BuzzerBeater Forums

Go watch Joe Bronson of the US playing look inside with his 2 IS then talk to me.

Last edited by pmfg10 at 11/26/2010 1:07:50 PM

Why, what's so special about him? In two Look inside games, he dishes out 3 and 6 assists and you call him a PG? And don't look at his league statistics either, he's in a team where other players' salaries combined is less than half his salary. BB calls him a PG because his OD is so busted and his passing skill is a bit more trained, but he's got a mediocre passing compared to other PGs in his salary range.

His passing is not good enough for a PG and his outside shooting is not good enough for SG...for me, that's an incomplete player, trained without any goal in mind. In LI, a good PG should have more assists than shots. If he takes more shots than makes assists, this means he's not suitable for LI and should play Run and Gun or something like that.

That shows me you don't have a clue what you are talking about, so first get some info and then talk to me.



Last edited by Koperboy at 11/26/2010 12:41:08 PM

I don't know what I'm talking about? LOL. He has 16 Passing and 13 in JR, definetely an incomplete player.
I'm talking about the NT games, he has 19 JS, 19 Driving and 2 IS and he shoots 6-19. So when you say that IS doesn't make a difference then YOU don't know what you're talking about.

Insider info on his skills? Woah, scandalous.
Hm, in all seriousness, if these skill values are completely accurate, then IS should have quite a bit more influence on layup ability than Koperboy suggested. We should probably withhold our judgment as to how much weight IS holds until the end of Koperboy's experiment, yes? Also, it would probably be better to perhaps watch the games and see which shots these players miss or make instead of basing it on box score alone. I would do it myself, but... I'd rather use my time on another aspect of life.

He was for sale some weeks ago.

I've never really noticed any connection between a players ability to make layups and dunks with atrocious IS. If atrocious IS really applied to layups, I'd expect to see no layups ever made, similar to atrocious passing or FT abilities. I tend to associate IS with the ability to post up in the paint.

My U21 guard has prodigious driving and has no trouble driving to the hoop for a layup.

My NT PF I play at SG and PG and he still misses layups against opposing guards.. Which shouldn't happen..

Just theories, we'll never really know.

I don't know what I'm talking about? LOL. He has 16 Passing and 13 in JR, definetely an incomplete player.
I'm talking about the NT games, he has 19 JS, 19 Driving and 2 IS and he shoots 6-19. So when you say that IS doesn't make a difference then YOU don't know what you're talking about.

Guess what sunshine, I took my sweet time to check up on those two games for Bronson in Play-by-play which can also help me in my little "research". From the results, I think throwing out numbers without any backup arguments makes you a bit foolish, eh?

Game against Australia for J. Bronson:

Jump shots made/attempted: 3/14
Layups made/attempted: 2/5

Game against Misr:

Jump shots m/a: 4/9
Layups m/a: 3/3

I don't think results need any further comment. Bronson's skills do.

I will say it again: Bronson is not a good PG for Look inside. I played Look inside a lot last year with a PG who had better passing and driving skills than JS and JR. Guess what? He had more assists than FG attempted.

Now don't get me wrong, against Misr Bronson had a very good 7/12 shooting with additional 8 free throws coming from fouls he drew either by driving or making jump shots. So he made 20 points. But he had only 3 assists in Look inside game. This means he took more shots by himself because he has better shooting than passing. For a Look inside PG, I want it viceversa for those two skills.

And against Australia, this became obvious - he took a lot of shots when he should pass the ball instead. USA manager probably wanted to play Look inside because Australia had better outside defense than inside. And for that tactic to work, of course a passing PG is a lot better than a shooting one!

And of course he's an incomplete player. His passing ability is too low compared to shooting for inside-oriented tactic and his Jump Range is again too low for outside-oriented tactic.

I think training is a bit more complicated than "let's bust his abilities as high as we can!" In my opinion, Bronson can become a great PG for USA NT team if he gets 2-3 more pops in Passing or a great SG if he gets 3-4 more pops in JR.

Go watch Joe Bronson of the US playing look inside with his 2 IS then talk to me.

It's ironic and funny - an argument you tried to made to prove me wrong actually proved you wrong. And I guess I have to thank you because you found me two more games that speak in favor of my little theory of IS not mattering a lot for Driving.

Last edited by Koperboy at 11/27/2010 10:12:34 PM

In my opinion, Bronson can become a great PG for USA NT team if he gets 2-3 more pops in Passing or a great SG if he gets 3-4 more pops in JR.

Colossal passing, seriously?

You're trashing one of the best PG's in the game?

You really think him having a salary of 450k will make him a significantly better player than he already is now?

You're basing your LI IS PG opinion on games in a season in IV? Against PG's with 5k salary?

Really?

I'd also like clarification on this too. Can you train driving and make your player a good slasher, or do you have to pair driving with inside scoring too? For guards, for example, training inside shot is so slow...and if its not necessary to pair with driving, I'd rather never train it!

Yes, really. I am trashing "one of the best PG's in the game".

However, that's what you said. It's funny how some of you throw around statements without any explanation (the other was "look at Bronson and then talk to me"). I'm already feeling kinda stupid because instead of hearing your arguments, I'm making a case for mine and when I succeed, you never show up anymore in the same thread. I can bet this will happen with pmfg10. Maybe he will throw an insult or two, but that's the best he will be able to do.

You really think him having a salary of 450k will make him a significantly better player than he already is now?

I already said a couple of times now that I think (see? I THINK is not a statement, it's an OPINION) a PG with better passing than shooting can work better in Look inside tactic.

"Best PG" is not the same as "PG with highest salary". Some newbies can stare in awe and whisper to themselves "Holy smoke, JS 19, PA 16... I want to have a player like this someday!". But when said PG plays against best in the world, maybe he isn't the best suited for the job.

I know passing is an expensive skill, so why not try popping up jump range 3 times. That's "only" around 35k more of salary instead of nearly 200k. Since he likes to shoot more than pass, this will help him in his jump shots.

You're basing your LI IS PG opinion on games in a season in IV? Against PG's with 5k salary?

Keep in mind my PG was a rookie with 4.5k of salary, so other PGs were generally better than him. But BB is a game of numbers and it's almost the same if two PGs who face each other have both 5k or 500k of salary. What matters is game engine, not the salary. And I believe that I have a slightly better knowledge about it than the average BB player. Of course everyone can be mistaken, that's why I always put "I think", "it's my opinion" and so on in front of my opinions.

And one of my opinions is each player in BB is doing what he knows best. If you put on PG a player with good shooting and bad passing, he will shoot more and viceversa. If a player has better driving than shooting, he will drive a bit more (but IMO, generally a player almost always makes twice more jump shots than layups).

So I think Bronson's passing skill is too low compared to his Jump shot to make him look like Rondo, while his Jump Range is too low compared to his Jump shot to make him look like Steve Nash (or maybe John Wall, though I've never seen him in action besides statistics and "Daily top 10" videos).

And to update you on my rookie: Since he's better now in jump shots, he takes more shots and passes less, which suits me because this season I'm playing outside tactics. But since his Jump range is quite low compared to his JS (Proficient VS Inept), he takes more midrange jump shots and layups and his FG percentage is almost always around 45-55%, which seems pretty good to me. And he still has Pitiful Inside shot.

I call this "knowledge of game engine", although I don't want to brag about this too much, because I feel like I know about 10-15% about it and a lot of things are still a "point blank" to me - for example, influence of Inside shot on Driving.