BuzzerBeater Forums

Sorry to hear that you no longer have much interest in BB. It will be too bad to lose an active member of the forum community.

What sort of answer would make you gain interest in BB? The game is the way it is- managers will not be spoon fed the workings of the game. A lot of players, myself included, like it this way. If you do not, there isn't much to be done.

As far as the stamina issues go, I don't have a problem with them. My starters play about 30-34 minutes a game which is pretty much standard for the nba.
(http://www.cbssports.com/nba/stats/leaders/regularseason/...)

On your team, Ostrowski plays 35 minutes, Penteado plays 37, and no one else plays more than 30. Do you wish your players played more minutes, or less?

There are ways to have players play more or fewer minutes. Granted they might not be as realistic as being able to pull a guy whenever the coach feels like it as happens in real life, but this isn't real life. By manipulating the lineups and substitution choices I can get guys consistently between 20 and 48 minutes, depending on what I want or need them to play.

Finally, your final two sentences are very defeatist and negative, which is too bad. There are many people who will read and respond to your posts. I wasn't challenging you in my initial response to your post, I was trying to help you out by giving you options.

Last edited by somdetsfinest at 3/27/2011 1:12:25 PM

I think what the GM meant was that part of the challenge of this game is to figure out how things work for yourself and then use your understanding to do well in the game. That's a reasonable response, isn't it?

I do agree with you though, that in this case, I would also like to know what exactly the new tactical options do. Do they pick out players with or without regard for opposition, in other words, if its matchup driven or not. That is arguably a matter of specifying the rules of the game with clarity and shouldn't be left to guessing games. But if you just take a look at a few games with inside/outside iso offence its apparent that the player with the best matchup is isolated most of the time, though probably not all of the time. After that its a matter of that player's decision making to start the offensive play.

I agree with you that the substitution patterns aren't what they could be, apart from other realism issues, but perfection is hard to come by. So why not just take it with a pinch of salt?

On your team, Ostrowski plays 35 minutes, Penteado plays 37, and no one else plays more than 30. Do you wish your players played more minutes, or less?

You are not looking at the games themselves, merely the average minutes. What you are overlooking is that the average minutes you computed are based on games the player started and the minutes he came on as a sub. My 40+ minute example is for starters ONLY.

I do rotate my players to try to keep minutes played to the point where everyone is sharp. However, the starters put in too many minutes when they start, and not enough when they come off the bench. That the average is NBA-like is not the point.

Further, the real issue is that players do NOT come in and out of the game realistically. Nor is there a setting that allows the split to be 28-20 or as close to 24-24 as possible. Thus a coach cannot maximize his team's advantage in stamina by using Full Court Press in a realistic manner. I have tried that repeatedly, and it has not worked, ever. FCP is a gimmick setting in this simulation, not at all well implemented.

Every player on my team has STRONG or better stamina (except for two young ones who haven't fleshed-out yet) and Everyone is AT LEAST STRONG in OD and ID with most better in at least one. On a real court, I would shuttle my players in and out so that my team always had fresher legs on the court than my opponents. That is impossible in BB.

Finally, your final two sentences are very defeatist and negative, which is too bad. There are many people who will read and respond to your posts. I wasn't challenging you in my initial response to your post, I was trying to help you out by giving you options.

I understand your try to give me options. I was answering quickly becasue I don't want to spend too much time on BB any more.

My real response should have been that anything other than Man or the 2-3 and 3-2 zones are gimmick defenses IRL and that I don't have any interest in using/learning about them becasue my team has terrific defenders who don't need tricks to win.

What would make me think more highly of BB would be meaningful upgrades to the game engine or additions to the game. Instead of this we got the unbelievably useless ROLE addition tot he player card and the two junk defenses we've been discussing. Very disappointing for me.

I agree with you.

We have seen Charles trying to defend that SB works, but we haven't read anything yet about the new tactics apart from 1-2 lines that say nothing.

It would be nice some post from a BB talking '' a bit'' about the new tactics, from what i've seen so far, they aren't really competitives

You are right that I was looking at the average minutes. Good point.

Here is a question. How would you suggest the GE be changed to make substitutions more realistic? When a guy misses five shots in a row he get pulled? When the other team's best scorer hits five in a row you change to a better defensive player to guard him? What if there are some managers who want their best guys in no matter how poorly they are playing? My point here is that it is impossible to satisfy every player's desire for substitution patterns and that subbing in real life is so situational as to be impossible to replicate in a computer simulation. If you have a suggestion, lay it out here or preferably in the Suggestions forum. Maybe something along the lines of a coaching choice similar to let them play/ sit them where the coach subs a guy who is "fresher but not better" "fresher and better" or "fresher and similar?"

I remember one of the BBs saying something a long time ago about the game not being real life and that having a bit of imagination is important to enjoy the game. The fact is that in order to effectively manage minutes, game shape, and training a manager is going to have to make some sacrifices. If that means leaving starters out of a game or playing starters as reserves once a week, that's what has to be done. I will suggest that having all of your players with STRONG stamina is not a very good managerial move.

I like the new tactics. I disagree that full court press or 1-3-1 zone are gimmick defenses in real life and I also disgaree that roles are unbelievably useless. That's what makes horse races, though.

I'll answer several of your questions/points as best I can:

When to sub:

I'm not talking about situational subbing, rather when to take out tiring players.

At some point in any game, a player's effectiveness declines based on stamina--or else what is the purpose of stamina? What I'd like to see is the ability to rotate in players so no one's on-court ability drops too much before they take a rest. This does NOT mean the BB's should reveal the tiring algorithm, simply that we managers can allow for it and plan for it. Check out Draft Day Sports-Pro Basketball for a solid way of implementing this. There is a free demo. Situational subbing is somewhat accounted for in this PC game, but not really. You're right, it is too tough to implement--but IMO, not needed.

As to the suggestion forum, I have already proposed stamina changes like this several times, as always to no avail.

I will suggest that having all of your players with STRONG stamina is not a very good managerial move.

Perhaps in BB it is not, but it SHOULD be. Why should having supremely fit players be a liability? That is extremely unrealistic.

I didn't mean FCP or 1-3-1 are gimmick defenses. The new box and ones are gimmick defenses. See any discussion of these defenses on coaching websites.

I think what the GM meant was that part of the challenge of this game is to figure out how things work for yourself and then use your understanding to do well in the game. That's a reasonable response, isn't it?

You're right, it is reasonable. What isn't reasonable is expecting us to figure out how UNREALISTIC things work, particularly when they are combined in the game engine.

For example, did my choice of defense spark my victory, or did my team's stamina spark a fourth quarter rally? Was that simply luck, or were my team's stamina-modified ratings now better than my opponent's poorly fit adjusted ratings?

What isn't reasonable is expecting us to figure out how UNREALISTIC things work,

Could not agree with you more and is the reason my own appreciation of BB is waning.

Perhaps in BB it is not, but it SHOULD be. Why should having supremely fit players be a liability? That is extremely unrealistic.

How many minutes did Kemba Walker play in the NCAA tournament? Or check out Bill Russell's career minutes per game numbers. Or Wilt's. Or Lebron. (http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/mp_per_g_care...) Those guys were/are supremely fit. It is not unrealistic for the coach to keep his best guys on the floor and try to win. In this game the coach is trying to win. He wants to keep his best players on the court to do so. If his best players are still more fit and better than their backups even after 40 minutes on the court, he's going to keep them in.

If that hinders the unrealistic minute management scheme in order to get players the minutes they need to keep their unrealistic game shape up or to get them the unrealistic minimum amount of minutes for the unrealistic once a week training that unrealistically only improves certain members of the team, then yeah I guess it is pretty unrealistic.

anything other than Man or the 2-3 and 3-2 zones are gimmick defenses IR

Just responding to what you said. I actually disagree with a lot of the coaching websites about box and 1. I think that in high school hoops it has a lot of value, and can in this game as well. I totally agree with you that it is a gimmick defense, but sometimes a gimmick works well. Ask KISS.

My main problem with FCP in this game is the penalty you take in rebounding. And that since I rarely train stamina anymore (In seasons 3 and 4 I did and had super high stamina and played FCP almost every game) it wouldn't work very well for my team in an important game.

I agree there are some unrealistic results from the game engine but I think you're referring to unrealistic things fed into the engine? Not sure what you're talking about there.

Figuring out what led to victory when multiple factors could be responsible is a matter of trial and error. Just play the same defence with players of worse/better stamina and see if you win, etc. Vary the degree of stimulus and see how much response varies. Works for figuring out most anything.