BuzzerBeater Forums

Seems BB-Charles explained the theory of the ratings pretty clearly:

"So, a great offensive coaching rating means that you got the most offensively out of what you have. It has nothing to do with the quality of your assistant coach and is entirely dependent upon the tactics you submit."

To me, this means the coaching rating is a reflection of the tactics I, the manager, chose before the match. If true, then the coaching ratings from my match make little to no sense based on the definition of those tactics from the rules.

On top of this, it's frustrating enough to have the effectiveness of the inside scoring tactic to have been seemingly erased with the new engine.

Edited 7/9/2007 9:46:54 PM by brianjames

ok so i took a closer look at this game.. and i think this is very helpful by the way....

first why you lost, and then second why they got a better coaching rating... and actually these are highly related, and explain why the coaching ratings isn't doing what it was intended to do.

so.. I think you basically just got unlucky. Even though you were a better rebounding team.. they got more rebounds (i don't think that's a bug, just bad luck, but i will check), the also got more foul shots (perhaps you are a more physical team .. or maybe you were just down at the end). You did end up shooting better than they did... but the combination of fouls, turnovers and off. rebounds made up for the difference and the eaked out a win. I bet you play this game 10 times you win most of them (i will try it later tonight in our test universe and see).

so .. the reason the coaching rating of there's is (i think) because just as charles said.. they got better shots than they should have compared to their ratings. Of course this can be for two reasons.. one because of tactics.. and two because they got lucky. If they happen to get better shots than they by all means should have when looking at ratings and regardless of tactics this would cause the coaching ratings to go up... now frankly this doesn't seem like a good idea to me.... so we might need to go back to the drawing board as far as the coaching rating. maybe we run the game.. then run the game 10 more times with normal tactics and coach decides depth chart and look at the difference between the game played and what would have happened if there were no tactical changes. That would be computationally expensive though... so i dunno we will have to discuss it.

I'm sorry...i thought this may be in response to me. This is to domenico_c right?

also i took a look at the other 3 games that have been brought up....but i want to do some simulations tonight before i pass judgement on what happened. again.. many thanks for the feedback.. I at least hope that we are giving the impression of making a better game... the inside focus always wins game engine was definitely less "interesting" than this ;)

sorry yes.. that was looking at 547079, brianjames's game.

ok, but i think you read this backward:

Even though you were a better rebounding team.. they got more rebounds (i don't think that's a bug, just bad luck, but i will check), the also got more foul shots (perhaps you are a more physical team .. or maybe you were just down at the end). You did end up shooting better than they did..

I had more rebounds, more foul shots, fewer turnovers. He shot 52% to my 46%. So, I could see this make sense if I had made some poor tactical choices or my off v def / def v off ratings were just weaker. Such as, using a 3-2 zone against an inside team (like my opponent, Hoosiers, did). Instead of being rewarded with a higher coaching rating and better shooting % for choosing a 2-3 defense against an inside team, the opposite happened, and the 3-2 against an inside opponent received a higher shooting % AND a higher coaching rating. On top of this, all off vs def ratings were favorable to my team.

.. but the combination of fouls, turnovers and off. rebounds made up for the difference and the eaked out a win. I bet you play this game 10 times you win most of them (i will try it later tonight in our test universe and see).

Cool, be interesting to see the results. If it's just an unlucky result that happens, but if its something thats messed up with the coding then hopefully this helps.

Edited 7/9/2007 10:23:29 PM by brianjames

yeah sorry i was reading that sort of backwards.. err... it seems to me the real problem was that you took 16 3 pointers when you were shooting a good percentage inside... and since you were focused inside.. i don't see why you would have taken all those bad 3s...

ahh.. i know... and this is something that needs to be adjusted with our simulation.. not a bug cause its doing what we told it to do, and what we wanted it to do... just it needs to be doing something different.

I'm not sure how much of the reason i should discuss but this has definitely given me an insight that I will discuss with charles, and implement soon.

Edited 7/9/2007 10:50:56 PM by BB-Forrest