BuzzerBeater Forums

Slow offenses generally destroy FCP, for future reference. If you had played Princeton, I think you win. 27 turn overs is a lot, but that's because of the hectic nature of your fast paced offense and his fast paced defense. I still think most times, you win this game and got a little unlucky.

Wow, I didn't see that coming: (98022324)
I was completely destroyed by Full Court Press. Can someone explain me if that match was just an unlucky result?

When your defense allows 150 points in a game that includes 12 minutes of garbage time, it's not entirely fair to say that the opposition's defense is what lost you the game. ;)

As far as the comparison in division, the players they started are at least significantly higher in salary than yours. That could mean little if your players are very well trained and the opponents' are not, but the odds are good that in this case his starters are better than the players you started, who appear to be normally your backups).

I think I agree with EBW in general that slower tactics are usually better against FCP unless you have horrible offensive flow, since it gives you a little better chance to take advantage of the reduced defense by probing for a better quality shot that should be available. On the other hand, you also scored 135, shot 55% and a over 40% from three, so I don't think your offense is the problem either.

In the end, it just looks like their offense was actually good enough that you were struggling to get defensive stops, and neither team missed too many shots for the rebounding advantage to really be effective, and thus the extra possessions gained from the 22 steals won the day.

Slow offenses generally destroy FCP, for future reference. If you had played Princeton, I think you win. 27 turn overs is a lot, but that's because of the hectic nature of your fast paced offense and his fast paced defense. I still think most times, you win this game and got a little unlucky.

I thought faster offence would suit better against FCP. As the opponent has many openings due to FCP, I thought there is no reason to pass the ball for at least around 15-16 seconds and shoot it with a good chance to score. Plus, as it can be seen, I had low level of offensive flow to play e.g. motion offence effectively.

When your defense allows 150 points in a game that includes 12 minutes of garbage time, it's not entirely fair to say that the opposition's defense is what lost you the game. ;)

Okay but I see FCP as a counter attacking strategy to convert successful defensive possessions to offensive possessions. My opponents' starters shot with 60% and I believe that there is no way, with the exception of FCP, that team could shot with that percentage.

As far as the comparison in division, the players they started are at least significantly higher in salary than yours. That could mean little if your players are very well trained and the opponents' are not, but the odds are good that in this case his starters are better than the players you started, who appear to be normally your backups).

I agree that my opponent has better players as it can be seen from salaries and end-game ratings but how come I have around 30 more average points per 100 offensive possessions? I think I got the edge. I'm not asking this to criticise your points but as an inexperienced coach, I wonder.

I don't claim that my players are trained perfectly but they are kind of multi-skill so they have lower salaries than they actually deserve. :)


Apart from my match, in principle, what do you think about usage of FCP in lower leagues? I think necessities for FCP are not that much. Basically it needs OD, and stamina. Stamina is a very fast training skill. With the addition of relatively high OD and some offence, I guess FCP might outclass relatively low offensive flows of lower leagues.

If you have very very good ball handlers and passers then a faster offense can dismantle FCP, but the general belief is that a slower paced offense gets better shots open for going against a FCP.

I would just like to add to this debate, that when people say "it is generally believed" or "it is accepted that" when referring to full court press, its generally believed or accepted by people who haven't used it.

The best offence against fcp is simply to do what you do best. Its that simple. Slow paced offences are good if you're worried about stamina and low post in particular works well but patient and princeton frankly wouldn't worry me at all. Obviously flow helps.

Its not simply a matter of OD either. There are players with 20 OD who don't steal any more than players with 15 OD and vice versa. That's all I'm willing to say on that. ;)

Its not simply a matter of OD either. There are players with 20 OD who don't steal any more than players with 15 OD and vice versa. That's all I'm willing to say on that. ;)

What are the other factors, in your opinion?

Slow offenses generally destroy FCP, for future reference. If you had played Princeton, I think you win. 27 turn overs is a lot, but that's because of the hectic nature of your fast paced offense and his fast paced defense. I still think most times, you win this game and got a little unlucky.

I thought faster offence would suit better against FCP. As the opponent has many openings due to FCP, I thought there is no reason to pass the ball for at least around 15-16 seconds and shoot it with a good chance to score. Plus, as it can be seen, I had low level of offensive flow to play e.g. motion offence effectively.

The slower offenses don't actually always take 16 or more seconds on the shot clock on every possession. What it does instead is basically raises the threshold of what is considered a good shot when evaluating whether a player should shoot or do something else with the ball. Against an FCP, if you survive the steal attempt, you should get a high enough quality shot relatively quickly.

I checked on Buzzer-Manager to find the season where I knew I'd played an FCP team a couple of times (well, only once in league it turned out) and found an example there and in a PL game later. The first game was the league opener, where we were both new promotees, and we both ended up in relegation series at the end of the year, but thanks to training and not having completing my offseason shopping, I was definitely playing with a worse roster, on the road. I still lost, and deservedly so, but I think the Princeton kept it closer: (89131579). (For comparison, our rematch we both played R+G and I lost at home by 2, 89-87). Notice I scored more points with a slow offense vs. FCP than I did with a fast offense vs. a 3-2, despite being on the road.

A better illustration of the slow offense against a bad FCP is the PL game from the same season: (90252832). Now, of course, the defense was simply not anywhere near the caliber of my outside offense anyway, but I also scored 114 in the first three quarters with a Princeton, before the bench came in to lay bricks.

Of course, if the flow is bad enough the slow offense is asking for even more steals, so at that point you may weight it more toward a motion or even R&G if you're concerned about too many turnovers. It's just that R&G instructs the players to jack up a shot quickly even if it's a fairly low quality shot, which means you're negating some of the advantage you're getting by facing the FCP, while still allowing the turnovers.

I agree that my opponent has better players as it can be seen from salaries and end-game ratings but how come I have around 30 more average points per 100 offensive possessions? I think I got the edge. I'm not asking this to criticise your points but as an inexperienced coach, I wonder.

Because PP100 are an interesting but utterly useless rating. I've lost count of the times where a SG with 90+ PP100 would put up a 3-17 (1-8) type performance. The amount of streakiness that seems to be on display, especially for outside shooting, simply doesn't have enough of a sample size in most games to consistently approach what is calculated if 100 shots were being taken. I fortunately have a poster child game for this too, a finals game where I ran patient with my best outside shooter at C against a friend of mine who I knew played Man to Man consistently, and whose center was a superb player but had horrible OD. (69079208)

Look at the box score and you see the C position (which he played 48 min at) was expected to put up 96.6 PP100. Look in the viewer, fast forward to the 36 minute mark and check out the stats, and he was 0-11, 0-2 from three, for zero points. The point there is not that I lost - I expected to lose and this was a halfcourt heave to try to steal the win because straight up my opponent was much better - but 0-11 on 96PP100 means either the PP100 stat was flawed or his shooting was flawed, and knowing his skills and the opposing center's skills, I'd expect a 10-11 ten times before an 0-11.

(97313878) :?

131 vs 150 bb stat - this guy on SF - Szlaski with 20% scored has ss10=140 if somebady want say he is weak ...

Last edited by toshii at 7/8/2017 3:38:56 PM

(97313878)

131 vs 150 bb stat - this guy on SF - Szlaski with 20% scored has ss10=140 if somebady want say he is weak ...

Beats me, but of course I'm still trying to figure out how I got a combined 6-37 (2-16) from the SG/SF positions (and excluding two garbage time threes in the last 1:24, it would be 4-35 (0-14). (96943305)

[edit: This might be the wrong thread, though. I deserved to lose something like 90-75, with a lot more turnovers, but if a 1-3-1 with home court can't get a team OD equal to my outside scoring, they shouldn't hold my team to that low percentage. ]

Last edited by GM-hrudey at 7/10/2017 12:42:41 PM