BuzzerBeater Forums

What is the best Position build - Offensive tactic combo to avoid Midrange shots?

I think the most logical is Guard with high IS - Look Inside.

Other than that?

Princeton.

He´s right.

With princeton you have the fewest mid-range shots. But with LI you also have only a few. But more with LI than with princeton.

I don´t think, that you can avoid it completly, because if you play Princeton, your players need JS to be effective. And if your players can shot it from the arc, they´re most likely also able to make it from midrange too.

Best regards and happy new year

He´s right.

With princeton you have the fewest mid-range shots. But with LI you also have only a few. But more with LI than with princeton.

I don´t think, that you can avoid it completly, because if you play Princeton, your players need JS to be effective. And if your players can shot it from the arc, they´re most likely also able to make it from midrange too.

Best regards and happy new year

Plus, to be honest, I think that the shot distribution is pretty well hard-coded into the tactics. By which I mean that I've built a team that's set up to be at their best if they shoot exclusively from three point range, so much so that five of the past six seasons I have a higher 3FG% than FG%. But I still don't think I've ever seen a game where I've had any more than 40% of my shots be from beyond the arc, even in games where I end up having more made 3s than 2s.

With that said, I think you can influence the midrange some by trying to skew more toward either inside shots or driving shots. You just won't have too much luck trying to turn midrange shots into more threes.

Hey hrudey happy new year (party)

I´ve read several posts from you and other people which indicate, that you might be one of the first "outside-scoring"-pioneers of BB. At least you don´t hesitate to go some experimenting skillsets. :D

Now that I passed a smooth season in a bot-league, I´ve also noticed that besides a relatively settled shot distribution (depending on the offense) the season average FG-Percantages seem to converge to a certain value.

Just for understanding: When I relegated I didn´t sell my core players. That´s why my player where way too strong for the IV. and for a IV.-Bot-league in particular. Still my team couldn´t pass the 56% 2-FG and ca. 46% 3-FG over the whole season.

This might be a wrong perception due to my lazyness for fancy tactics but it was still quite interesting to watch.

Therefore I assume, that the best possible field goal percentage (There is always this one player with 25-35% FG with at least 9 Shots) and the shot distribution is more or less "hard coded".

I noticed what you are observing in my games as well. I do think the game engine tends to allow players shooting poorly take a heat checker kind of shot every quarter or so, and if the player is limited offensively, he will see quite a bit of 1-9 shooting games from time to time.

I still think there is no "explicit hardcode" though. It doesn't make basketball sense nor programming sense. As an example, I went into my past games and find this gem：
(96973931) You'll see everyone shot a respectable percentage despite playing against a very respectable opponent

If we say players shooting 2 for 6 or 1 for 5 is quite normal and nothing to worry about, then I counted about 1/3 of my games seems to have everyone shooting pretty acceptable

(98211792)
(96973949)
(98178315)
(96973895)
(96973924)
(96973797)
(96973804)
(96973822)
(96973874)
(96973895)

I think that's enough evidence that the percentage is not explicitly "hardcoded" as discussed

Now that I passed a smooth season in a bot-league, I´ve also noticed that besides a relatively settled shot distribution (depending on the offense) the season average FG-Percantages seem to converge to a certain value.

Just for understanding: When I relegated I didn´t sell my core players. That´s why my player where way too strong for the IV. and for a IV.-Bot-league in particular. Still my team couldn´t pass the 56% 2-FG and ca. 46% 3-FG over the whole season.

This might be a wrong perception due to my lazyness for fancy tactics but it was still quite interesting to watch.

That's an interesting concept. I don't think it's strictly true, at least not on an individual game level - I had a game against an actually good team where we shot 60% from behind the arc (and 26.67% from 2) : (96943333) If you can access the PBP (or want to sit through the viewer) you'll also note that we hit a 3 to get within 2 points with 32 seconds left, stole the ball and then with 10 seconds left, tried a jump shot. That naturally missed, we fouled and went down four, promptly drilled a three, fouled again with two seconds left, they hit one of two to go up two, and we naturally attempted a jump shot. I was actually watching that game live and I was so disappointed they missed the second FT because if it were made, we'd try a three and likely hit it, but instead of course they did the jumper and failed.

The thing I find more frequently is that outside offenses in general and Princeton in particular are very prone to having a guy (usually a SG) who is expected to score fairly well based on his PP100 prediction who nonetheless puts up a 4-17 type of day. On some other rare occasions he'll be insanely hot. My old Princeton team (I don't have the handling or passing to really do it now) was notorious at having a six minute stretch with less than four points scored and a different six minute stretch where they get almost 20.

same thing observed in patient. A super scorer scoring 35+ in the first half can miss 5 in a row in the 3rd period and gets hot again pretty frequently. I assume that the GE assigns a random shooting modifier to a player whenever there's a start of new quarter or a timeout, otherwise the cold streaks are pretty unexplained.

would you agree with this assumption or do you have some other insights in how the GE works?

This topic become a pretty interesting one... I'd love to take a look at your roster configuration, but I can imagine more or less your players skillset.

IMO we have a great oportunity with some outside offense to exploit them and beat LI in an easy way, but of course there is so much work behind with building players and putting all of them together. A few months ago I try to imagine how it could be a team based on Princeton offense with players under 100k salary in each position... A lot of PA, some pretty good JR and SB in each one of them are the basics characteristics... Still imagination.

I think we've already reached a point where LI is no longer the no-brainer tactics in competitive games. It'll be hard to construct princeton with a cheap salary roster though. As far as I understands it, this is the one tactics that almost require every aspect of the offensive repetoire for at least 4 of the 5 positions. A top princeton team probably will be very strong, but probably would be quite costly as well

This topic become a pretty interesting one... I'd love to take a look at your roster configuration, but I can imagine more or less your players skillset.

IMO we have a great oportunity with some outside offense to exploit them and beat LI in an easy way, but of course there is so much work behind with building players and putting all of them together. A few months ago I try to imagine how it could be a team based on Princeton offense with players under 100k salary in each position... A lot of PA, some pretty good JR and SB in each one of them are the basics characteristics... Still imagination.

I think the biggest problem is that I think that beating OD with passing is a great theory, but I think that in BB, an "open" shot against a good defensive team is a worse proposition than a contested one. That was one of the reasons I've gone for a much lower passing / handling / driving configuration. The other reason, of course, is that I was intent on training a lot of SB as well on the guards, and as it was spending three seasons training JR and a few on SB and finishing up with OD left precious little time for anything else. Certainly if not for the SB training, the other stuff could be done arguably a lot better.