BuzzerBeater Forums

BB USA > Mentoring: A closer look at 1 team

Mentoring: A closer look at 1 team

Set priority
Show messages by
From: brian

To: Xarn
This Post:
00
88540.59 in reply to 88540.58
Date: 5/18/2009 10:38:49 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
It will lower your rebounding and inside def a little more from a 3-2 zone, but it will also kill his outside attack.

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

This Post:
00
88540.60 in reply to 88540.59
Date: 5/18/2009 10:45:17 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
3636
Okay. So I understood the pro's and con's properly. That's encouraging.

Looking at his team, however. I don't see that I can afford to sacrifice rebounding in favor of outside defense, given his inside scoring strength as well. I'm hoping to maintain my edge by leaning on his outside scoring a little, to take away his strongest sector and by controling the glass.

Is this philosophy correct?

From: brian

To: Xarn
This Post:
00
88540.61 in reply to 88540.60
Date: 5/18/2009 10:57:56 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
Okay. So I understood the pro's and con's properly. That's encouraging.


The only reason I wouldn't play 1-3-1 is if it wasn't certain he'd be going outside.

I don't see that I can afford to sacrifice rebounding in favor of outside defense, given his inside scoring strength as well.


Based on your last meeting, im not seeing his inside scoring as being an issue. Though, he did hit 8 of 27 from three so a 1-3-1 would have likely done better at lowering that.

take away his strongest sector and by controling the glass.


3-2 will still give up rebounding from M2M though. You're still giving up the inside def and rebouding a little, for a little more OD. I'd rather give up a few extra offensive rebounds for a lower shooting percentage.


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

This Post:
00
88540.62 in reply to 88540.61
Date: 5/19/2009 10:17:04 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3636
Thanks for the great advice.

We pulled out the win. It looked grimm at half time. Slight 1 pt lead but we were getting crushed on the boards.

From: brian

To: Xarn
This Post:
00
88540.63 in reply to 88540.62
Date: 5/20/2009 8:22:17 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
Yeah, it's a game of huge swings as I was down 11 in the 1st and up 4 at half but ended up winning by almost 20.

This meeting you gave up 6 more offensive boards, but the trade off is his greatly lowered matchup ratings (ie, the best measurement for how his offense would expect to perform on average)

At every position his ratings were lower, and at SF and PG they were just about cut in half. While the result was just about the same you looked like a bigger favorite yesterday based on ratings.

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

This Post:
00
88540.64 in reply to 88540.63
Date: 5/21/2009 5:08:48 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3636

This meeting you gave up 6 more offensive boards, but the trade off is his greatly lowered matchup ratings (ie, the best measurement for how his offense would expect to perform on average)

At every position his ratings were lower, and at SF and PG they were just about cut in half. While the result was just about the same you looked like a bigger favorite yesterday based on ratings



Would you mind elaborating a little bit on the bolded part. I guess I don't understand how the individual position ratings are more important than the results of the events. (ie he got more Offensive rebounds this game, therefore had more shots, therefore could've shot a lower percentage and still come out ahead on points)

I"m trying to put together the way the ME makes sense of things.

From: dray

To: Xarn
This Post:
00
88540.65 in reply to 88540.64
Date: 5/21/2009 7:39:18 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
55
Wow. I'm a member of some feds with some of you guys but never even knew this forum existed.

I'd love to bounce some things off some or one of you guys if anyone has the time. Just want to make sure I'm on the right track.

From: Xarn

To: dray
This Post:
00
88540.66 in reply to 88540.65
Date: 5/21/2009 10:00:46 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3636
You're more then welcome, in my opinion, to post your questions here. The more activity and scenarios I get exposed to, the quicker I'll pick up on the game.

From: brian

To: Xarn
This Post:
00
88540.67 in reply to 88540.64
Date: 5/21/2009 10:25:23 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
So the team ratings are fairly obvious and similar to HT ratings. The matchup ratings indicate how many points you expect that position to score over 100 shots.

In the playoff game Collossus' matchup ratings were much much lower.

The obvious explanation for Collussus greatly reduced matching ratings was you switched to 1-3-1 zone which is more aggressive at stopping his outside Motion attack.

Last edited by brian at 5/21/2009 10:48:26 PM

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

To: Xarn
This Post:
00
88540.68 in reply to 88540.65
Date: 5/21/2009 10:41:07 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
576576
As for the rebounds it was pretty close between the games.

In the league game the offensive rebound rate was:

Collossus - 33%
XSteppers - 28%

For the playoff game:

Collossus - 34%
Xsteppers - 25%

Really pretty close over all and not much you can take from that. On top of this the current rebounding system is kind of random and is being overhauled for next season. The main point here is your didnt get killed on the boards as a result of the change in defense, but you did get your opponents matchup ratings way down and put your team in a better position to win.

Last edited by brian at 5/21/2009 10:42:38 PM

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

This Post:
00
88540.69 in reply to 88540.68
Date: 5/22/2009 8:18:58 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
3636
Thanks for elaborating.

The team ratings, you were right. They are obvious and that's how I had been "scouting" my opponents in the past. The points per 100 shots, I was treating as fluff and inconsequetional. Good to know it actually has meaning.

Advertisement