BuzzerBeater Forums

If elected, I propose to create either a closed Federation or a group of folders on the off-site forum for two areas: NT Player Development, and NT Opponent Scouting.

I'm not set on either method of creating it, as both have some advantages, in my opinion. The Federation method has the advantage of being built-in to BuzzerBeater, and can be handed off from NT coach to NT coach through appointing new MODs, etc. The primary drawback to the Federation method is that feds are supporter only; and I definately don't want to make the NT staff an "exclusive club". The off-site forum method works around the Supporter-only limitation of Federations, but then you have a separate username/password to remember, a separate site to have open, and the extra effort of signing up for the off-site forum may put some users off as well.

As of right now, the USA has 3,295 active teams. If 1% of those teams were to participate on NT/U21 staff, we would have 33 users available for player development and opponent scouting. If we assigned 10 players to player development, that would give us something like 4 "guard mentors", 4 "big man mentors" and 2 "SF mentors" (or some other ratio to be determined later). We could then split the other 23 users among opponent scouting for the NT and U21 teams. The team in the Worlds cycle would need fewer scouts, say 8, to keep track of the opponents that we will be playing against. The team currently in the Continental cycle would get the larger portion of the scouts, to keep track of not only our Continental playoffs but also the other ones (getting ahead in determining European managers' preferences will give us an advantage going into a Worlds cycle, as we'll have had time to try to adjust the development of our players ahead of the Worlds, especially for U21). Assuming 15 scouts for the Continental cycle, I'd allocate it something like 5 to Americas, 5 to Europe, 3 to Asia, 2 to Africa... although that is of course a rough estimate and subject to further refinement.

If I went with the Federation method and managers that didn't have Supporter wanted to help the National Team, I would assign them a role identical in substance to what a Supporter manager got, and would have them BB-Mail or otherwise get the information to me and I'd re-post it with accreditation into the Federation forum myself. If I don't win the election, I'll offer my assistance in setting up the above idea to the new coach.

---

I know that the "1% of users" concept I sketched out above is kind of a new concept to the current debate, so I wanted to emphasize this:

In the long run, what matters more to me than winning or losing at worlds is creating and sustaining a foundation for the national team so that other future managers have the best possible chance to succeed. If I fail to have at least 1% of US managers active on NT staff by the end of my term, I will consider my tenure a failure and will not seek a 2nd term.

1) Charles, Princeton/FCP with 3 guards, 1 SF playing PF and one Center who happened to have respectable outside defense might be the best option. Again your odds of winning are small at best anyway. Juice in season 6 i think went with a point guard and 4 big men, which didnt work but was an idea. While FCP increases the number of possessions and that is bad when you are decisively the weaker team, the marginal value of a turnover versus a rebound is much more important against an offensive juggernaut.

2) I would certainly add a few more players. Teams that have a track record of good game shape management and have players that i would consider backups to our presumed top 5 should earn the right to keep those backups on the roster.

3) Ironically i think the best specialist might be a guy with only prominent inside d/rebounding but level 20 inside shot or near it. With the new game engine, you can hide that guy at small forward maybe on defense (especially if he has respectable outside d), play him offensively at power forward or center, and wreak havoc with a true power forward playing small forward at offense(and guarding a center) and your usual center playing center. It's probably not a likely skill, but its the one i'd be interested in.


4) i watch alot of live games, where you can track things that dont show up in the box score (Namely rebound rates from 3 feet vs 15 feet). the new engine will force us to watch more. it's annoying but more exciting, so thanks!

4b) My semis game season 7 vs rojos. Will post more later, have to leave for work now

I always try to ask something a bit controversial and start a debate, but it looks like we've gotten a debate started without my having to do anything. :) So, let me ask some of these questions I like to ask as a game designer...

When I was managing Nigeria in Hattrick, I was faced with a handful of matches that I "couldn't" win, even with a MOTS. I actually had a fair track record using non-sensical tactics in these games, things like a 0-7-3 or 0-8-2 formation against an opponent who wasn't ready for it. A large part of this was that I studied how the game engine responded to strange formations and tactics, and then kept the best of them in reserve for critical moments.

I've heard several candidates say that there are a handful of teams we just can't beat as an explanation why simply making the semifinals at Worlds is a good result. In many ways, BuzzerBeater has a wider range of different types of players and ways to use them than Hattrick, although it takes some experience to really figure out the best way to optimize tricky tactics. I think this is a lot of the reason that Josef Ka has had so much success with the Byelarus U21 team. Given this, a few questions:


5) JuicePats in particular used a very different style of enthusiasm management than almost everybody else at Worlds. Was he doing something better or worse than the rest of BuzzerBeater? How would you have handled the tough group we were dealt?

6) Part of the reason we seem to be in tough groups might be that we have a tendency to focus on minimally getting to the next stage and then conserving enthusiasm. At the U21 level, Brasil played crunch time against us and avoided Argentina, while we saved enthusiasm but lost in the semis anyway (so did Brasil). The situation was set up because we didn't put effort into a game against Argentina that decided which group we would be in for the second round. Should we have been willing to give up enthusiasm to end up with different opponents? Similarly, our tough group draws at Worlds have been in part because we tend to CT the semifinals (and qualify for Worlds) at the expense of trying to win the continental trophy. Is this a good policy? Should we care about winning the Americas?

Ok, these responses are longer than I intended, but these are good questions and I want to give them their due.

I've heard several candidates say that there are a handful of teams we just can't beat as an explanation why simply making the semifinals at Worlds is a good result.... 1) Imagine that you have a one-off, "unwinnable" game. ... Any record of those working for you at the club level?

First of all, I don't think there are any teams we can't beat. But I also don't think that we assume we win, say, 60%+ of the time vs teams like Italy and Spain, and that's what I base expectations (as opposed to goals) on.

As for quirky tactics, it really comes down to lineup management. Sure, FCP/Princeton give some unexpected looks, but the main variability comes in who you play and where. This is, frankly, much harder at the club level given the smaller player pool, but I've had good luck with some different lineups (playing 3 centers against, well, you, going 4 guards to max out OS/OD, etc). I'm hesitant to say I'd do too much of this at the NT level, because I think there should be very few unwinnable games for us, and using these sorts of tactics generally works by adding a lot of variability to the outcome.

2) The US team has tended to leave several spots open on its roster for much of the competition, since it costs enthusiasm to drop a player (but not to add one). Would you keep the same policy? If not, why?
3) Given the above, is there room for a "specialist" player?

I'm going to answer these together. First, I'd keep the roster as small as needed. We have a good sense of who manages GS well, but you never know when injuries, transfers, big cup games, etc will throw a wrench into this and require you to add a specific position.

That said, we certainly have room for a specialist. In fact, there's a fascinating guy out there now with only 13/13 IS/ID, but 20 rebounding. You'd certainly have to game plan him in, but I think that could be used very effectively. There's another PF that was a backup much of last season that has pretty poor (by our standards) rebounding, but some incredible JS/IS ratings. Again, depending on who you put around him, that can be a very valuable weapon.

4a) Do you understand the game engine better than your opponents? Why (or why not)?

I've done a lot of work using the BBAPI to research tactics. I've been around since mid-way through season 2, and have watched countless games at the club, NT and u21 level, but I think we've all done that. The stuff I've done recently with the bbapi has been illuminating, and has turned up some surprises.

For example, if you're opponent is playing LI, both 2-3zone and 3-2zone are equally effective (in fact, in upper divisions, 3-2 is slightly better, 53% vs 50% chance of beating the LI team on a neutral court). This makes some sense (shutting down the passers prevents the inside guys getting the ball in good shooting positions), but is not intuitive.

Another example, if you think your opponent will play a 2-3 zone, the worst thing you can do is be patient (only a 39% chance of winning). Better to take the open shot as soon as you see it (both motion and RnG predictably kill it, so much so that to ever play a 2-3 zone, you have to know their outside game is incredibly weak, which is rare in competitive NT games).

A final example, everyone gets enamored with the inside scoring ratings Italy put up in the world's, but unless you can get those type of insane ratings, a lower outside scoring rating can actually be more useful. What I mean is, each level of outside scoring is about twice as valuable as inside scoring in predicting outcome and point differential.

There's more, but I'm running out of characters in this post, so I'll continue in a sec...

4b) Much of club level management involves building a roster, while at the national team level it's primarily about setting the correct game-day tactics. What do you think were your best couple of "tactical" wins at the club level, beating teams you shouldn't have been able to beat in games where everybody was trying their hardest?

True, but they're more related than you seem to suggest. Understanding the value of good skill distributions is critical both in building an NT lineup and in training your own players.

I've had a pretty good team lately, so I haven't had tons of "crazy-underdog" games, but when I first promoted to the NBBA in season 5, I had a bunch. I won div II.2 in season 4 (my first season in div II) when I really, really wasn't good enough. This included beating current-NBBA'er DC Dribble in game 3 of the finals using a lineup with essentially 4 outside shooters. Going all out like that got me what was (at the time) and incredible outside scoring rating (respectable!) and a 25 point road win. This caught up to me in the NBBA the following season, but getting there that early was a big contribution to the success I've had since.

5) JuicePats in particular used a very different style of enthusiasm management than almost everybody else at Worlds. Was he doing something better or worse than the rest of BuzzerBeater? How would you have handled the tough group we were dealt?

I'd classify this as a creative solution to the situation we were dealt. In that group, we needed to beat Germany in the first game. That CT was absolutely warranted. I think where we probably messed up was not TIE'ing China. We thought enthusiasm would rebound on its own with a normal, and we might we might catch them sleeping. Unfortunately, they normal'ed us, and enthusiasm bounced back much slower than we had thought. This left us in our other must win game (South Africa) with only like 3 enthusiasm. We tried to steal one with a normal to help the enthusiasm build back up, but they CT'd and it backfired. From that point on, we were basically stuck having to CT because our games were all must-wins against strong teams.

In a perfect world, we're not in that situation to begin with, and we have a chance to build up some enthusiasm before we have to use one of our CTs. But, given the schedule, I think the big mistake was the normal vs China that led to a downward spiral.

6) Part of the reason we seem to be in tough groups might be that we have a tendency to focus on minimally getting to the next stage and then conserving enthusiasm. ...

You know, I'm of the opinion that you have to ensure the things you can control. What if you go all out to get into a good position, and then something flukey happens in Europe and you still end up in the tough group? If you get to a point where you can reasonably predict how the other groups are going to end up, then I think this is fine to do, but I don't want to get into a situation where I'm making sub-optimal decisions for our games based on what I think other teams will or won't do. (Brazil's decision already looks pretty stupid, but what if Argentina had lost that last game and ended up in 2nd place? Then they would have already used a CT and still have to face Argentina... they would have been even more screwed than they were).

I'd like to wade in with my size 13's if I may with my take on what needs to be done in order to up the chances of the USA NT... bear with me as my NT managerial experience is somewhat limited, but Japan are still ranked ok ish considering we are at 30-35 users, anyway. I wish to add I am not for or against anyones campaign, just adding a viewpoint as you never know I might just throw my hat in the ring for consideration at some point in the future.

I appreciate the various spreadsheets and formulas that you guys have behind the scenes. I also appreciate the tireless hours that go into scouting a large nation such as yourselves. The candidates past and present have stated what they would do in order to try to bring the US to the dizzy heights of world champions and I respect each and every mans view on how they would get the best out of the players at their disposal.

Some of you may recall I briefly ran for the NT managers role of England. My campaign was pretty blunt and one dimensional and basically insinuated if you didnt find 15-20 managers to single position train the best prospects that were currently out there you could kiss goodbye any chance you wanted of trying to be successful.

I believe the same situation applies here but on a larger scale. Please treat this example independently as it is not intended to be an alternative approach to the offerings from the current candidates. This approach may not reap instant rewards for the next manager taking the helm but I would hope for the seasons beyond this it will do - its simple.

Find 20-30 (40 if possible) willing coaches to train and build 20-40 perfect players. Do not settle for second best and allow players onto your roster that you know aren't getting the optimum training, at the first sign of this relegate them from the roster. I imagine you have a pool of 200+ players and with respect anyone who knows how to sign in could pick 5 guys, a tactic and select CT/Normal/TIE and get you guys pretty much to the best 16 in the world. If you want to go further it stems from not accepting excuses as to why players aren't being trained at all times to create the players you want to have at your disposal.

Now in England this argument fell on deaf ears as the managers with NT prospects prioritised club success over their country but in a country as large as yours there must be 20-40 fanatics (or dare I say it farms!) able to take on the responsibility of creating Buzzerbeaters greatest players ever. Japan forget about it - I can count the pops on 4 hands the whole NT got last season.

So, in my opinion it boils down to who's brave enough? As I say, you can either coast along with a gigantic pool of great players and always finish in the final 8 maybe 4 of major tournaments or you can risk this and insist on managers dedicated to training the very best players in the buzzerbeater world (no matter what cost) for the sake of national triumph.

My BB3 success last season was nothing more than being able to assemble a roster of quality players faster than the chasing pack. This season there are many teams in a similar position to mine and the gap has been closed. It is the best players that win you games and tactics (which admittedly can alter this slightly) play 2nd fiddle to the outcome of games.

To summarize. Whether there is an old guard of managers that dominate proceedings or maverick managers willing to stir it up a bit to try and win attention or votes, it really doesnt matter. The USA needs a manager that is willing to fall flat on his face at the expense of creating the best roster in the BB world. Accepting mediocrity will only lead to mediocre results. All the offsite forums/chat rooms/formulas in the world wont overcome this matter.

20-40 managers - thats it. We all know you have them. There really is no excuses.

Yes this is a very vulgar way at looking at things and it doesnt take into account the evolution of where we are since BB started but I trust you get the picture and if I was a US user I'd be asking why don't you have superior players on your roster to chose from come match day? Why does Spain/Italy/France (i say france cos my PG is no-where near their roster!)
have players with seemingly superior stats? Answer in my opinion is more dedicated user base. Nothing more nothing less.

If you could not vote for yourself, which candidate would you vote for (nobody is an option) and why.

I think the most important trait in an NT manager is the commitment to the team, and being willing to devote the time and energy that it requires (not just setting lineups, but tracking several hundred players to keep the DB updated, communicating with managers to help get optimal training, etc). Azariah has already proven a willingness to do this, and if I were not running, he'd have my vote. And if he doesn't end up winning this, I hope he'll consider a u21 run next season.

Last edited by wozzvt at 12/17/2009 10:10:01 AM

20-40 managers - thats it. We all know you have them. There really is no excuses.

You think we're not doing this? We had a systematic effort last season to give experienced owners the contacts of the managers that drafted all the top 18yo's to encourage them to give these rookies effective, single position training, or to sell them to someone who will. I know I'm doing it personally, although my trainee wasn't perfect to begin with (I've had great success with Villapadierna, who's the 13th highest salary 21yo in the world, and am using the same plan with a 19yo American now).

The early returns are actually pretty good. We have probably our best 20yo ever that will be fighting his way onto the u21 squad this season, and a really nice looking crop of 19yo's.

Then hats off. I wish the English took this approach, alas they opted for the route leading to mediocrity and arent likely to deviate from that soon....