BuzzerBeater Forums

i agree. but still, judging by the 4.5 ratings i guess sg's inside skills was more or less at mediocre level. so we can assume that game engine took the advantage of sg's outside skills to score.

yes but on the other hand....the starter of this post asked if putting a SG as a C would foul the Center out . From the match you linked , even though the guard is 130k wage and the C is only 4.5k wage , the C managed to play 52mins (the match went to OT) and only then left with 6 fouls....

and knowing that this is a playoff match (the one that the poster plays) there isn't that big difference on the skills , so that suggestion would fail I think...

Last edited by krepaleon at 6/22/2010 8:25:25 AM

That's because fouls are less likely to happen on jump shots.

Just dig out a thread in 2010, which the concept sounds great but doesnt really work at all.

However, did someone try SG playing PF on offense? My SG has "awful" IS, but would driving and JS cause the opponent's PF into foul trouble?

Another idea is that I would try a scrimmage, start with a lineup like this: PG-PG-SG-SF-SF and RnG. My SF ID are proficient, but IS is pretty poor. Does someone try this before? Works or not?

Interesting thread find. I've never experimented with this, mainly because I can't find players with good enough all-around builds to make it work. I have a few issues with this idea, though.

-First, I don't ever think it's a smart strategy to create a gameplan aimed at getting one of their players to foul out. The game engine is too unpredictable, and if another team only has one player that you're worried about, odds are you can design a tactic more reliable than trying to get him fouled out.
-Second, I've considered switching SF and PF offensively (not SG & PF as you suggest, but still relevant here).
My biggest concern with this is A) the offensive flow and B) your PF is still going to be taking shots at his new position.
Problem A comes up that you have a player with significantly lower passing in a distributing position, meaning that even with a mismatch with opposing PF covering your SG, your offense may be unable to get him the bal.
Problem B is fairly self-explanatory- odds are your PF is going to take a number of shots at SG, and my expectation would be that his decrease in efficiency may well outweigh the boost in efficiency from your SG's shots.
-To your third idea- might be worth a try in a scrimmage, but even with the modifications to the LI offense, you're going to get crushed by even an average team that runs a LI offense. 2pt shots are more effective than 3pt shots, and they're going to make such a disproportionate amount of those with those players on the court. Additionally, circling back to your foul idea, they're more likely to draw fouls on inside shots versus inept defenders than your jump shooters are.

In a training game, I put my PG (who is close to an SG) as C with Princeton. Worked out quite well: (59607068)

I agree with Wakes on this one and there is one other thing to put in the mix here.

When you go to test this theory out in a Scrimmage, it is most likely that the team you are playing will be a diluted team and so the result hasn't been fully tested, even if it did well, when you go against a full team in game real situations, you will most likely have a whole new set of variables to work with.

Did you revise the defence accordingly? I mean that centrel defensed opponent's SG ... ?

Wow , your reply is so long ... :)

Anyway, if LI is a better strategy, then maybe I should think of PF playing SG on offense ... so a starting lineup like:
PG-PF-PF-C-C ... I would also try this in the upcoming scrimmages ...