BuzzerBeater Forums

What team was that . If it ok can you post the match . Thank you

https://www.buzzerbeater.com/match/120789297/boxscore.aspx

Thank you so much. A player had 46 points. Do you think could get a inside defense that high. I saw about 18 average rating with the team.

You could but, It's harder to achieve than OD. Simply because it's more expensive. Also current meta is around perimeter offense, with rim defenders / blockers in the team who also have high OD.

So the team comps look mostly that all 5 players have very high OD. Perimeter players have also really high JS JR HA DR and ok PA.
Inside players are what you call SB bigs, they have high ID RB SB PA, low IS low DR (so they don't shoot often and successfully pass to perimeter)

This is purely because of economy aspect of the game. PF/C with IS ID SB RB all over 20 would probably have over 300k salary.

Whereas similar stats outside player with similar stats for OD JS HA DR (JR isn't really that much impactful) will have 200k-250k salary.

So basically, you are creating team, which is more expensive in general salary wise. And also focuses on ID when there is no inside attack to defend.

Also it has to be mentioned (it's in game engine part of manual) OD has more impact on defense of specific positions than ID. PF benefits from OD more than SF does from ID and also, OD for bigs is basically free, doesn't impact salary.

It would be amazing though to find a loophole where inside team would be effective and abuse 3-2. But it's swimming against strong current of META

🤗 hello.

"I appreciate your astute observation that the current meta favors perimeter-oriented teams. However, I'd like to offer a contrarian perspective, grounded in the game's historical context. By perusing archived forum discussions, I've gleaned that inside offenses and run-and-gun strategies once dominated the meta. This suggests that the game's balance has shifted over time, perhaps in response to community feedback and design iterations.

"Your point about the economic benefits of slimming down the team is well-taken. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that a more expensive, well-rounded approach can yield superior results. The team composition you mentioned, with its emphasis on inside defense, resonates with me. I've observed that this setup can effectively counter perimeter-centric teams, particularly when coupled with strategic player rotations and clever defensive schemes.

"I'm intrigued by the 2-3 matchup, and I'd love to explore this further. The interplay between inside and outside defense ratings is fascinating, and I suspect that a more nuanced understanding of these dynamics could reveal novel strategies.

"In conclusion, while I acknowledge the merits of your argument, I also firmly believe that a more expensive, balanced approach can be a winning formula. I'd be delighted to continue this discussion, exploring the intricacies of team composition and the game's meta."