BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Underdog in playoffs : advantage ?

Underdog in playoffs : advantage ?

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
39569.18 in reply to 39569.17
Date: 7/21/2008 3:17:34 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
8080
It's so nice with ironic GMs. ;)

This Post:
00
39569.19 in reply to 39569.16
Date: 7/21/2008 4:02:48 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
I actually like the way that BB has solved it with game shape compared to HTs form, and I think they could do somethingin line with this in order to add some smarter enthusiasm system (enthusiasm is kind of "team spirit game shape") . Anyway, I think that's off topic...

Having in mind that game shape is almost identical in structure and function to form, I am not quite what the superior part is.

Of course, players here don't whine, because BB is cosmetically different here. IF players receive enough minutes, they rarely if ever hit very low game shape levels. However, for all practical purposes, having a player in respectable game shape (and this happens even if their minutes are well-managed) is like having a HT player in weak form.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
39569.20 in reply to 39569.19
Date: 7/21/2008 4:14:18 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
8080
Having in mind that game shape is almost identical in structure and function to form, I am not quite what the superior part is.
I actually think that there are essential differences, even tough they are not big (HT: Just give them minutes, BB give them the right amount of minutes), and it could still be improved. Anyway, as I said I dont think this is the thread to debate this, so I wont go further into this.

This Post:
00
39569.21 in reply to 39569.19
Date: 7/21/2008 8:37:37 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
196196
However, for all practical purposes, having a player in respectable game shape (and this happens even if their minutes are well-managed) is like having a HT player in weak form.


This is an interesting point.

My immediate reaction is to agree but I wouldnt know how to prove it right.... how did you arrive at this conclusion...



Last edited by Superfly Guy at 7/21/2008 8:38:02 PM

This Post:
00
39569.22 in reply to 39569.21
Date: 7/21/2008 9:04:10 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
However, for all practical purposes, having a player in respectable game shape (and this happens even if their minutes are well-managed) is like having a HT player in weak form.


This is an interesting point.

My immediate reaction is to agree but I wouldnt know how to prove it right.... how did you arrive at this conclusion...


Iit's not like this is some empirical conclusion. As a matter of fact, my point is likely well exaggerated.

However, in my experience, there is a significant difference in performance between respectable and proficient GS, which can be quite bad if it happens to your star players, given how the GE here relies on individual player characteristics. So the luck factor is right there, even if it is to a smaller extent.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
39569.23 in reply to 39569.22
Date: 7/21/2008 9:31:22 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
196196
sure - i agree...

as you say with all the random elements involved it is almost impossible to quantify but Proficient GS players win matches - full stop...

on the flip side I dont see much difference between a mediocre/respectable do you think the drop off in performance is less severe at the lower end of the scale?

This Post:
00
39569.24 in reply to 39569.23
Date: 7/21/2008 9:37:59 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
sure - i agree...

as you say with all the random elements involved it is almost impossible to quantify but Proficient GS players win matches - full stop...

on the flip side I dont see much difference between a mediocre/respectable do you think the drop off in performance is less severe at the lower end of the scale?

To tell you the truth, I am not sure. I so rarely play mediocre GS players in meaningful games and at meaningful positions that I have no view on this issue.

It doesn't make much sense though, since low levels or GS usually happen when you don't play the player enough (I am yet to see mediocre GS for a player who's getting 40-60 minutes week in and week out). Logically, the change should be linear, but of course this is just speculation.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
Message deleted
This Post:
00
39569.26 in reply to 39569.24
Date: 7/22/2008 5:16:34 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
8080
I would agree with you that it seems to be linear, but data is very limited all guys that really matter are between repscatable and prominent in form all the time.

It looks to me that guys that constantly ship in between 48-90 minutes have an expectansy value of strong, and that the variation is low. My 48-90 minutes have almost always been evenly distributed between resp/strong/prof in GS with the exception from when I tested to train Game Shape, then the distribution was evenly between strong and prof if I remeber it correctly.

This Post:
00
39569.27 in reply to 39569.26
Date: 7/22/2008 10:22:42 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
I would agree with you that it seems to be linear, but data is very limited all guys that really matter are between repscatable and prominent in form all the time.

It looks to me that guys that constantly ship in between 48-90 minutes have an expectansy value of strong, and that the variation is low. My 48-90 minutes have almost always been evenly distributed between resp/strong/prof in GS with the exception from when I tested to train Game Shape, then the distribution was evenly between strong and prof if I remeber it correctly.

Yep, this sounds about par. I was just pointing out that there is quite a difference in performance when your top players are in prominent and when they are in respectable.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."