The game you quoted;
Points per 100 shots --> The winning team dominated all 5 positions, the losing team should be glad the difference was only 13 points. Could have been 25 if he picked a fast paced offense instead of a slow paced offense.
Yes, I saw that. So now you are saying don't look at the flow rating... In fact, basically you are saying to no longer look at match ratings and only look at pts per 100?
What I am getting at is: how do the match ratings explain the complete shut down of the inside offense (whether in the actual game OR in the pts per 100), while the outside offense did better?
But even if your statement is true, why would be it be that absurd? Many oldschool players, I call them one-to-one guards, aren't teamplayers. DR/JS and some HD, you can find dozens of such players.
It is absurd, because once you get to a certain level of outside d in this game you can shut down any offense (whether it is outside or inside). That renders high level inside players almost useless and outside d is now king in BB, even though great inside players have much higher salaries.
It also makes no sense from a reality point of view, in spite of your explanation. If you can't pass the ball effectively, you are no longer a triple threat and teams can defend accordingly. That's true whether you run an inside or an outside offense.
Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 12/30/2009 2:22:50 PMRun of the Mill Canadian Manager