BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

well he did provide arguments... he said that support 4 good inside players and good guards to provide offensive flow for those inside players is way more expensive than having an outside team. he said that training secondaries for big men are more complicated than training guards, because inside player training does not train secondary skills like for example pressure trains OD and a little ID, but ID training does not train OD. so inside team has more trouble to be competitive and it does not have rewards. i think that is what he is trying to prove.

from my point of view... i also train big men. i do win games in my league, but i also see that training guards would be easier. you just need to train jumpshot as a wingmen to get additional pops in inside shot, for ID i allready mentioned it earlier. and... try to train big men in passing and handling (which imho are important skills, because higher handling/passing big players do less turnovers). not only you will have height penalty but also you'll sacrifice possibly easy wins, because you will have to put your clumsy big mens at pg positions :). there's a lot of other reasons (like the offensive flow), and i am changing my trainees from next season to guards... i agree with johnnyb on this.

Last edited by Rycka at 1/21/2010 12:42:54 PM

well he did provide arguments... he said that support 4 good inside players and good guards to provide offensive flow for those inside players is way more expensive than having an outside team.

I believe I said that those kind of teams are, likely, going to loose many games. Just like those teams with 4 four expensive good outside players (of 150k each, just like 4 good inside players) with big mens having good rebounds.

Then, was it a really efective argument in the discussion of "inside vs outside"??

he said that training secondaries for big men are more complicated than training guards, because inside player training does not train secondary skills like for example pressure trains OD and a little ID, but ID training does not train OD. so inside team has more trouble to be competitive and it does not have rewards. i think that is what he is trying to prove.

I believe this is not true at all. You can train driving and JS in a very easy way for your C by making them play as PF. Just like an outside player can but his PG as SG to train JR in 1 position. Plus, it is really easy to train RB to inside man, while is not to train it for PG and SG.

Training IS to a SG it is a pain. Because you really have to wait a lot of time to get a secondary pop by training it with shoting for SF and PF.

And I can continue to do this with more examples. My point is, trainig secondaries is difficult for everyone. It is hard to train inside skills for outside players and it is hard to train outside skills for inside players. And it should be that way.

from my point of view... i also train big men. i do win games in my league, but i also see that training guards would be easier. you just need to train jumpshot as a wingmen to get additional pops in inside shot, for ID i allready mentioned it earlier. and... try to train big men in passing and handling (which imho are important skills, because higher handling/passing big players do less turnovers). not only you will have height penalty but also you'll sacrifice possibly easy wins, because you will have to put your clumsy big mens at pg positions :). there's a lot of other reasons (like the offensive flow), and i am changing my trainees from next season to guards... i agree with johnnyb on this.

You should do as you please. And probably switching over time between training outside players and inside ones is for sure very good developing strategy, so you can stop having in your mind the "Inside Team vs Outside Team" and start having the "Basketball Team" instead of it.