BuzzerBeater Forums

Imagine coin flip.
1st day coin was flipped 100 times. Result: 60 heads, 40 tails.
2nd day coin was flipped 2 times. Result: 0 heads, 2 tails.
3rd day coin wasn't flipped. Result: 0 heads, 0 tails.
What can we say about boxscore?
Boxscore in 1st day: 60-40.
Boxscore in 2nd day: 0-2.
Boxscore in 3rd day: 0-0.
So what can we say about probability (heads and tails per 100 flips)?
Probability in 1st day: 60% - 40%
Probability in 2nd day: 0% - 100%
Probability in 3rd day: non exists.
Wrong. Even children know that coin flip probability in all three days always is 50% - 50%.
Probability exists even without attempts. And result of limited number of attempts very often is different than probability.
So it is what points per 100 shots means in BB.

Of course PP100 is broken (or at least misleading) because it doesn't include team effort, but it is issue to other discussion. So when you are CTed then PP100 means "theoretical PP100 if opponent wouldn't play CT" or something like that.

Last edited by B.B.King at 1/22/2014 4:29:17 PM

Are yoy telling me that GE is "flipping a coin", in order to produce the pp100s and doesn't calculate each match's constants and variables in order to come up with a result?
I seriously doubt it, there is no indication anywhere, neither in the game manual nor any BB statements, for such thing.
Im ok if told officialy that this is the case.

Common belief is that pp100s include all aspects of the match ups. Opponents skills, stamina, enthusiasm, attitude, location, the whole lot. Except FTs.
Having that in mind, all the differences from my calculations to the final points scored, i attributed them to "randomness".
But even randomness would have a very large margin, from game to game.

My suspicions are two.

a) Randomness exists as calculated, very unpredictable with regards to its peak point. This theory intergrates the probabilities you mentioned.

b) pp100s are very accurate, BUT one or more of the variables that we believe to be intergrated, actually isn't.
Since we get almost always, in the same match, some players from the same team overscoring and others underscoring(pp100 wise), such variable wouldn't be enthusiasm, attitude or location for instance, that affect a team's players equally.

Are yoy telling me that GE is "flipping a coin", in order to produce the pp100s and doesn't calculate each match's constants and variables in order to come up with a result?

Nope. PP100 is calculated by formulas. Result of match (boxscore) is like flipping a coin.
In simple flipping a coin formula is easy, always 50% - 50%. Result can be 60-40 or 0-2. This difference between probability and result of limited number of attempts. When number of flips goes to infinity then result goes to probability.
PP100 is like probability, boxscore is like limited number of attempts.
So we have some probability, and then random final result is generated. So You can't calculate probability based on random final result.

Common belief is that pp100s include all aspects of the match ups. Opponents skills, stamina, enthusiasm, attitude, location, the whole lot. Except FTs.

For sure PP100 doesn't include team effort.

Οk, thanks for the clarification(and the patience), you made it absolutely clear to me.

So, you're advocating the theory of small numbers randomness. Makes total sense and is the most likely scenario.
If this is the case, what annoys me, is the (very precise)numeric valuation of the pp100, as a match up rating. It throws you off, straight away. Very misleading imo.

They were too confusing, to put it simple:

PP100 has nothing to do with what actually happened in the game.

Yer its not a straight forward concept to begin with - BUT

once you understand it, it helps you make a lot of decisions and analyse the efficiency of your team.

Lets take your example where the C had a PP100 of 51. I dont know how the rest of the team faired, but lets say, that the rest of your team had better PP100 ratings.

Now lets say hypatheticall, that you believe that your C is actually really good offensively, and you play Low post/Look inside consistently.
Now maybe, in other games, ur C's PP100 is up around 100, 120, which is pretty good. yet this one game, it was down to 51. You know what that means? The opposition C has AMAZING defence against ur C

So next time you play that team, you can make better assessments about the type of offence. Or play tactically smarter - stick your gun C at PF where perhaps his opposition PF is not as good at defending.

Stuff like this. - It's a really good tool for analysing games.

It is a good analysing tool indeed, with many different aspects to weigh in order to reach a conclusion.

My objection is that, when the game uses a known statistical category, with numerical(to the decimals) valuation, you expect it to be accurate and reflect facts.
If thats not the case, there should be a different kind of valuation(i.e good,bad,excellent etc), or keep the numerical one but clearly state the fact that it's not accurate and also state the factors that may contribute to that.
We will still have to assess these factors and also the pp100 results, which is not straight forward anyways and exciting imo.

They were too confusing, to put it simple:

PP100 has nothing to do with what actually happened in the game.

I think you're being unfair to B.B King. He did an excellent job to break it down for us all.
I wouldn't say that pp100 has nothing to do with what actually happened in the game. Instead, i do recognise it as a good indicator of what happened.
At the end of the day, randomness and final score aside, working with the pp100 or the probabilities we created(or allowed to create) in the game, is a main evaluation tool to assess what we're doing right and wrong, with regards to our roster capabilities and our tactical decisions.

I wouldn't say that pp100 has nothing to do with what actually happened in the game. Instead, i do recognise it as a good indicator of what happened.

And this would be where you are going wrong and why you are having such a confusing time with this PP100 concept.

PP100 does indeed have NOTHING to do with what actually happened. PP100 is a THEORETICAL statistic to gage how a player would perform on average given current GS, enthusiasm level, skills, and tactic choice. (And since the GDP inception, potentially the effect of guesses) It is useful for understanding how your players offensive skills compare to that of his defenders defensive skills.

To illustrate my point take these two matches from last season. We were testing GDP guessing effects with the same lineups in consecutive weeks so GS shouldnt have varied much. (65381756)(65388649)
It's all scrubs but it proves the point nevertheless. Take my SF for example. Game one he had a PP100 of 76.6 and scored 12pts. Game 2 he had a PP100 of 80.3 and scored 28pts. The PP100 is nowhere near double but yet he scored 2.3 times as much. Hence it has NOTHING to do with actual results! The most that this tells you about what ACTUALLY happened is that in game 2 he had an above average game whereas in game 1 he had a significantly below average outing.

I wouldn't say that pp100 has nothing to do with what actually happened in the game. Instead, i do recognise it as a good indicator of what happened.

And this would be where you are going wrong and why you are having such a confusing time with this PP100 concept.

PP100 does indeed have NOTHING to do with what actually happened. PP100 is a THEORETICAL statistic to gage how a player would perform on average given current GS, enthusiasm level, skills, and tactic choice. (And since the GDP inception, potentially the effect of guesses) It is useful for understanding how your players offensive skills compare to that of his defenders defensive skills.

To illustrate my point take these two matches from last season. We were testing GDP guessing effects with the same lineups in consecutive weeks so GS shouldnt have varied much. (65381756)(65388649)
It's all scrubs but it proves the point nevertheless. Take my SF for example. Game one he had a PP100 of 76.6 and scored 12pts. Game 2 he had a PP100 of 80.3 and scored 28pts. The PP100 is nowhere near double but yet he scored 2.3 times as much. Hence it has NOTHING to do with actual results! The most that this tells you about what ACTUALLY happened is that in game 2 he had an above average game whereas in game 1 he had a significantly below average outing.

We're straying away from the thread's purpose and question, nevertheless...

i don't understand what gave you the impression that im confused by pp100, in any way other than the logistics of it.

pp100 isn't a statistic calculating a player's performance on average given current GS, enthusiasm, skillset and team's tactic.
It does so on the match day's specified factor values.

It's useful for understanding how your players offensive skills compare to that of his defenders defensive skills, taking into considaration the respective teams day tactics, as well. So im my mind, that is a good indicator of what happened in the game, match up wise.
If additionaly is compared to previous matches pp100 performances, then i value it to be a very useful tool in understanding what's right and wrong in my team's offense and what needs tweaking or changing.

I appreciate your testing efforts, but playing scrubs with possibly "erratic" skillsets and fielding teams of four each and a lucky fan, isn't good for credible results.
But even in your examples, we can see two great similarities. He attempted the exact same number of field goals and had pretty similar pp100s, in both games.

In proper lineups and proper games, patterns like that is what we're looking for.