BuzzerBeater Forums

Isnt this about outside players are usually bad at ID?

I guess you statement can become a going point for discussion.

Look inside being strong is fine. The lack of anything that you can do when you know your opponent will look inside is the problem. 3-2 deals well with outside offences, 1-3-1 does in an even more extreme way. Nothing does anything at all to slow a LI offence. If the BBs are 100% determined to leave 2-3 zone as useless as it is...

"it isn't broken, you just need the right players, with at least wondrous OD, ID and SB to make it work..."

then can they please introduce some new defence. Call it double-post or something. But make it that it actually incrreaces your inside defensive ratings in the same way 3-2 or 1-3-1 zones increace your outside ratings.

My post is about Look inside in deciding games.

(39008681)

Your loss in the B3 is case and point.

you were the 14 seed playing the 30. You knew he was going look inside. You 2-3 zoned him, and he still shot almost 50%. I admire your versatility, truth be told, i have myself vowed not to use LI except against certain teams (Sharman). But when it comes down to it, people are going to Look inside and with you only having a prolific inside D his wonderous inside scoring, what else coudl you do...to not lose by double digits.

Im just sayin, the last 7 games of the B3 were LI vs LI.

theres no coincidence about that.

27.6% is a lions share IMO when you ahve 10 options.

Consider that some tactics are rubbish (the two isolations, princeton, base offence is ok but who uses it?)

Maybe de 2-3 tactic should have a little change in order to act more closely as it should be.
This is what would be right, not the removal of the look inside.

Agree 100%

IMHO, why LI is so succesfull and everybody use it so much? Because it's easy to use. It relies solely on IS of the two big men plus a SF that's actually another PF with much more OD.

Why R&G isn't used as much as LI? Because you have to rely on JS... and JR... and Driving. That's a 3-skill set.

Yeah Driving is useful also for big men, but they don't need high levels since is considered more an "outside set" skill, so it's effective even at low levels for them.

A solution? Delete that crappy skill called "shot blocking", who needs 20 levels of that s***? Replace it with a "limitator skil" for IS, like JR is for JS, and call it, let's say, "Low post" or "Post moves"... in this way, you'll need at least 2 skills for using Inside Tactics effectively. Combine this with the necessity of having a good Ball Movement and you'll have a fairer set of tactics.

Last edited by RainMan13 at 10/28/2011 10:32:30 AM

IMHO, why LI is so succesfull and everybody use it so much? Because it's easy to use. It relies solely on IS of the two big men plus a SF that's actually another PF with much more OD.

Why R&G isn't used as much as LI? Because you have to rely on JS... and JR... and Driving. That's a 3-skill set.

Yeah Driving is useful also for big men, but they don't need high levels since is considered more an "outside set" skill, so it's effective even at low levels for them.

A solution? Delete that crappy skill called "shot blocking", who needs 20 levels of that s***? Replace it with a "limitator skil" like, let's say, "Low post" or "Post moves"... in this way, you'll need at least 2 skills for using Inside Tactics effectively. Combine this with the necessity of having a good Ball Movement and you'll have a fairer set of tactics.

I honestly think this isn't related to a "broken" 2-3 or due to a "overwhelming" LI. In my opinion this is about popular knowledge and player availability.

Most managers already do know how to play an inside offense and it's pretty easy to find players in the market to do it. But we don't have the same experiencia with neutral or outside offenses plus it's not easy to players to run them.

A untested hyphotesis could be that player availability it's strongly related to the needs of training of every team and if most teams know how to make a succesful inside offense they are going to train players for it, some of them will be sold and some of them will reamin within the team. If you already have inside offense oriented players in your team, you have a "strategic commitment" with the inside offense. This means that it's harder to change to another offense than to continue specializing in LI. But, since managers are not stupid, they have seen the value of being able to play more tactics. And what we have seen it's an effort to build a "two offenses" teams, but always having in mind the strategic commitment already made to inside focus. This two-offenses teams are able to run inside or outside focus but the inside one is always the strongest, therefore, it's most played in harder games like B3.

The issue is that new teams and followers managers look at how are playing top managers and continue to see LI as the dominant effort, and since player availability is dominated by the training patters of mayority(non-top managers), everything reinforces LI. That's why we don't see 15-19-17 C's and we find tons of 19-17-15 C's. Same phenomenon occurs when looking player availability for guards and SF's. This makes even harder to switch to another offenses.

My post is about Look inside in deciding games.

(39008681)

Your loss in the B3 is case and point.

you were the 14 seed playing the 30. You knew he was going look inside. You 2-3 zoned him, and he still shot almost 50%. I admire your versatility, truth be told, i have myself vowed not to use LI except against certain teams (Sharman). But when it comes down to it, people are going to Look inside and with you only having a prolific inside D his wonderous inside scoring, what else coudl you do...to not lose by double digits.

Im just sayin, the last 7 games of the B3 were LI vs LI.

theres no coincidence about that.

(36548637) - and lets take a closer look at that Look Inside......you play your $390k Center at SF against Choi....... I gave you respect and defended 2-3 & TIE.

You still have to have the right players for Look Inside to be effective. If you want to blame something blame the salary calculator.

PF's & C's are more expensive wage wise and less to pick up transfer fee wise...... thats the real reason most teams build to play Look Inside. Now if they ban short term trades or add salary caps maybe managers wont spend their first 2mil on 2 bohemoth big men in order to pick up some easy wins.. maybe they'll take a more gradual growth curve upwards.

Too many look inside tactics ??

One solution use 2-3


thread-