BuzzerBeater Forums

Ok thanks Juice-Man

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

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 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.

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.

Your opponent just had a good shooting night, and that's all... Without this kind of things, this would be a boring game...

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.

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.

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