BuzzerBeater Forums

Looking at the top teams, there are very few players classified as PFs.

Just curious, but why would the all of the coaches prefer two C's as the inside guys
to a C + PF. Are players classified as PFs relatively underpowered compared with
Cs?

In my mind, a good PF should be a C with more skills (JS/JR + more handling skills).
Perhaps the dedicated Cs are simply gaining skills faster than a similar PF.

Do you think with the increased role of outside shooting, PFs will be more valued or really just more value to SFs and guards?

not always player is the best on that position which is shown on him... You should look to the skill`s not to the best position... That mostly is just a helper to newbies, that they won`t put C-PF to play as PG...

Our National Team PF recently changed best position to Small Forward, due some outside training. After he gets some inside training he will probably change back to Power Forward again, but if he will get too much inside training he will be a Center.

So I guess Power Forward is a pretty hard position te show hehe.


Yeah and the problem is indeed that PF's should have more skills higher like JS or DR. Centers only need 3 main skills (IS,ID, Reb) and perpahs SB. Which means that a PF will most likely have lower Inside Skills than a Center, that's why I think more Centers play as a PF.

That is pretty much what I thought, but I just found the almost total absence odd.

How much does JS play into the offensive skills of a PF? I looked at many of the guys and they take 1-6 3pt shots per game compared with 7-15 inside shots.

Are any of the 2pt shots actually off the JS skill or are they all inside shots?
If they are inside shots, is it worth training JS and JR to improve the % of those few shots?

Are any of the 2pt shots actually off the JS skill or are they all inside shots?
If they are inside shots, is it worth training JS and JR to improve the % of those few shots?

Kozlodoev answered this, but I'll try to expand on it from my observations.

You can tell what kind of shot a 2pt attempt is in two ways. The first is via the commentary, which will often be pretty clear (eg 'baseline jumper' versus 'lay-up' and so on). The second method is by observing where on the court the shot is taken.

If the shot is taken outside of the paint (or the lane, or key, call it what you will) it will be using JS (IMO) to determine success. Inside that demarcated area, then it will most likely use IS.

Some day when you have some time go to the TL, and search for each position and each skill, say a skill of average and above. And note the number of players that are found (if you find 1000, you may need to set some age limits).

For example, if you were searching for PF with JR of average or better you might not find too many, since JR doesn't really cause a player to be classified as a PF, and might actually cause the player to be a SG if the JS is also good and OD is at least tolerable. But you will find that PF will have a good JS.

So to be classified as a PF, a player may need to be good at a lot of skills, but not so good at some of them that he is classified as C or SG.

It is easier to train other positions since they need fewer skills. And it is possible that the person who plays PF in games might not need the same skills that cause him to be classified as a PF. A club team in D.IV might be able to get by with a PF who is classified as a C, and has some JS. This might be especially true if the team has a really strong pure C, or has good outside shooters and uses the PF as more of defensive and rebounding player.

I'm trying to gauge the relative effectiveness in training up JS for inside players at all.

Look at the beastly salaries of the pure inside guys relative to more balanced players. Over time, those 15-25k salaries are going to hurt vs. 8-10k for more balanced guys.

I'm wondering if the balanced guys are also going to be more effective (i.e. prominent JS and Prominent IS against Prolific or Sensational IS).