BuzzerBeater Forums

Missing the point, but this is not new either. Italy had much higher efficiency than Holland AFTER the events in the game were simulated irrespective of what the ratings were. And efficiency was more in line with the ratings than the result would imply of course.

Look, I don't want to be rude. Basketball is a very simple game: there are a finite number of possessions and then there is efficiency in putting the ball in the basket or preventing the opponent from doing so.

Do you want to explain how Italy ended with 10 fewer shots? I know because I have analysed the game, so I know what happened to each of those 123-124 possessions for both teams.

In terms of efficiency Italy was clearly better team, which is what the ratings also suggested of course. So instead of trying to sell something that does not exist (i.e. that Holland played better, taking advantage of mismatches) which is not reflected in the statistics for the game, try explaining why the team who was better statistically lost.

Look, I don't want to be rude. Basketball is a very simple game: there are a finite number of possessions and then there is efficiency in putting the ball in the basket or preventing the opponent from doing so.

Do you want to explain how Italy ended with 10 fewer shots? I know because I have analysed the game, so I know what happened to each of those 123-124 possessions for both teams.

In terms of efficiency Italy was clearly better team, which is what the ratings also suggested of course. So instead of trying to sell something that does not exist (i.e. that Holland played better, taking advantage of mismatches) which is not reflected in the statistics for the game, try explaining why the team who was better statistically lost.

Absolutely quote.
I already said that shit happens and random defeats too in this game. It's not strange, you can be angry, you can be unlucky but one time on earth it happens and you have to deal with it.
But writing as I read from some of you that "You did CT vs TIE, what did you expect?" (quote: In what way? Effort is not shown in the ratings. So that Netherlands used crunch and Italy took it easy doesn't show in those ratings.) is a very pointless way to describe this match and does not help anyone who is interested on understanding more about this game.
We have to analyze every statistic and every aspect of the game, because even with CT vs TIE this game should have been a garbage for Italy.
Then we can keep our respective opinion, but without explaining why the best team lost even with better statistic, better ratings, better matchups, more enthusiasm, more rebounding, more flow, slightly better game shape and so on.... yeah, it's pointless as I wrote.

Then we can keep our respective opinion, but without explaining why the best team lost even with better statistic, better ratings, better matchups, more enthusiasm, more rebounding, more flow, slightly better game shape and so on.... yeah, it's pointless as I wrote.

Well the game was simulated. According to what shows up in the box score Italy was the better team. Italy had 11 turnovers (same as Holland) but also had 5 offensive fouls called against (to 0). Italy had 9 rebounds who ended out of bounds (to 3). That's 11 net possessions changed 6 of which are turned around without showing anywhere.

This GE has garbage efficiency ratings for players compared to real life and it compensates with higher numbers of possessions and here is where the problems arise. Turn around enough possessions and the worse team wins even if he's worse in every aspect of the game. Which is what happened here.

In real life it would be like the referees calling 5 more offensive fouls on the Cavs. This prevents them from attempting a 5 shots and gives the Warriors 5 extra chances, given the scoring efficiency of those teams that's like a 10 point swing, probably more. This shows in the box score. The out of bounds would be like a team having a 24 second violation 9 times in a game and NOT being shown in the box score. Note that in real life this does indeed go under team turnovers, but in BB it just disappears into thin air (otherwise you'd see a lot of games in BB where team turnovers are higher than team assists....).

Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/15/2017 6:08:32 AM

I absolutely understand your post, more or less I do the same analysis as yours so you're using my words
What I was asking to the others is to motivate their opinion, because saying "well, it was CT vs TIE, why ridiculous" is really a poor contribute to the discussion.
These weird matches can be helpful a lot to understand how (bad, sometimes) the GS runs, so as you did, let's try to figure out what happened instead of simply addressing it superficially as "CT vs TIE". Because we can paste tons of example with CT vs TIE with lower MR and ratings difference with the best team win, so...

Well the game was simulated. According to what shows up in the box score Italy was the better team. Italy had 11 turnovers (same as Holland) but also had 5 offensive fouls called against (to 0). Italy had 9 rebounds who ended out of bounds (to 3). That's 11 net possessions changed 6 of which are turned around without showing anywhere.

This GE has garbage efficiency ratings for players compared to real life and it compensates with higher numbers of possessions and here is where the problems arise. Turn around enough possessions and the worse team wins even if he's worse in every aspect of the game. Which is what happened here.

But isn't this the interesting point? I always assumed that offensive fouls and rebounding out of bounds were clear indicators that your team was mismatched in key positions when it comes to player on player defense/offensive skills and a bad game plan. Look at a Big Ten College Game and you'll see a match-up where teams are evenly matched but one team is just executing so poorly that the guards can't find good, easy looks so they force into a bad look for inside players who either do an offensive foul (charge = bad driving) or take a forced shoot with bad outcomes.

I do agree on the stat sheet needing an update to include more pertinent information but I still see this outcome as falling under the probability curve.

I'd love to see them actually run this game 99 more times for posterity's sake. Wouldn't bog the server. Only BBB games today. But of course they won't, or if they did, wouldn't share results.

I'd guess around 96-4 or 97-3.

I'd love to see them actually run this game 99 more times for posterity's sake. Wouldn't bog the server. Only BBB games today. But of course they won't, or if they did, wouldn't share results.

I'd guess around 96-4 or 97-3.

Or 99-1.
1 OUT!
Where is Phil Hellmuth?

He would have folded long ago. Or blinded down to next to nothing, to go all in ahead and lose. Every time.