BuzzerBeater Forums

ever though about the points that the SF has the wrong skills for 2-3 and that LI isn't always the same?

you have to differ between a close range LI and a mid range LI. If your Bigs are far more stronger than your guards and your guards can pass exellent, you will have a close range LI. your bigs will take most of the shots near the rim. If your Guards are stronger, the whole play will slide to the mid range. your bigs take low percantage shots and your guards try to score more on their own. and now imagine, you are playing against a mid range LI with a 2-3 zone... yeah, you have the right defense but you defend the wrong players. if you don't believe me, take moutlinhos tool and watch through the games like i did. and you will see how the defense works, where and against what SB is effective and so on. i analized more than 500 games over the last seasons from LI, RnG, Iso, Motion over 3-2 zone, SB, defense to LCD and how the engine decides which player will play.
have fun

Quick thought on forfeiting. I have a team in my league that announced in our forums that he is quitting. He now forfeits every game so everyone that plays him gets a +50 PD. He is in the opposite conference as me so everyone in that conference gets an automatic 50 point lead on everyone in my conference which is a huge advantage come the championship game if the records are the same. Is there anyway other way to deal with forfeiting?

You could reply to Dermef's argument that a purely defensive + JS/JR Center, built to fit an outside offense, would cost less than the standard Center needed for a LI offense. I think it would be interesting to see more defensive centers.

That kind of big man would be a PF, not a center. It sounds like a trivial distinction but it means that outside skills still count for the salary calculation.

Sure, you can build a defensive PF that doesn't make that much money, but the problem with that is that a) he still costs more than a comparable look inside guard and b) while you can have a look inside guard with a great jump shot for those mid-range shots that you still take with look inside, your defensive center will be severely limited offensively when it comes to those inside opportunities that you get even with an outside tactic.

The reality speaks for itself. Teams with look inside players have been the most successful teams for a few seasons now and in my opinion it's not because outside tactics are weaker but because inside tactics are cheaper and thus give you better results for your money.

They would probably gain by a wider margin if he wasn't forfeiting. With a scrubs team, they would win by 80 easily.

ok well my perhaps this was a bad example because the guy quit. Im talking about the ones that forfeit to get a better draft. Not only is it in their best interest to have a worse PD but if they happen to have identical records as someone else because of forfeiting they get the tiebreaker and get the better draft pick. Not to mention how it completely ruins anyone's training minutes that happens to play against a forfeit. I think I remember a BB defending forfeiting saying it is a strategy but cant remember all that was said. Could there be an explanation of why forfeiting is allowed and how it enhances the game?

Last edited by Prof. Bricks at 3/13/2013 11:26:02 PM

You'd still only have 17 - 15 for inside defense, compared to 20 for outside defense on a similar guard. Sure, that guy would be good and relatively cheap, but it's also more difficult to train 17s for inside skills AND high jump range on one player... training one on one is much easier.

Something that I believe also contributes to the problem is that inside defense depends on ID and BL, outside defense depends on OD. Inside scoring depends on IS, outside scoring depends on JS and JR.

It's clearly easier to have high inside scoring and outside defense than high outside scoring and inside defense, which is reflected heavily in what we're seeing from the best teams.

Last edited by DerMef at 3/13/2013 11:50:38 PM

It's clearer than that. In comparing outside bigs to inside guards, the only thing that matters as a trainer is the amount of out of position training.

A top inside guard needs to play out of position to get IS. I would focus some off position training for PA and maybe some JR. I would not expect to have much more out of position training for the big compared to the guard. Ideally, you'd improve other off position skills but these standout as the most important.

Everything else can be done within the player's long term position. The number of skills to be trained is unimportant to me. Good players train into their prime no matter the build. Good outside bigs can be built, it just hasn't been done on a mass scale yet.

An improvement to 2-3, by way of a SB change, is a decent idea assuming its calibrated properly. Either way, I wish I hadn't started a long 15 season rebuilding plan as a LI team that's coming into its prime and finishing training head on with a change that is meant to limit its effectiveness.

I am still hoping that the GS hit is just a joke or will never happen.

You want to fix a minor problem (cup rentals) and at the same time, we see (heavy) impact on NTs, promoted teams, economy (sic!) and probably a couple of other things we dont think of now.

As a result we will probably see inflation coming back, more NT farm teams, inactive transfer market in the seocnd half of the season, NT coaches ranting about their teams being sabotaged...

There are like a dozen EASY ways of fixing the cup issue, without changing the WHOLE game. The "creative" staff fails once again. I expect this "feature" to become something half-baked like the 5th place fix.

EDIT: not intended to adress manon - just a general rant.

Last edited by Knecht at 3/16/2013 10:39:30 AM