BuzzerBeater Forums

Princeton certainly seems to operate mostly like a slow-paced outside tactic. I typically see boatloads of three-pointers shot when Princeton is selected, as well as a boost in outside ratings.

run and gun: 5 little basketball players shooting it up
princeton: 4 little basketball players searching for a shot
motion: 3 little basketball players showing off their skills
;-)

Very true. I can tell you that the PG of that match has inept JS, strong JR and passing. I deliberately played princeton to fit him in and I am quite pleased that it worked out that way.

ok so anyone here still think that outside tactics is not waaaaay stronger then inside tactics just look at my last game

(18104229)

You do realize you shot 17 3pointers while playing LI and that he had better PP100 in every position except of PF,right?

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.

Not really, because it still does not explain the significant difference in fouls and FT shots taken. You are factoring the number of possessions with the number of FTs. There is no question we lost the game because of too many shooting fouls. The question is - why? It is not like they had good enough flow or outside shooting vs our d to force us into taking a boat load of fouls.

In fact, with their fast pace, they should have been taking shots that were of much lower quality than us.

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.

The rebounding was not a big issue, as I already pointed out, because that is compensated by the turnover differential. ID, maybe. Even still, they picked the wrong offense to take advantage of our "poor" inside d (it is actually equal to their inside shooting team rating). And even if there was a mismatch there, they did not have the flow vs our outside d to take advantage.

Seriously, if you (and other GMs) are saying that I should not even bother looking at game ratings, why not just junk them? Or maybe just call them "Deliberately meaningless ratings (DMR)".

Man if you know how to play inside,you can do that.Look at my today's game:http://www.buzzerbeater.com/match/17991790/boxscore.aspx.I wanted to play inside and i did.And with my SF playing SG (for trainning)and my 2nd PG playing SF!!Now you will say that the other team is weak.Yes but I am also weak!!


PS.Sorry for my English :)

Last edited by yperihitikos at 1/5/2010 2:04:49 PM

I don't think outside attacks are too strong.
The problem is that often you find yourself with players inadequate to the new game engine.
No one force people who plays look inside or low post to use C with atrocious in any other skill beside ID-RB-IS. Personally I like to buy my PF-C with some OD (at least mediocre, I'm in Italian IV) and passing (less for the PF, more for the C. My current C got a respectable in passing) and I found out it works. Sure, I'm playing against weak defenses, but (training dwarves) i routinely alternate between motion, R&G and look inside/low post and it seems to me that if you know which kind of player suits best a particular offensive tactic you can play almost any one, given the player with the right secondary skills.

If you really want to focus on a particular offensive tactic probably you can, just be sure to have the right men for that tactic.

On shotblocking: My PF has 10 in SB (one of the reasons why I was doubtful on purchasing him) and he's averaging 4 blocks per game.In the last 2 non-cup games he played he pulled out 5 and 6 blocks in less than 30 minutes and one opponent was quite strong. Being a relative check he surely has life easier in IV than in Serie A.

Seriously, if you (and other GMs) are saying that I should not even bother looking at game ratings, why not just junk them? Or maybe just call them "Deliberately meaningless ratings (DMR)".

I've never said this.

Team ratings exist so that you can gauge the approximate average strength of players fielded in a certain game, in several aspects (outside shooting/defense, inside shooting/defense, passing). It does this very well.

What it does _not_ necessarily do is explain why game A or game B was lost -- at least not universally. It can certainly give you ideas in some cases, but game simulation is primarily (if not exclusively) based on individual match-ups.

This makes reading the box score significantly more complicated than reading the team rating. For example, even if you seegreat OD team ratings, this doesn't mean that they come from all outside players -- maybe they come from an exceptional PG and SG, and the team got killed at the SG position. Or if you see great inside attack ratings, this doesn't mean the team was capable to get enough shots inside to win the game.

The one thing that pushes my buttons is when people's reaction to these issues is "The game is messed up", rather than "What am I doing wrong?". The game is what it is, and it has given us all an predictable environment, in which there is a reasonable number of alternatives of how to win the game.

I don't feel that It's easier to scoring inside , that's a problem .