BuzzerBeater Forums

Can we point to the game against Argentina as a lack to the team's enthusiasm versus Colombia? We really should have TIE'ed that game. Even if we did lose, we still would have beaten all the other teams that we should have beaten (like Colombia).

We TIEd virtually every other game, and Normal against Argentina was the correct play. A loss to Argentina, and we're in the same boat.

Yeah but the point is that their OD is probably better than it appears. You can argue that their outside D was not that good because you're used to seeing better ratings in other NT games, or you can argue that it must be better than we thought because they clearly shut us down. The second seems more logical to me.

It was certainly effective. I think to point brian was making is that a prominent OD rating is not that good, and therefore, the results clearly outpaced the rating. I'm not sure I buy that there was any reason to expect them to outpace their rating, though--they played a PG at SF so they clearly weren't dragged down the way you'd expect from a team using a typical SF there (as we did).

As to Charles' question about having to go through repe, what, is it election time already? The real answer is that it's entirely speculation until we see our opps and schedule. Having the toughest game last is clearly a disadvantage moving forward (assuming you win) since you almost have to use a CT which is impossible to recover from in 3 games (if you play it earlier, there's motivation for both teams to normal instead).

Yeah but the point is that their OD is probably better than it appears.

How can their OD be better then it appears? Their OD is likely around proficient in a M2M with guards at the 1-3. So probably 14-15 in OD at the 1-3 positions. I'm not sure how that puts so much pressure on the perimeter to stop two good passing, handling and driving guards from being able to find the open space inside. Plus we had a very well rounded SF that can move the ball and score inside.

There's nothing logical about it.

Can we point to the game against Argentina as a lack to the team's enthusiasm versus Colombia? We really should have TIE'ed that game. Even if we did lose, we still would have beaten all the other teams that we should have beaten (like Colombia).

Well, maybe. Same could be said about Uruguay. I think I outlined a lot of this before hand in the offsite, but, here's the problem. By going 1-1 in those two games, we set ourselves up to finish 4-1, even if we did beat Colombia. We had a good idea (and were right) that simply finishing 4-1 wasn't enough. In fact, even if we had won last night, we STILL would've finished 3rd on PD. Thus, the goal was to beat Arg & Uruguay. That way, even if we ended up losing to Colombia and finishing 4-1, at least one of them would've had 2 losses and PD wouldn't have mattered. Worked vs Arg, the game vs Uruguay was really what doomed us.

That's a bit convoluted, but basically, had we TIE'd those games, still gone 1-1 (although it's possible we would've ended up 0-2), we probably would've been in even worse PD shape, meaning we would've needed a BIG win vs Colombia (even more than the 15 or whatever it was we ended up needing).

wozz teaches me that 3-2 has virtually no influence on RB

Even says in the manual: 3-2 Zone: Increased perimeter defense at the expense of interior defense. Slow pace.

Where in there does it say anything about rebounding?

Trust me, 3-2 does not affect rebounding compared to m2m.

Sorry, meant that as a, "duh, it's right there in the manual, how did i miss that".

Gotcha.

Maybe I am trying to split hairs here: I agree along with everyone else that the results outpace the rating. The point I am trying to make is that if we are arguing about whether their OD is good or not, why put any faith in the rating after seeing the results? There are a lot of ways to explain away how the rating might be an underestimate; I can't think of many ways to explain their defensive success without admitting they just probably had better OD than we though they would.

Also I'm sorry if it sounded like I was trying to say we should have seen this coming somehow, I didn't mean anything like that at all. I think you have been doing an incredible job as manager. I was just saying that in hindsight, it's possible to put the pieces together in a way that, to me, somewhat explains how it went down. I just don't agree with the general assertion that, you know, " there is no way to explain what happened here, the GE must have just crapped out."

In the long run we as a NT need to discuss/be able to explain results like these because games like these pop up all over the place in the forums so I think there is more going on here than just random chance. If the results suggest they are putting up more OD than we thought possible/than it appears, we need to figure out why/how we underestimated them. That is all I am trying to say.