Multi Offense/Defense Advantages?

[daltontr]

"even making a Sweet 16 with Alabama State in my 3rd Season running Full Princeton focus inside, Look for 3s"

How does one run focus inside, Look for 3's? If you are running inside focus the ball is going inside, not outside. When I do this, fewer three's result, so I'm curious.

Could it be your Offensive freedom? I would assume that a strict or even balanced adherence to your offensive strategy could inhibit players from straying to far from the primary focus of looking inside. I would think that focus inside and look for 3's, combined with a high degree of offensive freedom (80-90%) could increase your attempts beyond the arc.

I've never actually done that though and I think it's an interesting concept. I like teams that can play with a lot of freedom, but you need players with a high BBIQ and the skill level to make it work. When you coach primarily lower tier teams, like the Atlantic Sun Conference, I find it difficult to determine what works and what doesn't, simply because my players all have one thing in common, they are consistently inconsistent.

[Your_Imaginary_Friend]

"even making a Sweet 16 with Alabama State in my 3rd Season running Full Princeton focus inside, Look for 3s"

How does one run focus inside, Look for 3's? If you are running inside focus the ball is going inside, not outside. When I do this, fewer three's result, so I'm curious.

Could it be your Offensive freedom? I would assume that a strict or even balanced adherence to your offensive strategy could inhibit players from straying to far from the primary focus of looking inside. I would think that focus inside and look for 3's, combined with a high degree of offensive freedom (80-90%) could increase your attempts beyond the arc.

I've never actually done that though and I think it's an interesting concept. I like teams that can play with a lot of freedom, but you need players with a high BBIQ and the skill level to make it work. When you coach primarily lower tier teams, like the Atlantic Sun Conference, I find it difficult to determine what works and what doesn't, simply because my players all have one thing in common, they are consistently inconsistent.

I'm running a DePaul career now and into season 5. Now I have all players I've recruited and a team trained up the way I want. I am coming to quite different conclusions than you expressed, however there is much more to learn!

I'm fairly certain that players taking three's is based on their 'Player range and action' pie charts. These are difficult to change over time. You need to keep instructing a player over time since each set of instructions last for no more than 4 weeks--that is, you can't expect to call him once and expect that to last forever. So there is really no such thing as 'Look for 3's' in your offensive scheme instructions (I've been meaning to mention that). Players will only do what they want to do with possible small changes in their game following training instructions. So look at your players to see what they want to do. For example, I have a PG who only has a tiny sliver of orange. So he drives or takes mid-range jumpers. I want him to drive, so I Focus Inside.

In short, if you want to shoot more 3's, you need to recruit players with lots of orange in their range pie, or that isn't going to happen.

I'll write about when offensive freedom is a good choice for less talented teams when I have more time.

[Perfekt]

There isn't a Look for Threes in the offensive scheme, but if you manually coach every game there is an option for it. I do this at speed x10 and slow down the speed if i see bad shots being taken.

Also, my offensive freedom isn't much. I run 30-40% freedom and I'm default at 35%, but my team practices only one offense for 35 practice time (Princeton or 5 out) and 10 practice time in each zone offense with a 35 in one defense (1-3-1 Zone) which is the zone Rice had practiced. My tempo is between 6-8 defaulted at 6. I don't go any slower than that though. We shoot at least 30 threes a game at a 39% clip. I had to start a new dynasty though, because my save errors out on any advance. I think I alt tabbed while saving or something.

Anyway I am doing the same thing on my new dynasty and I had 2 losses year one in the regular season with Rice this time with 5 out because that is what they already had. However, it may have a lot more to do with me coaching every game than my actual overarching strategy. Because I make a lot of adjustments in defensive intensity and sometimes i go away from the three-ball to take advantage of a matchup inside. I try to recruit all B or higher outside shooters. C/PF also need to be decent at rebounding. Other guys just need to be able to pass and ballhandle.

[daltontr]

Are there any real advantages in running multiple offenses and multiple defenses...

Versatility.

I tried the single offense/defense approach once, but quickly abandoned it. Whether it be offense or defense, my opponents always seemed to find a way to exploit a weakness. Since the team was handcuffed by a lack of versatility, they would eventually be undone by their own inability to adapt to changing situations. More importantly, there really is no substitute for talent. It is possible to be successful with a myopic system...Paul Westhead comes to mind, but that kind of single mindedness requires the kind of talent that is usually reserved for the hall of fame.

Speaking of Westhead...one trick pony. He was successful at Loyola Marymount, but without Bo Kimble and Hank Gaithers, Westhead would have vanished into obscurity far sooner than he actually did. After Hank Gaithers died, Westhead took "The System" to the Denver Nuggets and posted an awe inspiring 44-120 record before being fired after just two years.

He subsequently spent the next four forgettable years at George Mason University. They were 38-70 during his tenure and they never won more than 11 games in a single season. Mason finally came to their senses and fired Westhead, replacing him with Jim Larrañaga. In Larrañaga's second season, Mason won the CAA regular season title, the conference tournament and eventually went to the final four!

To further make my point, Westhead won an WNBA title with the Phoenix Mercury, but please..with players, like Diana Taurasi, Penny Taylor, Kelly Miller, etc., anyone of us could have coached that team. Their success had far more to do with talent, than Westhead's over-hyped run-and-gun system. Westhead immediately departed for the NBA as an assistant and he eventually ended his career with five years of mediocrity as the head coach of the Lady Oregon Ducks.

I think Westhead is proof that If you are surrounded by talented athletes, you can pretty much just roll the ball out there and success will fall in your lap. I just don't think the mastery of fundamentals alone necessarily translates to success. You can be one of the greatest coach ever (Phil Jackson), with a great system (Triangle), but without Michael Jordan and Scotti Pippen, your really just some dude in suit.

Having said that, I may just have to try it again, because I surely love the idea of being the next Norman Dale...I'm thinking 5 Out, 2-3 zone and a heavy emphasis on crashing the boards on "D"...oh wait...Hickory did have Jimmy Chitwood didn't they.

[Perfekt]

I tried the single offense/defense approach once, but quickly abandoned it. Whether it be offense or defense, my opponents always seemed to find a way to exploit a weakness.

Can you expand on this part specifically? I haven't seen any indication of the AI adjusting their strategy to what the User is doing. I've seen teams that are just straight up great at exploiting a weakness. Great 3 point shooters against a 2-3, great ballhandlers and passers against the press, etc. But I haven't seen a straight up exploitative strategy by the AI.