BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Outside attack too strong ?

Outside attack too strong ?

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
125704.140 in reply to 125704.139
Date: 1/3/2010 9:14:22 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
PS: Please show me a center with close to 5 blocks a game, and don't come with your logic that there are fewer blocks in a game with lot more shot attemps then in the realkity - because normally the number of blocks raise with the anumber of attembed blocks and get not reducing even when forrest takes this logic toargue for his reduction with the last change.

And why exactly do you expect to find a player in BB that blocks twice as many as shots as the current leader in the NBA?


Mark Eaton blocked 5,5 blocks per game one season, and in buzzerbeater there are more shots taken so the average should be higher. Ok this record was very good, but fewer games(higher prohability of an xceptional good season), and more played season then the NBA should also lead to higher average.

Not by a significant margin. NBA teams shoot 75-85 shots per game (give or take a few) in the current season.

Even if the average team in BB averages 100 shots per game (which I find grossly overstated), the NBA league leader should project to something like 2.9 blocks per game. And that's not even taking into account that this type of projections should probably be diminishing, not linear.

I'd also like to point out that there are only seven players in the entire NBA who average 2 or more blocks this season (and last season as well, for that matter).


"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
125704.141 in reply to 125704.140
Date: 1/3/2010 9:22:08 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
but most season the average was above thrree in the last season, and i beleive with over three blocks you are pretty top in world here with tousands leagues, and more random.

And abou the shoots, the scores are pretty normal here, but the shooting percentages is pretty low and i don't think that we ahve that much free throws.

And records liek the one of eaton, are psossible else he won't made them ;)

And 7 of them are pretty low, when i watch the stats the last seasons - and surprisingly they are mostly center not guards^^

Last edited by CrazyEye at 1/3/2010 9:24:15 AM

This Post:
00
125704.142 in reply to 125704.141
Date: 1/3/2010 10:29:58 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
4040
I think that you should see abilities like SB in that is just necessary to have them in team. Imagine that everytime you play without shotblockers, your opponent will get better score. Every game, everytime, like this. Which means you have to compensate that absence in somewhere else. I think it sounds simple.

I just started to play and as I see this player (12121503) which have respectable SB and play mostly against respectable opponents, is pretty good at that (doesnt even play as C) and it is the thing which I would like to see in continue, so I will develop him even in this way, so I dont have to overdimense anything else. It is only about priorities which you state if you build up your team and if you prefer players which in fact miss one skill, you create a hole, because it is coded in that engine even it seems not so efficient like for example (one or other) scoring skill - without it you cannot score, but without SB you will get scored every game.

Last edited by aigidios at 1/3/2010 10:33:37 AM

This Post:
00
125704.143 in reply to 125704.142
Date: 1/3/2010 1:02:04 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
i think without ID you get scored every game, so i would maybe look more for training one/two extra lessons on a skill who is prettxy effective and works on every shot.

Because with SB the GM doing a pretty bad job, in paying it tooo much(which is probadly the regulation i like to see, because if you give it a reasonable effect for the money you pay teams get messed up who haven't trained it or bought it).

This Post:
00
125704.144 in reply to 125704.143
Date: 1/3/2010 3:26:55 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
4040
It sounds like dilema now, hard to say

This Post:
00
125704.145 in reply to 125704.144
Date: 1/3/2010 3:35:17 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
4040
No, still doesnt :)

As you may know - if you have skills in a good combination, training of the related one will be faster than training of highest skill. Therefore you can get more by training another one, than just bombing one more and more.

Message deleted
This Post:
00
125704.147 in reply to 125704.145
Date: 1/4/2010 1:47:27 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155
In case you are looking for more examples of where flow just does not matter for an outside game, check out this one: (8895). Come on? A proficient outside d against a mediocre flow? I almost want to say I was screwed in this game, but points per 100 says otherwise.

The ironic thing is if Suomi plays an inside game (as they should against a 3-2 defense) they probably lose.

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
125704.148 in reply to 125704.147
Date: 1/4/2010 4:16:48 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
Come one what? 11 offensive rebounds and 26 free throws more for the winning team. That's about 15 extra shot opportunities. I don't think any type of offensive flow would have helped.

"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
125704.149 in reply to 125704.148
Date: 1/4/2010 4:50:08 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
Excuses...Excuses...
I noticed one thing,when someone gives a good example of game,where flow is good,100 shots things also good etc. a gm comes and gives another argument....So it's like never ending discussion,if flow is good 100 shots FG is bad,if 100 shots FG is good flow is bad,if both are good there is another thing wrong etc.
Anyway winning teams are those who use either r'n'g or r'n'g
P.S.No offence.

Last edited by kausasas at 1/4/2010 4:51:28 PM

This Post:
00
125704.150 in reply to 125704.149
Date: 1/4/2010 4:57:13 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
409409
Excuses...Excuses...
I noticed one thing,when someone gives a good example of game,where flow is good,100 shots things also good etc. a gm comes and gives another argument....So it's like never ending discussion,if flow is good 100 shots FG is bad,if 100 shots FG is good flow is bad,if both are good there is another thing wrong etc.
Anyway winning teams are those who use either r'n'g or r'n'g
P.S.No offence.


I don't think he was trying to make any excuse. I do think he was trying to give you an explanation, so you should expect that if you give two different situations you will have two(or more) different explanations about the result.

Because, you can't say two games are similar just because the have a similar difference between ratings, right?

Advertisement