BuzzerBeater Forums

That is completely disanalogous, given that there are two jump shooting ratings

So because of this we can readily dismiss the fact that the general population seems to ignore one of them? I have, multiple times, read in this forum that "JR 9 seems to be enough for just about anything".

(moreover: JR and IS are not parallel at all: the impact of JR on salaries makes me believe that it wasn't meant to be trained as high as IS).

You don't give team orders based on the suggested position of a player, right? Why would you then pay so much attention to how salary is calculated, given that salary is basically what determines positions?

A better analogy would be something like JS arund 14 and JR around 11 which gives roughly proficient ratings.

This still doesn't explain your conclusion that the two ratings do not correspond correctly. The fact that people train and field guards that are 14/11 instead of 11/14 doesn't mean that the system is broken.

Why is it a better analogy? Because it roughly correlates (modulo matchup issues) to the same scoring effectiveness relative to a fixed level of defense.

Sure, if you ignore everything else the game engine is doing (offensive flow, defensive adjustment, etc).

Hmm, your game is a good example of the problem I had as well.

I was an inside team, making use of leaks in the old engine by ignoring my guards and using the powerfull inside tactics. My higher IS almost always won from the higher ID.

However in the new engine it isn't that simple anymore. You can't just ignore your guards. You need to have guards that can actually bring the ball to your dominating inside men, thus you need offensive flow in the new engine. Chile clearly lacked that. While they dominated at the inside, the guards took 33 shots. The guards and SF (who was dominated by his opponent) took 54 shots out of a total of 87.

The C/PF took 33 shots, hit 18 of it. That's pretty decent shooting.

I don't know if it's true or not that the IS rating is off, I didn't study many games, but what I do know is that many teams ignored their outside game, focussing on playing a PF/C at the SF position to dominate the inside in the old engine. And that many of those teams, (myself included) started to complain about the inside when the new engine was released. It took me a while to realise the problem wasn't the engine, nor the ratings. It was the lack of ability of my guards to deliver the ball.


Last edited by BB-Patrick at 11/19/2009 12:46:45 PM

Yeah I guess its Offensive Flow vs Outside Defense that determines your effiecieny. In your 2nd game ratings are inflated due to OT.

I also think Chile would win that game 8/10 times, just a bit unlucky and a lot of turnovers.

But ok I get your point.

People are confused by the fact that the IS ratings can be so high and yet so ineffective.

They assume that if you have an IS rating of sensational/tremendous versus a strong ID you're certainly going to win against an outside offense that does proficient OS versus a strong OD.

This is obviously not the case.

Possible Objection: some people will get confused.

Reply: many people are confused by the current rating.

Well ratings are not there only for the two side but also for third teams to scout. So I vote no - it still shows particular strengthts of backourt or frontcourt and I would like to keep that. I don't care how it impacts the game, there are other ways to see that.

There is one problem I notice which is only tangentially related to ratings and more related to the engine itself.

Getting the ball to an inside player is not ONLY about the passing skill of guards. Better inside players are better at getting the ball. They gt better seals, they provide better targets, they have better hands, there are a huge number of factors.

The guards ability is relevant, but I believe that a teams ability to get the ball inside is more dependent on the ability of post players to create the proper lane than the guards ability to put the ball in his hands.

Imagine trying to get the ball to Shaq or Duncan in the post, then imagine trying to get the ball to Kwame Brown in the post. The first 2 are much easier to feed than the last one because they are better at getting in the right position.

Passing the ball inside is actually ridiculously simple when you have bigs who know what they are doing.

The game engine seems to put way to much emphasis on the guards in terms of getting the ball inside.

Whatever. Excuse me for assuming it might be beneficial to look for other possible solutions before blaming the system.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 11/19/2009 3:59:42 PM

(8005)

Instead, I can read these ratings instead and realize that (matchups aside) we were roughly equally strong.

I missed this one and it's something I'd like to comment. If you examine the ratings while ignoring who won or lost the game, several things can be stated with certainty:

Chile's centers shot .530 from the field, and drew 16 fouls in the process. That's pretty decent.
USA's guards shot a pretty pedestrian .390, with .180 from three-point land, and only drew 7 fouls.

Given that outside offense and defense team ratings come chiefly from the guards, and the inside -- from the PF/C, the shooting percentage and the ratings cosistently tell the same story.

Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 11/19/2009 5:36:06 PM