The Anatomy of Champions

Gainesville Krushers vs Knoxville Money

Introduction
At the time of this writing, the Gainesville Krushers and Knoxville Money had combined to win 7
of the past 11 Test League Championships. The idea here is to deconstruct these two teams
and compare them to (1) my own St. Martinville Mice (a Top-25 program that occasionally
makes a deep run), (2) other top tier programs that consistently finish in the Top 25, and (3) with
each other. Hopefully, by comparing these teams and deconstructing what they do, we can get
some understanding of how they consistently out perform the field.

At the outset, it should be noted there are a limited amount of coaching options available in this
game. You can adjust the “Pace,” “Defense,” and “Shoot 3s.” From there, a coach may adjust
the position a player plays, the substitution frequency, how often to shoot, and how often those
shots should be three point attempts. That’s it.

The more dynamic portion of the game is recruiting. Here, a coach is free to pursue whatever
style of player they wish. We can get a good idea of what types of players each of these teams
recruit by looking at who they sign and building a profile. It is much more difficult to get an idea
of what individual settings a coach runs.

This season the Knoxville Money lost to the Canton Seattle Huskies in the Elite 8. They finished
the season 21-3 and 5th place overall. The Gainesville Krushers won the championship game
93-91 over the Pierre Magic to finish a perfect season.

St. Martinville:

Anatomy of Champions 1 of 14 January 2018

Gainesville:

Knoxville:

Anatomy of Champions 2 of 14 January 2018

Recruiting Strategy Through Ratings
Shooting (PPG and SHT): Both teams recruit, almost without exception, players with highly
scouted shooting and points per game. Of the 24 players on the roster, only two were F+ or
worse. Meaning 22 of the 24 were rated in the good to excellent range. Gainesville is willing to
go after a player with lower ppg totals so long as they are scouted highly. And the “fair” shooter
averaged 16.4 ppg in HS. All but one of Knoxville’s players scored 14.7 points or more per
game. They were more aggressive going after better shooters and scorers than Gainesville.

Perimeter Defense (STL + DEF): Neither team seems to focus as much on defense or steals.
8 of 24 players were rated in the “Fair” range. Only 6 players were rated in the “Exc” range.
There were no poor or worse players though. There seems to be some effort to make sure the
steals are at 1 or more per game as only 3 of 24 players are below that threshold.

Anatomy of Champions 3 of 14 January 2018

Ball Handling (AST + HAN + TO + INT): I’m not sure if INT matters in ball-handling, but I have
it in here for now. Gainesville doesn’t care too much about assists, but has done a good job on
turnovers, hands and intelligence. Knoxville has focused more on assists and completely
ignored INT where they are one of the worst teams in the nation. Combined, there are only 3 of
24 players that aren’t in the good or excellent range for hands.

Rebounding (RPG + REB + ATHL + HEIGHT): I’m showing athleticism even though I’m not
sure it is important to rebounding within the game’s code. Both teams have very high rebounds
per game rankings. This is probably very intentional by Gainesville (#1 ranked) but more of a
byproduct of recruiting almost exclusively “bigs” for Knoxville. Gainesville is also the #1 team in
average height with Knoxville placing 10th. While both teams are aggressive to an extreme
degree when it comes to accumulating height, they are not nearly as concerned with rebounds
per game. Gainesville is a pedestrian 82nd place in the category. Knoxville’s recruits appear to
be one of the worst rebounding teams ranked 200th. The average player height for Gainesville
is 80.6 IN tall. Knoxville’s average is 78.9. Our average height is 78.75 IN. #256th ranked
Yuma is 69.3 IN.

Kevinapps on height:

Anatomy of Champions 4 of 14 January 2018

Intelligence (TO + INT)1: I have little idea what intelligence is supposed to be applicable to in
the code. Additionally, I’m not sure if the EXAM score is different than the GPA score. I’m also
not incredibly confident about the ranges and expectations of intelligence, although I did some
research and wrote a macro converting EXAM/GPA into the +/- scale.2 The following were
proposed scales:

In my macro I used a straight line grading formula (4.0 = Exc + = 2.0 in plus/minus scale)
assuming the distribution of the grades within the straight-line would conform to the ordinary
distribution curve. I compared the macro’s ranges to 100 reported player ratings (signing day
reports) assuming they were reported accurately. The macro did a pretty good job of predicting
the correct rating and has continued to perform well enough that I have revisited or revised the
ranges.

1 Very early on in the return of DTL a coach indicated that intelligence should be an attribute that
can increase. KMONEY indicated that there would be a “Film Study” training option to do so.
Additionally, in early testing many players discussed INT in connection with assist and turnover
numbers. KMONEY participated in those conversations and did not make any statements
indicating testers should disregard INT ratings in those tests.
2In testing, several ranges for the attributes was suggested. The conversation is titled “exam
and gpa” and was discussed in January 2017.

Anatomy of Champions 5 of 14 January 2018

So questions remain. Is Exam different than GPA? What does INT even impact? Most
importantly for this, do champions care about INT?

Both Gainesville and Knoxville avoided high turnover players. Gainesville’s worst player
averaged 1.7 turnovers per game. This is somewhat predictable since they only have one HS
PG on their entire roster (less opportunities to turn the ball over playing center). All three of the
point guards recruited by Knoxville averaged 2 or more turnovers per contest as HS seniors.
Gainesville valued GPA (11th ranked) by a significant margin over Exam (74th). Knoxville
doesn’t appear to pay any attention to either.

This season, Knoxville averaged 9.3 turnovers per contest (71.3 FGA + 20.3 FTA to get a sense
of the number of possessions) against 26.4 assists. Dexter Mullins was more efficient under
Knoxville’s system (5.7 assist to 1.5 TO) than he was in HS (5.2 assist to 2.2 TO). Gainesville
averaged 9.8 turnovers (74.9 FGA + 20.9 FTA) and 24.2 assists.

There should be a discussion here about whether high INT players are more likely to follow
shooting instructions, make good plays and decisions at or near the end of games, or foul less.
I have been unable to find any comments or posted evidence suggesting a correlation.

In sum, who knows what INT does really? One dominant team recruited specifically for GPA
rather than Exam. The other ignored the test scores completely or possibly intentionally targeted
low GPA players who might not be recruited as heavily. However, both teams have avoided
signing high turnover players regardless of strategy.

Anatomy of Champions 6 of 14 January 2018

Athleticism (BPG + ATHL): My sense is that athleticism impacts a number of different on-court
actions including steals, rebounds, getting open for a shot, and blocks. My experience tells me
that the strongest correlation is between ATHL and BPG. In fact, I recently argued on the
message board that the strongest indicator for BPG is (1) a player’s position, (2) a player’s
ATHL, and then (3) a player’s Height. Based on NCAA statistics, the importance should be
reversed. 6’4” centers and power forwards should not be averaging 2.4 to 3 blocks per game.
There just isn’t anyone in college basketball that short that averages anywhere near that. The
closest exception is Bonzi Coleman who is top 100 in blocks, is extremely athletic and long, but
only reports to be 6’6” or 6’7” tall.

Both coaches aggressively pursue shot blocking, ranking in the top 5 for average blocks per
game when in HS. Part of this is due to the relentless pursuit of height (#1 and #10).
Gainesville was #1 in blocks per game this past season, averaging 14.2 per contest. Knoxville
averaged a very respectable 11.1 per game. The National Runner-Up, ranked second in blocks
per contest at 13.4.

Gainesville appears to contradict the ATHL is important to shot blocking correlation. Ranked a
mere 37th nationally in athleticism they still dominate the paint. A closer look shows that both
Dakota Rogers (6’10” center) and Wesley Frye (7’1” PF) are most likely “Good” athletes. Thus,
athleticism is probably at least as important as a player’s height.

On who starts in the post for Gainesville’s

Kevinapps. Notice he prioritized the G
athleticism over a player with superior
defense and rebounding but only Fair ATH.

Anatomy of Champions 7 of 14 January 2018

Recruiting Goals and Targets

This section is probably more of a summary of the findings above with a few additional points to
consider. My team, St. Martinville, had three local region players on its roster last season.3 Two
of those three were home-conference recruits. I’ve also wondered if I should be targeting more
“Exc” or “Poor” scouted recruits. Are other coaches afraid to recruit a “poorly” scouted player
making them a value pick-up? Do other coaches anticipate larger ties for “good” or “excellent”
scouted players, and avoid them, making them value targets? Also, do the Elite teams target
players with preferences that do not favor them?

So while the previous section tries to identify what ratings and statistics the elite teams are
targeting, here, I’m trying to identify if some of the miscellaneous considerations substantially
differ.

Home Cooking or Road Warriors: Gainesville prefers to stay home more often than Knoxville
but still shows a willingness to go get recruits out of their Region. 5 of their 12 roster spots are
filled with Regional Recruits. 3 of the five are Home Conference recruits. It makes sense that
home conference recruits represent a healthy percentage of the roster as there isn’t any real
competition.

Knoxville has three Regional Recruits with only a single one from its Home Conference. It has a
little Home-Conference competition from Flint (borderline top-25 talent usually) and from time to
time Paducah.

Below is a spreadsheet showing the end of season Conference Power Ranking going back to
season 12. While Conference 9 has been a power-house with Hialeah, Huntsville and St.
Martinville being national level programs, Conference 18 has been the equivalent of a low-major
league and Conference 8 more of a mid-major.

The Regional strength favors Gainesville as well. Region 2 is the worst recruiting region of the
8 (average rank of 138.6). According to the game’s “magazines” Gainesville has the 4th most
talent.4 The only other top 25 competition is #16 Decatur. In comparison, Region 5 has an
average recruiting rank of 117.8, second best in the nation. While Knoxville only has a single

3 Local is defined as within Region 3. Region 3 includes Conferences 9, 10, 11 and 12.
4 This is for Season 19 while most of the rest of this refers to Season 18 stats.

Anatomy of Champions 8 of 14 January 2018

top-25 competitor, it is recruiting power-house Ames (#2) who had 4 local recruits on its roster.
Region 5 also has 5 programs ranked between #26 and #50 as well as 10 more teams ranked
between #51 and #100.

Region 3’s average ranking is a mediocre to poor 134.1. However, Indianapolis (#1), Norfolk
(#14), Huntsville (#15), St. Martinville (#25), and Hialeah (#27) are all very active and successful
recruiters. Compounding the problem is that unlike Ames that has 4 local recruits, Indianapolis
almost never strays from the Region. 11 of 12 players on the roster are Regional recruits and
an half of the roster comes from Conference 12 alone. Six of Hialeah’s recruits are also
Regional recruits.

It makes sense that Gainesville enjoys the most local success of the group. They have the least
amount of conference and regional competition for players that want to stay home.

Should we Swim With the Stream: Do the elite programs recruit against their own
preferences?

Here, I took a look at each signee and determined whether the Local Preference matched the
university. So a Local recruit with a Fair+ or better rating counted as matching home preference
while a Local recruit with a Fair- or lower rating counted as not matching the home preference.
For non-local recruits the opposite was true. If the rating was Fair- or lower, then the non-local
recruit’s preference matched the university. “Fair” preference is a draw and falls under neither
the matching or not matching category.

Wow, I was a little surprised with this. 21 of 24 roster players had matching home conference
preference. Only 1 of 24 did not.5 I often times recruit and sign safety net players who do not
conform to my preferences. My thought is that if it is a safety net guy, I need a clear lead, or I
won’t pursue him anyway. Perhaps I’m being inefficient here because at the reveal an opposing
coach may be more likely to pursue me if my preferences don’t match.

5Knoxville signed Noah Jackson, a non-local recruit who had a Good+ home preference out of
Conference 29, Las Vegas. I don’t know if he won a tie, but Jackson, a 6’3” guard, was scouted
EEGEGE (+10) with a statistical impact rating of 51.35.

Anatomy of Champions 9 of 14 January 2018

Win preference is pretty straight forward with these teams, but not straight forward within the
game. Unlike Local Preference, a Fair- does not favor the losing team, it just favors the winning
team less. Since these are both winning teams, everything other than a “None” rating favors
them, it is just a matter of degree. In the chart below, I’ve disregarded any + or - rating and
lumped recruits’ preferences into one of five categories.

Maybe it is because it is fairly straight-forward, but I don’t think there is a whole lot to make of
this. The numbers don’t surprise me at all. Generally, the best teams are gravitating towards
recruits that favor winning more, but not to the exclusion of getting into ties where less
prestigious teams have a shot at getting the recruit.

Impact Preference is the one I understand the least about. The instructions say:

I guess this is the preference that could favor a losing team, assuming the team is losing due to
lack of talent. It should also make recruiting Exc impact bigs a difficult task because the
returning talent at that height category should cut against them. Nonetheless, look at
Gainesville:

Anatomy of Champions 10 of 14 January 2018

Gainesville recruits Excellent and Good impact players without hesitation. Is this because other
premier recruiters like Knoxville shy away from high impact players, making them low hanging
fruit more often?

What position should we target: I’ve long wondered if master recruiters have gleaned
something from where the HS coach plays a player. For example, is the 6’4” HS center put
there because he has the best overall ratings, making him the best choice to play out of
position? Or does the PG spot get filled first, and that 6’4” center is just the tallest guy with
decent rebounding ratings?

My guess here is both teams are attempting to ensure they have two ball handlers with as little
distraction from the pursuit of height as possible. Gainesville moved Haddad to the starting spot
for his senior season. While they brought in another guard, they have opted to play 6’8”
Wilfredo Ladd as the backup point. He’s doing an excellent job with per 30 stats of 8.1 assists
and 3.0 steals to just 2.5 turnovers.

Saint Martinville is too reliant on power forwards and small forwards. Power forwards are
usually big guys that weren’t good enough to win the starting center spot on their HS team.6
Small forwards provide potential versatility, but none of the benefits of size.

6Prior to recruiting a power forward we should check to make sure their center is a real stud. If
so, then the second best big guy on that particular HS team may be worth the effort. Otherwise,
don’t bother, the PF is likely to disappoint.

Anatomy of Champions 11 of 14 January 2018

Team Settings
Knoxville: Normal/Man/Less

Gainesville: Fast/Man/Normal

There is not much to go on here. This space is reserved for future updates.

Individual Settings

Space reserved.

Anatomy of Champions 12 of 14 January 2018

Comments by Gainesville:
On who starts in the post for him. Notice he prioritized
the G athleticism over a player with superior defense
and rebounding but only Fair ATH.

Anatomy of Champions 13 of 14 January 2018

The 10 Commandments of DTL:
1. Get height and lots of it.
2. Get guys who can block shots.
3. “Production is production.” Get players who make a big statistical impact (#2 and #3
nationally in stats).
4. Don’t recruit guards (4 guards total between the two teams)
5. Do get athletes and lots of them.
6. Don’t worry too much about scouted +/-.
7. Get guys who can rebound.
8. Don’t limit yourself to local recruits (8 of 24 players from same region).
9. Steals and assists don’t really matter.
10. Avoid turnovers.

Anatomy of Champions 14 of 14 January 2018