BuzzerBeater Forums

Help - English > Trainees - 18 Bigmen

Trainees - 18 Bigmen

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
261712.34 in reply to 261712.29
Date: 8/3/2014 3:59:28 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
137137
Its deemed a waste of money to have guards with Sb, also very time wasting on the potential of them. I'm saying this in a way, like for example a pg/sg primaries and seconds have time limits to do. Sb would not get the proper attention within these time restraints none will do sb when they can get a better player overall, for the sake of just to play2-3 zone correctly . Maybe if you player, a sf with supreme guard skills. I don't see anyone ripping down their teams to do that either with the cost to do's of todays BB climate. I think if that is the case that BB want to say it works and is cheapest route to perform, Then teams will run LI/2-3 and who and what is going to stop it.

Like you said Gdp don't change the fundamental of it.

Last edited by Mr. Glass at 8/3/2014 4:09:47 PM

This Post:
00
261712.35 in reply to 261712.34
Date: 8/3/2014 9:40:58 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
766766
i agree
certainly in the scheme of things, to turn around train SB on your guards for - lets say best case scenario they both have respectable SB - train them for what, 8 weeks over the course of 2 seasons, just to get maybe 3 pops. such that they have Prominent SB - Is there a point to it?

The main question is, is there a measurable point to it.

The other unknown, is that maybe the secret to BB in general, not just 2-3 zone, is SB on guards. Maybe the impact of even moderate SB on guards is massive.

Pretty hard to measure. it also makes assumptions about how the game engine works. If a guard opposing a 3-point shot is still going to use SB to alter the shot after the opposition is going to take it, then logically, higher SB = reduction in opposition FG%.

but like i said, that starts to make assumptions about how the game engine works.

This Post:
11
261712.36 in reply to 261712.31
Date: 8/4/2014 4:16:08 AM
Woodbridge Wreckers
DBA Pro A
Overall Posts Rated:
13831383
Why do people only focus on 1 aspect (a negative one yes) of a 2-3 zone? Yes there will be some more uncontested passes, but certainly not all of them. If you give up say 10 extra shots uncontested, but on the other end you're able to defend the other 40 shots 50% better, then overall you have a better defense. On top of that you get more rebounds too.

I'm just pulling numbers out of my sleeve and I know they're not accurate, but it's to give an example that you need to look at the total picture. There hasn't been much research to accurately tell if the 2-3 zone is indeed a good option in certain matches, but I wouldn't dismiss it solely because there's a downside to it. It could very well be that the benefits outweigh the extra uncontested FG's.

This Post:
00
261712.37 in reply to 261712.35
Date: 8/4/2014 6:02:33 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
137137
Me personally I don't like to assume to much , Because when you assume its most likely wrong in a cartain way. I we can create a theory of that.. I reduces FG%.. A lot fo factors will be playing a part in that too.

I saw a guard player on the market like that , I think you or the other managers was discussing about having a very little Jr./r and sb and defense skills a few comment back. Those players are perfect for 2-3 zone./LI type of style of play.


Sb can work depends on who your facing. I think you still need some ID to make I more effective. Guard with Sb?? That's a new way of play. Its not hard to find that kind of player . some manager mess up youth and scrap him for cheap.