BuzzerBeater Forums

If an elite team cant built an inside tactic who can? You said about minutes management but how many big men can you afford with 100k+ salary?

He had offensive flow that they usually saying as the holly grave of the inside tactics. Didnt work isnt?

don't forget that he also amtch are elite team at their arena, who have stronger guards them him who also get their breaks ;)

Perhaps he has one. But considering he was going for LI he would need a 12-13IS on his SF as well. SF's with both 12-13IS and 12-13OD are extremely rare. Of course a SF with high JS and 12-13ID isn`t easy to get either.
What I mean is that in most cases the perfect balance between desired offensive and defensive power is hard to reach even for the top teams. Especially considering it is highly dependent on your opponent's tactics and fielded formation.

i sometimes play(ed) LI with a SF who had outside shoot and nearly none inside, it isn't that worse the different combination isn't more dangerous for the defence. Even if i didn't wonder when both SF would be considered as real SF when we see their skills ;)

Djembes SF is in netherlands Nationalteam with a salary around 40k, Mighty SF haven't a big salary for a "big guy" and with the overall quality he usually plays i believe he compensate it with a wide skill set.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 1/21/2010 9:02:44 AM

Makes perfect sense. You loose your offensive advantage but at the same time you gain defensive balance.

also a sf will still get plenty mid range jumpers, and don't have to "bang" everything.

Weaker guards, stronger bigs. Guards won. The deference its the same. The game was inside vs outside. Rebounds wasnt a factor on this game, and its clear that even with his great offensive flow didnt got any advantage to overcome the hca Nigerian SF had great game couz he faced a weak OD, but he didnt got punished from the opposite SF inside.

Weaker guards, stronger bigs. Guards won. The deference its the same. The game was inside vs outside. Rebounds wasnt a factor on this game, and its clear that even with his great offensive flow didnt got any advantage to overcome the hca Nigerian SF had great game couz he faced a weak OD, but he didnt got punished from the opposite SF inside.

you didn't see the hca, right? This makes a pretty big difference, and for me JS is the main attack or the SF and IS is an fine extra - but how you defend shots? Did you know the players skills, to say it is a shooting guard is pretty lame, those shooting guards also plays in the dutch Senior nationalteam, as a SF.

You will find a lot of player, who have a bad predicted position and that he is SG don't mean he can not defend inside. The SF also have a defensiv Bonus in playing 2-3 Zone, with two bigs on his side.

For me this would be a close game on neutral court, but with hca the favorite is winning here.

So you think that a top20 team would have an SF that doesn't have at least 12-13 in OD??

Well, everything depends on your level of competition. But if you are facing a team with a PG/SG combo who have 13+ in jump shot and some outside shooting, then you are asking for trouble in a 3-2 zone with less than that, yes. The defense just has to find the occasions when the SF is matched up against the PG or SG and provided they have a decent amount of flow, they will do just that.

I know that zones are not the answer but saying that LI is dead because it lost to a 2-3 zone is a strech,isn't it??I mean,that's what zones are for.To defend spesific offensive systems,while having their drawbacks of course.

My comment was purely about a 3-2 zone and how it is not always the best defense against an outside attack.

Another example
Similar enthusiasm

(17979634)

In particular I wont know which is the important skill for a PF, because my player is 13/9 in JS/JR and 11 in IS, but his MR is only 86..

The problem here is not your PF, the opponents SGs performed terrific (starter + backup). They amassed 44 points from 34 shots, their Matchup only gives a PPS of 99 which means that 34 shots should have brought about 34 points. If your opponent puts more into the game than you, such things happen.

Cheers, Exos

What i am arguing man is that to built an inside attack is really hard (nobody arguing about that i think) and it doesnt gives you any advantage of it. Why then to try to take the hard route when they are easier ways to get the same result?

Also thats coming from GM-Kozlodev ''Home-court advantage and enthusiasm are already reflected in team ratings.'' So if the game was on a neutral side Nigerian team would have lower ratings

Also thats coming from GM-Kozlodev ''Home-court advantage and enthusiasm are already reflected in team ratings.'' So if the game was on a neutral side Nigerian team would have lower ratings

the effect is higher then the effect on ratings, that something i could say for sure ;)

Even when i am not the biggest fan of the ratings.

What i am arguing man is that to built an inside attack is really hard (nobody arguing about that i think) and it doesnt gives you any advantage of it. Why then to try to take the hard route when they are easier ways to get the same result?

Also thats coming from GM-Kozlodev ''Home-court advantage and enthusiasm are already reflected in team ratings.'' So if the game was on a neutral side Nigerian team would have lower ratings

Then you should NOT provide arguments (like this game) that most people will show you are not god for your point. Because, people will think that since your arguments and examples ar wrong, then your premise is also wrong.

You have NOT provide any really good example to make people think that actually building "inside focused teams" is harder than "outside focuses team" and has no adventage. I still believe that most "inside managers" were having a training pattern/model wich was not good for most of the changes in BB. And now, I'm not only talking abput the GE. Also about budget managment.

The way most people have trained inside players was extremelly expensive salary-wise, that being said, many "outside trainers" had created imbalanced players with tons of JS who can't deliver a well-rounded performance in outside tactics, being one example of another bad model for training, this time, in outsided players.

I really think that unless time happens and different strategies for inside development start to arise and fail, you really will not have any strong claim about the GE.

Maybe mu first "advice" (or idea, I don't want to look like I have the answers because I don't) would be to STOP thinking about inside teams and outside teams and start thinking about basketball teams which managers try to give specific and limited strategic adventages (wich usually comes with a disadventage/opportunity cost) in order to defeat other basketball teams with other sort of strenghts and weaknesses.