BuzzerBeater Forums

I'd like for you to tell us ,what yours guards inside defense numbers are if that ok ,or was in those times. It's not really not important the od numbers of these guard but the inside defense. This would give an idea of why the sb was very high..

I think the only way a outside team wins, is to make it a hellish back& forth shoot out with a LI team. Which mean a few point win in reality. A lot want get rid of game shape but its the is only factor a lot have and the"win juice" for teams like my self half vs LI. Because you might not have the skill to compete but you can keep it close and sneak out a win.

I wouldn't not be upset if the game got rid LI or LP.. because one of them has to go to honest. No point in changing all these salaries and etc . I think Low post is about the same as LI. If these guys want the big men to shoot more why not play low post.? Im not 100% sure but is LI is for guard to drive and score , the big man to just dominate and score at will with no immunity... I don't see how its any different from low post beyond being a faster set up tactic in play.

Its already been said having jr/jr 9/10 is that same as anything higher. A lot got these Li player with max skills inside then guards with driving 15+ IS 12+, this pretty much kill the outside game, because its a no brainer they are have guards with OD to the max aswell.. How do you expect to stop that. I would rather them play low post versus me than play LI all the time..

Atleast I'd know my big are trash and need to trained better or replaced and not the whole team I pay for . LOL :P..

Last edited by Mr. Glass at 8/19/2013 11:53:39 AM

Then again, I don't know many teams that could match my OD that season (55952654), so perhaps the solution is to fight fire with fire. If the complaints about 2-3 are any indication, OD is just as important against inside offenses as it is against outside oriented teams.

Or perhaps even more so. Presented for review: (59082488)

8 TC3 made vs 0 and 65% TL (13 points) vs 50% TL (12 points).
Looser team play with the starters almost the entire game (stamina) 4 players with 45+ min.
Was a close game just a small difference of 5 points. At 47 min the scorer was 85-85 (the win team hit a 3 point for the equalizer). at 47:39 the score was 86-87 then fouls fouls fouls and more fouls.
This game was so close that both teams would take the W home.

Last edited by Mod-Infested at 8/26/2013 8:20:54 PM

8 TC3 made vs 0 and 65% TL (13 points) vs 50% TL (12 points).
Looser team play with the starters almost the entire game (stamina) 4 players with 45+ min.
Was a close game just a small difference of 5 points. At 47 min the scorer was 85-85 (the win team hit a 3 point for the equalizer). at 47:39 the score was 86-87 then fouls fouls fouls and more fouls.
This game was so close that both teams would take the W home.

Oh, yeah, it was definitely a close game - and actually with 3:42 left I was down 11, so it was even more fortunate than normal. And the three point shooting was nice, but the thing that's more relevant was that I conceded less than 50% shooting to a team with pretty decent offensive flow and sensational inside attack -- and look at the salaries of my big men defending theirs. It sure wasn't ID or SB that worked, either - I have nobody yet with even 14 ID and the SB is ridiculously low, but every player that made it one minute had double digits in OD.

I really think it is as simple as swapping IS and RB in the guard salary formula.

IF they do that those LI guards get very expensive. Not impossible to have, not killing LI outright, but a HUGE game changer at all levels of the game. With more cost on guard salary, people will think more about everything...hopefully.

That'll slow down the offensive part of it, but if you want to make an outside offense a more attractive alternative, you also need to have OD be expensive for PGs like it is for SGs. Swap OD and HN for example on the PG formula (and maybe for SGs as well) and suddenly it may not be so blatantly optimal to load up with OD and PA, since they could cause the same sort of harmonic salary explosion JR and OD do for SGs currently.

Last season, I had a 4 player rotation at PG/SG/SF. The guards were each combo guards under 150k, the SF was 60k. Their JS/JR was 18/12, 18/13, 17/15, and 15/7. All four shot over 30% from 3, and three of the four had a FG% of 46%. The guard with 15 JR shot 38% from the field.

Unless the NBBA had an OD deficit I'm unaware of, it's very possible to build a competent outside team in a top division without spending an exorbitant amount on salary.

Then again, I don't know many teams that could match my OD that season (55952654), so perhaps the solution is to fight fire with fire. If the complaints about 2-3 are any indication, OD is just as important against inside offenses as it is against outside oriented teams.

So,are you saying us that a motion oriented team can work if they have three super good OD defenders(something like 20-20-19 and a perimetral defense much better than the ones that NTs have in BB)?
Yeah,that surely indicate to the avergae manager in BB that LI is not a too dominant tactic...

So,are you saying us that a motion oriented team can work if they have three super good OD defenders(something like 20-20-19 and a perimetral defense much better than the ones that NTs have in BB)?
Yeah,that surely indicate to the avergae manager in BB that LI is not a too dominant tactic...

Those three high OD defenders all had salaries under 150K, if anything this is a case for motion's dominance. They were able to account for the majority of my team's offense and defense on their own, a feat comparable bigs wouldn't be able to accomplish. These weren't particularly difficult players to develop either, I never trained their secondaries. A high IS guard is much more challenging to create.

The fact that such a team, with a 35k PF and an 80k C (with proficient ID) could even compete with teams that have 15+ IS on their guards and monster bigs should say something about LI's dominance.

Ten seasons ago everyone would complain about how dominant outside offenses were.Then people started training uber-OD players,and offences shifted inside.It's chicken-egg case but people are really fast to scream OP!!

So,are you saying us that a motion oriented team can work if they have three super good OD defenders(something like 20-20-19 and a perimetral defense much better than the ones that NTs have in BB)?
Yeah,that surely indicate to the avergae manager in BB that LI is not a too dominant tactic...

Those three high OD defenders all had salaries under 150K, if anything this is a case for motion's dominance. They were able to account for the majority of my team's offense and defense on their own, a feat comparable bigs wouldn't be able to accomplish. These weren't particularly difficult players to develop either, I never trained their secondaries. A high IS guard is much more challenging to create.

The fact that such a team, with a 35k PF and an 80k C (with proficient ID) could even compete with teams that have 15+ IS on their guards and monster bigs should say something about LI's dominance.

Interesting. You do make a good point that you can likely create more talented guards than big men if given the same amount of salary to work with.

But I do think that the reverse probably works too. But/Create 2 front courts players with dominant inside skills but built like solid all-around PF's for about $350-400K in salary. Play them with 2 guards and a SF totaling $165-215K in salary. Make the SF with better inside than outside skills. With all the perimeter players, you don't need to spend salary on JR and you can go with low JS too. Pump up DR because it's cheap, spend the most $$$ on OD and make sure PS and HD are at decent levels so that you can feed the inside players the ball.

That starting 5 costs the same as your team and I feel that they would win.