Posted by JLKennedy44 on 5/8/2018 1:33:00 AM (view original):
This is a great post - thanks for breaking down the ATH/DE this way for Zone. Early on I was too enamored with the Total OVR and virtually ignored the individual attributes. My Seniors are proof of my limited knowledge at the time. Too bad its taken 3 seasons for me to figure that out.

Not a problem. I think zone is the hardest defense to truly figure out, which is why a lot of coaches don't use it.

The computer will create backcourt and frontcourt ratings for your defense, based on whether you chose a 3-2 or 2-3 zone defense and then ultimately come to a single defense rating. So think of your defense as an amoeba who gets it strength from the ratings of the 5 players on the floor. The key metrics are ATH, SPD, DEF, BLK and IQ

When you run a 2-3, you are actually running more of a 2-2-1. Your PG-SG have their ratings in ATH/SPD/DEF/IQ averaged, same for SF-PF and the C stands alone. In a 3-2, your PG-SG-SF are averaged together as well as your PF-C. For your back court, your SPD takes on more importance than your frontcourt; the opposite is true for BLK. ATH/DEF/IQ are important for both. While REB isn't averaged, it is very important for your PF and C; zone keeps them further away from the basket than man does, so you need excellent rebounders to overcome that disadvantage.

Your ability to switch between these defensive sets depends largely on two players: your SF and your C. You need a SF that has high enough attributes that he won't tank your averages in order to move between 2-3 and 3-2. Also, in both sets, you need your C to have an excellent BLK rating. Not only does BLK allow him to block shots, it also allows him to alter the trajectory of shots, leading to more misses. If you have a young Dikembe as your center, you can run a 2-3, because he can stand near the hoop and alter everything. In a 3-2, your PF also needs to have a good BLK rating.

Yes, you can hide a bad defender in zone, but it is hard to do. It takes careful planning. Let me show you.

Assume that our goal is 65 ATH/65 DEF/B+ IQ across the board. Our SG has an ATH of 40 and a DEF of 30, but has 85 SPD, 99 PER and 75 LP, making him an insanely good D3 scorer. In order to achieve our 65-65 goal, the lineup might look like this:
PG 60 ATH/70 DEF/A IQ
SG 40 ATH/30 DEF/A IQ
SF 80 ATH/90 DEF/B+
PF 68 ATH/76 DEF/B+
C 77 ATH/59 DEF/B

Just getting to 65/65 requires some pretty high ATH guys for D3 and you may already be giving up other attributes to win recruiting battles (i.e. your SF is terrible at REB/LP/PER because that was the only way to avoid D1/D2s grabbing him). But lets say your backup SF is a freshman with 58 ATH/60 DEF with a C+ IQ and your backup PG is a sophomore with 50 ATH/60 DEF/B- IQ. When those two players are in the game with SG/PF/C, your averages drop to 59 ATH/57 DEF/B IQ. So you have to construct a depth chart that keeps you at an acceptable defensive level across your depth chart because you can't control when that weak defender will be playing with your subs.

If you make that 40ATH/30DEF SG into a 50ATH/50DEF guy, suddenly the math becomes easier. Yes, he is still a weak defender, but you don't have to overcompensate as much in your recruiting at other positions. A better way to say it as that you cannot hide a terrible defender in zone, but you can hide a mediocre one.

A properly constructed zone team -- high ATH, high DEF, good IQs, frontcourt with high BLK and REB, backcourt with high SPD -- is very, very difficult to beat. You can't isolate on any weaknesses in game-planning. A press defense can be beaten with excellent SPD and BH in your backcourt; you beat it by having guards who don't turn the ball over. A man defense can be beaten by isolating on weak defenders.

For those interested in zone, this thread is the motherload. The first 5 and last 5 pages include a lot of the best stuff this forum has ever produced. The middle 4 are mostly trolling, and can be skipped, unless you enjoy that sort of thing.

Good stuff, grimacedance. I don’t think you necessarily need to aspire as high as a 65/65/B+ avg at D3, which would probably require something like a superclass 6-6-0-0 class structure. You can be competitive a bit lower than that. But it is best to not think of it like hiding poor defenders, but rather finding ways to utilize elite strengths that sometimes come with significant flaws. Zone allows you to cover for flawed players significantly better than man or press, which makes it so much fun, IMO.

Posted by shoe3 on 5/8/2018 12:08:00 PM (view original):
For those interested in zone, this thread is the motherload. The first 5 and last 5 pages include a lot of the best stuff this forum has ever produced. The middle 4 are mostly trolling, and can be skipped, unless you enjoy that sort of thing.

Good stuff, grimacedance. I don’t think you necessarily need to aspire as high as a 65/65/B+ avg at D3, which would probably require something like a superclass 6-6-0-0 class structure. You can be competitive a bit lower than that. But it is best to not think of it like hiding poor defenders, but rather finding ways to utilize elite strengths that sometimes come with significant flaws. Zone allows you to cover for flawed players significantly better than man or press, which makes it so much fun, IMO.

I agree that it allows you to cover for flawed players better than any other defense.

At D3, if your goal is to be a national title contender, I do think you need to aim for the mid-60s in ATH/DEF, especially with your starters. The top rated D3 teams usually average around 60 DEF (and even higher with their starters).

Posted by grimacedance on 5/8/2018 12:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 5/8/2018 12:08:00 PM (view original):
For those interested in zone, this thread is the motherload. The first 5 and last 5 pages include a lot of the best stuff this forum has ever produced. The middle 4 are mostly trolling, and can be skipped, unless you enjoy that sort of thing.

Good stuff, grimacedance. I don’t think you necessarily need to aspire as high as a 65/65/B+ avg at D3, which would probably require something like a superclass 6-6-0-0 class structure. You can be competitive a bit lower than that. But it is best to not think of it like hiding poor defenders, but rather finding ways to utilize elite strengths that sometimes come with significant flaws. Zone allows you to cover for flawed players significantly better than man or press, which makes it so much fun, IMO.

I agree that it allows you to cover for flawed players better than any other defense.

At D3, if your goal is to be a national title contender, I do think you need to aim for the mid-60s in ATH/DEF, especially with your starters. The top rated D3 teams usually average around 60 DEF (and even higher with their starters).

Maybe I took your suggestion too literally. If we’re just talking about starters, we’re on the same page, or at least the same chapter.

I guess I just have to accept that it is more of a give and take at D3. I used to be way too enamored by high OVR and ended up with what I thought was a star player, who in reality is a liability. I think so far this has really helped me develop a much more complete understanding of this game, it used to be very black and white. It’s funny based on what I know now that I was wondering why I was losing to teams with a lower OVR than mine.

Posted by Wales_ on 5/8/2018 12:31:00 PM (view original):
I guess I just have to accept that it is more of a give and take at D3. I used to be way too enamored by high OVR and ended up with what I thought was a star player, who in reality is a liability. I think so far this has really helped me develop a much more complete understanding of this game, it used to be very black and white. It’s funny based on what I know now that I was wondering why I was losing to teams with a lower OVR than mine.

Ostby isn’t a significant liability in the long term. When his IQ is above B, he’ll be a decent contributor. Until then, you’ll probably enjoy his rebounding off the bench. You’ll just always want to limit his exposure lined up against dominant inside scorers.

And again, don’t pass up the opportunity to get someone better.

Posted by shoe3 on 5/8/2018 12:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Wales_ on 5/8/2018 12:31:00 PM (view original):
I guess I just have to accept that it is more of a give and take at D3. I used to be way too enamored by high OVR and ended up with what I thought was a star player, who in reality is a liability. I think so far this has really helped me develop a much more complete understanding of this game, it used to be very black and white. It’s funny based on what I know now that I was wondering why I was losing to teams with a lower OVR than mine.

Ostby isn’t a significant liability in the long term. When his IQ is above B, he’ll be a decent contributor. Until then, you’ll probably enjoy his rebounding off the bench. You’ll just always want to limit his exposure lined up against dominant inside scorers.

And again, don’t pass up the opportunity to get someone better.

Alright, I’ll see how he develops coming off the bench for now.

Also, what do you mean by the second statement? I missed the context.

Posted by Wales_ on 5/8/2018 12:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 5/8/2018 12:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Wales_ on 5/8/2018 12:31:00 PM (view original):
I guess I just have to accept that it is more of a give and take at D3. I used to be way too enamored by high OVR and ended up with what I thought was a star player, who in reality is a liability. I think so far this has really helped me develop a much more complete understanding of this game, it used to be very black and white. It’s funny based on what I know now that I was wondering why I was losing to teams with a lower OVR than mine.

Ostby isn’t a significant liability in the long term. When his IQ is above B, he’ll be a decent contributor. Until then, you’ll probably enjoy his rebounding off the bench. You’ll just always want to limit his exposure lined up against dominant inside scorers.

And again, don’t pass up the opportunity to get someone better.

Alright, I’ll see how he develops coming off the bench for now.

Also, what do you mean by the second statement? I missed the context.

Put another way, he’s not the guy you pencil in to be your starter for the next 3 years. He’s the guy you *can* start if you have tough recruiting classes. He’s on your team, he’s got some value, don’t cut him. But if, for example, you can get a guy who projects to 70+ in ath-reb-def, but you need to promise him a start to get him, don’t hesitate to do that.

Posted by Wales_ on 5/8/2018 12:31:00 PM (view original):
I guess I just have to accept that it is more of a give and take at D3. I used to be way too enamored by high OVR and ended up with what I thought was a star player, who in reality is a liability. I think so far this has really helped me develop a much more complete understanding of this game, it used to be very black and white. It’s funny based on what I know now that I was wondering why I was losing to teams with a lower OVR than mine.

And this is something that new players have to learn to overcome, especially because the game kind of encourages this thinking. Recruits are ranked/starred based on overall rating and not based on potential or a weighting of relevant ratings (i.e. the rankings value perimeter shooting and rebounding equally for both SGs and Centers).

Three questions you should ask with every recruit, no matter what defense or offense you run or position the player plays:
1. Is his athleticism high enough?
2. Is his defense rating high enough?
3. Is his work ethic high enough?

An acceptable answer for #1 can vary based on position (ATH is much more important in centers than point guards), but you need to have a minimum cutoff.
The acceptable answer for #2 and #3 should generally be the same across all positions. I would encourage you to demand a minimum defense rating of 50 before a player receives more than 10 mpg and a minimum work ethic of 30 in order to recruit him. The lower you go from 30 WE, the higher every other rating needs to be; in other words, he has to have great ratings as a recruit in order to justify recruiting him, because his ratings aren't going up. Green potentials are worthless at less than 5 WE and of dubious value under 20 WE.

If the answer to any of those three questions is no, then cross him off the list.

If the answer to all 3 is yes, then evaluate his ratings at key positions. For me (and every coach is different on this), I value these ratings at each position:
PG -- SPD, BH, PASS, PER (in roughly that order)
SG -- SPD, PER, BH, PASS
SF -- REB, PASS and hopefully either LP or PER is green
PF -- REB, LP, BLK
C -- BLK, REB, LP

Also something I’ve wondered, is distribution just % of offensives possesions that go through a certain a player? If so, should I just base my distribution on offensive traits + ATH/SPD?

Posted by Wales_ on 5/8/2018 12:31:00 PM (view original):
I guess I just have to accept that it is more of a give and take at D3. I used to be way too enamored by high OVR and ended up with what I thought was a star player, who in reality is a liability. I think so far this has really helped me develop a much more complete understanding of this game, it used to be very black and white. It’s funny based on what I know now that I was wondering why I was losing to teams with a lower OVR than mine.

For what it's worth, I think Ostby is okay. Sure, he sucks on defense and isn't the most athletic guy, but he can come off the bench and score and rebound. That's two valuable skills. And depending on the climate of Tark, it might be hard to find athletic big guys. I am willing to take a 50+ ath at D3.

I didn't read all the posts in this thread (just scanned them) but you want to look for guys at D3 that excel in some way. This guys will be good at LP and rebounding... that's solid for a bench player. Also, his defense might not matter that much coming off the bench. It's possible you can move him to PF or Center based on their back up forward and have him guard the guy that isn't a scorer.

Obviously more Athletic skill is great, but sometimes you can't find it. I would have 50 as my low probably, but I think it's acceptable. Especially if you are not playing press and if they have skill in other areas (i.e. LP and rebounding in this case).

Posted by brianxavier on 5/10/2018 8:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Wales_ on 5/8/2018 12:31:00 PM (view original):
I guess I just have to accept that it is more of a give and take at D3. I used to be way too enamored by high OVR and ended up with what I thought was a star player, who in reality is a liability. I think so far this has really helped me develop a much more complete understanding of this game, it used to be very black and white. It’s funny based on what I know now that I was wondering why I was losing to teams with a lower OVR than mine.

For what it's worth, I think Ostby is okay. Sure, he sucks on defense and isn't the most athletic guy, but he can come off the bench and score and rebound. That's two valuable skills. And depending on the climate of Tark, it might be hard to find athletic big guys. I am willing to take a 50+ ath at D3.

I didn't read all the posts in this thread (just scanned them) but you want to look for guys at D3 that excel in some way. This guys will be good at LP and rebounding... that's solid for a bench player. Also, his defense might not matter that much coming off the bench. It's possible you can move him to PF or Center based on their back up forward and have him guard the guy that isn't a scorer.

Obviously more Athletic skill is great, but sometimes you can't find it. I would have 50 as my low probably, but I think it's acceptable. Especially if you are not playing press and if they have skill in other areas (i.e. LP and rebounding in this case).

Appreciate the advice. The funny thing is that I thought I was recruiting a star and I was so confused when no one fought me on him during recruiting.

But I plan to have him come off the bench until he is at least a junior. I will see how recruiting goes this next season and take it from there.

Posted by Wales_ on 5/8/2018 9:11:00 PM (view original):
Also something I’ve wondered, is distribution just % of offensives possesions that go through a certain a player? If so, should I just base my distribution on offensive traits + ATH/SPD?

Generally, the most efficient scorers seem to have high LP and Per ratings. That's a good place to start on determining distribution. The other factors that matter are speed, athleticism, ball handling (for guards, does not seem to matter for bigs). For bigs, my best scorers are athletic and have good LP ratings. For guards, they have good Per, Speed, BH, Ath (probably in that order, but I'm not sure what's more important - BH vs. Speed). I don't think speed matters much for bigs.

IQ should also have an impact, but I honestly can't tell how much. It doesn't feel like it matters much because year to year I've seen guys have good junior season then not as good of a senior season (could be due to competition, randomness, bench player becoming a starter, etc)...

Ultimately, I determine my distro based on the stats - FG%; 3 pt FG%; FT%... that's probably kind of lazy and you can always upload the data and come up with more sophisticated stats which some guys definitely do (EFG%, TS%, many others). I used to do that as well, but have gotten away from it. It's good to re-adjust as the season progresses, and try to experiment at times by giving more players distro etc. to see how they perform.

Posted by brianxavier on 5/10/2018 11:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Wales_ on 5/8/2018 9:11:00 PM (view original):
Also something I’ve wondered, is distribution just % of offensives possesions that go through a certain a player? If so, should I just base my distribution on offensive traits + ATH/SPD?

Generally, the most efficient scorers seem to have high LP and Per ratings. That's a good place to start on determining distribution. The other factors that matter are speed, athleticism, ball handling (for guards, does not seem to matter for bigs). For bigs, my best scorers are athletic and have good LP ratings. For guards, they have good Per, Speed, BH, Ath (probably in that order, but I'm not sure what's more important - BH vs. Speed). I don't think speed matters much for bigs.

IQ should also have an impact, but I honestly can't tell how much. It doesn't feel like it matters much because year to year I've seen guys have good junior season then not as good of a senior season (could be due to competition, randomness, bench player becoming a starter, etc)...

Ultimately, I determine my distro based on the stats - FG%; 3 pt FG%; FT%... that's probably kind of lazy and you can always upload the data and come up with more sophisticated stats which some guys definitely do (EFG%, TS%, many others). I used to do that as well, but have gotten away from it. It's good to re-adjust as the season progresses, and try to experiment at times by giving more players distro etc. to see how they perform.

Thanks, I plan on just trying out a new distribution system I came up with and seeing how it works. It is the first time I used it so I don’t expect it to be perfect.

Posted by brianxavier on 5/10/2018 8:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Wales_ on 5/8/2018 12:31:00 PM (view original):
I guess I just have to accept that it is more of a give and take at D3. I used to be way too enamored by high OVR and ended up with what I thought was a star player, who in reality is a liability. I think so far this has really helped me develop a much more complete understanding of this game, it used to be very black and white. It’s funny based on what I know now that I was wondering why I was losing to teams with a lower OVR than mine.

For what it's worth, I think Ostby is okay. Sure, he sucks on defense and isn't the most athletic guy, but he can come off the bench and score and rebound. That's two valuable skills. And depending on the climate of Tark, it might be hard to find athletic big guys. I am willing to take a 50+ ath at D3.

I didn't read all the posts in this thread (just scanned them) but you want to look for guys at D3 that excel in some way. This guys will be good at LP and rebounding... that's solid for a bench player. Also, his defense might not matter that much coming off the bench. It's possible you can move him to PF or Center based on their back up forward and have him guard the guy that isn't a scorer.

Obviously more Athletic skill is great, but sometimes you can't find it. I would have 50 as my low probably, but I think it's acceptable. Especially if you are not playing press and if they have skill in other areas (i.e. LP and rebounding in this case).

There are many times that I struggle to find players with 50+ ATH at the D3 level. So I usually compensate on that with 90+ core ratings.
this guy for example: https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3928866

He is on track for 100 REB. I feel that he will be effective off the bench and would a good possibility as a senior when he has As for IQ. Do you agree/disagree?