BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Rescale IS rating

Rescale IS rating

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
119171.23 in reply to 119171.22
Date: 11/20/2009 3:48:26 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
1515
The comma in your sentence has me confused. Either the comma is really supposed to be there and you believe I meant the opposite of what I said, or the comma was put there by mistake and you are using sarcasm to indicate your agreement with my premise.

I'm not sure why you'd bother with either, but I am overcome with curiosity to know which it is.

This Post:
00
119171.24 in reply to 119171.23
Date: 11/20/2009 5:06:27 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
154154
Neither, I just misread it. You should used caps for NOT instead only:)

This Post:
00
119171.25 in reply to 119171.24
Date: 11/20/2009 12:54:57 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1515
That's what the first option I gave means :)

This Post:
00
119171.26 in reply to 119171.11
Date: 11/20/2009 1:45:28 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
137137
Hmm, your game is a good example of the problem I had as well.

I was an inside team, making use of leaks in the old engine by ignoring my guards and using the powerfull inside tactics. My higher IS almost always won from the higher ID.

However in the new engine it isn't that simple anymore. You can't just ignore your guards. You need to have guards that can actually bring the ball to your dominating inside men, thus you need offensive flow in the new engine. Chile clearly lacked that. While they dominated at the inside, the guards took 33 shots. The guards and SF (who was dominated by his opponent) took 54 shots out of a total of 87.

The C/PF took 33 shots, hit 18 of it. That's pretty decent shooting.

I don't know if it's true or not that the IS rating is off, I didn't study many games, but what I do know is that many teams ignored their outside game, focussing on playing a PF/C at the SF position to dominate the inside in the old engine. And that many of those teams, (myself included) started to complain about the inside when the new engine was released. It took me a while to realise the problem wasn't the engine, nor the ratings. It was the lack of ability of my guards to deliver the ball.


So what did you do to rectify this problem? Just got better passing guards or was it more complicated than that (involving other skills)?

Does having Driving on your post (inside) player help? Most people don't train their big men with driving.


This Post:
00
119171.27 in reply to 119171.26
Date: 11/20/2009 3:47:21 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
154154
Most people don't train their big men with driving.


I know many that do. But i agree that (vast?) majority don't. It caould be one of those regional think tank things.

This Post:
00
119171.28 in reply to 119171.26
Date: 11/20/2009 8:01:51 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
506506
Hmm i dont know if driving at inside men helps, i dont see a huge difference between my 10+ dr guys and the oldschool c's, but i dont know how i could see that as well.
Indeed, i bought a lot of offensive flow, a little bit more passing than handling though

This Post:
00
119171.29 in reply to 119171.28
Date: 11/29/2009 3:29:23 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
458458
For a guard, shooting 45 % is quite good.
For a post player, shooting 60% is quite good.
If this is true, and I think it is, (http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/FieldGS.jsp?league=0...)
then I think a stronger IS rating should be expected, since the ratings are not calculated relative to one another.

Also, while I agree that a big man's ability to receive the ball is important, to claim that passing is "ridiculously simple" makes me wonder why there are very few Steve Nash's and a lot of Mike Conley's.

Once I scored a basket that still makes me laugh.