BuzzerBeater Forums

motion from the rules:* outside/mid range jump shot focus, normal pace *

so the guards should be the most important to this taktic also the sf takes more shots i think,

from the helpthread:
Point Guard
(1) Handling, Passing
(2) Outside Defense, Driving
(3) Jump Shot, Jump Range, Inside Shot

Shooting Guard
(1) Jump Shot, Jump Range
(2) Handling, Passing,
(3) Driving, Outside Defense, Inside Shot

Small Forward
(1) Jump Shot, Jump Range, Outside Defense
(2) Handling, Passing, Driving
(3) Inside Shot, Inside Defense
(4) Rebounding

so as you see you can find everythink on your own if you use rules and that helpthread.

Ok and what about Run and Gun?

(2591245)
why i lose?

Todays cup game (3962347)...

...really puzzles me. My enthusiasm is 10 in this game.

W00t?!?

Hi Nanda,

I'm new, so not sure that I'm the best person to comment, but I think what you're missing in your maths is that players on court don't take equal numbers of shots. So you can't just add up your five "points per 100 shots" and divide by five to get a team percentage.

That's where the tactics come in.

In your example, concerning the NZ team, their points per 100 shots varied from 59.0 for their SG to 107.8 for their PF. If their PF and SF took lots of shots, while their guards and C passed it on, then they'd score lots. But if they played a tactic which led to their guards and C doing the bulk of the shooting then the team's overall shooting percentage would be much worse.

So, to go from the points per 100 shots data to a team scoring percentage, you need to multiply each position's scoring rate by the proportion of shots taken from that position in the game. It's not a simple add-em-up-and-divide-by-5.

Nick

OK, I've looked at this again, and I think Nanda has a point.

One simple example. In my last game, against Jorvik Celtics... (2417757)

The team matchup rating says that my team from the SG position scored at a rate of 82.9 points per 100 shots.

My two SG players were Eric Dickinson (who scored 16 pts from 18 shots) and Rudolph Al-Shurman (who scored 13 pts from 12 shots). Individually, they would have a scoring ratio of 89 pts per 100 shots and 108 pts per 100 shots respectively. Bearing in mind that Eric took more shots than Rudolph, the team's overall scoring rate in the game, from the SG position was 96.9 points per 100 shots (29 points scored from 30 shots).

The team matchup rating figure for shooting from the SG position is lower than either of my players actually acheived. So something must be reducing the team matchup rating.

Even allowing for Free Throws I cannot find anything to explain why the matchup rating is so much lower.

Note that this is not about tactics or anything, it's just a maths question. How can the SG matchup rating give a points per 100 shots of 82.9 when my actual SGs were both shooting a better rate than that?

In other words, what other variables go into calculating that 'points per 100 shots' rating? It clearly isn't just a reflection of the SG's scoring rate in the game...

Hmm, example:

You go to a club, you see 18 guys smoking a sigaret there and 2 guys who aren't smoking. Then you ask this question: Whom of you guys smokes?

Then at least 90% will say they smoke, do you actually believe that 90% of the people in the whole world smokes?

Just a small crazy example of course, but I think my point is quite clear.

If those guards would have had 100 shots they would be close to that number of 82.9, but they only took 12 and 18 shots.


Last edited by BB-Patrick at 3/4/2008 4:09:51 PM

Thanks, PatjeBono,

But in sports, if we say "Such-and-such a player was shooting at 80%" we usually mean that they actually have scored at that level. It's not unreasonable that people coming to BB expect that when they see a rating saying that players were shooting at a certain percentage that would be reflected in the players' actual performance.

What you're saying is that the players in my team at SG were in theory shooting at 82.9 points per 100 shots (based on the quality of their shooting and the quality of the opponents' defence, etc) but in practice their stats show that their performance in the game was better than that?

So now my question is how can the computer know what their 'in theory' performance was? What are the variables which explain the difference between the 'in theory' performance of 82.9 points per 100 shots, and their actual scoring rate of 96 points per 100 shots? Just good luck? Or something more controllable?

Put another way, is it the case that the 'Matchup ratings' are like the 'team ratings' (in that they describe the relative strengths of the teams, not the relative actual acheivements in a particular game) rather than like the box score, describing actual events on the court? I've assumed they are a factual representation of the players' performance, but you seem to be saying that they are not...

The team matchup rating figure for shooting from the SG position is lower than either of my players actually acheived. So something must be reducing the team matchup rating.

Note that this is not about tactics or anything, it's just a maths question. How can the SG matchup rating give a points per 100 shots of 82.9 when my actual SGs were both shooting a better rate than that?

In other words, what other variables go into calculating that 'points per 100 shots' rating? It clearly isn't just a reflection of the SG's scoring rate in the game...

did they shot 100 times? no
that's the variable

Thanks, PatjeBono,

So now my question is how can the computer know what their 'in theory' performance was? What are the variables which explain the difference between the 'in theory' performance of 82.9 points per 100 shots, and their actual scoring rate of 96 points per 100 shots? Just good luck?

yes

if you flip a high number of coins you expect to have 50% heads and 50% tails
but if you flip only 10 coins you could easily have 6 heads and 4 tails
that's a 20% difference between the expected value (the MR) and the real result
and it's just based on luck

Last edited by mark_lenders at 3/4/2008 6:31:57 PM

good job my niece isnt reading your post...

please refrain from using such profanities...

you were down by 7 anyway and your defending 2-3 against an team being more offensive outside and you have nothing special to offer in terms of scoring yourself?

this no where near qualifies for this thread..

grow up