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. ;)

I have no data on your team's flow or your bigs outside shooting skills or their DR.

Are drives part of your inside shot number or seperate??? What % of the shots are the bigs taking compared to other positions?

I guess I will assume that drives were not counted with inside shots. on driving shots, I believe IS is a factor. Low IS guards will miss their layups if opponent guards have ID, and with the GE update SB also seems to work.

--snipped some stuff out--

Princeton doesn't seem to be giving you bigs that don't shoot inside or drive on the basket. Maybe you should try patient but you'll need to figure out how to make sure it doesn't pick your no IS big for the offensive player. YOu might say, oh I'll just build a big with insane outside shooting, in this case, if he has high JS, JR and RB, with OD and other guard skills...he will shift at very least to PF and most likely SF (or SG) formula, his salary will be huge (JS+RB is huge multiplier in all formulas) and IS will be practically free. All of my SFs have IS higher than JS and RB, but still if I raise their IS any, it costs them 0 salary for another point, I keep it just under the sweet spot. Free high IS is so awesome....

To answer some of the data questions:

The team's flow is balanced for lack of a better word. No real assist machines and surprisingly low top end passing, but no holes in HA / PA either. So basically a bunch of guys who average between 2-4 assists per game, and everyone above 1.5 A/TO ratio.

As far as outside shooting and DR on the bigs: Cheek's at about 10.8 JS/8 JR/13.9 DR. Busch is 9.1 JS/8.4 JR/12.9 DR. Klein's gimped because he was a draftee and even though he started with 7OD and 7ID, I would never have trained him otherwise with his godawful starting guard skills. But he's rehabilitated a little, up to 7.9 JS/5.1 JR/10.9 DR. Of course, I'm planning on training more driving and getting the JS up a little more eventually, once I'm done slogging through this ID/RB road. Of course, I want to do more passing on them eventually too, and I'm not sure I'll ever get all that done with them already at 23 years old.

The overall shooting breakdown (not by position) is that the team's taken 275 inside shots (converting 47%), 291 drives (46%), 738 jumpers (48%) and 484 threes (33%).

So anyway, with that said, I'm absolutely counting drives separately from inside shots because they are different shots and I don't need IS to convert those. And it's definitely true that the skills are affecting whether the players take drives or regular inside shots.My legacy C who starts at PF when I'm single positioning at C has a far more typical big man build with mediocre outside offensive skills and he's taken 74 inside shots, 0 drives, 24 jumpers and 9 threes. Of course, he's only got 7 HA/7PA, so that might explain why he's stuck taking so many shots down low or really almost ever attempting threes.

Naturally, I'd prefer the guys not take the contested inside shots for the most part - open ones of course are fine. But I don't mind at all if they drive, or shoot jumpers or threes. And for the amount of salary it would cost to increase their IS to where I'd *want* them to try to shoot over opposing trees, ugh, no thank you. I'm liking the results just fine as it is. Your mileage may vary. ;)

And still no one has researched big men with low IS and high in other areas. I find that very strange. Dont you?
Like this build for example:

 8  6
 8 10
 8 10
 8 14
15 14

A player that will have a 50k salary and that only needs P.Allstar potential. You can even do with less shooting and add some more PA instead as that trains fast.
A player like this surely will perform real well for a very long time for most clubs. Sadly though they are so rare that it's not even funny.
If we want to take SM's path we can give him a 15/10/115/8 build instead and he still will be effective but in another way.
What im trying to point at is that there are ways to create efficient players for other offenses then LI. If you only bother to try that is.

This guy can at best play in a D III division,in an outside oriented team,being a specialized defender.This guy would get destroyed at highest levels.If you really want to do it something defcent for a superior division,you would need to swap handling for OD