BuzzerBeater Forums

Oasis was outrebounded and it cost them the game. Playing 1-3-1 zone with such poor rebunding is asking to lose. So he defended the guy's outside jumpers only to be killed on the offensive glass. Plus, not only did he get destroyed on the boards, he also fouled a lot more. If this game happened in real life, I would be surprised if Oasis won. Outrebounded and 14 less FT attempts. This is a very typical formula for losing in basketball.

His attack was 8 and the outside defense of San Blas was 4.

Where is the difference in attack? I dont see it, Oasis had to score with more effective results, in the old game engine he would won it.

39,5 % in shoots, 36,1% in T3.

I dont really think that playing against a 2-3 and having a good attack u score just 98 points, when with new game engine its easy to score more than 110 points, it just sounds me ridicolous that with his attack and his opponent defense he scored that low, and what is worst, San Blas did 41-101.


Its random results, as new game engine is so random.

By the way, another surprising match, i was like Oo: (6784)

I think that last game was a joke of BB xDDDD

Why did this one go into OT, it's even more strange as brian's game?

(13252573)

Its random results, as new game engine is so random.

One thing is a random result,another is a bugged GE.That game was a little randomizede,but there are some signals over valutations that say that it's not so strange the won made by San Blas

If anybody can confirm... there seems to be more instances where your PF/C defends the perimeter, and when your guards defend the inside. (such that players sometimes guard other positions). Therefore, players that are more balanced are more important?

The understanding of the boxscore is always based on the hypothesis that team ratings are a precise description of the match. But from the very beginning of this game, it seems clear that this is not true. A few times, BBs have posted about this, and of course it is logical that it is not easy to summary the whole match, with the sophisticated BuzzerBeater game engine opperating in every single second, in just a few ratings, and logically it cannot be precise (and probably it is designed for not being so precise but this is another topic).
_
Of course, with time, some users can develop a kind of "empirical" or practical correlations between the result of the match and the team rates (i.e. you need two levels more of attack than the opposite defense in order to have a good chance of success). These correlations were not working very well with the old GE, but they were a good approach for a good number of matches.
Now with the new GE, people will have to develop new rules, which does not mean that the new GE is ramdom.
_
Now and before, the best way to understand what happened in a match is to watch de Live. If we were scientists, the experiment is the live of the match and the team ratings are a few notes taken by our just arrived laboratory assistant... We have to believe only what we see... and that is in the live match.
Tactics are always "tactics at the beginning", but the game engine can change them slightly to try to win the game when things do not run well. There are so many things happening in the match that cannot be traslated into ratings...
_

Last edited by Emilio at 8/5/2009 2:30:28 PM

Now and before, the best way to understand what happened in a match is to watch de Live. If we were scientists, the experiment is the live of the match and the team ratings are a few notes taken by our just arrived laboratory assistant... We have to believe only what we see... and that is in the live match.

This does not seems to be truth. Because, the live match has it's own misleading issues. Currently, everything seems to give you a incomplete puzzle sometimes difficult to understand and most difficult yet, to correctly predict.

I am not talking about the viewer, which may have technical problems. I am talking about "what is happening" in the match. For example, depending on the coach orders, you may have your starting player being defended by the reserve of the other team. You cannot see this in the team ratings, but this kind of matchups are important for the result of the match. That's just an example, but there are many others.

Currently, everything seems to give you a incomplete puzzle sometimes difficult to understand and most difficult yet, to correctly predict.

Just as difficult to understand or predict a real basket match, I guess.

If anybody can confirm... there seems to be more instances where your PF/C defends the perimeter, and when your guards defend the inside. (such that players sometimes guard other positions). Therefore, players that are more balanced are more important?

Yes, the zone defences have been made into excactly that, zone defences. So if you intend to use zones, then yes, it is good to have both ID and OD (and perhaps some SB,HN,RB too)

If anybody can confirm... there seems to be more instances where your PF/C defends the perimeter, and when your guards defend the inside. (such that players sometimes guard other positions). Therefore, players that are more balanced are more important?

Yes, the zone defences have been made into excactly that, zone defences. So if you intend to use zones, then yes, it is good to have both ID and OD (and perhaps some SB,HN,RB too)

ok, but sometimes zone defenses work a bit funny.
In my last game, with me playing r&g and my opponent defending 1-3-1 zone, I saw his PG defending on a dunk of my C.

With a 3-2 defense is quite common (2-3 times a game) to have the C defending on 5-6 meters jumper of opponent's guards.

Overall I feel that zone defenses are much less efficient than they used to be with the previous GE.