BuzzerBeater Forums

Per the game manual: "Princeton: outside/inside focus (fewer 2 point jump shots), decreased pace."

I've collected data from >30k shot attempts taken in base offense, and >6000 taken using princeton, and this is what the shot distribution looks like:

Base:
27% 3p, 34.4% 2p JS, 38.6% IS

Princeton:
35.7% 3p, 40% 2p JS, 24.3% IS

Clearly, while it *does* increase the proportion of 3 pointers as stated, it greatly *decreases* the number of inside shots (replacing them with extra 2 point jumpers), which is backwards to what is stated in the game manual. In fact, Princeton is basically tied with RnG & Motion for producing the fewest number of inside shots (and highest % of 3 pointers) of any tactic.

This holds for all defenses tactics I have enough data on to test (at least, base, 3-2, 2-3, 1-1).


I know this topic has come up at various points, and yes, I'm being intentionally provocative with the thread title, but I wanted to raise the issue with some real data to back it up.

Good work with the data collecting. Very impressive if accurate. I'll raise the issue up to try and fix the ratios on the next GE update.

How does the percentage of driving shots change (or does it) between the two? My completely unsubstantiated supposition is that the driving shots should be a significantly higher percentage than in base.

I think it's safe to assume he counted "driving layups" and the likes in the IS (inside shots) category.

Personally, if I were to assume that the GE works as intended, I would propose that many users use this tactic incorrectly.

Just like playing "look inside" with 5 shooting guards isn't going to give you a lot of inside shot attempts, people who lack in passing across the lineup may find it difficult to hit cutters and get to the rim, settling for mid-range jumpers instead.

No idea how the statistics were gathered, but I would discard scrimmages and only study teams who use the princeton offense successfully.

My guess is that you need a good to great level of JR/PA/DR across the team (not just a monster PG) to run it effectively.

Yes, I'm pretty certain those shot types were lumped together - I was just wondering if it were possible to distill out the drives to compare that vs. "regular" inside shots. My thoughts on the tactic itself are probably quite similar to yours - if all the players have good HN/PA/DR, perhaps you'll see more uncontested driving shots and three pointers, and fewer contested midrange jumpers. In any case, I am extremely delighted to see wozz posting this data and to see that it's going to be investigated.

Exactly my thoughts, teams commit to LI with their whole team but I don´t think people dothe same with Princeton. LI teams have lots of passing on their guards to get the ball to the scorers where as teams that run princeton rarely have high passing levels on their center or PF.

Yeah, I lumped drives + IS together because both showed basically the same thing (base has 11.8% DR, 26.8% IS; princeton has 8.3% DR, 16% IS). (edit: I also lumped them together because the manual's description doesn't distinguish them... i.e., whether one or the other or both should be affected by this tactic).

I also included those little "fade away" and similar shots as IS, not JS, since that's how the match viewer commentary classifies them.

Last edited by wozzvt at 6/19/2012 1:08:03 PM

I would argue that if it is confirmed that a very large number of Princetons are played by underdogs against much stronger teams then the data is flawed as it is not collected under the same conditions than, say, Motion/RnG.

I would argue that if it is confirmed that a very large number of Princetons are played by underdogs against much stronger teams then the data is flawed as it is not collected under the same conditions than, say, Motion/RnG.

I of course can't completely speak to this point, or to the point that people may be playing the "wrong" players for Princeton. But, in my observations, I would suggest that the effects of a non-ideal lineup (other than playing a player completely out of position, such as a PG at C), and the effect of being a big underdog, don't actually change the shot *distribution* that much (though it certainly changes the frequency at which those shots are made).

I would argue that if it is confirmed that a very large number of Princetons are played by underdogs against much stronger teams then the data is flawed as it is not collected under the same conditions than, say, Motion/RnG.

I of course can't completely speak to this point, or to the point that people may be playing the "wrong" players for Princeton. But, in my observations, I would suggest that the effects of a non-ideal lineup (other than playing a player completely out of position, such as a PG at C), and the effect of being a big underdog, don't actually change the shot *distribution* that much (though it certainly changes the frequency at which those shots are made).

Perhaps there's some influence on, for example, low JR on the big men in those lineups, which might lead them to pass up three point shots that more purpose-built Princeton big men might take. But if we were to wait until we had enough matches with players built for Princeton, I'm not sure our granchildren would find this thread. ;)