BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Would someone like to explain...?

Would someone like to explain...?

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
8033.54 in reply to 8033.53
Date: 12/3/2007 4:50:25 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
55
Thx for the Answer Juice ;)

I dont mind close games and to loose, but out of 7 losses this season i was 5 times the better team and the other two losses i was about as strong as my opponent. The games I won i was clearly better... That gives my the feeling, that it doenst make any sense to analize the opponent every time and put your team to win.. because if you are not clearly better like Celtics compared to Philly , just better like the New Jersey compared to New York, then the chance to loose is still very very high.

It s kind of frustrating, in my Group, the Play-Off spots are all held by bots.. kind of weird. Realistic to me would be stats of 7 wins to 4 losses, i have stats of 4 wins to 7 losses. I explain 4 losses. 2 are okay and 2 losses out of five games against worse teams can happen.

I hope that changes somewhen. In Switzerland two bots are in the quarter finals of the cup as another example. Sorry for my english.

Regards,

Findal

This Post:
00
8033.55 in reply to 8033.54
Date: 12/3/2007 5:01:42 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
303303
If there was a more extreme gap in the ratings, then you could expect to win just about every one of those games.

The ratings were close enough, however, that an individual performance could end up trumping that, and it appears to be the case.

It is unlucky, of course, and that does suck, but the luck will run in your favor at some point.

NO ONE at this table ordered a rum & Coke
Charles: Penn has some good people
A CT? Really?
Any two will do
Any three for me
Any four will score
Any five are live
This Post:
00
8033.56 in reply to 8033.55
Date: 12/3/2007 5:06:03 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
55
Ok thanks Juice-Man

I hope it will turn out right.. bought a whole new team because of my losses.)


From: Wixix

This Post:
00
8033.57 in reply to 8033.51
Date: 12/3/2007 11:42:32 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3636
OK, now I know why my oponent had about a hundred points, but also all my players have respectable (inside, outside or both) shooting, so I might have had about hundred and fifty points.. maybe it´s just bad luck.. I will have a look at SG with better defense, thanks for answering :)

This Post:
00
8033.58 in reply to 8033.48
Date: 12/4/2007 7:40:26 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
55
This really is wrong though and it's been said many times, you're team just wasn't that much better. Get over the 2 levels better/talent discrepancy stuff as is the gap between your two teams just isn't there.

In HT, if you line up two teams with ratings that are mostly "wretched/poor" w/ a couple "weaks" against each other and anything can happen.


When my lowest rating is higher than his highest rating, that's a gap, IMO - in HT it would be like my LOWEST rating being Poor (Medium) and his HIGHEST rating being Poor (Low). That's a significant difference - in a recent HT game I just crushed a bot team 9-0 with a similar gap:

Thunder Road
Midfield disastrous (very high)
Right Defence weak (very low)
Central Defence weak (high)
Left Defence weak (low)
Right Attack poor (very high)
Central Attack poor (high)
Left Attack poor (high)


FC Murph
Midfield disastrous (high)
Right Defence wretched (low)
Central Defence poor (very low)
Left Defence wretched (high)
Right Attack wretched (high)
Central Attack wretched (low)
Left Attack wretched (low)



And I had an average of about 25 points per 100 shots at every position in the matchup ratings. My FG% was quite a bit higher.

He has more free throws but didn't sink any more than I did (I was 13/18 from the line and he was 13/31), and sure he nailed a few 3PGs but 5/21 is hardly a testament of outside strength.

This Post:
00
8033.59 in reply to 8033.58
Date: 12/4/2007 3:47:10 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
And if HT wasn't a one-trick-pony, midfield wins 99% of the time, (which they are working on), you'll lose that game 1 in 5 times.

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
From: Bevzil

This Post:
00
8033.61 in reply to 8033.60
Date: 12/4/2007 11:05:05 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
7474
Your opponent just had a good shooting night, and that's all... Without this kind of things, this would be a boring game...

From: brian

This Post:
00
8033.62 in reply to 8033.61
Date: 12/4/2007 11:12:31 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
Yep. Really have to take a closer look at the match-ups and see if there was any individual mismatches, which I don't really have the energy to do.

Passing looks like it needs improvement, as well as FT's.

"Well, no ones gonna top that." - http://tinyurl.com/noigttt
This Post:
00
8033.63 in reply to 8033.62
Date: 12/4/2007 11:55:00 PM
1986 Celtics
IV.21
Overall Posts Rated:
88
i'm thinking i should calculate some sort of exact factor that said how screwed you were by luck in a game... even more explicit that i have it now.

This Post:
00
8033.64 in reply to 8033.63
Date: 12/5/2007 2:29:41 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
I think all that would do is cause people to complain that they are historically unlucky, or call for the random factor to be reduced. I think the system is fine as it is now. If i have an SG who is usually a 50% shooter, and he has a night where he only shoots 30% thats fine - happens all the time in real life, and I assume he'll have nights where he shoots 60% too.

You want people to stay focused on the skills of their players in relation to how they lost the game, looking at box scores, trying another tactic, etc., not give them an out by introducing a "how bad did i get screwed" meter.

.02