BuzzerBeater Forums

🤗 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."

Previously yes, Look inside was really strong. But then there was nerf of bigs, where their salaries increased. Thus meta shifted.

I'm really big fan of trying new stuff, so I hope it works for you. But it will be rough.

I'm thinking about 1-3-1 myself, which is in my opinion bigger meta killer. But the team will need to balance out decrease of rebounds, which are drawback of this strat.

FCP could work too, with lot of blocks

Im fascinated by the 1-3-1 formation's potential to revolutionize defensive strategy.

"Could you enlighten me on how blocking functions within this framework? Does it operate as an independent stat, influencing the defense's overall effectiveness?

"Moreover, I'm intrigued by the possibility of pairing the 1-3-1 defense with the Princeton offense. Given the Princeton offense's emphasis on perimeter passing,, and intelligent ball movement, it seems to naturally complement the 1-3-1's rebounding-agnostic approach. Would this synergy enable teams to capitalize on the 1-3-1's strengths while mitigating its rebounding limitations?

"Lastly, I'm curious about the financial implications of implementing such a strategy. Would the required player development and team construction necessitate a more expensive team composition?"

I didn't really do any financial estimations on my side.
But players who could fit into this roster are quite rare. I think to complement lack of rebounding in 1-3-1, you'd need a roster with high overall rebounding.
In my head SB helps with lack of rebounding in defense, because you have to expect losing on rebounding most of matches. That means more shots from oponent which can be mitigated by SB.

But I was also toying with Princeton or some outside tactic to complement 1-3-1. Which is in general weaker than inside offense vs most common 3-2, but most of the teams playing it are playing SB bigs, so you don't really need the 2 inside, since their bigs are not offensive threat. So cheaper outside offense should be enough to push through.

Creating team like this will take couple of years, it might even be homegrown which is even harder. I think you need standart 2x SB OD ID bigs and standart perimeter attackers, but you need more RB in every position plus SB on perimeter.

Thinking about this, it might be too much for player potentials even if not playing princeton which also needs solid passing.

I guess we'll see in 3-4 years how it played out :-D