BuzzerBeater Forums

But does this not seem unrealistic? Would you put an NBA PG up against Lebron and expect good results?

The Pistons played Stuckey at the 3 for long periods on LBJ & others, with good results. I merely point this out as I am a Pistons fan!!!

There are alot of Post on this one, so please forgive me if someone else has already brought this up. Push the Ball seems to be the best Tactic, most BBB Finals have been won playing this way & your coach will play to where the team is having the most success. I play this way mainly & see a better performance from my team, although my Offensive flow is down compared to LIS or RNG.

The points per 100 shots, would this be affected by the 3pt shot, miss 2 3's=6--miss 2, 2"=4 & vise vercer. Bigger affect on your scoring percentage, one way or the other?

I do go along with the idea that the 3-2 Zone is too strong when defending the Inside, yes you could argue that the inbound pass would be harder, but good drivers, aka Wade, can & would eat up a 3-2 zone because they wouldn't need the inbound pass.
I've only been in this game since Christmas, so I'm still learning, so please be gentle if some of my comments don't make sense. :-)

The Pistons played Stuckey at the 3 for long periods on LBJ & others, with good results. I merely point this out as I am a Pistons fan!!!

Well, I do not know the game of basketball very well. But if a PG is a good option against a SF in real life, then I guess BB has it right and there is nothing to complain about.

But does this not seem unrealistic? Would you put an NBA PG up against Lebron and expect good results?

Of course it's unrealistic. True well-rounded SF's are very rare and historically haven't performed at a high enough level at their position to justify the costs to create/buy them.

The new GE made it difficult for the average big man at SF to perform successfully by finally increasing the importance of offensive flow skills. Now it's easier to succeed with more of a guard type player. It's not ideal, but considering the restraints caused by training options, it's definitely an improvement.

It's not ideal, but considering the restraints caused by training options, it's definitely an improvement.

Ok, you said it's not ideal so I'll give my suggestion:

-For the sake of defending a pass or dribble, limit the outside d of the player defending the SF by his inside d. So let's say his outside d is 12 and his inside d is 6, then when it comes to defending anything flow related, his outside d is only 6.

I can explain this logically by saying that a SF can be active inside or outside. So when defending a pass, if a player does not have high enough inside d he is not able to properly position himself to effectively stop both the pass and the shot. He has to stay back a bit to respect the fact that the SF could drive inside, or he is not able to post up well enough to stop both the shot and the pass, so he chooses to attempt to stop the shot.

I really don't see why you fix one issue (Cs dominate as SFs) to only replace it with another (PGs quite effective at SF).

To me, the most concerning part of your post was this, and it explains to me why high level PGs seem to sell for about the same as high level SFs, in spite of the fact that SFs are more rare:

True well-rounded SF's are very rare and historically haven't performed at a high enough level at their position to justify the costs to create/buy them.

I would tend to disagree with that somewhat, as I have managed to have good success with some fairly average players and one dominant (but cheap) SF this season. But it certainly seems to be the prevailing wisdom.


Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 1/26/2010 10:54:58 AM

There's also a disadvantage of having a PG at the SF postion compared to having a high driving inside men there.

If you play another PG there, 3 out of 5 positions fail to execute inside shots very well. You are relying heavily at your PF/C then, hoping they take the right amount of shots (which happens faster due to playing 3 PGs instead of 2, I agree).

Also you inside focus rating will be lower by playing an outside guy there. So playing a PG as SF isn't always the best option in inside focussed offenses I guess.

If you play an inside guy at the SF slot, you got 3 out of 5 shooters that should hit a fair % of shots, but you've got 1 guy less that can pass, thus you offensive flow will be worse. At the same time your OD will be lower so you defense will be worse.

So yeah, it's actually tough to choose which one to play at the SF slot. Isn't SF always the toughest position to choose players for? ;)

I would tend to disagree with that somewhat, as I have managed to have good success with some fairly average players and one dominant (but cheap) SF this season. But it certainly seems to be the prevailing wisdom.

Right, that's why i added "historically". In the past you could just as easily put a big man with tons of IS and overpower the other team at SF, plus you'd get all the extra rebounds without getting very man TO's, even against the guys you have built. The new GE has changed that, which i think is better (much better for the guys you've built too).

If you play another PG there, 3 out of 5 positions fail to execute inside shots very well. You are relying heavily at your PF/C then, hoping they take the right amount of shots (which happens faster due to playing 3 PGs instead of 2, I agree).

The issue goes even further than that if you play a 3-2 zone. This is because, if the SF goes inside he will still be matched-up against the PF or C. So really, unless you have a SF who can play with the big boys, you are effectively limited to 2 positions who can execute inside shots there, too.

There you have the reason why 3-2 zones can now be very effective against an inside offense.

Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 1/26/2010 11:19:04 AM

Probably, yes.

Although you could create some great shots if the SF can go inside and pass the ball to another big men if he walks against the PF or C. You'll see some great mismatches then I guess.

Although you could create some great shots if the SF can go inside and pass the ball to another big men if he walks against the PF or C. You'll see some great mismatches then I guess.

I think you'll have to elaborate on that a bit so I can understand. I'm having trouble seeing how that happens in BB.

Do you mean if your SF has good enough inside shooting and a decent amount of passing/handling, that he can force the zone into some bad rotations? Is that how the game engine works?

Everybody has the right to complain about whatever unfair situation of the game. They are as free as I am to disagree and give my opinion. I think we can agree on this, because I´m just giving my opinion as the rest of the users.

It seems that you and other users think that BuzzerBeater is just a game where the only choice you have is to decide between an inside or an outside focus, and that's all, and the only problem is how to equilibrate both. However, the old engine had a stronger unbalance between a slow and fast pace, but nobody cared about it...
With the old engine, most attacks in slow tactics finished with a bad shot in the last second. But nobody cares... because you cannot see this in the ratings, and ratings are of course the truth about BuzzerBeater.
Nobody cared about the offensive flow as well, and many wondered whether this rating was the most useless and without a real effect on the match outcome. This is also improved with the new engine, so two useless skills, handling and passing, are now necessary. This is an advantage for those team who already trained these skills and a disadvantage for those who don´t. It will take some time for those teams to catch up.

The goal of the game is to build a succesful team and make it work better than the others. You don´t have to make work a tactic or a particular kind of players, because you are playing against other humans, not machines, and they will attack your weakest points. And you have to defeat to the other 15 teams of your league, and not to defeat "run and gun" or "look inside".

Sometime ago, I bought a PF with good passing skill and good jump shot. It was really cheap, less than 1800k, probably because his salary is quite low for a PF (and misteriously people prefer to pay higher salaries). He is playing really well with Run&Gun (by the way not my favourite tactic) and he is now my player with most assistences. If you take a look to the transfer list you will not find absolutely any PF with the same skill distribution.

Of course everybody is free to pay 6000k for a 150k PF. You will easily get an incredible inside attack rating and you will feel the strongest team in the world. If this is not taking you to the top, maybe you are doing something wrong.





Last edited by Emilio at 1/26/2010 1:46:24 PM