BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Forum day: OD in new engine

Forum day: OD in new engine (thread closed)

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
112356.14 in reply to 112356.13
Date: 9/24/2009 9:56:52 PM
1986 Celtics
IV.21
Overall Posts Rated:
88
more than if they had low OD?

This Post:
00
112356.15 in reply to 112356.14
Date: 9/24/2009 10:14:07 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
yeah, I'm trying figure out if it's worth pursuing inside men with decent OD...just want to see if I can't afford to buy a big guy with high ID maybe I can pay less for a big guy with decent OD and ID and maybe he'll be able to force a TO instead of a missed shot...

This Post:
00
112356.16 in reply to 112356.14
Date: 9/25/2009 1:02:38 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
284284
Hi there,

I already noticed the games of Patje, since i am in his league, and therfore found out that his inside man didnt make that many shots anymore..since GM-PAtje opened this topic, i followed/checked his games a little bit with extra more attention. Because i noticed a big drop of shots by his inside man, i played a Low Post myself yesterday in the cup. And i didnt like what i saw..

My 110k PF and 56 K C played against a 4 and 5k salary PF/C. My 110k star only shot 7 balls, my pg shot 1 out of 10 (oh my..) I played with 2 PG's on PG and SG pos and they do have quite some handling/passing, i asume more than the guards of Patjebono..I was wondering how this can happen. Because i thought the problem in Patjebono's team was a shortcoming in handling/passing, but now it happend also in my team, i cant figure out what the te real problem is..

Is this just 1 game, do i need a bigger sample, or can you point out a reason why my inside man didnt take over the game?

Here is the match im talking about: (17466581)

Ben je op zoek naar een BB-Buddy die jou alle kneepjes van BB bijbrengt? Neem dan deel aan het Buddy-sytem. Pm mij voor meer info
This Post:
00
112356.17 in reply to 112356.16
Date: 9/25/2009 1:06:17 AM
1986 Celtics
IV.21
Overall Posts Rated:
88
it looks like normally he shoots more than he did this game, sometimes people have off games, doesn't look systematic to me.

This Post:
00
112356.18 in reply to 112356.17
Date: 10/6/2009 4:18:45 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3535
Forrest, can I ask you if you are happy with the balance, with the new game engine, between inside and outside offenses? To me it looks pretty much unbalanced in favor of the latter, but I would appreciate if you could share some data you may have.

To add a couple of considerations to my point:
- one problem could be the low offensive flow of most teams playing inside offenses, which is something I guess managers should work on.
- another problem is with the 3-2 defense, which seems much less effective against outside offenses, in terms of shooting percentage, than with the old game engine.

This Post:
00
112356.19 in reply to 112356.18
Date: 10/6/2009 4:32:05 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
- another problem is with the 3-2 defense, which seems much less effective against outside offenses, in terms of shooting percentage, than with the old game engine.

I agree with this observation, though I suspect some of this might come from using PFs at SF and Cs at PF (read: crappy OD)

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
112356.20 in reply to 112356.18
Date: 10/6/2009 6:20:40 PM
1986 Celtics
IV.21
Overall Posts Rated:
88
i don't think i can comment that specifically without setting off a wave of speculation that something will be changed, and I don't feel like i have nearly enough information to make such a pronouncement.

This Post:
00
112356.21 in reply to 112356.20
Date: 10/8/2009 2:05:06 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3535
i don't think i can comment that specifically without setting off a wave of speculation that something will be changed, and I don't feel like i have nearly enough information to make such a pronouncement.

I see, but PLEASE do something quickly, because the situation is awful (medium) :)
Till last season there were only two (winning) offensive options, r&g and look inside... now there seems to be only one left.

By the way, are you sure there ain't some sort of bug with the 3-2 against look inside? These two are from today, but I have seen too many alike. (17504667), (17504577).
I can understand that the 3-2 zone forces more TO, but the shooting percentage should definitely be higher.

This Post:
00
112356.22 in reply to 112356.21
Date: 10/8/2009 2:48:32 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155


By the way, are you sure there ain't some sort of bug with the 3-2 against look inside? These two are from today, but I have seen too many alike. (17504667), (17504577).
I can understand that the 3-2 zone forces more TO, but the shooting percentage should definitely be higher.


In both matches that you quoted, the offensive flow of the team playing look inside was only inept. I think that is the source of the problem that you are describing. I noted that the players who should have had high shooting percentages (the PF and the C) both had shooting percentages around 50%, which is pretty good. The issue was that the guards took most of the shots, and they had really bad shooting percentages.

The moral of the story is: get a bettter offensive flow.

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
112356.23 in reply to 112356.22
Date: 10/8/2009 3:54:41 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
506506
Exactly what newchuckd said. Inside men are still shooting great, thus Look Inside is still a great tactic, you'll just need the guards to get the ball to the inside men.

If the guards can't bring the ball on the spot, then your inside men are useless.

This Post:
00
112356.24 in reply to 112356.22
Date: 10/8/2009 6:05:57 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3535
Another look inside vs. 3-2 zone, this time with respectable offensive flow (7959)
Shot distribution:
PG 17 (19%)
SG +-21 (23%)
SF +-20 (22%)
PF 19 (21%)
C 14 (15%)

Advertisement