BuzzerBeater Forums

I agree with you.

We have seen Charles trying to defend that SB works, but we haven't read anything yet about the new tactics apart from 1-2 lines that say nothing.

It would be nice some post from a BB talking '' a bit'' about the new tactics, from what i've seen so far, they aren't really competitives

You are right that I was looking at the average minutes. Good point.

Here is a question. How would you suggest the GE be changed to make substitutions more realistic? When a guy misses five shots in a row he get pulled? When the other team's best scorer hits five in a row you change to a better defensive player to guard him? What if there are some managers who want their best guys in no matter how poorly they are playing? My point here is that it is impossible to satisfy every player's desire for substitution patterns and that subbing in real life is so situational as to be impossible to replicate in a computer simulation. If you have a suggestion, lay it out here or preferably in the Suggestions forum. Maybe something along the lines of a coaching choice similar to let them play/ sit them where the coach subs a guy who is "fresher but not better" "fresher and better" or "fresher and similar?"

I remember one of the BBs saying something a long time ago about the game not being real life and that having a bit of imagination is important to enjoy the game. The fact is that in order to effectively manage minutes, game shape, and training a manager is going to have to make some sacrifices. If that means leaving starters out of a game or playing starters as reserves once a week, that's what has to be done. I will suggest that having all of your players with STRONG stamina is not a very good managerial move.

I like the new tactics. I disagree that full court press or 1-3-1 zone are gimmick defenses in real life and I also disgaree that roles are unbelievably useless. That's what makes horse races, though.

I'll answer several of your questions/points as best I can:

When to sub:

I'm not talking about situational subbing, rather when to take out tiring players.

At some point in any game, a player's effectiveness declines based on stamina--or else what is the purpose of stamina? What I'd like to see is the ability to rotate in players so no one's on-court ability drops too much before they take a rest. This does NOT mean the BB's should reveal the tiring algorithm, simply that we managers can allow for it and plan for it. Check out Draft Day Sports-Pro Basketball for a solid way of implementing this. There is a free demo. Situational subbing is somewhat accounted for in this PC game, but not really. You're right, it is too tough to implement--but IMO, not needed.

As to the suggestion forum, I have already proposed stamina changes like this several times, as always to no avail.

I will suggest that having all of your players with STRONG stamina is not a very good managerial move.

Perhaps in BB it is not, but it SHOULD be. Why should having supremely fit players be a liability? That is extremely unrealistic.

I didn't mean FCP or 1-3-1 are gimmick defenses. The new box and ones are gimmick defenses. See any discussion of these defenses on coaching websites.

I think what the GM meant was that part of the challenge of this game is to figure out how things work for yourself and then use your understanding to do well in the game. That's a reasonable response, isn't it?

You're right, it is reasonable. What isn't reasonable is expecting us to figure out how UNREALISTIC things work, particularly when they are combined in the game engine.

For example, did my choice of defense spark my victory, or did my team's stamina spark a fourth quarter rally? Was that simply luck, or were my team's stamina-modified ratings now better than my opponent's poorly fit adjusted ratings?

What isn't reasonable is expecting us to figure out how UNREALISTIC things work,

Could not agree with you more and is the reason my own appreciation of BB is waning.

Perhaps in BB it is not, but it SHOULD be. Why should having supremely fit players be a liability? That is extremely unrealistic.

How many minutes did Kemba Walker play in the NCAA tournament? Or check out Bill Russell's career minutes per game numbers. Or Wilt's. Or Lebron. (http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/mp_per_g_care...) Those guys were/are supremely fit. It is not unrealistic for the coach to keep his best guys on the floor and try to win. In this game the coach is trying to win. He wants to keep his best players on the court to do so. If his best players are still more fit and better than their backups even after 40 minutes on the court, he's going to keep them in.

If that hinders the unrealistic minute management scheme in order to get players the minutes they need to keep their unrealistic game shape up or to get them the unrealistic minimum amount of minutes for the unrealistic once a week training that unrealistically only improves certain members of the team, then yeah I guess it is pretty unrealistic.

anything other than Man or the 2-3 and 3-2 zones are gimmick defenses IR

Just responding to what you said. I actually disagree with a lot of the coaching websites about box and 1. I think that in high school hoops it has a lot of value, and can in this game as well. I totally agree with you that it is a gimmick defense, but sometimes a gimmick works well. Ask KISS.

My main problem with FCP in this game is the penalty you take in rebounding. And that since I rarely train stamina anymore (In seasons 3 and 4 I did and had super high stamina and played FCP almost every game) it wouldn't work very well for my team in an important game.

I agree there are some unrealistic results from the game engine but I think you're referring to unrealistic things fed into the engine? Not sure what you're talking about there.

Figuring out what led to victory when multiple factors could be responsible is a matter of trial and error. Just play the same defence with players of worse/better stamina and see if you win, etc. Vary the degree of stimulus and see how much response varies. Works for figuring out most anything.