BuzzerBeater Forums

1.What do you call short range jumpers?if inside painted area i thought inside shot handled this...also i don't want my center taking jumpshots in inside game
2.I thought that pg,sg,sf only contributed to flow...on the other hand i agree with passing on centers,but handling is just useless.
3.Agreed on some parts.
To crazyeye:i was talking about the chilean pg.
But still the salary diffirence between outside team and inside team is huge,to play inside game at high levels(BBB or Div 1) you must have monster centers,pg and good sg,sf,meanwhile playing outside is diffirent you can have defensive centers whose wages are not 200k and you dont need 150k sg's.

Last edited by kausasas at 1/22/2010 2:29:46 PM

1. Looking at the replays of games you can see that PF/Cs shoot a lot of jumps from outside the key when they can't get good shots in closer. I suspect that JS plays a role in determining if these shots go in. Obviously you don't want your big guys shooting short and mid-range shots, but it doesn't appear to be something that managers have a ton of control over.

2. I believe that while PG, SG and SF contribute to the flow rating the PF and C do contribute to how the game engine actually calculates things. I would argue that handling is as important, if not more important for bigs since it plays a major role in limiting turnovers. High OD big men can wreak havoc on big men with low handling.

Believe me if JS for big men was the problem i would be the happiest big men trainer on the game. JS indeed looks like very important skill of the big men performance and i am always training it since i play this game.

Handling i really dont think that (if we compare it with real life) important, couz the job of the big men job is usually to pass or execute, not try to brake ankles, thats the guards job. Nash is accepted as one of the best PG's of the game, with great handling/passing skills. Last 5 years (his best of his career) he avs 3.5+ TO. Chris Paul career TO av is around 2.5 Derron Williams very close to 3.

Lets check now the dominate big men. Dunkan: 2.74 career. Shaq: 2.79, Garnett: 2.45. What we can see here? Elite big men have comparable TO's to elite PGs. Why? PGs have the ball on there hands way more than the bigs. Dont tell me that big men have equal handling to the big men. Why then is handling such a big deal for the big men?

I can understand that they want to avoid players like Cardenas (400k+ salary big men) but again i dont think that this is the right way, considering how many limitations big men have

Is much more useful 2 big mans of 100-150k with good skill combination than a monster of 400k with low secondaries. Thats the point.

If you use a center with 6-7 handling, passing, driving and OD with 8-9 in JS you will have lots of advantages. If your PF has 12 JS and 10 OD even more. The problem is that you can see hundreds of centers with most of his secondary skills in 1-4 which are paid by the people in the market. Lots of outside managers (Im an outside manager) try to have all the secondary skills trained, I even trained my guards in inside skills in the past, now I cant but I try to buy them with good inside skills.

Is like the 6-7 trainers isue, they dont worth what people pay, but people still pay it. If a center with 17 IS 15 REB with 2 OD 1 HD, 2 PAS and 3 JS is paid 6M+ is not BBs problem, it is, in fact, people problem.

Here you have a match with some nice secondary centers in the court (8339), the best outside attack of BB absolutely dominated, and I heard that Spain had 3 more of enthusiasm. And you can do even better, Italy could have better secondaries in the centers. The SF for example only had 8-9 in OD.

Also take care that you need different outside players for a Run&Gun than a Look Inside. In Inside tactics guards with Huge Passing and very nice OD are a MUST.

In my opinion BBs gave lots of clues in the forums, now you can choice between trying to understand the GE or buying a lvl7 trainer to increase a disastrous secondaries and superwaged center (with 2SB) more the Rebounds.

Last edited by LeYeNdiNhA at 1/22/2010 10:47:34 PM

I agree in what you say, 2ndaries are very important. My PF have 8-10 on JS. I can train it. Tell me how long you need to train your C up to 8-9OD, and PA?

Play him 48 minutes as a PG in a friendly match. If not, do it in an easy league/cup game, you play him as PG, he deffend as C.

Half a year of training if you buy him with 7 OD and 7 PA (high secondary centers cost more, but then you can make effective and balanced monsters with the training).

The problem could came if you bought your center with very low secondaries.. in that case sell him and just go for another one in the market. Thats all.

Well good idea, buy that well rounded C, but again before some days 1 Cypriot guard who had lots of 2ndaries has been sold 1.9M. Imagine now 1 C with very good potential and nice 2ndaries. The money that i have paid for my SG until the start of this season that i have upgrade the position. Now those C's will be even more expensive.

Actually i have bought only 1 C, just for 100k, and now his main skills are 14/12/12. Not bad deal i think. All my big men came from the draft, (2 was in my team since day 1, 1 of those 2 he is still on my team) and my tactic until now was:Produce big men buy guards.

The fact will stay that the best players either they are Cardenas like or Wendon like players, the richest teams will be able to buy them, and the rich will still getting richer. Nothing will change that (as BB-Charles state)

Also now the farm teams will start to produce more all around big men (Italy has 3-4 at least monsters pure product of farms).

I have already tried you are idea to put my SF trainee (now he is listed as a PF) to play PG. It was painful to watch, but the games where easy, and i didnt pay it.

The benefits of secondaries for C claimed here are just not apparent enough to BB managers so they get ignored in training. (and they are a pain to train) Simple as that. It's no use blaming the managers as short-sighted. We need a more apparent feedback system than the match rating.

Last edited by 7ton at 1/23/2010 5:13:30 AM

It's no use blaming the managers as short-sighted. We need a more apparent feedback system than the match rating.

To quote a line that at least one GM likes to use: ding ding ding, we have a winner.

This team f.e Dutch Pacers (38253) managed to make the required changes. I'm still hoping I succeeded as well

(18109987)

greetings.

out of curiosity, anyone able to determine whether this would be a typical result (19953695)? my guards have high driving and high passing but poor inside shot skill. surprised that with such low pts per 100 that the guards would throw up so many shots, especially when my guards and sf's all have between 10 and 14 passing levels.