BuzzerBeater Forums

Just to prove a point I went motion tonight. See: (25684272). Big surprise, my SF leads the way in scoring. He also picks up 5 assists. And actually, looking at the match-ups this seems like an off night for him on this occasion. You may also be surprised to know that his jump shot is not that high. And his jump range surely would not meet your requirements.

In any case, we probably will never agree on what a motion does, mostly because you insist that run and gun SFs are the cat's meow.

Often happens that the SF is the main focus of motion.But that's not the point.The point is to understand how R&G and motion distirbute the shots
Motion has more flexibility about the choice of the focus of the attack,as also your game says.You and your adversary have very diferent distributions of the shots,using the same tactic,because you have different strenghts and weaknesses
With R&G,no matter what are your abilities,the focus is almost ever on the same roles
This fact gives you advantages and disadvantages.If you have your strenghts in the positions that R&G distribution "likes" the most,it gives you strong advantages toward motion,because R&G have a more selective focus,but if you find a team that can fight your PG-SG and SF,motion give you a possibility to go beyond this obstacle.
It's a choice depending on the characteristics of your team

As I said I used to believe motion distributes the shots better but now I doubt if there is much difference. The pg and sg don't have to be the show man with RnG. Using tonight's game I just played as an example.(23332530) In this game I played a sg with poor outside shooting and passing and my pg has inept game shape. My sf, pf and even my C (to a lesser extent) were much better outside shooters. And guess what? Did my pg and sg ignore my better outside shooters and took the shots? Out of 93 shots only 19 were made by them (20.4%). With RnG which positions they play is not the most important, it's still the matchups. It's become a myth that RnG distribute shots to other positions poorly.

Last edited by 7ton at 9/4/2010 12:32:36 PM

Are you sure that Fecri didn't shoot a lot of tap-in,as he take a lot of offensive rebounds?He is the only player that shoot more than the expected(with the poor skills of your guards and the Sfs that had to take 1/3 of the total shots),but tap-in should be the solution

Pg is a less important offensive option than Sf in a R&G

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 9/4/2010 1:49:06 PM

Are you sure that Fecri didn't shoot a lot of tap-in,as he take a lot of offensive rebounds?He is the only player that shoot more than the expected(with the poor skills of your guards and the Sfs that had to take 1/3 of the total shots),but tap-in should be the solution

Pg is a less important offensive option than Sf in a R&G

Yes he made like 10 tap-ins and missed all of them!!! But that's not important. It just proves that he got those points from outside shooting. You said pg is less important. How about sg? My sf shooted more than both my pg and sg combined together, and pf more than either one of them, and C, still more than them, even if you take away the tap-ins. 19 shots out of 83 is still way too low (22.9%). Doesn't it tell you something?

Last edited by 7ton at 9/5/2010 5:35:05 AM

I agree, at multiple times in the season I have run a 3 big man lineup at heavy increase to my Inside Scoring and Inside Defense game ratings.

The three C offense is rumoured to be dead but obviously IMO can still work as long as that C has adequate ball handling and passing and of course OD, which is good for me because one of my Cs was drafted with respectable outside defense.

Are you sure that Fecri didn't shoot a lot of tap-in,as he take a lot of offensive rebounds?He is the only player that shoot more than the expected(with the poor skills of your guards and the Sfs that had to take 1/3 of the total shots),but tap-in should be the solution

Pg is a less important offensive option than Sf in a R&G

Yes he made like 10 tap-ins and missed all of them!!! But that's not important. It just proves that he got those points from outside shooting. You said pg is less important. How about sg? My sf shooted more than both my pg and sg combined together, and pf more than either one of them, and C, still more than them, even if you take away the tap-ins. 19 shots out of 83 is still way too low (22.9%). Doesn't it tell you something?

It tells me that it's all as expected.The point is not who score more points,because it depends from the percentages of the single game.The point of this discussion is to understand how R&G distributes shots.
The main focus of this tactic are the PG,SG and SF,so if you have weak PGs and SGs it's normal that your SFs will shoot a lot.PG,SG and SF shots 49 shot on 83,more than the half of the shots.Then,it's normal that if your weaker players are two of the three main focus of the R&G,the overall distribution of the ball will change a little bit.SF will have a good part of these shots drained by the guards,in fact Sf shoots the double of every other role in the game(without tap-in for your center,that not depends from the tactic),and a little part of the shots will be taken from your Pf and C

Your match is not indicative,because it's completely strange that someone will play an outside tactic with the guards as the two weaker players of the team.Try to play some games with a normal line-up(and good shape) for a R&G and then we could see better,.but you can't found your observation on a reaaly particular game

I think I have said all I want to say about motion and RnG and I don't want to repeat it anymore. I only want to say it's not pointless to play like this because in my league it's not uncommon to find that the opposition's sf have weaker OD than the guards, and even more so in pf. I do have better guards to play in pg and sg but I still worry about the opposition guards OD and I want to save my guards for the next game. I also know that my opposition was always going to play man/man. So I was just trying to get around it by playing my better outside shooters in sf and pf and create some mismatches. It got me a win without overcommiting my players to this game and I think it is a viable strategy if you know your opponents enough.

Your game style and choices could be right,but are completely pointless in the discussion that we have had in this thread,that was talking about other things

P.S. I want to see you to use these choices against better teams,with much more better big mans than the Pf your adversary had

I do not want to say too much more about this, since you have your view and I have mine and we are not going to change each others mind. I just thought it was interesting that you discarded my example out of hand. Saying something like the match-ups worked for me and that's why it was a bad example. However, I could do the same with a run and gun, the effect is just less pronounced (because usually the offense does not wait for better match-ups).

For example, if my SG gets shut down and my C is an excellent match-up, you could even see a weird shot distribution like this:

(22951511)

I know a run and gun should not work that way. But yes, because I ran a run and gun with the wrong kinds of players, it did not work right. Nothing surprising there.

However, if you go back and look at my game, there is not way I can win that with a run and gun. He shut down my PG and SG. Plus my SF is not a very good shooter. I would be lucky to score 70 points in that setting. Yet, in a motion, somehow I score 100 points.

For example, if my SG gets shut down and my C is an excellent match-up, you could even see a weird shot distribution like this:

(22951511)

I know a run and gun should not work that way. But yes, because I ran a run and gun with the wrong kinds of players, it did not work right. Nothing surprising there.

However, if you go back and look at my game, there is not way I can win that with a run and gun. He shut down my PG and SG. Plus my SF is not a very good shooter. I would be lucky to score 70 points in that setting. Yet, in a motion, somehow I score 100 points.

Maybe there's a misunderstanding,and we are talking about other things,because as I yet answered you in the previous message "The point is to understand how R&G and motion distirbute the shots"

I don't care the way you score,because it change game by game because of the specific conditions of the game

I care the way these tactics distribuites the shots,also in "strange" situations with strange line-ups.And I really don't see R&G working in so different way as I expected
The distribution doesn't seem so weird inthe game you posted,as Vacirca take a little more shots than a center should take,but I think he shooted some tap-in on offensive rebound that you should subtract from the count,as they are not caused by the tactic,and besides the percentages of shots on your total shots taken by the PG,SG and SFs seems nearly the same of an usual R&G game while the PF seems have taken less shots because between the two big mans the C was a better match-up

The distribution doesn't seem so weird inthe game you posted,as Vacirca take a little more shots than a center should take,but I think he shooted some tap-in on offensive rebound that you should subtract from the count,as they are not caused by the tactic,and besides the percentages of shots on your total shots taken by the PG,SG and SFs seems nearly the same of an usual R&G game while the PF seems have taken less shots because between the two big mans the C was a better match-up

I doubt Vacirca takes many tap-in shots in this game. He is up against a bad C but he himself is not a C. His inside shot is his main weakness, probably even worse at the time of this game because I have trained him in it since then.

I think on most occasions if he gets the rebound here under the basket he passes off, especially since he kills on the outside d vs flow match-up (note the 4 assists). But I would have to go back and look at the game. My guess is 95% of his shots were jumpers (and I note the 3-6 from 3 pt land).