BuzzerBeater Forums

Yes, easier to beat because the FCP is weak against shots in the first 10 or so seconds.

and

Not easier to beat because it's fast.

thats a contradiction.

Both OF and slow pace give your team better looks for a shot.

and

the most important against FCP is handling/passing which translates into OF.

slow pace - more passes and ball handling for FCP to try to force a TO. i'm not saying you will not win against FCP by playing slow pace tactics. i'm saying it will be easier if you play at faster pace.

The way you put it, it's always better to play fast against any defense which might be true for teams in development.

i can't see why? slow pace - better looks, fast pace - quick shots. difference in defense and offense levels between you and your opponent makes slow pace sometimes better and sometimes worse.

Last edited by Rycka at 11/25/2010 11:30:39 AM

slow pace - more passes and ball handling for FCP to try to force a TO. i'm not saying you will not win against FCP by playing slow pace tactics. i'm saying it will be easier if you play at faster pace.

but less risky passes, who make it easy to steal the ball ;) So overall it could be equal, maybe even more safe because the majority of steals happen in the first seconds against a press.

first seconds against a press.

and the ball is lost by a pg usually in those first seconds. which would mean he was not fast enough to deliver the ball up front and was trapped in defense.

one more thing to add. i know you can't compare BB to real basketball, but in real basketball no team would hold on to the ball if they are pressured. this would bring them to a double teaming near a half court line or a out of bounds line and very difficult situation to pass the ball. maybe, because we think about basketball differently is why we dont agree on this.

first seconds against a press.

and the ball is lost by a pg usually in those first seconds. which would mean he was not fast enough to deliver the ball up front and was trapped in defense.

it is not usually lost from a pg in the game, in lot of workings example C/PF makes the most To so that a low flow isn't necessary a sign that it work(imho you just need medicore handlers to get advantage of the defense) or high flow that the fcp didn't work.

one more thing to add. i know you can't compare BB to real basketball, but in real basketball no team would hold on to the ball if they are pressured. this would bring them to a double teaming near a half court line or a out of bounds line and very difficult situation to pass the ball. maybe, because we think about basketball differently is why we dont agree on this.

thats why i using game observations in help threads, and facts that the risk of a turnover per second is lower with slow paced tacitc.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 11/25/2010 12:53:44 PM

Yes, but shouldn't the number of turnovers per possession count instead of the turnovers per second?

facts that the risk of a turnover per second is lower with slow paced tacitc.

what facts? can you show them?

I have built an all around passing team, and i say that i prefer motion over RnG 99/100 times. I am using that route for the last 2 seasons. Result? 2 cups and 1 'ship, and the 2nd one is just a matter of time to come.

The truth is that BB doesnt have a ''holly grave''. Everything its relative and depends on your personnel.

Now on the subject. If you have stronger handling team than passing team, then fast pace tactics is the way to go. If passing is stronger, then slower tactics. If you have both, my personal preference is the slower, but yet i dont like patient or the neutral tactics when i face similar teams to mine.

Just my 2 cents.

facts that the risk of a turnover per second is lower with slow paced tacitc.

what facts? can you show them?

if we could search news item, yes. actually not ;) It was a point mentioned during the engine change, or maybe during a ask a BB day that slower pace means less risk to turn the ball over during the passes, so that the to prohability is comparable to faster pace tactics.

i prefer is generally too, and mostly play motion ;)

But the question is, did you regulary did meet teams who play a competive fcp teams and what would you play against them.

There is no contradiction. A quick shot in a slow paced attack will be easier against FCP. I only wrote that because I was not sure what you were saying. Explain yourself, why do you see a contradiction and why do you think it's different from what you are saying ?.

About slow pace, more passes for the FCP to force a TO but better looks for the attack, it's a trade off. You seem to assume it's always better to go for the worst looks. So say it clearly and explain why you think so, that's what mathcorejay is asking for.

i can't see why? slow pace - better looks, fast pace - quick shots. difference in defense and offense levels between you and your opponent makes slow pace sometimes better and sometimes worse.

Why do you think it's different against the FCP than against another defence ?

Comparatively low OF, you wouldn't play slow against FCP but low OF, you are in trouble if you play slow against any defence anyway because you won't produce the high quality looks required for a shot attempt. Comparatively high OF, you wouldn't play slow against FCP, you'd play fast because your players good at handling and passing would beat the defence easily. And that's what OF shows, the team capacity to create quality shots and that's against any defence.
From what you are saying, I don't understand when you'd play slow since the points you make are worth against any defence. I am sure you don't always play fast so please elaborate your toughts.

We have started discussing because of the game against BC Lavonai. FCP worked because of his low OF, pace was irrelevant. I have just reread your posts, I don't know why we are arguing since we have identical views :/


Last edited by Manouche at 11/25/2010 6:51:38 PM