BuzzerBeater Forums

You seem to be overlooking the fact that the current talent level of the National Teams in BB is about equal to high DivII, low Div I college ball right now.

Okay fine...but BB-Forrest in the above post just said that the game engine is all relative...so if we have Div II players shooting against Div II defenders, then the percentage should be the same as if they were NBA players, right?

Bob Cousy (and other early NBA stars) used to shoot the percentages you refer to, so perhaps it would be easier to think of BB as being in the 1950's instead of trying to equate the game to the modern era. Look at the Olympic teams of the 1950's and I think you'll see around 35% shooting percentages back then, too.

That's fine, then the inside players should shoot like George Mikan at the .404 clip and there would be better balance between inside and outside play.


Steve
Go Bruins!

That's fine, then the inside players should shoot like George Mikan at the .404 clip and there would be better balance between inside and outside play.

I'm not sure what you mean about 'balance' ? The more I read your posts, the more unsure I am what you are saying because we don't know how many shots are taken from inside or from outside based on player stats.

Take a look at my player, Lane Brandt (730510) and tell me what his shooting skills are? What conclusions can we draw from his overall shooting percentage of .333?

The percentages pretty much describes my team and my league, that is 35% from guards, 45% from Cs and PFs. I think that is a reasonable split for the lower quality of play going on. High School ball is all about working for inside shots because those are a much higher percentage.

If NT data is your source, then consider the possibility other teams have better outside D than inside D as the reason for the less than ideal split in shooting percentages.

Me? I think it is much too early to draw any conclusions on the game engine, particularly from the small number of NT games played compared to all the league games out there. My opinion is that randomness, that is the 'die rolls' of the game, are currently overwhelming any tactical choices we can make. That is, good luck is currently the most important factor in game outcomes. This is because the ratings are close to the more-or-less randomly generated level that started this simulation. And therefore are 'canceling' out each other most of the time.

We don't know impacts what yet. A SG with Strong Jump Shot and Jump Shot Range may have Pitiful One-on-one skills. He might randomly have that Pitiful skill accessed for a dozen shots in one game and not-at-all in the next. We don't know.

I think the BBs are looking at overall shooting percentages and everything else for reality checks. Presumably, they like what they are seeing. That said, with 20,000+ teams out there, a few will have been far above average lucky, and a few far below average unlucky. We don't know if we are in either camp.

The percentages pretty much describes my team and my league, that is 35% from guards, 45% from Cs and PFs. I think that is a reasonable split for the lower quality of play going on. High School ball is all about working for inside shots because those are a much higher percentage.

I think that were we differ...in my observation, most guards are shooting in the 35%-40% range (high 30's average) and move post players are shooting in the 50%-55% range (low 50's average) and that's with a lot of people playing 2-3 zone. I just think that's too wide a spread and therefore we'll probably need re-balancing at some point.


Steve

Steve,

You've got me thinking about this on my morning jogs. :) This morning's cogitation brought this theory:

One thing that could explain the low outside shooting percentages we're seeing now is JUMP SHOT RANGE.

Right now, most skills on the transfer list aren't above PROMINENT, which is 10 out of 20 on the list of skills. Perhaps there are some 11's and 12's on teams right now, but that represents only 55%-60% of NBA Hall of Fame skill. Range in the rules is defined as:

A player with a higher jump range will find that the effectiveness of his jump shot decreases less with distance.

I think range is a deduction to shooting skill applied independently from defensive skill, so it is not based on the difference method discussed in this thread. Inside shot does not appear to have a similar deduction.

If I'm right about this (and only the BBs really know, but I think I've put together a decent explanation) outside shooting isn't very good compared to inside shooting because no player has any better than decent range right now. By that I mean no one is better than half way to the maximum skill level. in JUMP SHOT RANGE.

As the overall level of JUMP SHOT RANGE increases through training, outside shooting will get better. This should provide the re-balancing you're looking for in a game-driven way.

I think range is a deduction to shooting skill applied independently from defensive skill, so it is not based on the difference method discussed in this thread. Inside shot does not appear to have a similar deduction.

Perhaps...but then everything isn't really relative...

BB-Forrest said it was and to my knowledge, the only thing that isn't is free throw shooting...which is based solely on a players skills and not a defensive player.


Steve
Go Bruins!

What would 'range' be relative to?

BB-Forrest made a general statement 'all is relative' but did not specifically say RANGE. 'All' would include FT shooting, and I agree that isn't relative. So perhaps the generalization also does not include RANGE?

It would be useful to get a BB comment on RANGE.

Edited by Your_Imaginary_Friend (1/17/2008 2:34:16 PM CET)

Edited by Your_Imaginary_Friend (1/17/2008 2:35:19 PM CET)

Edited by Your_Imaginary_Friend (1/17/2008 2:35:35 PM CET)

Last edited by Your_Imaginary_Friend at 1/17/2008 2:35:35 PM

What would 'range' be relative to?

BB-Forrest made a general statement 'all is relative' but did not specifically say RANGE. 'All' would include FT shooting, and I agree that isn't relative. So perhaps the generalization also does not include RANGE?

It would be useful to get a BB comment on RANGE.

I'm guessing that range is effected by the relative defense too...at least based on one of my players performances: (773733) Check out his last two scrimmages...he went bananas against these lousy opponents.

Steve
Go Bruins!

So BB-Domenico, maybe you'll care to address the initial point of the post about the current balance between the inside and outside game and whether you think there are issues and how you think the game should balance this...

Steve
Go Bruins!

I'm guessing that range is effected by the relative defense too.

Possible, I agree. He took a lot of threes (run and gun will do that) and made half. That could simply be the result of his shooting being adjusted upwards without any change in range degradation. His two point shooting was one game lousy and one game very good, so its hard generalize about his range.

Without tracking the 'x's and 'o's of the shot plots (a tedious task) over a bunch of games, I doubt any of us will ever figure it out.

Driving also enters the picture, because skill in driving creates more open looks (of any and all kinds) which likely are easier to make than guarded shots.