BuzzerBeater Forums

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 .

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

I believe is not a problem. Scoring outside and inside should be equally interesting in order to keep a balanced game(not making any strategy to be strictly dominated by the others)

They way I'm seeing this is that it is easier to move the ball to outside players in order to get 3ps and long 2pt shots than getting it under the rim(makes sense, right?) but it is harder to convert that long outside shot than the opportunity your C eventually gets when the ball is his hands and their foots on the paint(for me also makes sense).

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

(18104229)

Really? You dont wonder why your SG is taking 28 (!) shots compared to the 13 your center is taking? And your PG took 14, your PF 13..

Maybe your guards couldnt get the ball inside. Your inside guys were screaming like hell to throw them the ball, they would easily dunk their oppontents WITH the ball true the hoop..But the ouside D of the opponent was just to hard to come by, not enough handling and passing for your guys (read as offensive flow).

I guess your guards thought: if i cant pass it, ill have to shoot before shot-clock stops running. DAMN, another miss.. DAMN, 1-17 3-pointers.

Not trying to be rude here. But just want to point out that easily saying R&G is the upper tactic by default isnt the best 'tactic' to win games in the future

Last edited by Maupster at 1/7/2010 10:23:10 AM

Good point, but why the guards doesnt need good offensive flow to go? Its enough to have great guard shooters to win games, but the opposite doesnt work? why? have you seen any team in real life having success without there big men to be able to pass? and if big men need good passing why not be able to train it? (please dont tell me about team training) Do you know how hard is to find a good passing guards out there? Do you know that is way easier to find shooters? and of course way cheaper.

Those are some facts that are making outside attacks much easier to built.