BuzzerBeater Forums

I am a bit of a noob but one of my mentors told me when training my players to try to always keep JS and JR about the same. Was that correct?

i personally like it more that JR is around 80% of the JS skill, because JS seems to be more important to me(especially in inside Focus, but also with outside focus games). If you start training your player, it isn't bad to hold them on the same level, and just make the difference at the end of your training, because with similiar skills it should go a little bit faster.

But, in any case HeadPaperPusher said something very important. This kind of analysis needs always some context.

So every time I think about this JS-JR topic, I end up thinking in terms of matchups between a certain combination 10-10 (usually with the numbers of my players) against, say, another number representing OD. Say, 10.

What will happen in that situation? Will be an even matchup? Defense will shut down or offense? Will we have the scorer of the game?

Because, and this is the central thing I've been thinking, for all outside positions (PG, SG and SF also) the combination 10-10 is way more expensive than the cheaper OD 10.

What does this thing tell us? More importantly, if we think that salaries say something about the relative importance of skills in any given position? How will we translate that into how the GE might work in a specific area?

Do you have any thoughts on this subject? How about your experience in this kind of matchups (close JR-JS with similar OD) ???

Im sorry but i totally disagree thats a wrong way of training more JR than JS.

Also his driving is really low, driving helps to improve % in shot attemps.

I never said that jump shot was more or less important for training than jump range, I am simply disputing the theory that a player with high JR but low JS is worthless.

This really depends on what you understand by "high JR" and "low JS" and also, with the kind of defense you're facing. I didn't mean that they are worthless, my question was: What would be better?.

Also, consider that when you look at this sort of data you need to really understand what they represent. And I mean it from a basketball and "theoric sim" perspective.

FG% is calculated taking in consideration all kind of shots (Not Free Throws). Yes, this means 3PT, 2PT shots from different distances but also Inside Shots. Your player IS was 1. Also, he had low driving.

There are other things to also consider when looking this stats. How is the OF of your team? High OF will mean more high quality shots on average, having low OF will mean the opposite. High driving will also increase the performance in this department. Also, if you play a lot outside offensive tactics we will have better 3FG% than if you were playing most of time inside offensive tactics.

There are other "micro-managment" things related to this. For example, I will bet that if you have your PG, SG and SF with similar outside offensive skills and usually focus your attack in that area, it is very likely that your SF will have the better 3PT%. Why? Because it is very likely that managers will focus their best outside defenders first on SG, then PG and later on SF. What I mean with this is that matchups DO matter. And matter a lot.

So... every time you try to use those statistics to make a point, you should be careful. There are many things going on behind those numbers that you might be not be able to see.

We don't have perfect information in BB so I usually develop my understanding of the game based on two things: An interpretation of the motives behind the game developers (why they choose to make it this way and not the other way?) and an interpretation of the actual performance of the players I know best facing the opponents I know best: my roster facing my league.

You will need a lot of data to draw strong conclusion about this and others topics, otherwise, your data is just anecdotic.
Since gathering data is hard and very time-consuming I just try to draw some very theoric conclusion based on the interpretation of what skills are supposed to do.

They seems to make sense to others as well.

What about coach parrot? I see that in many offenses like push the ball and run and gun outside scoring rating with guards is more based on jump range rather than jump shot. If you play run and gun, your SG and PG have a coefficient of .15 on jump range but only .08 on jump shot. So two teams playing run and gun, one team has guards with marvelous JS and prominent JR, the second team has prominent JS and marvelous JR, the second team will have a much higher outside scoring game rating.

It just seems to be common knowledge in this game that jump shot is superior to jump range with no real reasoning or evidence. This is most likely true for forwards, but for guards everything I have seen seems to indicate that jump range is atleast equal in importance to jump shot.

Well, Coach Parrot is another way to make a theoric interpretation about the GE, more specifically, about the tactics.

There is something I have to clarify before I commit to answer you. The Coach Parrot is more about tactics than GE. In order to get any information about it we have to make a crucial theoric assumption about how game developers think (or tought) about game ratings. My assumption goes this way: When BBs designed team ratings they were trying to give us some feedback about how every tactic is supposed to work, and having that in mind, they designed the different ponderations for each skill in each position per tactic. They were NOT trying to tell you how the matchups are supposed to work (wich I think is the same for a 3PT shot wheter is that shot was taked for your C or your SG) but they were trying to tell you how tactic works.

That being said, I will continue.

While is of no doubt that Coach Parrat says that JR seems to be more important that JS for the PG (not SG) and that it this is also true for both guards when playing Push the ball.

I will ask you: Why you think is that way?

Because JR is suddenly almost the double of important than JS in Push the Ball for guards? Why is suddenly a little bit more important in R&G? More important, Why there seems to be that for PGs JR is more important than JS in such a consistent way when we know that JR is a relative cheap skill for PGs?

Can you come up with an answer about this when thinking in basket terms? This are the kind of answers behind the more subtlest aspects of the tactic battle that every game in BB is about. I have my answer BT (not sure if I want to start a tactic discussion thread, tough it might be interesting)

Do you have yours?

This of course, have little to do with the question I raised before (wich is a theoric situation in wich I was trying to analice how the matchups might be using skills). This is about tactics. Yes, they have do to with the previous situation but I look at it from an entirely different perspective.

I feel that I might be somehow vague in this post (I don't want to be the opposite) but I hope my answer might be of help this time. Anyway, I don't really think that having higher JR (over JS) is a mistake. I just happen to participate with my own understanding about the relation between JS and JR and tried to rise some other related things (The OD "problem" is a major thing in my opinion). Not like I said JR is worthless or anything like that (tough, I did say that JR without JS is worthless, but if you already have a decent JS more JR is always welcome. But, what will be better? We don't have infinite budgets).

I bet JS+Driving win in that case against the JR you said.

If a PG is the best in his team in passing the ball be sure that he can have a good JR, that if he doesnt have a bit of driving helping him with his JS-JR he will not make the best % in shot attempts.

I think that most of the top league teams have the view that the salary cost of JR is not worth the benefit, comparative to the relevant JS salary costs. It's not quite the same thing as saying that jump shot is superior to jump range.

I'm unconvinced that JR is too expensive, and currently have an even split on my best guard.

princeton offense, make our play off runs hell last season we lost 4 stright games.