BuzzerBeater Forums

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).