BuzzerBeater Forums

it limits the offense in contested games: if you look at the pp100 of many games, one frequent pattern you will notice is that the key to an effective offense is having three offensive outlets (e.g. SF/PF/C all above 100 pp100). If they SF isn't contributing, where is that third contribution coming from? This is not an impossible problem to solve, but it complicates things a bit.

Could this possibly be where IS on guards comes in?

You suggested improving FT on the aged players whom are capped....

Is that something other NT teams do a fair amount foul? Are we a lesser shooting FT team nationally? Both in attempts and percentages?

Would we benefit from *possibly* having some players who maybe do foul a bit more, if other teams have known, weaker FT shooting players? I think I read/was told somewhere, that players that foul more, also get fouled more...?

Yes, our problem in the past term has been that our players foul too much. [in response to your other question, right now, I think our free throw shooting is about average for an NT. We do not shoot better, we do not shoot less well.]

Now, there is an effect for which aggressive players draw more fouls, but on balance you're a bit worse off if you have aggressive players. A rough explanation is that aggressiveness causes you to make more extra fouls than it causes you to draw extra fouls. So, aggressiveness is only good if there is a big gap between the player FT and the FT of the guys that he's facing.

Would you elaborate on an estimation of "big gap" between players and what the gap (if any) we are seeing now is?

I think if we are strictly speaking that LI is the offensive tactic of choice since we are hypothetically agreeing it is dominant then the type of lineup that can offer a solution to where the offense comes from while proving unique to the strategies of other countries could be as follows.

PG: Low JS/JR. High OD/PA. Some DR. Some IS(10) and Some ID.
SG: High JS. Lower JR. High OD. Low PA. High IS(12+) and Some ID.
SF: Defensive Juggernaut. High OD/ID/SB and some REB.
PF: High JS(13+), High PA(9+). High IS, Lower ID and REB.
C: Pure C.

I guess I should elaborate on why.

PG: Low JS/JR. High OD/PA. Some DR. Some IS(10) and Some ID.

Low JS/JR so that they dont get in the way of what they are meant to do. Pass the ball inside or drive the ball in if necessary. The IS punch can be helpful when things such as tip-ins, or put backs or if the PG finds themselves downlow with no other options.

SG: High JS. Lower JR. High OD. Low PA. High IS(12+) and Some ID.

Lower JR so that IS can be trained more exclusively. High JS so that they can still exploit a 2-3 zone. IS so that they are a viable third scoring option.

SF: Defensive Juggernaut. High OD/ID/SB and some REB.

This guy would be the fifth scoring option, purely here to defend. Whether that be an outside shot, an inside shot or a block attempt. This guy can defend it all. REB is important since a defensive possession isnt over unless you steal the ball, provoke an offensive foul, get scored or or most often, get the Defensive Rebound.

PF: High JS(13+), High PA(9+). High IS, Lower ID and REB.

JS and PA to make up for the PGs lack of JS and the SGs lack of PA. High IS since this guy is the 2nd scoring option and on some nights the first. High JS also allows for the exploitation of a possible 2-3 zone. Lower ID since PG, SG and SF all have ID and lower REB since the SF is well equipped to do that.

C: Pure C.

Obviously secondaries are welcome, but this is the main scoring option.

Im sure you all could figure this out on your own, but I thought id elaborate.

So we have the critics, Southpaw, unreppenantgunner, bla-bla-bla. My thoughts on their attitudes and actions would be this, unless you have the guts to run for NT and have the responsibility of running a team representing our entire nation, across the globe, then you really can't sit back and judge.

I see where you're coming from and you mean well, but I disagree entirely. Every user in the constituency has the right to say if they disagree with the direction of the team. In fact, I would think they'd be encouraged to - and I'm not saying that they aren't. What I think instead is a far more reasonable proposition is that the criticism needs to be focused on the decisions and decision-making process, and not the person making the decision.