BuzzerBeater Forums

The problem is that it's impossible to reproduce this strategy to the lower levels

You would need to explain why you something that works at the highest level can't work in lower divisions because I don't see how this could be true?

From what I remember playing in the lower divisions teams were successful with all sorts of different offensive and defensive tactics. I can remember wining my D3 league playing outside tactics. It isn't until the highest levels of BB that the successful teams have all gravitated towards 1 offensive and 1 defensive tactic.

In the lower divisions the situation change slightly because it become an economy management problem,but the teams that can put together an efficient LI the most of the time beat the teams that can put together an efficient outside offense

I don't know why many users keep thinking that it's only a I division/B3 problem,we all play under the same GE -.-"
What you see at the highest level is reflected in the lower divisions too,with the relative differences because of the skills.I've played also at an higher level to the one where I actually am,so it's not like I have not sen player with highest skills than the one I actually play against

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 8/29/2013 4:03:07 AM

I don't know why many users keep thinking that it's only a I division/B3 problem,we all play under the same GE -.-"

But what players are used is very different. Tweaking of players so that they fit for LI has gone to the extreme on a very high level. This is so far from the truth in lower divisions.

I respectfully disagree with you.In the B3 there was the model of the super teams that won in the past,and then some team try to build something different with less money to overcome the financial gap,with not so much success(with few exceptions here and there)
In the lower division the economical limitations factors in too,and play a role because every team got to renounce to something,thus the research for cost efficiency models have been wider

Why must I explain to people over and over and over and over.... I don't care WHAT offense you run, if you GIMP IS, yo uwill GIMP your bigs scoring. The best motion team basically in the world is telling you he runs 19 IS on a big. For darn good reason!!!

You can not control shot selection. You can not force your C to shoot outside anymore than you can stop him from attempting 3s. People have tried for seasons on end, and NO we CAN NOT tell our players how or where to shoot from. We just can't.

So I repeat, until you understand it. IF you gimp your IS on your bigs, your offence will suck. especially on that big. Giving him PA, JS, JR whatever else you want to give him WILL NOT change the fact that...HE WILL MISS A BUNCH OF SHOTS~ putbacks for starters. Dunks too. and Layups.

Here are the shot breakdowns for my three big men - I'll include their IS as well. This is for this season in league games, which have all been Princeton and I think other than a few odd minutes at SF early, have all been at the PF/C positions.

Henry Busch (11 IS) : 54 inside shots (36 contested, 18 open) , 22 drives, 54 jump shots, 26 3 point shots
Joseph Cheek (7 IS): 32 inside shots (20 contested, 12 open), 52 drives, 59 jump shots, 31 3 point shots
Michael Klein (8 IS): 21 inside shots (9 contested, 12 open), 3 drives, 24 jump shots, 13 3 point shots.

Where I will agree with you is that they are all shooting abysmally on contested inside shots because they're facing guys with more ID than their IS by a pretty big margin. But if you look at the number of jumpers and threes they've taken compared to the inside shots (and of course Cheek's drives), I'm more than happy with the shot distribution here - though if I could drop Busch's IS to like 8, I'd probably be happier. ;)