BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

Surprised knowing they had to go all in that they didn't also guess significantly.

I would have to agree that this loss was tough luck, but at the end of the day there are ways to improve ones chances to win. When the US u21 was last in the consolation tournament, we won a CT versus a TIE by a single point in double OT despite a considerable efficiency and overall ratings win (though not quite as high a differential as this game). We then had terrible gameshape the next game and lost to another CT vs TIE.

I think i'd go 90/10 if guesses were used and 97/3 if guesses aren't used. But every loss that I take in the u21 i ultimate blame myself for not outplaying my opponent well enough.

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

Q 10 honey. Call the raise with Q 10.
Still funny. 😊

Since it's understanding and knowledge of the GE that is asked for ill try to explain it as best as I can for you.
The ratings g are reflected on the skills of the players that play in the actual game. And the result of that is show in the box score.
Upon that we have GS, Ent and effort that comes in as a multiplier. The first two are shown in the ratings and the last one is not. It only increases the performance of the players in the team.
I suppose effort comes in as a multiplier similar to what it does with the ent after games.
So if that is true (but the multiplier is something we don't know about) Italy used 2/3 of their actual skills and Netherlands used 1 1/3 of their actual skills.
So comparing their actual ratings is not something that is useful.

Oh but basically I absolutely know that ratings are useless to read a game. They should not be, but definetly they are.
MR should be closer to the reality but there is some percentage of matches like this specific one in which the outcome is shitty.
I disagree about the fact that CT vs TIE is the most significative aspect of this loss, because I only about my team have plenty of examples with lower values and ratings and the best team win despite the effort. Put it in another way: in our coach's shoes considering the ratings and the MR, without knowing the final result, would you have done TIE, Normal or CT?
I do think that anyone here reading only the ratings and the MR should answer TIE. Because the gap is simply too high to think that you will lose.
And when CT vs TIE is not a mistake, all the rest is random, I think. Random and what Lemon said, bad luck with %total shots/turnovers/whatever.

Surprised knowing they had to go all in that they didn't also guess significantly.

I would have to agree that this loss was tough luck, but at the end of the day there are ways to improve ones chances to win. When the US u21 was last in the consolation tournament, we won a CT versus a TIE by a single point in double OT despite a considerable efficiency and overall ratings win (though not quite as high a differential as this game). We then had terrible gameshape the next game and lost to another CT vs TIE.

I think i'd go 90/10 if guesses were used and 97/3 if guesses aren't used. But every loss that I take in the u21 i ultimate blame myself for not outplaying my opponent well enough.

Great approach for sure, there is always something you can do better. Probably an external focus would have been quite easy to set. Or maybe we could have put in the lineup some better defenders on the backcourt (we have them on the bench even with better GS). That's something we already discussed between each other.


Last edited by NdR619 - Pilipinas U21 at 2/15/2017 2:11:59 PM