BuzzerBeater Forums

4 0:19 85 — 85 L. Valtolina (H) gets off a great pass to B. Rosentorp (H). B. Rosentorp (H) goes up strong for an inside shot. Scored.
4 0:19 85 — 85 The shot was assisted by L. Valtolina (H).
4 0:12 85 — 85 Ball stolen by A. Yeng Chun (H).
4 0:01 85 — 85 A. Yeng Chun (H) launches a three-pointer from another zip-code under pressure from C. Jing Chu (A). Shot missed.
4 0:01 85 — 85 The defensive rebound is snapped up by L. Heng Lai (A).
4 0:00 85 — 85 C. Jing Chu (A) goes baseline and tries a reverse lay-up
4 0:00 85 — 85 A. Yeng Chun (H) is called for a shooting foul.
4 0:00 85 — 85 Free throw missed by C. Jing Chu (A).
4 0:00 85 — 85 Substitution at C: S. Dailey (H) for B. Rosentorp (H).
4 0:00 85 — 85 F. Ping wai (A) substituted for N. Pérez (A) at PG.
4 0:00 86 — 85 C. Jing Chu (A)'s free throw attempt is up and good.
4 0:00 86 — 85 End of period.

even though i won, but these plays are damn impossible. should i report for bugs?
(91666571)

With the players I had on the court, Motion was one of my strongest offensive options. And the effort difference was the same as the last league game that I won by 17 against my nearest rivals who went 20-2 to my 21-1.

I have not seen such an inexplicably poor performance from my team since the time I got blown out on opening night in Season 32 with a team that actually went on to win the ABBL championship; (85782133)

I'm not sure, but it looks like not-multiskill build of your C may be the only reason why he underperformed in defense. PF seems to be weaker than his matchup and I believe, that this is quite important factor in LI. With that tactic, he needed to win inside matchups to have bigger chances in this game, and he managed to do that.

Last edited by Siwy at 8/16/2016 2:14:34 PM

(91796874)

Thats a good one. ID does nothing against LI.

Of course he won because of free throws.

>finds a game, where both teams used 2-3 zone, and one of them won, because its OD was less destroyed by 2-3 than other teams'
>sees prodigious rating in team's inside defense
>ignores facts which may suggest, that 2-3 was wrong there, not ID: that most of shots were made by SG and SF, that the percentage of 3FG made suggests that JS/JR were the key factor
>ignores fact, which often doesn't allow to make right conclusions - game was in garbage time from last minute of 3th quarter, so we don't know the true team ratings for this game (In fact, after 3 quarters the boxscore suggests even more that Dennis Scott's Magic won, because it avoided 2-3 zone by giving the most of shots to SG/SF)
>makes a conclusion, even if he shouldn't due to reasons ignored by him in last point
>of course it's not a "2-3 sucks" conclusion
>it's a "ID sucks" conclusion
>SB rulez

The verification of thesis before putting them doesn't hurt.

Last edited by Siwy at 8/24/2016 3:17:32 AM

> ignores the fact that super cool GDP sucks donkey duck

The verification of the antithesis after putting them doesn't help. (I do not know what this sentence means)

>ignores facts which may suggest, that 2-3 was wrong there, not ID: that most of shots were made by SG and SF, that the percentage of 3FG made suggests that JS/JR were the key factor

http://www.buzzerbeater.com/match/91796874/reportmatch.aspx?realTime=720

first quarter decided the game, just look how many "JS/JR"-type shots have been taken. If the shot chart does not show like 95% of attempts that - by common knowledge - would be considered "inside", we have to redefine how inside/outside, JS/JR and IS have to be understood.

The calibration of the definition similar taking tactic must be considered exactly.

> ignores the fact that super cool GDP sucks donkey duck

Beacuse GDP is a bit overrated, but as you haven't mentioned it in the first post as an important factor, neither had I.


As we can see, Dennis Scott's Magic had a 7/12 from the key, but 5/6 from restricted area arc and (I think) 4/5 from low post. It may suggest, that is this quarter ID doesn't work as well as it should. But play-by-play suggests that a lot of points were scored after assists, so I believe that the flow was as important factor as IS. Therefore, the high percentage of shots could be made this way due to lack of OD also. And guess which team had a much better flow? Dennis Scott's Magic! Their passes weren't defended by guards as much as Schnubu's ones and the better actions could be made this way. The factor of ID in this game doesn't seem as important as it appear to be.

And don't forget that in fact, the ID of both SG's doesn't really affect team ratings, so they can't evaluate them. However, due to most common type of shots, it is a important factor. The point is that despite the higher ID team rating of Schnubu, their SG could have a atrocious ID, when Dennis Scott's Magic could have a proficient one. What is more, I have to remind once again - Dennis Scott's Magic could have even a better ID rating then Schnubu during the first 3 quarters, but we can't see it in teams' ratings because of garbage time in 4th quarter. To cut long story short, there's a lot of factors that deny the "ID doesn't work" thesis and it's your task to proof, that they doesn't matter.

In a 2-3 zone defense arguing about the ID of the SG is a bit useless as the inside shots should have been defended by either SF, PF or C.