BuzzerBeater Forums

People shouldn't be using ratings to explain the outcome of a particular game anyhow.

Excellent conclusion. Instead of:

- The ratings aren't useful, therefore they should be fixed.

You're saying:

- The ratings aren't useful, therefore people shouldn't use them for helping explain their game result.

Bravo.

i believe currently the problem is more to get the ball into the post then converting in, i made good experiece with proficient vs strong or simmiliar rating but i have very much passing in my team and i also sometimes struggle if the opponent close the passing lanes and play 3-2 ;)

It'd be great if you didn't put words in my mouth. The ratings aren't useful in explaining game results. Pretty much the same way in which you can't make apple cider using oranges, which doesn't make oranges inedible.

The ratings are used to assess the approximate strength of teams you are not playing against. Since looking at individual player salaries does not give you an idea for the players' skill configuration, understanding how ratings are formed can help you with getting an idea of what the players in question are like.

The ratings are not always useful in explaining the score of a particular game, and they will never be, no matter how you rebalance them. Games are won or lost based on individual match-ups, not on game ratings. In this particular example, no matter how skilled your centers are, your look inside will bomb spectacularly if you don't have guards that can pass them the ball efficiently (which may be due to poor passing skills, or great OD by the opposition). No matter how you slice the IS calculation, it will never include the passing of the guards, nor should it.

Instead, you can look at your PP100 and see that despite your great inside skills, you got poor shots -- and think what was the reason.

You are denying the obvious if you deny that, other things equal the IS rating produces higher values than the other ratings.

Absolutely.

People get great IS ratings by routinely fielding three centers with 13-15 IS. I don't think you're comparing this to the outside ratings obtained by fielding 3 guards with 13-15 JR.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 11/19/2009 11:54:40 AM

That is completely disanalogous, given that there are two jump shooting ratings

So because of this we can readily dismiss the fact that the general population seems to ignore one of them? I have, multiple times, read in this forum that "JR 9 seems to be enough for just about anything".

(moreover: JR and IS are not parallel at all: the impact of JR on salaries makes me believe that it wasn't meant to be trained as high as IS).

You don't give team orders based on the suggested position of a player, right? Why would you then pay so much attention to how salary is calculated, given that salary is basically what determines positions?

A better analogy would be something like JS arund 14 and JR around 11 which gives roughly proficient ratings.

This still doesn't explain your conclusion that the two ratings do not correspond correctly. The fact that people train and field guards that are 14/11 instead of 11/14 doesn't mean that the system is broken.

Why is it a better analogy? Because it roughly correlates (modulo matchup issues) to the same scoring effectiveness relative to a fixed level of defense.

Sure, if you ignore everything else the game engine is doing (offensive flow, defensive adjustment, etc).

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.


Last edited by BB-Patrick at 11/19/2009 12:46:45 PM