BuzzerBeater Forums

Yeah I guess its Offensive Flow vs Outside Defense that determines your effiecieny. In your 2nd game ratings are inflated due to OT.

I also think Chile would win that game 8/10 times, just a bit unlucky and a lot of turnovers.

But ok I get your point.

People are confused by the fact that the IS ratings can be so high and yet so ineffective.

They assume that if you have an IS rating of sensational/tremendous versus a strong ID you're certainly going to win against an outside offense that does proficient OS versus a strong OD.

This is obviously not the case.

Possible Objection: some people will get confused.

Reply: many people are confused by the current rating.

Well ratings are not there only for the two side but also for third teams to scout. So I vote no - it still shows particular strengthts of backourt or frontcourt and I would like to keep that. I don't care how it impacts the game, there are other ways to see that.

There is one problem I notice which is only tangentially related to ratings and more related to the engine itself.

Getting the ball to an inside player is not ONLY about the passing skill of guards. Better inside players are better at getting the ball. They gt better seals, they provide better targets, they have better hands, there are a huge number of factors.

The guards ability is relevant, but I believe that a teams ability to get the ball inside is more dependent on the ability of post players to create the proper lane than the guards ability to put the ball in his hands.

Imagine trying to get the ball to Shaq or Duncan in the post, then imagine trying to get the ball to Kwame Brown in the post. The first 2 are much easier to feed than the last one because they are better at getting in the right position.

Passing the ball inside is actually ridiculously simple when you have bigs who know what they are doing.

The game engine seems to put way to much emphasis on the guards in terms of getting the ball inside.

Getting the ball to an inside player is not ONLY about the passing skill of guards.

Why do you think that? Surely not, other things are factors too.

The comma in your sentence has me confused. Either the comma is really supposed to be there and you believe I meant the opposite of what I said, or the comma was put there by mistake and you are using sarcasm to indicate your agreement with my premise.

I'm not sure why you'd bother with either, but I am overcome with curiosity to know which it is.

Neither, I just misread it. You should used caps for NOT instead only:)