I think the tempo issue is being analyzed incorrectly.  I'm assuming the same scenario posed above: better starters and equal or worse bench.  I'm not smart enough to figure out the answer to the following question, but I think what people should be asking is which tempo will give your starters the most possessions.  It's not necessarily true that starters will get more possessions simply because they are in the game longer.  Running slowdown obviously decreases possessions.  Additionally, stamina needs to be considered, as indicated by previous posters. 

There is a balance to tempo, but I don't think one strategy is always correct or another is always wrong.

Posted by girt25 on 5/2/2012 5:33:00 PM (view original):
Hmmm. The way I'd look at it in that situation is to have your starters in for the highest percentage of the game as possible.

Actually, now that I run some basic numbers, I agree.

My "numbers" are contingent on possession per game being ~ NCAA-level (i.e low 60s for slowdown and high 70s for uptempo).  Anyone know if that is what you get in HD?

If so, I think slowdown is probably the way to go unless you're rocking 85+ stam with everyone in your lineup. 
 

Posted by aejones on 5/3/2012 2:19:00 AM (view original):
I agree with pretty much everything said. I ran uptempo when I had a deep bench and recruited for stamina. I rarely have more than 5 or 6 upperclassmen, so I might be at a disadvantage when I'm playing someone who has 7 or 8 upperclassmen and is running a high variance program to only be good 1 or 2 out of every 4 years. I also don't want to run uptempo against a press team. My 5 starters are often just ridiculously good.

Also, I've personally just had very poor success with uptempo. I don't know if it doesn't work well with motion (probably my offense of choice) or if my players rush their shots or what-- I just feel like I win more with slowdown or normal. 

With work ethic, I don't remember saying I didn't take people under 50, I value 30+ about the same (obviously there is a sliding scale, and I'd prefer not to get someone with 31 WE who will won't get the PT necessary to up his WE). In fact, I just signed someone with 21 WE in phelan because he doesn't have a lot of places to improve and his cores are already quite good. This is an exception of course, and I actually valued him higher than a 32 WE PF who had more categories to improve and a worse GPA. 

Posted by narcotico on 5/3/2012 3:37:00 AM (view original):
Does anyone feel that team speed has any correlation with the effectiveness of uptempo?

Makes sense from a real life basketball perspective, of course that doesn't necessarily make it true in HD...

Posted by jdno on 5/2/2012 5:58:00 PM (view original):
To me, tempo choice should be a conscious tradeoff between:

1. the law of large numbers and the underlying standard deviation in statistics produced by low sample size (i.e. going slowdown and generating relatively low # of possessions) vs. high sample size (uptempo, high # of possessions)

and

2. maximizing the % of possessions in the game where your 5 players on the court exceed the talent and skill level of the opponents' 5 players.  When I say talent and skill level, I'm including any underlying stamina effects, playing with just 10 scholarship players or the like, underlying FT rates and FT%, etc., everything that determines performance, even those factors we can't quantify or really understand the mechanics of like why teams foul way more in the 2H of games than the 1H.  If you have a better starting 5 but a worse bench than your opponent, then go slowdown.  If your bench is relatively better than theirs but your starters are relatively worse than theirs, then uptempo is probably better.  


If you have the better all around team (better relative starters and bench) but go slowdown, then you're more susceptible to random statistical behavior, i.e. being upset more.  If you have the worst team (worst relative starters and bench) but go uptempo, then you're less likely to win a track meet. 

Edit:  HCA can also be a significant underlying factor, most notably and esp. in D1, that would sway things to a slower or normal tempo in close cases or when you're playing on an opponent floor where they have an A-/A/A+HCA.

Posted by aejones on 5/3/2012 2:19:00 AM (view original):
I agree with pretty much everything said. I ran uptempo when I had a deep bench and recruited for stamina. I rarely have more than 5 or 6 upperclassmen, so I might be at a disadvantage when I'm playing someone who has 7 or 8 upperclassmen and is running a high variance program to only be good 1 or 2 out of every 4 years. I also don't want to run uptempo against a press team. My 5 starters are often just ridiculously good.

Also, I've personally just had very poor success with uptempo. I don't know if it doesn't work well with motion (probably my offense of choice) or if my players rush their shots or what-- I just feel like I win more with slowdown or normal. 

With work ethic, I don't remember saying I didn't take people under 50, I value 30+ about the same (obviously there is a sliding scale, and I'd prefer not to get someone with 31 WE who will won't get the PT necessary to up his WE). In fact, I just signed someone with 21 WE in phelan because he doesn't have a lot of places to improve and his cores are already quite good. This is an exception of course, and I actually valued him higher than a 32 WE PF who had more categories to improve and a worse GPA. 

Posted by gillispie on 5/3/2012 11:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jdno on 5/2/2012 5:58:00 PM (view original):
To me, tempo choice should be a conscious tradeoff between:

1. the law of large numbers and the underlying standard deviation in statistics produced by low sample size (i.e. going slowdown and generating relatively low # of possessions) vs. high sample size (uptempo, high # of possessions)

and

2. maximizing the % of possessions in the game where your 5 players on the court exceed the talent and skill level of the opponents' 5 players.  When I say talent and skill level, I'm including any underlying stamina effects, playing with just 10 scholarship players or the like, underlying FT rates and FT%, etc., everything that determines performance, even those factors we can't quantify or really understand the mechanics of like why teams foul way more in the 2H of games than the 1H.  If you have a better starting 5 but a worse bench than your opponent, then go slowdown.  If your bench is relatively better than theirs but your starters are relatively worse than theirs, then uptempo is probably better.  


If you have the better all around team (better relative starters and bench) but go slowdown, then you're more susceptible to random statistical behavior, i.e. being upset more.  If you have the worst team (worst relative starters and bench) but go uptempo, then you're less likely to win a track meet. 

Edit:  HCA can also be a significant underlying factor, most notably and esp. in D1, that would sway things to a slower or normal tempo in close cases or when you're playing on an opponent floor where they have an A-/A/A+HCA.

you are missing some factors. in an uptempo set, you are always going to be rushing your shot, and take poorer half court shots. the benefits from #1 and #2 need to overcome that. 

in reality, IMO, the impact of the downside of uptempo on basic performance metrics usually over powers the impact of #1 and #2, making an otherwise smart uptempo decision, a signficant detriment.

Yeah, but the flipside of that is presumably less TO/possession. (less time with the ball on offense means less chance of turning it over) 

If you want to factor in everything, you have to factor in everything.