BuzzerBeater Forums

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?

I don't know how the game engine works, just guessing and trying. But if you field an inside men with some passing at the SF against a 3-2 zone, you said he's gonna walks into the zone defense of the big men if he gets inside.

This is probably true, but still they have to defend 3 guys then (the SF, your PF and your C). If the opponents outside SF (i don't think it's smart to play a 3-2 zone with an inside SF) defends your driving SF, you can take a quality inside shot due to the lack of inside defense of the SF. If you drive into the zone of the PF and C, your shot won't be of such a good quality due to the help defense. Then if the passing skill of the SF is high enough, he'll find a oppertunity to pass to your PF or C instead of taking the low quality shot.

If he succeeds, your PF and C kan take a high quality shot, since at least one of them is in the last case, or defended by the SF without much ID, or completely open. And this brings back the importance of multiskilled inside men as well, they have to be able to take a jumper when they recieve such a pass.

I'm just thinking and guessing, but it's seems logical this way.

Biggest problem so far is the high elasticity of guards and centers performance due to offensive focus.

Guards with enough development for inside focus will get freakin owned in a motion/rng attack, because, well, sacrifices need to be made, and they will not be able to reach lvl18/17 JS, and 13/14 JR and at the same time, 9/10 IS, and right now, so they will get handled by 15/16 OD guards.

The same will happen to big men and inside oriented offenses (will sacrifice inside skill so they will be handled easily by some 15/16 ID like the ones most teams already have)

In the end, balanced players will NOT result in larger variaty of tactics, but they will be BASE OFFENSE players, in order to avoid especific focus and thus making them more effective.

LOL, I wouldn't say a good option, but a good physcial PG has many uses guarding the 1,2 & 3 spots.