BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Moratorium on ALL new changes for one year

Moratorium on ALL new changes for one year

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
182276.56 in reply to 182276.55
Date: 4/25/2011 6:16:13 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
192192
You need to define "efficient and versatile" for me. I would be willing to share with you via BB-mail the skills of my players to see if they count as efficient enough for your purposes. I can promise you that they aren't good enough to run a 2-3 zone without major problems (and at a previous point I used to own players who by your understanding should be even more suited: still to no end).

More balanced, really. Especially at the forwards, and in the balance between OD and ID (ex: of course 2-3 won't work if your PF has low OD). Those balanced players aren't trained enough and they go for huge prices on the TL because they're so rare. Your team is awesome, no doubt, but if you have strong secondaries at every position and balanced forwards, you'd be one of the few.

Amen to that. I'm just not sure that a moratorium on all new changes is the answer.

Might not be. The idea would be to make the process of changing the game more arduous. There are other ways to do this, but a moratorium would be easy and would give the community peace of mind.

This Post:
00
182276.59 in reply to 182276.57
Date: 4/25/2011 7:50:18 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
192192
So it seems that the view you'd need to defend is that although there are players that would make you better at running a 2-3 they make you worse at running MTM.

Just as there are players that make you better at running R&G or Motion, and worse at running LI or LP.

Teams are built around tactics, so no team that can run any tactic will be specialized enough to run one or two tactics well. Maybe the problem is that managers train/buy players that work best in man-to-man, but it's also possible to train players who are great in the various zones (but weak in M2M).

Interchangeability is not only a false ideal; it takes the strategic team-building element out of the game. What fun is it if you're trying to do nothing else but fit into a singular mold?

Last edited by RiseandFire at 4/25/2011 7:51:43 PM

This Post:
00
182276.61 in reply to 182276.58
Date: 4/25/2011 7:53:28 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
192192
Hard to make a concrete judgment one way or another without knowing the skills of his teammates.

This Post:
00
182276.63 in reply to 182276.60
Date: 4/25/2011 7:56:56 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
192192
I'm not trying to paraphrase Charles, and some of this is devil's advocate-esque in nature - the point being that alternate explanations may exist, beyond "2-3 is broken."

But it's my understanding that 2-3, 3-2, and 1-3-1 have inside/outside emphases, so if you build a team that can play those, isn't that preferable to going M2M? (Depending on your matchup of course.)

Last edited by RiseandFire at 4/25/2011 7:57:25 PM

This Post:
00
182276.65 in reply to 182276.62
Date: 4/25/2011 8:04:05 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
192192
True. I wish I had the means to test it to the point where sample size is a non-issue. I'm training players who will theoretically be good in 2-3, but I still don't have the means.

I do assume that Charles, who does have the means, is onto something when he alludes to 2-3 working, however.

Advertisement