BuzzerBeater Forums

Yes Trevor Ariza took the last shot because Kobe gave him the ball. How many times does that happen? Les change everything about the game based on the times somebody goes against the grain. Besides that you saw Ariza who can make a play go to the basket instead of Bynum shooting a 3 which is not in his arsenal.

The Roger Mason JR shot is a good example as the Lakers played stellar defense on the inbound and he was the one who got open and got the ball. I'm sure that was not the designed play and will guarantee that id they ran it again he would still not be the number 1 option.

Just because you have a go to guy in a game does not mean he should shoot all the time or more often. It just means that the team looks for him or he is the player who goes to the hoop and makes the dish or something along those lines.

The same ideas as if you’re up 2 with 15 secs left and have the ball and you’re inbounding after a basket or timeout. You look to get the ball to a better free throw shooter. I', m not talking about after rebounds when you can’t always find him but it is not always the best position players getting in the right position at the right time the way the GE is set up. And if adding some tactical depth would help managers get there team in better position to win games.

I don’t see why that is so hard to understand.

Yes Trevor Ariza took the last shot because Kobe gave him the ball. How many times does that happen? Les change everything about the game based on the times somebody goes against the grain. Besides that you saw Ariza who can make a play go to the basket instead of Bynum shooting a 3 which is not in his arsenal.

Trevor Ariza traveled.

The Roger Mason JR shot is a good example as the Lakers played stellar defense on the inbound and he was the one who got open and got the ball. I'm sure that was not the designed play and will guarantee that id they ran it again he would still not be the number 1 option.

My point exactly- the no. 1 option doesn't always get the ball. That's my point, not yours!?!

Just because you have a go to guy in a game does not mean he should shoot all the time or more often. It just means that the team looks for him or he is the player who goes to the hoop and makes the dish or something along those lines.

Unless he's covered, which might have been the case with your go-to guy.

The same ideas as if you’re up 2 with 15 secs left and have the ball and you’re inbounding after a basket or timeout. You look to get the ball to a better free throw shooter. I', m not talking about after rebounds when you can’t always find him but it is not always the best position players getting in the right position at the right time the way the GE is set up.

When does this happen in reality? The best player doesn't always get the ball- i.e. Roger Mason or Trevor Ariza. Sometimes he does- Kevin Martin end of overtime 2 . And sometimes that guy misses but he has shot with enough time left on the clock to get an offensive board and win the game i.e. John Salmons in the GS Sac game.

And if adding some tactical depth would help managers get there team in better position to win games.

I don’t see why that is so hard to understand.

Like I said, you want the game to be more of a coaching simulator, which it's not. There is another game out there where you set lineups and tactics by quarter and have more options in if your players shoot more, pass more, focus on d, etc. It was lame. I played it for about two weeks and quit. Maybe it would be more appealing to you. I think it's called chazaray or something like that.



Last edited by somdetsfinest at 1/16/2009 4:45:58 AM

I'm somewhat alarmed that it's assumed that a team would only take the best possible shot at any time, even in BB.

Players can and will make mistakes.

It sucks, but that's reality.

On the topic of the distribution of shots, check out BC Törööö's current cup game, (/BBWeb/reportmatch.aspx?MatchID=10336764).

Four elite in-position players and a lucky fan. One shot attempt so far for the lucky fan... wonder how near it was to being the best opportunity on the floor.

He did manage to score 6 points (including a powerful dunk). His defense was not so stellar though ...

Try not using 1 game as an example and look over multiple games and exclude out of bounds plays with 5 secs or less and you will see that 80% of the time the team gets the player they want the ball and i'm sure none of those times do they get their center wh cant hit 3's the game tying shot.

Even if you go back to Duncans game tying 3 last year in the playoff. He can hit that shot not the ideal shot for him but h can. You dont see Shaq or Dwight Howard popping 3's at the end of games.

Thats my point

3 times this year i have had a big man shoot an important shot from outside the paint at the end of a game. Yes you are right it happens from time to time but not every time.

that is something that cant be known as their is no way of telling basketball IQ's in this game so you dont know what type of shots they are taking. The messages in the game dont help you find out either.

So until more information is given to the managers we have no idea of knowing how good of shots they are or not. I assume the offensive flow is based on how good your shots are or not but i doubt it works very well.

that is something that cant be known as their is no way of telling basketball IQ's in this game so you dont know what type of shots they are taking

We sort of do, it's one of the player skills.

are you reffering to Experience

if so there is a huge differencce to experience and Basketball IQ

Last edited by GM-ksachs at 1/16/2009 12:26:23 PM

are you reffering to Experience

if so there is a huge differencce to experience and Basketball IQ

Who says, in the context of BB?

a player who has 10 years of experience has his knowledge of the game improve. It does not mean he understands how to play the game and when to make the correct move. That is usually part of the IQ. You see plenty of young players who come into the league with a better understanding then some talented players who have been around for years.

What BB thinks i have no idea. I would like to know if they wouuld like to respond.

Whats your opionion on this. I want to know how to improve my team so that the right players get the correct shot at the correct time not just shooting whenever they think is a good time.

a player who has 10 years of experience has his knowledge of the game improve. It does not mean he understands how to play the game and when to make the correct move. That is usually part of the IQ. You see plenty of young players who come into the league with a better understanding then some talented players who have been around for years.

Considering this is dealing in artificial intelligence, players wont have a natural, immeasurable IQ. The way it has to be done, under the current structure, is through experience.

Experience in BB does translate to IQ, with more experience equalling better and more appropriate shots, especially in the latter stages of a game.

The way to accomplish what you're looking for is to either build experience on players that you have, or make it a factor in future purchases.

BTW, I have a guy at strong, and he started out pretty low.