or something.

I've always thought of playing a + defense as putting that may defenders up at the 3PT line. So if you're playing a +5 defense, you're essentially putting all 5 defenders at the 3PT line. So to me, its not a question of 3PT effectiveness against a +5 defense (it shouldn't be effective), but more a question about why teams would even take a 3PT attempt against a +5 defense when any inside shot would be an uncontested layup (take the 2, foul, and hope on missed FTs).

All a +5 defense does is apply a penalty to the 3FGA. It also reduces the #'s of 3fga in most cases.

Because it's jsut some sort of % reduction, it doesn't turn bad defenses into great ones, it just makes them less bad. The problem is that Mully's team usually have really good defense's so they should go from really good to really gooder!

While he is a giant Whiney McWhiney pants, he probably has some sort of point that it isn't working as intended if teams 3FGA% is actually higher vs a +5 than his normal defense.

Mully, which game are you now complaining about? Your OU team is super slow (and you know that) it may be that ATH is figured in less and SPD more when the other team goes quick shot....

Posted by Trentonjoe on 5/7/2018 11:30:00 AM (view original):
All a +5 defense does is apply a penalty to the 3FGA. It also reduces the #'s of 3fga in most cases.

Because it's jsut some sort of % reduction, it doesn't turn bad defenses into great ones, it just makes them less bad. The problem is that Mully's team usually have really good defense's so they should go from really good to really gooder!

While he is a giant Whiney McWhiney pants, he probably has some sort of point that it isn't working as intended if teams 3FGA% is actually higher vs a +5 than his normal defense.

I figure it’s between 1 and 2% per setting degree. I suspect HCA and the regression to mean matter more. The single most important factor in late-game quick shot success rate is (and should be) the quality of your opponent’s perimeter shooters.

Posted by Benis on 5/7/2018 10:02:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tampafla on 5/6/2018 7:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 5/6/2018 3:48:00 PM (view original):
I did a study a few seasons ago and found the 3pt shooting in the last minute was actually higher against a +5 defense than the other defenses played during the rest of the game. Sure the sample size was still smallish (50 shots or so). But I also have a suspicion they purposely increase the chance of making a 3 at the end of the game no matter what you do anyway.

To answer your question. If a team needs to make a 3 to tie the game I am going to instinctively send out the defense that is supposed to stop a 3 whether it actually works or not. If they make it while I run a -2 then I would blame myself.

Well the end of game logic you mention makes sense. It’s exactly the way it works in the GD game. They force unrealistic upsets and outcomes into the game. But gotta take the good with the bad. I do agree that bad defenders shouldn’t impact shots AS MUCH AS a good defender. But if the effectiveness is tied just to defensive skill ability then that’s unrealistic. Even more so then the CS agent saying that was the fix that was implemented. That is an awful fix to the engine if true. Formation IQ should mean something.

It definitely does seem that teams will get hot during the Quick Shot offense even against +5. It is pretty odd for a team to make several straight during this short time period at the end of the game against a defense specifically designed to stop the 3 pointer but they shoot very poorly the other 39 minutes of the game against a balanced defense.

Sure, it can happen based upon probability but it seems like it's running off a different algorithm or something.

Maybe the issue is less in the effect of defensive positioning than it is the effectiveness of quick shot. You're right that it would be very odd in real life for a team to shoot terribly for 39 minutes against a balanced defense and then get insanely in the last minute when they are just putting up the first half-decent shot they can find.

A more realistic outcome is that quick shot would amplify what happened in the previous 39 minutes -- if you were shooting 29% on 3-pointers in the first 39 minutes, quick shot probabilities would mean that you shoot worse, but just faster (theoretically, you could still get points on putbacks). If you were hot from 3 in the first 39 minutes (lets say we have a high-scoring, no-defense game), then quick shot means you are going to do as good, if not better, because you have hot players bombing away from deep.

In real life, every once in a while you will see a team stink for 38 minutes and then get hot in the last two minutes because going to a quick shot offense opens up parts of the offense that got clogged down. But what happens most often is that a tired, desperate team jacks up shots, misses them, other team gets the rebound, they have to foul and the other team puts the game away at the free throw line. Quick shot should make this outcome more likely, not less likely.

Posted by masonwr on 5/7/2018 10:24:00 AM (view original):
I've always thought of playing a + defense as putting that may defenders up at the 3PT line. So if you're playing a +5 defense, you're essentially putting all 5 defenders at the 3PT line. So to me, its not a question of 3PT effectiveness against a +5 defense (it shouldn't be effective), but more a question about why teams would even take a 3PT attempt against a +5 defense when any inside shot would be an uncontested layup (take the 2, foul, and hope on missed FTs).

This is a great point. Maybe if you set -5 3pt shooting when losing then the team would do as you say.

When you are in +5 from the start the other team will take fewer 3 pointers UNTIL they go into quick shot mode. Then it completely ignores your defense and automatically jacks 3s.

Does anyone have any idea if the type of shot impacts rebounding? Like a missed 3 pointer could lead to a long rebound that is likely to be rebounded by a guard vs a big? I suspect not, but maybe someone has more info.

“A more realistic outcome is that quick shot would amplify what happened in the previous 39 minutes -- if you were shooting 29% on 3-pointers in the first 39 minutes, quick shot probabilities would mean that you shoot worse, but just faster (theoretically, you could still get points on putbacks). If you were hot from 3 in the first 39 minutes (lets say we have a high-scoring, no-defense game), then quick shot means you are going to do as good, if not better, because you have hot players bombing away from deep.”

Regression to mean suggests the opposite.

If you’re down by more than 5 points in the last minute, but the game is in reach, the engine is often going to use quick shot for 3 pointers, regardless of defense, unless you have specifically told it not to (-5, never adjust, etc). Even then, the engine may try to get off some 3’s - a half-court shot in the final second, for example. It’s doing what it can, according to its logic, to maximize its chances for success. That also means it will, if it can, have the best perimeter shooter on the floor take the shots.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 5/7/2018 11:35:00 AM (view original):
Mully, which game are you now complaining about? Your OU team is super slow (and you know that) it may be that ATH is figured in less and SPD more when the other team goes quick shot....

In general I am not complaining about a specific game, but rather a trend over the past 25 seasons where teams hit three pointers at a staggering rate in the last minute of the game vs a +5 defense.

I ran stats for a few seasons on my teams and opponents had a higher 3pt% in the last minute vs. a +5 defense than the rest of the game vs any other type defense. That should not be happening.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 5/7/2018 11:30:00 AM (view original):
All a +5 defense does is apply a penalty to the 3FGA. It also reduces the #'s of 3fga in most cases.

Because it's jsut some sort of % reduction, it doesn't turn bad defenses into great ones, it just makes them less bad. The problem is that Mully's team usually have really good defense's so they should go from really good to really gooder!

While he is a giant Whiney McWhiney pants, he probably has some sort of point that it isn't working as intended if teams 3FGA% is actually higher vs a +5 than his normal defense.

All a +5 defense does is apply a penalty to the 3FGA. It also reduces the #'s of 3fga in most cases.

This is EXACTLY my gripe with how Seble changed the programming. He made it so positioning affected where opponents chose to shoot but NOT how effective they were shooting from those spots. So at the end of the game when the opponent HAS to shoot 3's, the +5 defense is absolutely worthless.

To me, that's moronic programming. It should be that the +5 reduces 3Pt% but allows easier baskets inside. So teams would choose to take the easy 2 pts and foul.....just like in real basketball.

Posted by Benis on 5/7/2018 12:54:00 PM (view original):
Does anyone have any idea if the type of shot impacts rebounding? Like a missed 3 pointer could lead to a long rebound that is likely to be rebounded by a guard vs a big? I suspect not, but maybe someone has more info.

I believe it does because I know the chance of rebounding a missed FT is much smaller than a regular shot.

Posted by mullycj on 5/7/2018 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 5/7/2018 11:30:00 AM (view original):
All a +5 defense does is apply a penalty to the 3FGA. It also reduces the #'s of 3fga in most cases.

Because it's jsut some sort of % reduction, it doesn't turn bad defenses into great ones, it just makes them less bad. The problem is that Mully's team usually have really good defense's so they should go from really good to really gooder!

While he is a giant Whiney McWhiney pants, he probably has some sort of point that it isn't working as intended if teams 3FGA% is actually higher vs a +5 than his normal defense.

All a +5 defense does is apply a penalty to the 3FGA. It also reduces the #'s of 3fga in most cases.

This is EXACTLY my gripe with how Seble changed the programming. He made it so positioning affected where opponents chose to shoot but NOT how effective they were shooting from those spots. So at the end of the game when the opponent HAS to shoot 3's, the +5 defense is absolutely worthless.

To me, that's moronic programming. It should be that the +5 reduces 3Pt% but allows easier baskets inside. So teams would choose to take the easy 2 pts and foul.....just like in real basketball.

IME, running a +5 does increase 2fg% efficency and volume. It also decreases 3FG% efficency and volume. That's why I think the end of the game algorithim has to be different if your data is accurate.

If one wanted to PROVE that there is a problem with the quickshot offense vs the +5 .. the way to determine that is not what happened in one game or what a person remembers from reading the play by play. The reasons are obvious.

1) The sample size is obviously too small for one game to mean anything.

2) You really only remember things that stand out when reading those play-by-plays.

So, if someone thinks there is a major issue, that person should take the time to gather the data that is necessary to analyse the issue. Data does not lie. If you take every PBP from every game in all worlds and look for all quickshots vs +5 .. you will have how many are made and how many are missed .. you can compare that to a teams 3 point percentage, etc, for meaningful analysis and maybe get something changed, if needed.

Just ******** about it on the forums will accomplish nothing however.

In 10 games I looked at in one world, opponents shot 7-22 against a 3-2 +2 defense in the final minutes of games where I was up to the point of my adjustment parameters. This is absolutely in line with what I would expect, but the sample is very small. I’ll post a few more sets as I have more time.