BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Forum day: OD in new engine

Forum day: OD in new engine (thread closed)

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
112356.17 in reply to 112356.16
Date: 9/25/2009 1:06:17 AM
1986 Celtics
IV.30
Overall Posts Rated:
88
it looks like normally he shoots more than he did this game, sometimes people have off games, doesn't look systematic to me.

This Post:
00
112356.18 in reply to 112356.17
Date: 10/6/2009 4:18:45 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3535
Forrest, can I ask you if you are happy with the balance, with the new game engine, between inside and outside offenses? To me it looks pretty much unbalanced in favor of the latter, but I would appreciate if you could share some data you may have.

To add a couple of considerations to my point:
- one problem could be the low offensive flow of most teams playing inside offenses, which is something I guess managers should work on.
- another problem is with the 3-2 defense, which seems much less effective against outside offenses, in terms of shooting percentage, than with the old game engine.

This Post:
00
112356.20 in reply to 112356.18
Date: 10/6/2009 6:20:40 PM
1986 Celtics
IV.30
Overall Posts Rated:
88
i don't think i can comment that specifically without setting off a wave of speculation that something will be changed, and I don't feel like i have nearly enough information to make such a pronouncement.

This Post:
00
112356.21 in reply to 112356.20
Date: 10/8/2009 2:05:06 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3535
i don't think i can comment that specifically without setting off a wave of speculation that something will be changed, and I don't feel like i have nearly enough information to make such a pronouncement.

I see, but PLEASE do something quickly, because the situation is awful (medium) :)
Till last season there were only two (winning) offensive options, r&g and look inside... now there seems to be only one left.

By the way, are you sure there ain't some sort of bug with the 3-2 against look inside? These two are from today, but I have seen too many alike. (17504667), (17504577).
I can understand that the 3-2 zone forces more TO, but the shooting percentage should definitely be higher.

This Post:
00
112356.22 in reply to 112356.21
Date: 10/8/2009 2:48:32 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155


By the way, are you sure there ain't some sort of bug with the 3-2 against look inside? These two are from today, but I have seen too many alike. (17504667), (17504577).
I can understand that the 3-2 zone forces more TO, but the shooting percentage should definitely be higher.


In both matches that you quoted, the offensive flow of the team playing look inside was only inept. I think that is the source of the problem that you are describing. I noted that the players who should have had high shooting percentages (the PF and the C) both had shooting percentages around 50%, which is pretty good. The issue was that the guards took most of the shots, and they had really bad shooting percentages.

The moral of the story is: get a bettter offensive flow.

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
112356.23 in reply to 112356.22
Date: 10/8/2009 3:54:41 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
506506
Exactly what newchuckd said. Inside men are still shooting great, thus Look Inside is still a great tactic, you'll just need the guards to get the ball to the inside men.

If the guards can't bring the ball on the spot, then your inside men are useless.

This Post:
00
112356.24 in reply to 112356.22
Date: 10/8/2009 6:05:57 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
3535
Another look inside vs. 3-2 zone, this time with respectable offensive flow (7959)
Shot distribution:
PG 17 (19%)
SG +-21 (23%)
SF +-20 (22%)
PF 19 (21%)
C 14 (15%)

This Post:
00
112356.25 in reply to 112356.24
Date: 10/8/2009 7:41:08 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155
Another look inside vs. 3-2 zone, this time with respectable offensive flow (7959)



You may be on to something on this game but I will note that it is against a proficient outside d (yikes). The other thing to think about, is what is the passing/handling of the SG and SF from Australia? How did it match up against the outside d of their opponent?

By the way, I don't think it is the 3-2 zone that is the issue. It is the level of outside d. I have seen this type of thing again a man-2-man, too, provided the defending team had high levels of outside d vs the flow of the other team.

It is also worth noting that it was on a look inside. Do you see the same thing vs a low post? Is pace having some effect here?

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
112356.26 in reply to 112356.25
Date: 10/9/2009 4:20:23 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959

You may be on to something on this game but I will note that it is against a proficient outside d (yikes). The other thing to think about, is what is the passing/handling of the SG and SF from Australia? How did it match up against the outside d of their opponent?


i think proficient OD with 3-2 isn't that good, where a 7 in Flow is more then solid ... To match that up is very hard till imposiible, and in this case the 3-2 is maybe the better inside blocker then 2-3 which struggles against midrange jumps even against LI or LP teams.

Advertisement