BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Outside attack too strong ?

Outside attack too strong ?

Set priority
Show messages by
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?

This Post:
00
125704.151 in reply to 125704.149
Date: 1/4/2010 4:58:07 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
This game is not only attack vs defense. Sorry.

And by the way, it's explanations, not excuses.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 1/4/2010 4:58:34 PM

"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
125704.152 in reply to 125704.149
Date: 1/4/2010 6:33:24 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
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.


if that is the criteria you choose your example ;)

This Post:
00
125704.153 in reply to 125704.148
Date: 1/4/2010 9:07:56 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155
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.


You forgot the turnover difference. Actually, the number of shots for each team was just about equal (they took 93, we took 90).

The rebounds I get, the huge difference in fouls I don't. You will also notice that our shooting % were just about the same, which makes absolutely no sense (our d should trump their O no matter how you slice it and our flow was a full 1 level higher, facing an outside d that was 2 full levels lower).

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
125704.154 in reply to 125704.153
Date: 1/4/2010 11:53:07 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
587587
You will also notice that our shooting % were just about the same, which makes absolutely no sense (our d should trump their O no matter how you slice it and our flow was a full 1 level higher, facing an outside d that was 2 full levels lower).

3FG
Canada 10-29
Suomi 2-20

I see your OD trumping us pretty nicely there.

This Post:
00
125704.155 in reply to 125704.153
Date: 1/5/2010 3:45:26 AM
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.


You forgot the turnover difference. Actually, the number of shots for each team was just about equal (they took 93, we took 90).

The rebounds I get, the huge difference in fouls I don't. You will also notice that our shooting % were just about the same, which makes absolutely no sense (our d should trump their O no matter how you slice it and our flow was a full 1 level higher, facing an outside d that was 2 full levels lower).

That's true, I forgot the turnover difference. As a matter of fact, if we assume (which is of course an approximation) that fouls come mostly from missed two point shots, then the winning team had about 12 possessions more than the losing team.

At 90 points per 100 possessions, this translates to close to 11 points. This certainly makes the result look less unusual. You can't limit your analysis to how attack vs. defense team ratings look.

As far as offensive efficiency is concerned, Canada had a significant edge in three-point shooting, which makes perfect sense given the slightly higher offensive flow and the better outside attack vs outside defense ratio. The problem with losing this game was that you gave up too much in the other zones (ID and Rebs), which allowed Suomi to win by sheer volumes.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 1/5/2010 3:51:46 AM

"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."
Advertisement