BuzzerBeater Forums

ACB, a league i've been a fan since the early 80's dear Marot. From the Fernando Martin Vs Audie Norris era to the actual league.

Please ask some real life spanish coaches what they think regarding this subject. And i've been in some clinics with the some great coaches like mario pesquera and edu torres just to make my point about knowing what is european bball.

It's a fact. A good 2-3 will increase your defensive rebounding and it will give you more fast break opportunities.

Well if there were such a problem with number of possesions (which is logical because a big part of users consider fast tactics to be superior) the easiest way how to fixed it is removing tempo from tactics i.e. making Base offense, Push the Ball and Patient one tactic and adjusting others where not just tempo is the difference. Trying to fixing it by adjusting other things like rebounds necessarily leads to errors in other parts of the game (with the same number of possesions as before).

It wouldn't be a big issue if teams would play fast tactics assuming everything else would work. Overall good defense would care about points total and only FG% would be lower than i RL which should be a kind of non issue. This state would be surely better than trying to fix it through black box algorithm.

I can't recall a single time where my PF came over as a "help defender" and the opposing SG didn't score.

I am also wondering how this "help defending" is effective, I mean C or PF make 1-3 shotblocks per game (even with high shotblocking skills). I don't consider 3-2 zone suitable anymore.

Last edited by profit007 at 6/7/2009 4:46:06 PM

the ONLY problem here is that we were playing this game and just managed to get to know how it works during previous seasons (since there are so many factors to be taken in account), and now, all of a sudden, every tactical option, every roster, every plan is messed up, due to changes that BB-s are still convinced that would have small, small impact on the game... but, the fact is there is HUGE difference in how GE works... and there were no official announcements that these changes will made such big difference...in fact, all I could read is some explanation, and sort of a hidden excuses after this changes are implemented...
now, even short-term plans of managing our squads are to be changed and revised, not to mention long-term planning, and sadly, it is impossible to make such plans the way changes are implementing in this manner...
hope those suggestions and inputs made by lots of users will be heard by BB-s, since this is a great game, and that they will find a way to solve this mess...

Well I wiould actually suggest to keep current engine til interconferential games to make regular season fair for everybody regardless of schedule.

Or at least keep it unchanged for the whole week to make it the same for those who just log in once per week setting lineup in advance for the whole week.

I wouldn't matter to have old engine back for cup games especially because it could be a sudden death game.

I like the new game engine, and I think it's much more realistic than the old one. And I especially like the fact that players sometimes guard different people in the match, because this happens all the time in the NBA (eg. through switches). I know some people are complaining about this, but I think it's very realistic.

Good job Buzzerbeater staff!

Thank you.

It is about impact not realistic issues.

Look at my leagues top assiters there is a C leading while my profilic passer PG had 5 hmm. I think something is wrong.

How exactly is 1 game indicative of anything?

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 6/7/2009 6:20:20 PM

I don't see how this is going to fix the problem. There are too many possessions at this point -- not too few turnovers. If you convert some ill-advised last second shots into turnovers, you might be fixing the FG%, but you will get teams averaging 25 TO/game, which is another problem in its own right. That's what makes the situation difficult to correct.

To me, the solution lies in improving the effects of pace yet again: slow pace should work very well for good teams, so maybe an exponential effect on the quality of the shots created is in order. Weak teams should try to compensate their lack of skill by jacking as many shots as possible without too much loss of quality.

It seems that currently it works in the reverse, where bad teams should supposedly slow down the pace to make the opposition shoot less shots. And again, this is difficult to calibrate since how many shots your team takes directly affects the number of shots the opposition takes.

I agree that simply upping the number of turnovers doesn't change the number of possessions. Nonetheless, that is one of the ways in which the BBs seem to want to deal with the issue. I would prefer to see possessions result in more than just a made or missed basket and subsequent rebound, i.e. loose-ball fouls, loose balls knocked out of bounds, shots caroming out of bounds, more offensive fouls and so forth.

Increasing the number of loose-ball events might actually cut down on the number of possessions. I was just saying that to me, this possession issue is the reason why BB game statistics are out of whack. I've said on these forums that I think 3-point shooting is not as good as it should be, and that overall shooting should be a point or two higher on average -- at least if real life is what we're simulating here.

I think slow pace should work well not necessarily for "good" teams, but for teams built to play a halfcourt style. If all you have is smaller shooters with good passing and handling, and not many inside skills, the halfcourt should be less effective for you because you have to make lots of outside shots and your drive-and-kick plays are less of a threat to net points inside. I've never understood the notion that a lesser team has a better chance to beat a good team merely by throwing up more shots. It still depends on who's making what -- the better team will get more possessions if the lesser team plays Knicks-style basketball and because it's better, it has a higher chance of scoring on each one.

2) If your C or PF is listed as the defender against a smaller player, this is almost certainly because they are trying to block the shot as a help defender, not because they got caught up in a switch.

This OK, but people are reporting centers defending shots from the 3P line. And PGs defending a dunk of a pivot! Of course this may happen from time to time, but last saturday this was happening more often that it should.

3)it's evident that the end result is that people are looking at the scores and saying their defense doesn't work anymore.

Somehow defense has been affected by the GE changes. Maybe not directly but as a side effect. Pace, of course, could be responsible of that. We can just suppose it because we don´t have all the information, so we can only give you our feedback.

In Spain, this match: (13099827) was played between a very offensive team (more attack than defense) and a very defensive team (the opposite).
Last season the same match finished with a 43% of field shots for both teams.
Now, both teams played "look inside" and both teams used the right defense "zone 2-3", and the result of these tactics were 58 and 56 % of field shots respectively.

Can we explain this by just a faster pace? Maybe yes, but what we can see is that defenses are not working as they did before, in other words, defenses were overwhelmed by their attacks whatever the reason is.