BuzzerBeater Forums

for me it isn't OT i think both games could show, that the influenced from the SF for the RB is quite strong, even when in your case even the dominance from him under the basket play a role.

PS. i was forced to play like that, because of my GS so i didn't learn ;) Even when i like to try this tactical move, after my last PL games.

(25780057) - a example how useful Rebounding could be at SF,

Yes, against a SG who probably has very little rebounding.

I agree that rebounding is important for a SF and I should have mentioned it before. But I got bogged down in the "inside shot is king on a SF" topic. However, I think you only need just enough, I would not go overboard. Because once rebounding is close enough to your opponent on your PG/SG/SF, the rebounding battle is really between the PFs and Cs.

Not only that, but as jbmcrock has taught me, rebounding is expensive on a SF. You start going over prominent-prolific and you will have trouble affording your other players.


Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 9/3/2010 11:56:59 AM

Yes, against a SG who probably has very little rebounding.

no against with the second most games at the german nationalteam at this position ;) or maybe third must, he could rebound i could promise you that. Maybe not that high but around 9 it is.

Not only that, but as jbmcrock has taught me, rebounding is expensive on a SF. You start going over prominent-prolific and you will have trouble affording your other players

if you had it on sf, your c could have a bit less on it ;) And honestly the salaries increase it not close to the salary increase a center got.

Because once rebounding is close enough to your opponent on your PG/SG/SF, the rebounding battle is really between the PFs and Cs.

i am pretty sure lost both matchups there ;)

Last edited by CrazyEye at 9/3/2010 12:00:48 PM

no against with the second most games at the german nationalteam at this position ;)

Are you talking about this guy: (2221843)? He is averaging 1.1 offensive and 4.3 total rebounds on the season. My PG with respectable rebounding did better than that last season, playing PG. This guy seems to play SF often enough, so he should get more chances at rebounds. He has 6 RB max, probably even lower.

but your pg haven't that good rebounder by his side, and for me rebounding isn't a poor matchup thing - and he usually averages more then 5 each season ;)

Pretty sure he had 8/9 when i was in the NT staff.

Pretty sure he had 8/9 when i was in the NT staff.

I still don't believe it, unless you just had really good dice rolls for this game. Wendon has 10 rebounding and his averages this season in France pro A are: 2.5 9.6 offensive/total. The only time you see a SF get shut out like that is if the guy on the other side is completely dominant over him. Something like 12 vs 5 rebounding or 14 vs 6-7.

Once you get 14 vs 10 or 15 vs 11, for example, the match-up starts to even out again and the rebounds will be basically split between the SFs.

Even if it was 16 vs 9, I would still expect at least 1 offensive rebound for every 2 that you got at the SF position. Although, this also assumes that you did not beat him in rebounding at the PF and C positions. But if you did, why are we focusing on the SF so much?

I think that in a R&G a Sf is more important than in a motion offense,because while in R&G only guards and Sf take the main part of the shots,in a motion offense also the PF take a lot of shots

I disagree. The furthest I will go is that the SF is just as important in a run and gun as in a motion. However, yes indeed, if your SF has bad passing and handling, they will do much better in a run and gun setting.

In a well made R&G you have only three main offensive options,in a motion offense you have four main options(including PF).If your Sf fails in a motion attack you are in a slightly better situation that if the Sf fails in a R&G,because you could have more options in attack to make up your offensive situation
Surely Sf is fundamental in both the tactics,but is more fundamental in a R&G

If your Sf fails in a motion attack you are in a slightly better situation that if the Sf fails in a R&G,because you could have more options in attack to make up your offensive situation
Surely Sf is fundamental in both the tactics,but is more fundamental in a R&G

Maybe. But if a SF fails in a motion, he needs to be able to pass it to a better option. Actually, he needs that ability even if he does not fail. ;-) If he fails in a R&G, the importance of passing is not as pronounced. Not only that, but if the SF is an good option in the motion, he will take a lot of shots and score a lot.

So, you need to understand that when I say a SF is more important in a motion, I am not only talking about shooting skills.

Actually, this gets to the heart of the two offenses. In the run and gun the offense will not wait to find a better option (so the SF will probably shoot even if covered). But in the motion he is more likely to pass in that scenario.

I was trying to dig up examples but my only good SF these days is playing too much PG and C.

Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 9/3/2010 1:40:43 PM

the sf-position is tricky.

'core' for me are both outside- and inside d, jumpshot and rebounding. i disagree with steve_karren here. the reboundskill has nothing to do with outside or inside focus in my opinion since is mostly a defense-skill.

offensively i'm with HeadPaperPusher. depending on your tactics you should choose to ad either some range or some insideshot.

a sf with a balanced skillset will help you to switch offensive focus BUT if your opponent is right with his tactical choices your balanced sf could have a hard time to win his matchup versus a specialized guy.

Rebound is both an offensive and a defensive skill.Rather, I would say that rebound is more important in offensive field that in defensive field,as it gives you a lot of second opportunities shots,while in defensive field you will not rebound if you not defend before ;D
I never said that rebound is not important for a SF,but you have to exploit at the most your training time to build the best SF possible,so you have to do your choices when you train a SF
A Sf has to have at least one good-developed shot,and both the defences to be able to play in the SF spot.So,whatever is your choice,you had to train Id and Od and IS or JS-Jr together.So,rebound is at least behind some skills.
For the inside Sfs,rebound is the 3rd skill behind Is and ID,at the same level of OD.For the outside SFs is at least behind JS-JR-OD and ID.
A versatile player(not forcedly balanced) need also the other attack at good level,so for an outside skill I would put Is at least at the same level of rebound,and for an outside player JS at the same level of rebound

So,It's not a question of"how much important is rebound",but is a question"how much I can remove from the other skills training to give him rebound?".And you often have to face the potential cap

If your Sf fails in a motion attack you are in a slightly better situation that if the Sf fails in a R&G,because you could have more options in attack to make up your offensive situation
Surely Sf is fundamental in both the tactics,but is more fundamental in a R&G

Maybe. But if a SF fails in a motion, he needs to be able to pass it to a better option. Actually, he needs that ability even if he does not fail. ;-) If he fails in a R&G, the importance of passing is not as pronounced. Not only that, but if the SF is an good option in the motion, he will take a lot of shots and score a lot.

So, you need to understand that when I say a SF is more important in a motion, I am not only talking about shooting skills.

Actually, this gets to the heart of the two offenses. In the run and gun the offense will not wait to find a better option (so the SF will probably shoot even if covered). But in the motion he is more likely to pass in that scenario.

Yeah,that's the problem.You have not to see to the best case scenario,where in both the tactics SF will score a lot and with good percentages.You have to see the worst case scenario,when Sf fails
Losing an offensive option damages a lot the offensive flow,because when the GE had to decide to whom pass the ball,it appraise if a mismatch is good or not,so it has more difficulties to find a good shot for all the players of the team.The Ge has more choices in a motion than in a R&G if Sf fails,so the whole offensive flow became worse in a R&G than in a motion

Yeah,that's the problem.You have not to see to the best case scenario,where in both the tactics SF will score a lot and with good percentages.You have to see the worst case scenario,when Sf fails
Losing an offensive option damages a lot the offensive flow,because when the GE had to decide to whom pass the ball,it appraise if a mismatch is good or not,so it has more difficulties to find a good shot for all the players of the team.The Ge has more choices in a motion than in a R&G if Sf fails,so the whole offensive flow became worse in a R&G than in a motion

I see we are thinking along the same lines, but I think you are also seeing your R&G in the best scenario. No matter how you slice it, run and gun puts the emphasis on the PG and SG with a lesser focus on the SF. Yes, if your SF is much better option than your guards he could get a good share of shots. But if he had some passing and handling, he would have had those shots plus extras in a motion.

Motion shifts the focus away from the guards and down to the SF and PF (but still less on the PF than the SF, all things equal). It also puts a lot more focus on passing and handling, while taking it away from jump shot and range. If you want your SF to be the focus of your offense, this is the outside tactic of choice. The SF is the focus, not just in shooting but also in distributing the ball.

Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 9/3/2010 2:31:03 PM